As the fall semester gets fully underway, this week’s issue explores the different ways faculty are approaching AI use in their classrooms. With limited campuswide AI policies in place, faculty plans vary as widely as the disciplines they teach. From there, we look at whether institutions and industry can better align on manufacturing training and job outcomes, and we wrap up with another look at microcredentials.

After reading today’s issue, share your thoughts about your institution’s AI policies in the comments!

Syllabus Statements About AI

From How Are Instructors Talking About AI in Their Syllabi? | The Chronicle of Higher Education

Because many institutions do not have campuswide AI policies, The Chronicle looks at how faculty are approaching AI in their syllabi.

Our Thoughts

You can feel the tension in this Chronicle piece. Faculty are trying to set expectations for tools that change faster than their courses, and students are walking into classrooms where the rules can shift from one period to the next. What struck me is that syllabus language is doing real instructional work here. When instructors spell out where AI belongs in the learning process and where it does not, they are shaping how students practice skills, show their thinking, and build judgment. The Chronicle’s snapshot shows the full spectrum, from outright prohibition to carefully structured use, which means students will encounter a patchwork of norms unless we help them read the differences and explain the why behind each choice.

The urgency is rising because AI is not just something students open in a new browser tab. The platform itself is beginning to offer it. Back in Issue 70, I reported on Instructure partnership with OpenAI to embed AI capabilities directly within Canvas. If the environment is going to surface AI as part of routine course work, silence in the syllabus becomes a decision with instructional consequences. We should be just as clear with students about the limits as we are about the permissions for AI.

Finally, this is not only about classroom logistics. National groups are reminding campuses that AI policy touches governance, workload, and equity, which means faculty voice matters in how tools are adopted and supported. EDUCAUSE frames AI policy as core academic infrastructure that spans pedagogy, operations, and campus rules. The AAUP’s 2025 report calls for meaningful faculty involvement in institutional AI decisions and warns against uncritical adoption. Those signals reinforce what The Chronicle captured at the course level. Clear policies help students learn the right lessons about AI, and clear processes help institutions support that learning at scale.

Do Students Want to Learn Manufacturing?

From Colleges struggle to make manufacturing training hot again | The Hechinger Report

As the U.S. emphasizes manufacturing, colleges struggle to recruit students into these training programs and align on employer expectations.

Our Thoughts

This piece captures the push and pull that so many feel when they sit between classrooms and shop floors. The student stories are compelling and the local partnerships are real, but the deeper storyline is a pacing problem. Employers want skills that track this quarter’s tools. Colleges are accountable to curricula, accreditation, and transfer value that live on a different clock. Lorain County Community College looks like a bright spot precisely because it has narrowed that gap with paid internships, employer input at the course level, and an on-ramp from high school into degree pathways. That is good for students and good for local firms. The article’s reporting makes clear, though, that the broader system is still wrestling with how to grow programs at the speed employers expect without turning education into a bet on a single company or machine.

My read for leaders and faculty who are weighing the academic-industry tension is straightforward. Spend time with employers, but design for students. Start with competencies that travel, like systems thinking, diagnostics, documentation, and teamwork. Use real equipment, but keep the most vendor-specific training in short modules you can update quickly. Build earn-and-learn options that pay students while they learn, with disclosure about how hours and credit convert. Then be transparent about the risks and the opportunities, including the reality that the biggest projects can slip and the best career paths are often with the mid-sized firms down the road. The story out of Lorain shows that you can honor both timelines if you keep the curriculum broad, the partnerships tight, and the doors open to those who want to make things.

Microcredentials and the Liberal Arts

From Why liberal arts schools are now hopping on skills-based microcredentials | University Business

As students increasingly seek credentials with careers in mind, liberal arts institutions consider adding more non-degree credentials and certificates.

Our Thoughts

This story sits right where so many liberal arts colleges are working today. Employers want clearer signals of what students can do. Faculty want to preserve breadth, inquiry, and the habits of mind that make a graduate resilient. Microcredentials give us a way to show both at once. Done well, they translate coursework into skill signals that the market recognizes while keeping the center of a liberal education intact.

I’ve written about microcredentials numerous times in the HEat Index. Not only because it is regularly featured in the higher ed news, but because I think it is a strong path forward for higher education. It gives institutions an opportunity to provide industry recognized credentials built from existing curricula rather than bolted on as a separate track. The design choice matters because it lets students earn a recognizable skill signal while staying rooted in the major and the broader core.

On the employer side, interest in skills is real, but it is not magic. National surveys from AAC&U and NACE show strong support for candidates who can present verifiable skills, and a clear rise in skills-based hiring practices, especially for entry-level roles. At the same time, Burning Glass Institute and Harvard’s work caution that many firms have changed job postings faster than hiring behavior. That mix argues for microcredentials that are visible and verifiable, with evidence attached, not just new labels.

In the end, microcredentials should complement the degree, not compete with it. Build them from the curriculum you already trust, attach evidence and clear outcomes, and publish them in interoperable formats so employers can verify what a student knows and can do. Keep the focus on durable skills like communication and problem solving that employers consistently prize, and add targeted technical depth where the regional market has demand. That balance honors the traditions of the liberal arts while giving students a sharper way to tell their story to the labor market.