As generative sweeps across industries, some workers using it are reporting increases in . But inside government, where those benefits could translate into better public services, many employees are still unsure how the technology applies to their jobs, how to use it, or whether they are allowed to.

Rainie has been named a to help shape and publish research findings from those surveys and other encounters with civil servants. The goal is to learn more about the ways government workers use AI and the impact on the workings of democracy.

Rainie was a main writer for Northeastern’s Observatory of Public Sector AI new report:

Some of the key findings:

• Many public professionals are just getting started with understanding and using GenAI.
• The biggest barriers to using GenAI in government are not tied to resistance.
• Leadership knowledge gaps about GenAI are a primary bottleneck to its adoption and effective use.
• Public professionals primarily use AI for information and communication tasks, such as research, drafting, editing, and summarizing.

The report was covered in the Boston Globe and other New England media and will become the anchor of several dozen presentations the group gives to government leaders, public professionals and civil society groups.

Rainie’s affiliation with the Burnes Center will bring benefits to the ITDF Center. ITDF and the Burnes Center will co-publish the reports he helps create and promote them to the media and other audiences as joint efforts. He will become one of the Burnes Center’s spokespeople at conferences, in the media and in web events like podcasts and YouTube webinars.

“This is an exciting chance for me to be present at the creation of something that we hope will become an important reference for those who work in the public sector and those who care about government performance,” Rainie said. “This kind of research fits perfectly with the ongoing studies of the Imagining the Digital Future Center, such as our recent reports��,“ “ and “.“ Ultimately, the great hope at the Burnes Center is that researchers here at �鶹��Ƶ and around the country will use these findings from our Observatory in their own scholarship and will want to work with our datasets themselves. I hope to hear from students or faculty members who would like to become involved in the next round of research the Observatory undertakes.”

Rainie says the next wave of research could involve such things as truly longitudinal studies in which specific public servants are tracked as they think about using AI in their jobs; studies that combine these survey findings with administrative records collected by state and local government; and studies that explore the impact of AI use by government employees on such critically important public purposes such as government performance and citizen engagement on policy issues.

In a new national survey by �鶹��Ƶ’s Imagining the Digital Future Center, 83% of U.S. adults expect AI to eliminate more jobs than it creates, 68% expect most jobs to pay too little for a decent lifestyle and 62% expect most available jobs to be dull and unfulfilling. The threat reaches beyond income: 65% agree that if AI makes work less meaningful, people will lose their sense of purpose and dignity.

Yet workers are not turning away from the technology. Two-thirds of those who work (66%) say they are already comfortable using AI at work or would welcome it with more training, and half are highly confident they can adapt their skills to changing demands in their current jobs. Their concern is whether adapting will preserve their control over their work lives and allow them to pursue worthwhile work: 52% of all Americans agree that AI’s impact on the workforce will leave most workers with little control over their futures.

• Survey and (PDF)

Among the survey’s principal findings:

• Work is a foundation of personal life. Among workers, 81% say paid work is extremely or very important to their role in their family, 70% to their sense of meaning and purpose and 64% to their personal identity. And (58%) call it extremely important to their sense of responsibility to their community.
• AI experience does not erase anxiety. Among adults who had used a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT or Gemini in the previous week, 80% expect net job loss, 65% foresee inadequate pay and 61% say less meaningful work would erode purpose and dignity.
• Confidence in learning exceeds confidence in control. Half of workers (50%) say they are extremely or very confident they can adapt skills for their current job; 40% are similarly confident they will control their career path. Yet, overall, these workers predict that most workers will have little control over their futures.
• Hope for a new social contract around work: Americans combine expectations of self-reliance with a desire for shared gains. Fully 60% of all U.S. adults agree that workers must adapt themselves rather than expect outside help and 59% agree that wealth generated by AI should be widely shared.
• The support system inspires little confidence. Only 11% of workers are highly confident government agencies will be helpful if AI significantly affects their jobs; 58% have little or no confidence. Every local institution tested is rated as being more unprepared than prepared for job market change.
• These findings will be presented at the on Oct. 13.

“Americans’ concern is that – as AI inevitably spreads in years to come – the changes that lie ahead may not preserve enough work or other life roles that provide economic security, social value, self-identity, dignity and personal meaning and genuine human agency,” said Lee Rainie, director of the Imagining the Digital Future Center. “These findings pose an enormous policy challenge. People see trouble ahead and seek a transition in an AI economy that makes human satisfaction, agency and purpose feel consequential. The immediate challenge for employers, institutions and others who serve the public is to develop and support an AI Age infrastructure to support human resilience – .”

The survey reveals a more complicated outlook among AI users than a simple divide between adopters and skeptics. Among recent large language model users, 30% expect AI to make it easier for workers to flourish and live meaningful lives five years from now, 30% expect it to make flourishing harder, and 33% expect both effects equally. Across all adults, 26% expect flourishing to become easier and 34% harder. Familiarity with AI slightly softens pessimism but offers no clear expectation of a flourishing dividend.

Workers using LLMs on the job are motivated chiefly by their usefulness. Some 46% say doing their job better is an extremely or very important reason to use AI, compared with 22% who say the prospect of a raise or promotion is that important. Employer expectations and the feeling that they must keep up each register at 30%.

Anticipating the work world in the coming years, jobholders also have specific requests for help. Fifty-two percent say training and guidance about AI’s limits and when human judgment should take priority would be extremely or very helpful; 49% say the same of clear, regularly updated policies on AI use. Forty-five percent say they would appreciate advice about which roles will grow or decline, and the same share value support for strengthening human skills that complement AI.

The willingness to learn is unevenly distributed. Among workers, 25% say they are already comfortable using AI at work and 41% would be open to it with more training. Workers in households earning at least $100,000 are twice as likely as those in households under $50,000 to say they are already comfortable (34% versus 17%). College graduates are also more likely than workers with a high school education or less to feel comfortable (33% versus 18%). Meanwhile, only 8% of workers have little or no confidence in their ability to adapt skills for their current job, but 19% lack confidence that they will control their career path.

If AI substantially affects their jobs, workers place more faith in people close to them than in formal organizations. Some 33% are extremely or very confident that family, former colleagues and friends would help. That falls to 22% for employers, 17% for community organizations and 11% for government agencies. Even the highest-rated source of support inspires strong confidence in only one in three workers.

“People have little faith that businesses, schools and communities will step up to effectively assist them in the AI transition, and they understand the limits of individual effort in the face of revolutionary technological change that removes them from the work equation,” said Janna Anderson, senior researcher at the ITDF Center. “This institutional confidence gap is a warning: Telling workers to adapt rings hollow when human systems remain rooted in the past and do not invest in the human future. They want to see institutions investing now in building the resilience infrastructure needed to support and advance human flourishing in the Age of AI.”

Their assessment of local readiness is sobering. Notably more Americans think local actors are unprepared than prepared to help with changes in the job market. For instance, 49% say local government leaders are unprepared for coming changes in the job market, compared with 23% who feel they are prepared; 43% say local employers are unprepared versus 26% who feel they are prepared. In addition, just 24% say local K–12 schools do a good job preparing students for a world that increasingly uses AI.

AI has already entered everyday life, but widespread exposure should not be mistaken for expertise. Sixty-five percent of adults had used a large language model in the previous week. Among these users, 28% rate their own AI skill high, 39% moderate and 33% low. A majority of recent users expect AI skills to be essential or very important for success at work in the next five years (53%), even as majorities of these same users expect a decline in the number and quality of jobs. The transition is under way before the public is confident about its rewards.

�鶹��Ƶ the survey

The survey was created by �鶹��Ƶ’s Imagining the Digital Future Center and fielded by the polling firm SSRS between Aug. 20–24, 2026. The survey included 1,158 U.S. adults and included an oversample that brings the number of workers participating in the survey to 775 adults employed full or part time. Interviews were conducted online and by telephone in English. The margin of error for the full sample is ±3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Lee Rainie, director of �鶹��Ƶ’s Imagining the Digital Future Center, provided insight for a Sept. 23 Washington Sun newsletter examining President Donald Trump’s push to use the term “super intelligence,” or “SI,” instead of artificial intelligence.

The newsletter, “Skynet, Rebranded,” explores whether changing the terminology surrounding AI could influence public perceptions of the technology amid concerns about its societal impact. Rainie questioned whether distinctions among terms such as artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence and artificial super intelligence resonate with the public.

“My sense is that adding a word in front of AI, whether it is general intelligence or super intelligence, isn’t a distinction that matters to the public,” Rainie told The Washington Sun. “Experts cannot agree on what the definition of artificial general intelligence is or the definition of artificial super intelligence. Asking people to sort these differences out isn’t a very reasonable thing to do.”

The key findings reflect major concerns:

• Fears of fracturing human connection: 69% of U.S. adults said that AI will weaken human-to-human bonds a lot (33%) or somewhat (36%).
• The threat to human purpose: 64% agreed with the statement “By replacing human beings in most tasks, AI will undermine our sense of purpose and meaning in life.” Some 36% agreed with an opposing statement: “By freeing human beings from most routine tasks, AI will allow us to find greater purpose and meaning in life.”
• Low confidence in retaining human agency: 55% said they are not confident that their fellow humans will retain their ability to think critically and evaluate information vs. 15% who are confident about that.
  • 50% said they are not confident most people will use AI appropriately and effectively vs. 15% who have such confidence.
  • 46% are not confident people will maintain their sense of motivation and purpose as AI advances vs. 15% who do have confidence.
• A double-edged sword for users: Many large language models (LLM) users admitted to worrisome personal behavioral shifts: 51% said they felt they were being lazy or taking easy shortcuts at least some of the time when using bots; 39% said they are growing overly dependent on LLMs to give them answers rather than thinking for themselves; 39% feel like they are cheating at times by using chatbots and 22% said they have felt manipulated at times by an LLM.
• Overall adoption continued to grow: 65% of U.S. adults said they used a large language model (LLM) in the past week – up from 52% in early 2025. This growth spans all demographics, peaking sharply among adults ages 18-29, Black and Hispanic Americans, parents of minor children and workers. �鶹��Ƶ half (49%) of non-working adults are also weekly users.
• The rise of personal agents: One-fifth (20%) of LLM users overall have already built their own custom AI agent; the figure is 36% among young adults (ages 18-29).
• AI’s expanding footprint in everyday life: 63% of Americans said AIs already heavily influence their daily routine (18%) or that they expect it will within the next five years (45%). On the other hand, 16% said they expect AI will never impact them significantly.

“This survey shows that Americans share some of the core concerns we discovered in covering experts’ views about the prospects for human resilience the Age of AI,” said Lee Rainie, director of the ITDF Center. “Those experts stressed the urgent need for systemic, institutional evolution to help individuals maintain their agency. This follow-up poll offers a vivid portrait of a nation continuing to embrace AI, reaping tangible benefits, yet feeling deeply anxious about the impact AI will have on what it means to be human in an AI-suffused future.”

It is important to note that despite the significant worries they reported in this survey, most people also expressed generally positive reactions about their AI use, noting that bots have helped them learn new things, inspired them to create something better than they would have on their own, offered better advice than they might have received from family or friends and helped them prepare for difficult human-to-human conversations.

Other key findings

• Guiding major life milestones: AIs have become trusted advisors in many cases. Users report that LLMs played a role in managing a medical condition (49%), upgrading job skills (44%), navigating a career change (31%), making major financial decisions (29%), and selecting a new place to live (17%).
• The perceived intelligence gap: 56% of users said they think AI models are smarter than they are (up from 49% in early 2025), and 73% said chatbots have better ideas than they do much of the time (8%), some of the time (31%) or at least a small amount of the time (30%).

• High-value outcomes: A striking 88% of users said they routinely learn something new and valuable from AIs – a lot of the time (25%), sometimes (45%) and a bit of the time (18%). Some 70% said they have used AI to create work superior to what they might have achieved on their own, 59% said at least a bit of the time bots have given them better advice than what they may have gotten from family or friends, and 48% said that at least a bit of the time they find the use of a bot to be helpful for preparing for difficult conversations or social encounters.
• Bots bolster motivation, communication: When asked how AI affects some valued human traits, users overwhelmingly reported improvement rather than decline. Respondents said AI use improved: their motivation to learn new skills (52% improved vs. 5% worsened), written communication (49% vs. 6%), creativity (45% vs. 8%), critical thinking (42% vs. 8%), decision-making (39% vs. 6%), self-confidence (37% vs. 7%), leadership (24% vs. 5%) and social skills (18% vs. 9%).

Technology experts in earlier ITDF research have argued that individual resilience is not enough; safeguarding to allow people to flourish. This new survey shows the American public has split, yet generally hopeful views as to which of society’s institutions is likely to step up to effectively guide them through this transition:

• Tech Sector: 39% of all U.S. adults said they expect that the technology companies creating AI tools could be extremely or very effective in helping people to adapt successfully to a world in which AI has more influence; another 38% said such firms are likely to be somewhat effective.
• Higher Education: 34% place high confidence in the effectiveness of colleges and universities in the AI transition, with 44% rating them as likely to be somewhat effective.
• K-12 Education: 26% said primary schools could be highly effective, alongside 46% who perceived them as likely to be somewhat effective.
• Employers: 27% said leadership in workplaces could be highly effective, and 47% perceived them as likely to be somewhat effective.
• Low Confidence: In contrast, the public expressed significantly lower confidence in the likely positive contributions of legal system, state and federal governments and religious institutions to help people navigate through the challenges of the accelerating AI era.

Insights into this survey

This material comes from a nationally representative survey of 1,505 adults, including 1,163 users of large language models (LLMs). It was conducted between May 14-18, 2026. It includes an oversample of 501 LLM users. The overall sample, including the oversample, has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. An LLM user is someone who answered “yes” when asked if they used any of these LLMs in the past week: ChatGPT from OpenAI, Gemini from Google, Copilot from Microsoft, Meta AI, also known as Llama, Claude AI from Anthropic, Grok from Xai, DeepSeek, another AI chatbot service. We use the terms “LLM users” and “bot” or “chatbot users” throughout this report to refer to this group.

Lee Rainie, director of �鶹��Ƶ’s Imagining the Digital Future Center, provided insight for a recent examining why AI-generated restaurant menus can have an unnaturally polished, uniform appearance — and why people often recognize something is off.

The article explores how generative AI models can produce increasingly similar-looking content as they draw from existing material and optimize their outputs to be broadly appealing.

“The optimization of the data sets is for pleasingness, or you know, not being offensive, and so there’s a way that turns into homogenization,” Rainie told TechCrunch. “What AI is known to do both in images and language is to shave off the edges.”

Rainie also explained why consumers may react negatively to AI-generated imagery even when they cannot immediately identify what makes it different.

“People have an almost unexplainable sense about when they’re looking at something that’s AI-generated, compared with something that was real in the first place,” Rainie said.��“There’s just a sensibility that people sometimes find hard to articulate, but they kind of know it when they see it and I think that’s one of the reasons why some of the early stories about the backlash [against restaurants using AI menus] is so pronounced.”

The article, “A friend I can trust’: How Americans described their relationship with AI,” draws on a new �鶹��Ƶ survey.��The research found that 27% of Americans use AI chatbots for personal, emotional or social queries, including entertainment, relationship advice, romantic conversations or connection when they are alone.

That use is particularly common among younger Americans. Almost 40% of adults under 50 reported using AI in those ways, more than twice the rate among older adults. Half of those who use AI for personal or emotional interactions said talking with a chatbot makes them feel better when they are stressed or upset.

Lee Rainie, director of �鶹��Ƶ’s Imagining the Digital Future Center, led the research project and told The Washington Post that the findings reveal a complex relationship between Americans and AI.

“There are ways in which people are struggling with this, there are ways in which they’re delighted with it, there are ways in which they’re wary of it,” Rainie said. “It’s a complicated, muddy, interesting picture.”

Among those who regularly use AI for personal and emotional conversations, nearly four in 10 said they sometimes talk to AI to feel less alone, while nearly one-third consider the chatbot they use most often to be a friend. Nearly four in 10 also said they have shared things with AI that they would not tell other people.

The findings also point to potential concerns. More than one-third of regular AI companion users said chatbots agree with them too much, and 15% said interacting with the technology makes them feel less in touch with reality. At the same time, nearly 60% said AI was helpful in making personal decisions.

These AI users use LLMs in ways that build bonds of connection, confidence and trust. Some have developed aspects of reliance on AI tools and prefer interacting with them to dealing with humans. They confide in them, seek advice on important life issues, roleplay scenarios that they might encounter in romantic or other settings and would be unhappy to lose access to their bots.

The people who have used LLMs for social, emotional and personal purposes are known as “AI companion users” and a representative sample of 1,000 of them were surveyed to discover how they use their social bots, the nature of their relationships and the impact of their encounters with these systems.

These AI companions serve important, sensitive purposes and fulfill key roles in users’ lives. Some of the major findings:

• 31% of those who use AI for social and emotional purposes said they consider their AI chatbot to be a friend, and another 15% said their relationship with the bot is “more complicated” than whether the bot is a friend or not.
• 59% of AI companion users strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: AI gives me the support I need.
• 53% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: I turn to AI when I need advice on how to handle difficult situations with other people.
• 51% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: Talking to AI helps me feel better when I’m stressed or upset.
• 50% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: I use AI to talk through personal problems or feelings.
• 43% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: AI understands me as a person. And 39% agreed with the statement: AI understands me better than most people.
• 38% said the advice and conversations they had with their AI companion were very or moderately helpful when it comes to talking about problems in their romantic or sexual relationships. Another 12% described their conversations as slightly helpful. In addition, 9% said they had ever used AI for sexual chat or roleplay.
• 39% said they occasionally tell AI things that they would not tell other people.
• 37% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: I would feel a personal loss if I could no longer interact with AI.
• 36% of AI companion users strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: AI cares about my well-being.
• If they could no longer talk to AI about personal matters, 24% said they would miss it a lot; 40% said they would miss it a bit; and 36% said they would not miss it at all.
• 11% said they would rather have a conversation with their AI companion than with friends or family; another 27% said they value their conversations with AI as much as their conversations with friends or family. Overall, 59% said they’d rather have conversations with friends or family.

“Futurists and cultural commentators have wondered what would happen once artificial systems became connected and companionable with humans,” said Lee Rainie, director of �鶹��Ƶ’s Imagining the Digital Future Center. “The findings in our new study provide the first wave of insights about these emerging relationships as large language models like ChatGPT, Claude and Copilot are adopted by people and as AI agents become part of the landscape. They are harbingers of a future in which many more people will likely have these kinds of relationships.”

Notable shares of AI companion users said they use their bots and turn to them in personal – sometimes intimate – ways:

• 39% said they had ever used AI to pass the time or have a conversation when they were bored or while doing something else like driving or preparing a meal.
• 38% of AI companion users strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement: I sometimes chat with AI just to feel less alone.
• 29% said they had ever used AI to talk about problems in their personal relationships.
• 26% said they had ever used AI to talk about problems in their work relationships.

Some companion users explore key life issues with their bots. Asked about some consequential ways they might interact with their AI companion:

• 67% of AI companion users said they had used their bot to get advice on health, fitness or lifestyle choices.
• 41% said they had used their bot to help explore how to deal with major financial questions like investments or big purchases.
• 39% said they had used their bot to help explore how to think about their career or education.
• 31% said they had used their bot to help explore how to deal with major issues related to their family, such as whether to have children or where to live.
• 30% said they had used their bot to help explore how to deal with legal matters in their lives.
• 26% of AI companion users said they had used their bot to help explore their spiritual, religious or philosophical beliefs.
• 11% of AI companion users said they had used their bot to help explore who or what to vote for in an election.

This survey was developed as a collaboration between the �鶹��Ƶ Imagining the Digital Future Center and the �鶹��Ƶ Poll. It was fielded by the international marketing and polling firm YouGov as an online, web-based survey. Between May 18 and May 22, 2026, YouGov interviewed 4,268 U.S. internet-using adults 18+ years old, with the goal of screening for and surveying AI users with emotional or social use of AI.

The total U.S. adult internet-using sample was then matched down to a sample of 4,031, yielding a target subsample of 1,000 AI users with emotional or social use of AI. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. Further details on the methodology can be found

is an interdisciplinary research center focused on the human impact of accelerating digital change and the socio-technical challenges that lie ahead. The Center was established in 2000 as Imagining the Internet and renamed with an expanded research agenda in 2024. It is funded and operated by , a nationally ranked private university located in �鶹��Ƶ, North Carolina.

�鶹��Ƶ’s Lee Rainie, director of the Imagining the Digital Future Center, was featured in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article examining how artificial intelligence is creating new challenges for college and university leaders.

The story, ��highlights the firing of the University of Wisconsin System due to what the regents described as unclear policy around AI.

“This is what chaos looks like. It’s hard to be a leader in chaos,” said Rainie, who has studied the use and perceptions of AI on campuses. “There is no consensus at all about what are the right things to do.”

Rainie noted that faculty members are also eager for guidelines telling them what they can and cannot do.

The new publication, “Human Wisdom for the Age of AI: A Field Guide to Cultivating Essential Skills,” helps students cultivate the human skills they need to thrive in a digital world, whether working with AI technologies or learning independently of those tools. The guide includes engaging and fun exercises on curiosity, critical and deep thinking, creativity, ethical perspectives, communication and relational skills, among others.

Like the 2024 and 2025 editions, this year’s guide is provided to students and institutions free of charge and is available for download at: .

The guide draws on 10 voices across centuries and cultures — from Aristotle, Cicero and Descartes to Mencius and Ptahhotep — whose enduring insights into human judgment, creativity, ethics and wisdom take on new urgency as AI reshapes how we learn and work.

“We are excited to share this hands-on field guide with teachers and learners around the world,” said �鶹��Ƶ President Connie Book. “We must not lose sight of the enduring principles that have always driven human progress. This publication bridges the gap between rapidly expanding algorithmic power and the timeless wisdom of the liberal arts. It empowers students to harness AI technologies where appropriate without sacrificing the empathy, judgment and creative autonomy that only a human mind can provide.”

“As artificial intelligence reshapes how we learn, work and create, the essential skills students need are not disappearing—they are evolving,” said AAC&U President Lynn Pasquerella. “Capacities such as critical inquiry, ethical reasoning, creativity and communication are more important than ever because they enable students to engage AI thoughtfully, question its outputs and apply knowledge with judgment and purpose. This guide underscores a central truth: in an age of increasingly powerful machines, the learning outcomes of a liberal education are the foundation for meaningful and responsible innovation.”

“Through our research at The Princeton Review, we consistently see that students are both excited by AI and uncertain about how to use it well,” said Editor-in-Chief Rob Franek. “What they’re really looking for is guidance. This field guide meets that moment by translating big ideas—like critical thinking, creativity and ethical decision-making—into practical habits students can use every day.”

In response to requests from faculty and staff, the new publication includes:

• A set of downloadable with group exercises, worksheets and discussion questions
• An online that allows students to reflect on how they are using AI in their studies and their level of reliance on AI tools.

Students, faculty and staff at more than 4,000 colleges, universities, schools and organizations around the world have accessed the publications. The guide’s has provided information to more than 87,000 users in 170 countries.

The guide is authored by three �鶹��Ƶ leaders and researchers: Daniel J. Anderson, special assistant to the president and former vice president for communications; Lee Rainie, director of the Imagining the Digital Future Center; and Janna Anderson, professor of communications and co-founder and senior researcher for the Imagining the Digital Future Center. They worked in partnership with 24 consulting scholars from 10 countries.

“Human Wisdom for the Age of AI” is endorsed by:

• American Library Association
• CAA Academic Alliance
• EDUCAUSE
• Gardner Institute
• NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education
• Online Learning Consortium
• RTI International

All materials in the guide are provided free and licensed under a Creative Commons License Attribution that allows educators to use and adapt the work for noncommercial applications.

As with the previous publications, colleges and universities may request a version of Human Wisdom for the Age of AI field guide that incorporates their institution’s logo on the cover, providing a custom edition for distribution within their campus community. For details on obtaining a customized PDF of the publication, send a request along with a high resolution logo file to imagine@elon.edu.

The Student Guide to Artificial Intelligence is an initiative of���鶹��Ƶ’s��Imagining the Digital Future Center. The publication series grew out of a��2023 global collaboration��that established a��statement of principles��to guide development of AI policies and practices in higher education.

�鶹��Ƶ the publishers of the Student Guide to Artificial Intelligence

��is the nationally recognized leader in experiential learning, preparing graduates to be creative, resilient, ambitious and ethical global citizens. For five consecutive years, U.S. News & World Report has ranked �鶹��Ƶ #1 in the nation for undergraduate teaching excellence and the leader in programs that promote student success. �鶹��Ƶ enrolls more than 7,000 students at its main campus in �鶹��Ƶ, North Carolina, and national campus locations in Greensboro, Charlotte, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C.

�鶹��Ƶ’s is an interdisciplinary research center focused on the impact of accelerating digital change and the challenges that lie ahead. The center’s mission is to discover and broadly share a diverse range of opinions, ideas and original research about the likely evolution of digital change, informing important conversations and policy formation. The center was established in 2000 as Imagining the Internet and renamed Imagining the Digital Future with an expanded research agenda in 2024.

is a global membership organization dedicated to advancing the democratic purposes of higher education by promoting equity, innovation, and excellence in liberal education. Through our programs and events, publications and research, public advocacy, and campus-based projects, AAC&U serves as a catalyst and facilitator for innovations that improve educational quality and equity and that support the success of all students. In addition to accredited public and private, two-year and four-year colleges and universities, and state higher education systems and agencies throughout the United States, our membership includes degree-granting higher education institutions around the world as well as other organizations and individuals.

is a leading tutoring, test prep and college admission services company. Every year, it helps millions of college- and graduate school-bound students achieve their education and career goals through online and in person courses delivered by a network of more than 4,000 teachers and tutors, online resources, and its more than 150 print and digital books published by Penguin Random House. The company is not affiliated with Princeton University.