AI and university education: a cautionary tale

From Jason Chuah

For our social media-savvy young people, the term FOMO coined by Patrick J McGinnis in The Harbus, a magazine published by the Harvard Business School back in 2004, is probably old hat today.

But FOMO, or Fear of Missing Out, is a serious psychological condition that is sadly manifesting itself in the global higher education bandwagon. It has been associated with depression, anxiety and real fear.

More recently, as reported by FMT over the last few days, I have seen evidence of FOMO in the growing global call for AI courses at universities.

Government after government, often led by older gentlemen, have banged the drum calling universities to deliver more AI-related academic courses. Universities often respond with the genuine conviction that as AI is vital, they must, simply must, deliver AI courses, come what may. The fear of missing out, where it concerns education in AI, is palpable.

One is certainly not belittling the importance of AI in our lives, for now and in the future. China is often hailed as a leader in AI education. Indeed, I would argue that there is much to be gained from its experience.

Last month, China’s Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) was published. Also known as the Shanghai Ranking, ARWU is significant, given it is the largest among university majors to date. It includes AI programmes since the country’s first AI major was introduced in 2018. However, of the 268 Chinese universities offering AI subjects in 2024, just 10 received an A+ grade. This worrying pattern is telling and should teach us all a thing or two about FOMO and AI programmes at universities.

To me, as an educator, quality education is inextricably linked to tutor expertise, resources, industry connections and curricular integrity.

Tutor expertise speaks for itself. For example, a law lecturer should not be expected to teach AI law just because they have a law degree. Policymakers must appreciate that in the university subject expertise is important. There is a reason why specialists are called specialists. A family law specialist should not thus be expected to teach AI law without the requisite training. Compelling such a professional to do so disrespects both the person and the integrity of the field.

Resources are also important. Take law schools, for example. Many law schools simply do not have the resources to purchase expensive hardware devices, software libraries and tools for visualising AI algorithms.

In law, 

Legal AI

 apps or software are very expensive. Teaching legal AI without being able to access and demonstrate these commercial products is like asking a law lecturer to describe a courtroom without ever showing students what one looks like.

Industry connections are vital in delivering a society-relevant AI programme. For example, one might think that AI law is a 

good

 programme but how much of this is conjectured? Has there been proper consultation with educators, users and the industry? There might be more industry need for a multidisciplinary programme that covers related subjects. For example, instead of producing AI law specialists, more important for the industry are those trained in AI process management with some legal knowledge.

Additionally, though it might be unpalatable to policymakers and some universities, certain AI skills needed by the industry might be better taught by the industry itself or training institutes rather than universities. Again, FOMO has taken over.

Lastly, the curriculum design and structure have to be right. What should go into an AI course has to be properly thought through. FOMO often leads institutions to prioritise the mere existence of AI courses over their quality, much like social media can prompt aimless interaction without meaningful engagement.

In China, the government realised that it must put the horse before the cart and not the other way around. Thankfully, it has started taking steps to prepare for high-quality AI courses. Last month, Tsinghua University (a partner institution to my own Law Faculty at Universiti Malaya) and 14 other Chinese universities were tasked with working alongside scientific organisations, leading tech companies, and publishing houses to develop a new suite of core AI courses. The goal is to create industry-relevant textbooks, establish practical projects, train new educators, and incorporate real-world experience into the curriculum.

Let us resist FOMO. The China experience should teach us to be patient and put in the time and resources to prepare. We should chart our course by thoughtful design and composition, not by the flicker of each fad and phase, urgent as they may appear. - FMT

Prof Jason Chuah is the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.