By Ernie Cecilia
Lecturer, School of Management
There is a growing paradox in education: Schools must teach students how to use artificial intelligence because they will need it in the workplace. But if students become too dependent on AI, they may fail to develop the very skills employers will need most — critical thinking, creativity, judgment and the ability to solve problems independently.
For the Philippines, getting that balance right is important.
The country continues to lose ground in the global competition for talent. From 54th place in 2022, it slipped to 64th out of 69 economies in the 2025 World Talent Ranking of the Switzerland-based International Institute for Management Development (IMD), scoring just 34.72 out of 100.
Industry leaders and human resources practitioners have long complained about the mismatch between what schools teach and what employers need. Curricula simply cannot adjust fast enough to rapid changes in technology and the workplace.
AI has made that challenge even more urgent.
Schools are now expected not only to teach AI but also to use it in teaching. At the same time, concerns are growing that excessive dependence on technology could weaken, rather than strengthen, learning. Some countries have already reconsidered heavy reliance on digital devices in classrooms and restored greater use of paper, pencils and physical books.
The issue becomes more complicated as AI evolves from generative systems that produce text and images to agentic AI capable of carrying out increasingly complex tasks.
For educators, the question is no longer whether students should use AI. They already do. The real question is how to prepare them for an AI-driven workplace without allowing technology to undermine the skills that education is supposed to develop.
The debate concerns something more fundamental than technology: the role of the human person.
In 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued the landmark encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” emphasizing human dignity, the dignity of work, social justice and the common good. On May 15, 2026, Pope Leo XIV issued his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence,” bringing those concerns into the AI age.
Nowhere is this more relevant than in education, where AI has already become part of everyday academic life.
The 2026 Lumina Foundation-Gallup State of Higher Education survey found that 57 percent of US college students use AI for coursework at least weekly. Students in business, technology and engineering are among its most frequent users.
They use AI to understand difficult lessons, check assignments, improve their writing, summarize lectures and notes, generate ideas and conduct research. Some also use it to write papers.
The benefits are obvious. AI can save time, explain difficult concepts, and help students become more productive.
And when these students graduate, many will enter workplaces where AI will be routine. Schools that refuse to teach students how to use it responsibly risk producing graduates who are poorly prepared for the jobs awaiting them.
But unrestricted AI use presents the opposite danger.
If AI writes the paper, summarizes the readings, supplies the ideas, and answers the questions, what intellectual work is left for the student?
Middle ground
That is where the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) offers an interesting middle ground.
UA&P President John Philip R. Yeung recognizes that students will inevitably use AI and other technologies in the real world. The university’s response is not to ban technology outright but to protect authentic learning, higher-order thinking and active engagement. Technology should serve education rather than replace independent thought. Unless specifically permitted by instructors, UA&P’s junior college and undergraduate classes are generally gadget-free. Students refrain from using mobile phones, tablets, laptops, smartwatches, and other personal electronic devices during class.
This is not a rejection of technology. It creates periods when students must concentrate, participate in discussions, listen, reflect and interact directly with teachers and classmates.
The university still uses digital platforms and its learning management system for communication, administration and learning resources. AI also has a place, but students must acknowledge AI-generated material rather than present it as entirely their own work.
I like this balanced but cautious approach. Students need to learn how to work with AI because employers will increasingly expect them to. But they also need to know how to work without it.
A graduate who knows how to prompt an AI system but cannot independently analyze an argument, write coherently, solve a problem or defend an idea is hardly prepared for the future.
The goal of education should not be to produce humans who can compete with machines. AI will inevitably perform many tasks faster and better than we can. Education should instead strengthen what remains distinctly human: judgment, curiosity, creativity, critical thinking, communication, empathy and ethical responsibility.
AI should make students better thinkers, not do their thinking for them.
For Philippine education, that distinction could become increasingly important. If we want to reverse our decline in global talent competitiveness, embracing the latest technology is not enough.
We must make sure that as our machines become smarter, our students do, too.
This article originally appeared on 10 September 2026 in Manila Times, Campus Press