Business schools are teaching students to use AI, but the evidence across the board suggests they want something entirely different from the technology; something that already aligns with a strength that institutions possess in abundance What learners really want from AI
The warning sign leaders shouldn’t miss Beneath these findings is a quieter concern that should give any dean pause for thought. Among Gen Z, roughly half of whom use AI weekly, excitement for the technology has fallen 14 points in a single year while frustration has grown. Most striking, eight in 10 now believe AI is likely to make it harder for them to learn. This alarm is not coming from the sceptics. It is coming from the daily users. Employers are pulling in the same direction. What they consistently ask for – problem solvers, strategic thinkers, strong communicators, people with initiative, emotional intelligence and coachability – are dispositional capacities, not technical ones. None can be conferred by a prompt-engineering workshop. They are cultivated through experience, feedback and the kind of productive struggle that well-designed programmes exist to protect. Students and employers are pointing at the same destination from opposite directions: the development of thinking. AI matters enormously – but in service of that thinking, not as a substitute for it. The good news for business schools If that sounds like a tall order, there is a genuinely reassuring reframe available: the prerequisite for using AI well is not technical fluency; it is thinking well – the very capability experienced faculty have spent their careers developing. Means describes an instructor of 40 years who arrived at an AI workshop sceptical and
E very business school is under pressure to answer the same question: “how do we prepare students for a world reshaped by artificial intelligence (AI)?” The default response has been to treat it as a tools problem by adding a prompt-engineering module, offering a certification, or bolting an AI course onto the curriculum. However, evidence from three independent studies points to the need for a different approach. The studies include a GMAC survey of more than 4,000 graduate management candidates across 145 countries; a Gallup study of 1,500 people aged between 14 and 29; and a California State University survey of over 80,000 students. Across different populations and different methods, one strikingly consistent signal emerges. What the research says Demand for AI in the curriculum has risen sharply, from roughly 17 per cent of candidates
wanting it in their ideal programme in 2022 to 50 per cent in 2025. That much is expected. The revealing finding is how they want it. Asked to rank a list of options, students placed hands‑on experience in realistic business simulations first, at 66 per cent, followed by AI applied to business strategy (62 per cent) and decision-making (58 per cent). Training in prompt writing and everyday AI tasks ranked lowest, at 46 per cent. The pattern is unambiguous. Students want AI embedded in the genuine intellectual work of their discipline, not delivered as a standalone skills course. They are least interested in being trained as proficient tool users – which is precisely what many programmes have rushed to build. As Tawnya Means, founder and principal at Inspire Higher Ed and author of The Collaboration Chronicle: Human+AI in Education , puts it, the sector has almost inverted what students told us they wanted.
16 Ambition • ISSUE 5 • 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online