> From: https://chatgpt.com/c/69d45e46-2d1c-832c-9ad4-67f71917ad87?src=history_search # you asked message time: 2026-04-06 20:32:11 I'm going to the EDUCAUSE 2026 Annual Conference, and I want to submit a proposal for a session that's composed 100% by AI addressing the latest issues in technology for colleges and universities. You (the AI tool) will decide on the content, structure, and script to develop the best possible presentation that is most relevant and engaging for the conference attendees (with a pinch of humor), and a non-AI human will deliver the content on your behalf. The non-AI human will give the same prompt to ChatGPT, Claude, and whatever other tools rise in popularity between the proposal submission deadline and the presentation. The non-AI human hopes to take this meta (!= Meta) approach to dazzle/convince the EDUCAUSE session committee to choose this intriguing session and follow that with a stellar session that highlighting the latest in the EDUCAUSE zeitgeist while providing a tongue-in-cheek look at the then-current state of AI. --- Below are the session proposal elements. Following the above as carefully as possible, draft submission content for each of the sections below to maximize the likelihood of session acceptance. Elements of the Session Proposal icon: hand placing blocks in a pyramid Session Title (100-character limit) Create a short title that is creative yet descriptive. We ask that you do not use institution, company, or product names in the title. Abstract (1,500-character limit) This is a short description of what your session is about. If your proposal is accepted, the abstract is what most attendees will use to make decisions about which sessions to attend. What can you say that will encourage your colleagues to attend your session? Session Takeaways (200-character limit) Clear session outcomes/takeaways are essential components of every session. Submitters should provide three takeaways within their proposal. Proposal reviewers will closely examine and rate each proposed session's takeaways, which should clearly describe what participants will know or be able to do as a result of participating in the session. Participant Engagement Strategies (100-character limit) If you want to keep your attendee’s attention, you need a plan for engagement. Please include the specific and creative ways in which you will engage with participants. Session Description (4,000-character limit) This is where you get to more fully describe the plan for your session. Great descriptions answer the following as succinctly as possible: What problems are you helping participants solve? What is the relevance of the content and value to the higher education IT and technology community? How is your session unique? In addition, we encourage you to describe how the session will unfold (timetable). Keywords You will be asked to provide three keywords that relate to your presentation. Level of Expertise Indicates the expected knowledge and experience of participants (introductory, intermediate, or advanced) to help attendees determine if the session is a good fit for their background and learning goals. Example : “Intermediate: Designed for professionals with hands-on experience implementing or supporting this work who are ready to move beyond foundational concepts into applied strategies and lessons learned. Submitter Comments (optional) If you have any additional comments or would like to clarify any pieces of information within the CFP, you will have the opportunity to do so within the submission site. --- # chatgpt response Below is a draft optimized for EDUCAUSE’s stated review criteria: relevance, aligned outcomes, clarity, engagement, and practical application. I anchored it in the 2026 CFP guidance and current EDUCAUSE themes, especially collaborative cybersecurity, the “human edge” of AI, data culture, proactive analytics, student experience, and workforce readiness. ([EDUCAUSE](https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/call-for-proposals)) **Session Title** The AI Dean’s List: What Machines Think Higher Ed Tech Needs Next **Abstract** What happens when the session committee’s favorite conference topics, the higher education zeitgeist, and several leading AI tools are all asked the same question: “What do colleges and universities most need to know right now?” This session is a deliberately meta experiment with a practical purpose. A human presenter will serve as moderator, but the content itself will be generated by multiple AI systems using the same prompt shortly before the conference, ensuring the session reflects the freshest possible thinking on higher education technology. The result: a fast, engaging, and slightly tongue-in-cheek synthesis of the issues rising to the top across the sector. Attendees will see where AI tools converge, where they conflict, and what those patterns reveal about higher education’s current priorities. Topics will likely include AI literacy and governance, collaborative cybersecurity, data-informed decision-making, student experience, workforce readiness, and the institutional challenge of moving from reactive to proactive strategy. The session will not ask participants to trust AI blindly. Instead, it will model how to interrogate AI outputs critically, separate signal from hype, and translate emerging themes into practical campus conversations and actions. Part trend briefing, part live methodology demo, and part reality check, this session offers a fresh way to examine what is changing in higher education technology, what is not, and what remains stubbornly human. Come for the experiment. Leave with a sharper lens for evaluating both AI-generated advice and the future-facing decisions on your campus. **Session Takeaways** 1. Evaluate AI-generated recommendations by spotting convergence, gaps, bias, and hype in higher education technology advice. 2. Identify the most pressing 2026 higher ed tech themes and connect them to strategy, governance, teaching, operations, and student success. 3. Use a repeatable prompt-and-review method to turn AI output into practical, campus-ready discussion and action. **Participant Engagement Strategies** Live polling, AI-output showdown, audience voting, and a “human fact-check” finale. **Session Description** Higher education technology leaders are being asked to do several difficult things at once: respond to rapid AI change without losing trust, improve cybersecurity through shared responsibility, use data more effectively, support students through shifting expectations, and prepare graduates for a labor market increasingly shaped by AI and digital fluency. The challenge is not simply keeping up with new tools. It is determining which issues actually matter most, what deserves action now, and how to distinguish durable priorities from fashionable noise. ([EDUCAUSE Review](https://er.educause.edu/articles/2025/10/2026-educause-top-10-making-connections?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) This session addresses that problem through an unusual but highly relevant format: a comparative, AI-generated briefing on the state of higher education technology. A non-AI human presenter will prompt multiple leading AI systems with the same charge shortly before the conference: identify the issues, tensions, opportunities, and near-term decisions most relevant to colleges and universities right now. The presenter will then facilitate a structured comparison of the responses. The value to attendees is twofold. First, the session will surface a concise, timely synthesis of the issues that multiple AI systems identify as most significant for the sector. Second, it will demonstrate a practical method for using AI responsibly: comparing outputs, testing assumptions, identifying blind spots, and refining results through human judgment. In other words, the session is not just about AI. It uses AI as the lens through which attendees can examine their own institutional priorities. What makes the session unique is the combination of current-content generation, methodological transparency, and restrained humor. Rather than offering a static slide deck built months earlier, the session will be refreshed near the event to reflect the latest discourse. Rather than presenting AI as oracle or villain, the session will treat it as a very confident colleague who still needs supervision. The tone will be lively, but the substance will be serious and actionable. Participants will leave with a sharper understanding of the current higher ed technology landscape and a repeatable approach for using AI as a strategic thought partner without surrendering critical thinking. This is especially relevant for institutions navigating AI governance, cybersecurity culture, data literacy, operational efficiency, student support, and future workforce preparation. ([EDUCAUSE](https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/call-for-proposals)) **Proposed flow (50-minute session):** 0–5 minutes: Setup and framing. Explain the experiment, prompt design, and rules of engagement. 5–15 minutes: “What the bots agree on.” Rapid synthesis of the top themes appearing across tools. 15–25 minutes: “Where the bots disagree.” Contradictions, omissions, overconfidence, and what that reveals. 25–35 minutes: Audience interaction. Live polling on which outputs feel most useful, suspect, or surprisingly insightful. 35–43 minutes: Human translation. Convert AI observations into practical campus questions and next-step actions. 43–48 minutes: “The most AI thing said today.” A light closing segment highlighting one unintentionally hilarious or overly certain AI-generated line. 48–50 minutes: Final takeaways and call to action. Attendees should expect a session that is current, comparative, self-aware, and grounded in the real strategic questions facing higher education technology leaders. **Keywords** Artificial intelligence Higher education strategy Emerging technologies **Level of Expertise** Intermediate: Designed for professionals with some familiarity with AI and higher education technology strategy who want practical methods for evaluating emerging issues, comparing AI-generated guidance, and translating insights into campus action. **Submitter Comments (optional)** This proposal intentionally uses an unconventional format to match the topic. If accepted, the presenter will refresh the content shortly before the conference by running the same prompt across multiple leading AI tools and then facilitating a transparent comparison of the results. The session is designed to be non-promotional, current, practical, and engaging, with a human moderator ensuring context, quality control, and critical interpretation. My recommendation on **program track** is **Innovation, Partnerships, and Emerging Technologies**, with **Leadership, Strategy, and Organizational Change** as the strongest alternate. That pairing best matches the CFP’s preference for innovative, current, action-oriented content. ([EDUCAUSE](https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/call-for-proposals)) If you want, I can also produce a second version that is slightly more conservative and “committee-safe,” in case you want one draft optimized for intrigue and another optimized for perceived acceptance risk. --- # you asked message time: 2026-04-06 20:35:00 The length of Session Abstract has exceeded the allowed character limit of 1500. --- # chatgpt response Here is a tighter version under the 1,500-character limit: **Abstract** What happens when several leading AI tools are asked the same question: What do colleges and universities most need to know right now? This session is a deliberately meta experiment with a practical purpose. A human presenter will moderate, but the content will be generated by multiple AI systems using the same prompt shortly before the conference, ensuring the session reflects the freshest possible thinking on higher education technology. Attendees will see where AI tools converge, where they conflict, and what those patterns reveal about higher education’s current priorities. Topics may include AI literacy and governance, cybersecurity, data-informed decision-making, student experience, workforce readiness, and the shift from reactive to proactive strategy. The session will not ask participants to trust AI blindly. Instead, it will model how to question AI outputs critically, separate signal from hype, and translate emerging themes into practical campus conversations and actions. Part trend briefing, part live methodology demo, and part reality check, this session offers a fresh way to examine what is changing in higher education technology, what is not, and what remains stubbornly human. If you want, I can also compress the **Session Description** and **Takeaways** to make the full submission tighter and more review-friendly. --- # you asked message time: 2026-04-06 20:38:00 Which session track fits best? --- # chatgpt response Best fit: **Innovation, Partnerships, and Emerging Technologies** Why this is the strongest match: Your proposal centers on an AI-driven format, emerging technology trends, and a novel session design. The core hook is not cybersecurity, teaching, analytics, or student success as a primary domain. It is the strategic and practical interpretation of **AI as an emerging force in higher education**. Second-best option: **Leadership, Strategy, and Organizational Change** Use that instead only if you rewrite the proposal to emphasize: - how campus leaders should evaluate AI guidance, - governance and decision-making, - organizational readiness, - translating AI output into institutional action. How I would classify the current draft: - **Primary identity:** emerging technology / AI / innovation - **Secondary identity:** leadership strategy - **Not the best fit:** teaching and learning, student success, or data and analytics, because those appear as examples within the session, not the session’s main frame Recommendation: Select **Innovation, Partnerships, and Emerging Technologies**. It is the cleanest and most defensible category for reviewers reading this proposal quickly. I can also rewrite the abstract and description slightly so they align even more tightly with that track.