Everyone is asking about your AI plan. What do you show them?
Parents ask at admissions events. Faculty ask in senate. Employers ask what your graduates can actually do with AI. The committee that would answer properly needs two years you do not have.
AI Literacy & Professional Conduct
142 topics. Deployable this term, browser based, English and Spanish. Every topic ends in a pass gate, and every student leaves with a credential an employer can verify independently.
- Every topic, the professor who tutors you through it, and the labs
- A pass gate on every topic, so completion means proven, not attended
- Scenario work scored against a rubric, plus the open book Mastery Exam
- A signed credential an employer can verify independently, English and Espanol
Reading real lessons within a minute. 14-day refund if you enroll and change your mind.
What the delay actually costs
A transcript line tells an employer nothing about what a student can do, and they have no way to check it.
When each department improvises, the institution has no defensible position when a case reaches the provost.
Employers already write AI competence into job descriptions. Institutions that can prove it become the pipeline.
What a defensible institutional AI program looks like
Whoever you build or buy from, these are the properties that survive a question from your accreditor, your board, or an employer partner. Use them as your evaluation checklist.
- Deployable this term, not after a two-year design cycle, because the question is being asked now.
- A pass gate per topic, so completion means demonstrated understanding rather than seat time.
- Applied judgment rather than recall: students are asked what they would do in a real situation, and are scored against a rubric.
- A verifiable record per student that an employer can open and interrogate, not a PDF that can be edited in a browser.
- Content that changes when the law and the technology change, with the date of verification visible on the page.
- A complement to your own academic judgment, never a replacement for it, and nothing your faculty has to defend on our behalf.
GAGE was built to that checklist. The part most programs lack is the last mile: a signed, verifiable credential that shows exactly which competencies a specific student proved, and when.
Judge it yourself before you talk to anyone
Read the first topics and use the professor. It refuses to do graded work for a student, which is the entire pedagogical point and the first question your faculty will ask.
Open the free preview →A sample credential: the topics behind it, the scores, and how mastery was proven. This is what an employer sees.
See a credential →Our published rules on sourcing, verification, and currency, so your faculty can evaluate the academic seriousness rather than the marketing.
Read the standard →Every module and topic is public, so a curriculum committee can review the whole program without a sales call or an NDA.
See all topics →Start with faculty, not with students
The fastest path we have seen work is to put a small group of skeptical faculty through the free preview first. They will tell you within an hour whether the teaching is real, whether the gates are honest, and whether the credential is something your institution would put its name near.
If it clears that bar, the natural next step is a single cohort in continuing education or a single required course, where the evidence records give you something concrete to show your board before anything scales.
We are not an accrediting body and we do not claim to be. Any academic credit decision is yours, made under your own policies.
Talk to the person who built it
I am Frank Carrasco. I built this program, I verify the regulatory claims on this site myself, and I answer the phone. If you want to know whether this fits your institution, ask me directly and I will tell you plainly, including when the answer is no.
Not this semester?
Get the short brief when the regulatory position changes. We send the verified version, with sources, and nothing else.