AI, Students, and Learning
A reflection after the 2025 application season
As the 2025 application season comes to a close, seeing learning across a wide age range makes one thing very clear. AI changes how students learn, but it does not change what students need to become.
AI is a tool. Like any powerful tool, it amplifies what already exists. Used well, it accelerates growth. Used poorly, it weakens independence and creates quiet dependence.
For younger children, especially in elementary school, AI has no role. Learning at this stage is physical and sensory. Cutting paper, drawing by hand, building with blocks, telling stories out loud. These are not simple activities. They are the foundation of thinking itself. Before children use tools made by others, they must first master the tools they were born with: hands, attention, and imagination.
In middle school, structure begins to form. This is when students should learn logic, mathematics, and basic programming, not by relying on AI, but by struggling through problems on their own. Reading and writing should remain entirely human and handwritten. At this stage, both AI and smartphones are distractions from the deeper work of learning how to think.
High school is where AI can begin to play a constructive role. Once students understand how to ask real questions, they can use AI to explore ideas, organize research, and test assumptions. But AI should never replace original thinking or core academic work. Colleges are not looking for polished outputs. They are looking for ownership, judgment, and intellectual honesty.
By college and adulthood, AI can become a powerful partner in building larger systems: research projects, platforms, services, or ventures. Even then, AI should not be used to make life decisions or serve as emotional support. It is a technology, not a mentor.
This is where a critical distinction must be made. AI can provide information, structure, and speed. What it cannot provide is discernment. It cannot understand a student’s values, fears, contradictions, or long-term potential. It cannot challenge a student when they are choosing the easy path over the meaningful one.
A real counselor does exactly that.
Good counselors see patterns across years, not prompts. They notice when a student’s interests are genuine versus performative. They help students connect learning to identity, effort to purpose, and ambition to responsibility. Most importantly, they hold students accountable in ways no algorithm ever will.
In every strong application I saw this year, the same truth appeared. The student did the thinking. The student made the choices. AI may have helped along the way, but a human mentor helped them grow.
The future belongs to students who know how to use powerful tools without surrendering their agency. AI will continue to evolve. Human judgment, character, and guidance will remain irreplaceable.
If there is one lesson from this application season, it is this. Use AI to move faster, but rely on people to move wisely.


