American universities have yet to settle on a coherent university AI teaching policy even as employers increasingly demand AI skills from graduates, leaving students caught between outright bans and calls for responsible use.
A study by consulting firm McKinsey found 88% of companies are now using AI, while a PwC study published in June this year found a 62% average wage premium for workers with AI skills.
Yet on many campuses, the default remains prohibition.
Amanda Cullen, a first-year student at NC State who expects to graduate in 2030, said most of her courses carry an outright ban. ‘Most of my classes have been no AI,’ she said. She questioned the logic: ‘If it’s such a mainstream thing in careers, we should know how to do it in school.’
NC State leaves university AI teaching policy to individual staff
NC State has no single AI policy covering the whole institution. As of May 2026, the university had still not adopted an official university-wide position, leaving academic staff to set their own course-level rules, according to NC State Teaching Resources.
A university spokesperson confirmed the approach. ‘Faculty are provided with resources to establish clear, course-specific expectations that may permit, limit or prohibit AI use; students are responsible for following those expectations and upholding academic integrity,’ the spokesperson said in a statement.
Second-year mechanical engineering student Lauren Callen said she understands why professors worry about cheating, but prefers clear guidelines over blanket bans. ‘I get teachers not wanting to use AI for anything, but the world’s changing, people are using AI everywhere,’ she said. One of her introductory Python courses allowed students to use AI on assignments, provided they uploaded transcripts of their prompts and the AI’s responses.
Faculty attitudes shift as AI spreads into working life
Sabrina Habib, associate professor of visual communications at the University of South Carolina and inaugural AI coordinator for its College of Information and Communications, said early faculty resistance has softened. ‘Almost everyone has understood and accepted that it is a skill for the workforce,’ she said.
Habib now allows AI use in many assignments, on condition that students disclose how they used it and provide evidence, or write a short reflection. ‘We don’t want to eliminate it because then we’re missing the opportunity of teaching how to use it in a way that’s ethical and critical,’ she said.
Some faculty remain wary. Earlier concerns centred on students bypassing the foundational skills required for advanced study, and Habib acknowledged those worries have not disappeared entirely.
The broader challenge is pace. AI capabilities have advanced faster than the time needed to complete a standard four-year degree, making any fixed policy rapidly obsolete. Cullen, for her part, said she limits her own use regardless of what a syllabus requires. ‘I feel like people should be able to have their own ideas and not rely on a computer that’s been programmed what to think,’ she said.
NC State’s Teaching Resources guidance on drafting AI syllabus statements remains the practical tool available to staff navigating that question for now, as the university considers its longer-term position.
