Business Schools Divided on AI Adoption: Report
Credit: PonyWang / E+ / Getty Images- An AACSB report revealed a divide between deans and faculty with regard to business school support for AI.
- While deans and faculty agreed that students and instructors are embracing AI, schools were mixed as to formal AI policies.
- Deans want AI in the classroom but are taking a varied approach to investing in the technology.
- The data suggests that “deans’ enthusiasm for such practices has not yet been fully embraced by faculty to the same extent,” according to the report.
One thing is clear about the current state of business education: Artificial intelligence (AI) is key, and here to stay.
2024 was a landmark year for generative AI in business education, with business schools rolling out instruction in the high-demand technology and introducing specialized institutes focusing on niche areas like AI ethics.
But a new report from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a business school accrediting body, reveals a divide between how business school leaders and professors view the technology.
Globally, deans and faculty agree on several points. Similar high percentages of both groups say they and students embrace generative AI in their studies and work.
But gaps begin to appear based on institutional support for AI. While 85% of deans said their business school encourages faculty to incorporate AI into their curriculum, only 63% of faculty said the same.
There were similar divides between deans and faculty in terms of using AI as a teaching tool, to develop curriculum, and in administrative processes.
The AACSB report notes that the data suggests that the “deans’ enthusiasm for such practices has not yet been fully embraced by faculty to the same extent.”
Deans Want AI in the Classroom
Most deans, 65%, indicated they plan on integrating AI into existing courses in the next year.
That’s not surprising, given that the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) found that most business schools have already incorporated AI into student learning. A number of major business schools, like the American University Kogod School of Business, went all in on AI in 2024.
More than a third of deans, 37%, said they actually intend to allocate funding to AI-focused initiatives.
Some major schools, like The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, have doubled down on AI by scaling up investments in the technology.
Roughly a quarter of deans said they plan to create innovation labs or partner with tech companies for resources and expertise.
Other less common strategies included creating dedicated nondegree programs, partnering with other business schools, creating new full-time faculty positions, or hiring experts.
Despite that enthusiasm for AI, the AACSB found that most schools don’t mandate generative AI training for students, faculty, and staff.
Only 13% of schools have mandatory AI training for students, 12% for staff, and 9% for administrators. Those figures are even lower in the Americas, but far higher in the Asia Pacific region.
That lack of training is reflected in faculty’s struggles with AI. Faculty largely cited time constraints, ethical concerns, and a lack of guidance from leadership as barriers to using AI in teaching.
Generative AI Helps With Teaching, Student Outcomes
Faculty tended to say generative AI had a positive effect in the classroom.
A combined 69% said it had a somewhat positive or significantly positive impact on teaching quality; 66% said the same for course quality, 61% for student engagement, 60% for time management, and 48% for student performance.
Worries came around critical thinking. While 44% said it had a somewhat positive or significantly positive impact on critical thinking, a combined 29% said it was somewhat or significantly detrimental to critical thinking.
It’s noteworthy that previous GMAC research found that human skills like critical thinking will continue to be in demand from employers even amid the rise of AI.
Most faculty in the AACSB report, 78%, said they encouraged students to use generative AI to brainstorm ideas. The second-highest figure was encouraging students to draft and edit written assignments at 49%. That figure for writing and editing was much higher in the Americas at 58%.
While generative AI is increasingly used in student writing, top business schools have shown an interest in students being able to write without the technology’s assistance. Harvard University requires a business writing assessment, noting that writing is an “essential component” of its master of business administration (MBA) program.
Very few faculty reported using generative AI in any case on a daily basis in teaching, but they were most likely to use it to create exercises or case studies and for administrative tasks.
AI Policies Tend to Focus on Student Ethics
Another clear trend from the report is that business schools have work to do when it comes to adopting formal policies with regard to AI.
Only 29% of faculty reported having their own formal written policy on AI for students. That number was higher in the Americas at 38%.
A further 24% of global faculty said they plan to create a policy, while 22% said they have “informal guidelines.”
Survey results on institutional-level policies show a similar story. Only 47% of the 236 institutions in the AACSB report have an AI or generative AI policy in place.
That figure is much lower when you look at the Americas alone, where just 36% of deans reported having a policy.
Large schools, with more than 75 full-time faculty, were more likely than smaller institutions to report having an AI policy.
Those relatively low figures for AI policy adoption are at odds with the vast majority of institutions that have incorporated AI into the student experience, per a previous GMAC study.
A similar figure, 45%, don’t have an AI policy in place.
As for that remaining 8% in the AACSB findings? Those deans aren’t sure whether their school has an AI policy in place. The AACSB report notes that this selection of unsure deans suggests “potential gaps in communication, awareness, or prioritization of AI/GenAI governance.”
That uncertainty is significantly higher among faculty, 29% of whom say they’re uncertain about whether their school follows a policy.
Among schools that do have a policy, one thing is almost universal: 95% address the ethical use of AI by students.
Other common topics covered in business schools’ AI policies include ethical usage by faculty and staff (82%), privacy and data protection (64%), and teaching and learning delivery (63%).
Faculty in the survey say they would prefer “a greater focus on specific practices rather than broad statements that are hard to interpret and apply in practice,” according to the report.