With the rise of AI technology, Cal State LA students and staff reflect on its impacts in the academic setting
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming how employers hire, evaluate and manage workers, raising new questions about whether universities are adequately preparing students for a job market increasingly shaped by automation.
At California State University, Los Angeles (Cal State LA), those questions have become more urgent as the university system expands its use of artificial intelligence tools and promotes AI literacy across campuses. Interviews with faculty, students and graduates suggest that while AI initiatives are growing at the system level, experiences inside classrooms and workplaces remain inconsistent and, at times, unclear.
California State University (CSU) leaders have increasingly framed artificial intelligence as both an educational and workforce issue. According to CSU materials, the university system created an AI Workforce Acceleration Board in collaboration with state officials and industry leaders to help align higher education with California’s growing AI sector. Across the CSU system, officials have emphasized the importance of integrating artificial intelligence into education and workforce preparation.
Warren Robak, manager of media relations and public affairs for the CSU Chancellor’s Office, provided background materials outlining the systemwide AI initiative. The materials highlighted AI literacy efforts across the CSU system, including faculty resources, student workshops and workforce preparation initiatives intended to expand AI access for students, faculty and staff.
According to CSU materials, AI tools and training resources were made available to more than 460,000 students and 63,000 faculty and staff across the university system.
CSU officials have also emphasized equitable access as a central goal of the initiative.
That emphasis on access is especially significant for Cal State LA, where many students are preparing to enter fields already being reshaped by automation, from education and healthcare to communications, business and technology. While CSU leaders have described AI literacy as a systemwide priority, the question for students is whether those resources are reaching classrooms, career preparation programs and day-to-day academic work in ways that feel practical and consistent.
However, interviews conducted for this story suggest awareness and implementation of those initiatives may vary significantly at the campus and classroom level.
In 2025, Cal State LA received funding for two faculty-led projects through the CSU Artificial Intelligence Educational Innovations Challenge, part of a systemwide initiative that awarded approximately $3 million across campuses. The projects include “Teaching with Integrity in the Age of AI,” which focuses on academic integrity, and “AI-Enhanced STEM Supplemental Instruction Workshops,” which integrates AI tools such as ChatGPT into student learning.
Despite those targeted investments, it remains unclear how AI-related spending is reflected in Cal State LA’s publicly available financial reports. A review of the university’s financial transparency documents does not identify specific line items dedicated specifically to artificial intelligence, making it difficult to determine how funding is allocated at the campus level versus the CSU system level.
While CSU leadership frames artificial intelligence as essential to workforce readiness, faculty responses at Cal State LA suggest a more fragmented reality inside the classroom.
“There’s no exact directive instructing us on the use of AI,” said Prof. Michael Calabrese, an English professor at California State University, Los Angeles who is currently participating in the university’s early retirement program. “I would say we’re in a kind of a wild west,” he added, describing the lack of a unified policy or clear guidance.
In response to the rise of AI tools, some instructors are limiting the use of technology rather than expanding it. To reduce the risk of AI-assisted plagiarism, professors have shifted toward handwritten, in-class exams with no access to computers or phones, while others are redesigning assignments to emphasize analysis and personal interpretation over information gathering.
“We’re trying to craft assignments that don’t lend themselves to AI’s compilation of information,” Calabrese said.
At the same time, managing AI-related concerns has increased faculty workload. Calabrese estimated that addressing issues related to artificial intelligence can take up “10 to 30 percent” of instructional time as professors work to detect misuse and redesign coursework. He also pointed to broader strain on faculty, noting that adapting to AI, alongside existing institutional pressures, has contributed to some professors seeking early retirement.
While some institutions have explored using artificial intelligence for grading, Calabrese expressed concern about its limitations, particularly for written work.
“The idea that AI could evaluate an essay is extremely dangerous,” he said.
Calabrese also described what he viewed as inconsistent messaging surrounding artificial intelligence in higher education.
“I think the university has given some mixed signals,” he said, pointing to both enthusiasm for AI tools and the challenges they present in the classroom.
That inconsistency is also reflected in student experiences.
David Morris, a Cal State LA English student, described artificial intelligence policies as varying dramatically from professor to professor. While one elective course taught students how to use AI ethically and effectively, most other classes either discouraged its use entirely or framed it primarily through the lens of plagiarism.
“I don’t think any of them have embraced or endorsed AI use at all,” Morris said, referring to his experience with most professors in the English department .
Morris said the only class that directly explored AI tools in depth was an elective taught by Prof. Harris, where students discussed ethical prompting, workplace applications and responsible use of generative AI. Outside of that course, however, Morris said there was little instruction on how AI functions in professional environments or hiring practices.
“I don’t feel like my education is keeping up with how technology is changing,” Morris said. “There was either an assumption that students already knew how to use certain technologies, or that it was their responsibility to engage with that on their own.”
Morris also questioned whether banning AI use in classrooms is realistic, arguing that many students continue using it regardless of policy restrictions.
“I don’t think banning AI actually affects whether someone is going to use it or not,” Morris said.
Although Cal State LA provides students with access to ChatGPT through the university, Morris said he had not received formal instruction on how to use AI tools effectively outside of one elective course.
“Besides Harris’s class? No,” Morris said when asked whether he had learned useful AI-related skills through the university.
While the CSU system promotes AI access and training broadly, student awareness of those resources appears uneven. Morris said he was unaware of several AI-related workshops and campus initiatives referenced in materials provided by the university.
“Students are being left to figure AI out on their own,” Morris said.
Graduates who entered the workforce before widespread AI adoption described a different educational and professional environment than students entering the workforce today.
Annette Martinez, a Southern California social worker who graduated from Cal State Fullerton in 2014 with a degree in psychology and a master’s degree in social work from Cal State Long Beach in 2022, said artificial intelligence was not a meaningful part of her academic experience.
“ChatGPT wasn’t a thing,” Martinez said, describing her undergraduate years.
Although artificial intelligence has not been formally implemented in much of her workplace, Martinez said some professionals still use it informally to assist with writing and communication tasks.
“When I’m feeling stuck with how to word certain things or how to make sentences stand out more, I guess in that sense it helps,” she said. “But technically we’re not supposed to be using AI at all.”
Martinez said her biggest concern is how artificial intelligence could affect creativity and originality in professional work.
“I think the absence of creativity, the absence of humanity in the work that we do,” she said. “Everything’s just going to be very skeletal and the same.”
She also said students entering the workforce today face different expectations than previous graduating classes.
“You can be presented with something and basically type it into ChatGPT or a Google search and have it tell you what you want to hear,” Martinez said. “You’re not really critically thinking about things for yourself.”
Some educators have begun turning to structured frameworks to address uncertainty surrounding artificial intelligence in education. One example is the AI Assessment Scale, which outlines different levels of AI use in assignments, ranging from no AI involvement to full integration. The framework is intended to help instructors clarify expectations and align AI use with learning objectives rather than relying on inconsistent or informal policies.
Yet interviews conducted for this story suggest students’ exposure to AI instruction still depends heavily on professor, department and course structure.
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape both education and employment, students at Cal State LA are entering a workforce where AI literacy may increasingly matter, even as questions remain about how consistently those skills are being taught across the university.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Depending upon the choice of major, universities weren’t preparing students to compete in a “pre-AI” job market; let alone in a post AI job market.
They were, however, pretty effective at creating student loan debt for coffee shop baristas. Some of whom are probably now senior citizens (or at least middle-aged, at this point).
You want a job? Learn the trades (if you can handle it). It actually takes some brainpower, business sense, and physical ability – at least until you can hire others to do the latter.
Probably more so now, given that Trump has made it increasingly difficult to take advantage of people without the right papers.