Students report little AI teaching on Russell Group courses

Russell Group universities are worse than others at preparing students for how artificial intelligence might be put to use in their future workplaces, according to a survey of more than 1,000 undergraduates in the UK.

More than three-quarters (77 per cent) of those enrolled at one of the group’s 24 research-intensive institutions say they are taught “little or nothing” about the swiftly advancing technology, versus 64 per cent of those at more modern universities, founded after 1992.

Meanwhile, considerably more than half (62 per cent) of students surveyed at Russell Group universities say that when they do receive teaching about AI, it is mainly about the extent to which machine learning is allowed to inform an assignment.

“More vocational universities [are] bringing workplace tools into the room sooner than the research-focused ones,” the report by Bett UK, which organises an annual exhibition on education and technology, finds.

The study of students’ sense of readiness for the changing world of work has been published a month after the chief executive of the Russell Group, Libby Hackett, questioned whether the tuition fee cap should be lifted for some institutions.

“Is it fair that we ask students or graduates to contribute the same amount for every course, every programme, at every university?” Hackett was quoted as saying, in The Times.

Bett’s A Degree of Doubt report comes out ahead of the deadline for submissions to some of the country’s most prestigious degree courses. 

Applications for 2027 entry to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for most courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, must reach admissions service Ucas by 6pm on 15 October.

Despite the fact that health and medicine students are the least concerned overall that their degrees will eventually lead to a job that justifies the cost of their undergraduate loans, they were also the most likely of any subject group to say AI is not really covered on their course at all.

But the technology is likely to play a sizeable part in their professional lives, with the government committing £20 million in June to roll out AI services to every NHS trust in England by the end of the decade.

Besides AI, Bett’s report suggests undergraduates across the board feel unsure their education is preparing them for what comes next.

Only 34 per cent of those polled said they felt their university had been “straight” with them about realistic graduate outcomes.

And 78 per cent told the survey they would have been interested in a “technology-personalised degree” that took less time to complete, calling into question whether the appetite for the traditional three-to-four-year residential model is shifting.

When asked what they would value from a rethought approach to course design, students said they wanted the chance to undertake “real-world projects” with employers, more direct employer input in general, and more personalised learning.

Meanwhile, separate research being presented at a major summit for artificial intelligence in education has found that students who over-rely on AI might be more “productive” but will learn less.

Those who frequently use answer-giving AI tools improve their performance in the short term but have been found to be weaker independent thinkers, the Cambridge AI in Education Summit will hear, based on the early results from an ongoing study of 450 students at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Duncan Verry, portfolio director at Bett, referenced Universities UK’s promise to appoint an “AI trailblazer” to every course, a commitment made as part of the body for vice-chancellors’ Future Jobs Roadmap last month.

“The simplest thing they could do now is publish which courses actually have one, so a student can look it up before they apply,” Verry said.

Asked about the Bett research, a spokesman for Universities UK said universities had “committed to making work-based learning opportunities available to all undergraduates, to embedding AI into every course and making careers advice available to graduates across their working lives”.

Joanna Burton, associate director for higher education policy at the Russell Group, said: “Our universities are responding proactively to fast‑moving technologies and the impact they are having on study and the world of work. This means setting clearer rules for assessments but also designing and adapting curricula to nurture the right skills that graduates will need in their future careers – technical skills, as well as capabilities like thinking critically and creatively, and exercising sound and ethical judgement when using AI tools.”

“We remain confident that our courses set graduates up for success,” she added.

georgia.luckhurst@timeshighereducation.com