Understanding LLM Reasoning: How AI Thinks and Responds

Artificial intelligence tools, particularly those offered by well-funded companies like OpenAI, are constantly changing. Some of those changes occur thanks to the software’s machine learning design. Other changes are based on observations and implemented by programmers with access to the code. An emerging feature that’s been getting attention recently is LLM reasoning.

One of my recent articles about using ChatGPT to answer a philosophical question or two about higher education inspired a suggestion from a friend and former colleague. His comment was:

“Good article Wally and very good responses from 4o. It would be interesting to benchmark this one with the exact same questions with DeepSeek R1 and Deep Research from OpenAI (which also uses new reasoning models o3) and compare results and insights.”

Using ChatGPT o3-mini for Its Reasoning Capabilities

ai chatbox on a laptop

I opted to start slowly and work with OpenAI’s new reasoning model, o3. The prompts and responses are listed in the same order that I posed them to ChatGPT-4o. The prompts are the same except Prompt 4.

I modified Prompt 4 because the original prompt included a quote from the response to Prompt 3. I removed the previous quote and added a quote from the ChatGPT o3-mini response. Nothing else changed, including the sentence after the quote.

Prompt 1: I have a question that requires some philosophical thinking. Are you good to do that?

Reasoned for a few seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: Absolutely, I’m ready for a philosophical challenge. What’s your question?

Prompt 2: The Internet is the platform by which many people can access information. If nearly all of the world’s information is accessible on the internet for free, why should colleges continue to charge tens of thousands of dollars a year for students to attend?

Reasoned for 6 seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: That’s a great question that touches on the deeper nature of what education is and what colleges provide. While it’s true that the Internet offers a staggering amount of information for free, the value of a college education isn’t simply in the access to information—it’s in how that information is transformed into knowledge, wisdom, and broader personal development. Here are some philosophical and practical points to consider:

Curated Learning and Structured Curriculum:
Colleges aren’t just libraries of data. They offer carefully structured curricula designed by experts who not only know the facts but also understand how to teach critical thinking, problem-solving, and the application of knowledge. The structure helps students learn in a coherent, cumulative way rather than piecemeal browsing online.
Mentorship and Expert Guidance:
One of the hallmarks of higher education is the relationship between students and their professors or mentors. These experts guide students through complex ideas, challenge their assumptions, and help them engage with material at a deeper level. This kind of personalized, interactive learning experience is hard to replicate with free, unmediated online content.
Community and Collaborative Learning:
Colleges provide a community of peers from diverse backgrounds. The classroom, labs, and campus life foster dialogue, debate, and collaboration. This social environment is crucial not only for intellectual growth but also for developing communication skills, empathy, and a sense of civic responsibility—qualities that are central to the philosophical idea of education as a formative experience.
Accreditation and Credentialing:
Beyond learning, colleges issue degrees that serve as a recognized signal of competence in a field. This credentialing has real-world value in many professional contexts, as it represents a standardized level of training and rigor that employers and society, in general, have come to trust.
Access to Specialized Resources:
Many disciplines require hands-on experiences that go beyond what can be found online. Laboratories, studios, performance spaces, and research facilities provide practical, experiential learning that is essential in fields like the sciences, engineering, the arts, and medicine.
Formation of Critical and Independent Thinkers:
Philosophically, education is often seen as a journey toward not just acquiring information, but learning how to think—question assumptions, analyze evidence, and form one’s own views. Colleges provide a setting where ideas can be rigorously challenged and debated, helping students learn to navigate a world where information is abundant but wisdom is hard-earned.
The Value of Experience:
The process of attending college—living on campus, engaging in extracurricular activities, and navigating diverse social settings—contributes to personal growth. These experiences shape one’s identity, ethics, and understanding of the world in ways that purely online learning might not.

In summary, while the Internet has revolutionized access to information, the process of transforming that information into a deep, nuanced understanding—and integrating it with personal growth, social learning, and professional development—is a complex, resource-intensive process. Colleges charge tuition to maintain the systems, environments, and expertise required to facilitate this transformative educational journey.

Prompt 3: Most colleges have a business model that is oriented towards fixed costs. As a result, it is difficult to cut costs in order to adjust to lower revenues. If potential college students are attracted to lower cost colleges or other lower cost educational options, how could college leaders consider restructuring their business model in order to offer lower tuition?

Reasoned for 5 seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: Restructuring a college’s business model to offer lower tuition in an environment where fixed costs dominate is a challenging but not insurmountable task. Leaders might consider a combination of strategies that reframe how education is delivered, managed, and financed. Here are some potential approaches:

Embrace Hybrid and Online Learning Models:
- Shift to a Blended Approach: By increasing the share of online or hybrid courses, colleges can reduce reliance on costly physical infrastructure. Online courses can serve a larger number of students without the same incremental costs as classroom-based instruction.
- Invest in Technology: Building robust digital platforms can turn some fixed costs (e.g., lecture halls, campus facilities) into more scalable, technology-driven assets. As technology advances, these platforms can be updated and expanded with relatively lower marginal costs.
Rethink the Faculty and Instruction Model:
- Competency-Based and Modular Learning: Moving toward models where students progress based on mastery rather than time spent can optimize faculty time and resources. This might include using recorded lectures and digital resources that serve many cohorts over time.
- Flexible Staffing Models: Instead of relying heavily on tenure-track positions, colleges might integrate a mix of adjunct faculty, teaching assistants, or industry professionals who can provide expertise on a per-course basis, thereby reducing long-term fixed salary commitments.
Optimize Administrative and Operational Efficiency:
- Streamline Administrative Functions: Many colleges have high overheads unrelated directly to teaching and learning. Embracing process automation, data analytics, and centralized administrative services can reduce these costs over time.
- Shared Services and Partnerships: Collaborating with other institutions or even private sector partners on shared services (e.g., IT, facilities management) can distribute costs and reduce duplication of effort.
Reconfigure Campus Infrastructure:
- Reevaluate Campus Space Utilization: With a portion of instruction moving online, the physical footprint of campuses might be reduced. This can lead to lower maintenance, utility, and capital costs.
- Flexible Use of Facilities: Campus buildings can be repurposed to support revenue-generating activities (e.g., hosting community events, partnering with local businesses) to subsidize educational costs.
Innovate Revenue Streams and Financial Models:
- Subscription or Membership Models: Some institutions are experimenting with models where students pay a flat fee for a suite of courses over a set period, which can allow for better revenue planning and cost management.
- Micro-Credentials and Short Courses: Offering targeted, shorter-term credentials can attract a broader audience, generate additional revenue, and allow for a more modular cost structure that isn’t as dependent on full degree programs.
- Increased Industry Partnerships: By partnering with businesses for research, training, or tailored courses, colleges can diversify income and subsidize tuition costs for students.
Focus on Scalability and Standardization:
- Standardized Curricula: Developing standardized course materials and curricula that can be reused across multiple sessions or even multiple institutions can lower the cost per student.
- Competency-Based Education (CBE): Models like CBE often allow for better resource planning since instruction is tailored to proven learning outcomes rather than fixed classroom hours. This approach can lead to efficiencies in how faculty and support services are deployed.
Leveraging Public and Private Funding:
- Government and Philanthropic Support: Restructuring might be complemented by seeking external funding designed to promote innovative education models. Grants or public-private partnerships could subsidize the initial costs of transitioning to these new models.
- Income Share Agreements (ISAs): Some colleges are experimenting with financing models where students pay back a portion of their income post-graduation. This shifts some of the financial risk away from the student and can be paired with leaner operational models.

In Summary:
The key lies in converting some of the traditionally fixed costs into more variable or scalable expenses. By harnessing technology, rethinking teaching methods, streamlining operations, and exploring alternative revenue models, colleges can work toward lowering tuition while still maintaining—or even enhancing—the quality of education. This kind of transformation isn’t solely a financial or administrative challenge; it requires a reimagining of the institution’s mission, culture, and relationship with students and society at large.

Prompt 4: Your response to my question about restructuring college business models concluded with a final statement: “This kind of transformation isn’t solely a financial or administrative challenge; it requires a reimagining of the institution’s mission, culture, and relationship with students and society at large.” I agree that a cultural shift is required for transformation. At the same time, I believe that lowering the tuition will disrupt the current financial model so substantially, that the emphasis will be on cost-cutting instead of innovation. Do you have additional thoughts that could dissuade me from my opinion of the outcome?

Reasoned for 9 seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: You’re right to be cautious—lowering tuition could easily prompt knee-jerk cost-cutting that sacrifices quality or stifles creativity. However, there are several reasons to believe that a well-conceived restructuring effort could actually couple cost efficiency with genuine innovation, rather than defaulting to mere cost cutting. Here are some thoughts that might help reframe the outcome:

Resource Reallocation Instead of Simple Cutting:
The aim isn’t to slash budgets across the board but to reassess and reallocate resources toward areas that drive educational value. For instance, reducing spending on redundant administrative functions or underutilized physical infrastructure can free up funds that can be reinvested into innovative teaching methods and digital platforms. This isn’t just cost cutting—it’s a strategic rebalancing to support a mission of innovation.
Inherent Innovation Under Constraint:
History and business literature suggest that constraints often drive creativity. When institutions are forced to operate under tighter budgets, they can be compelled to reexamine traditional practices, leading to innovations in pedagogy, course design, and service delivery. The push for lower tuition could be the catalyst for exploring new models of education (such as competency-based or modular learning) that are more agile and scalable.
Leveraging Technology for Scale and Quality:
Technology can help bridge the gap between cost pressures and the need for high-quality education. A strategic investment in online learning platforms, data analytics for personalized learning, and collaborative digital tools can serve a dual purpose: lowering marginal costs per student and expanding the institution’s reach. The upfront investment in technology might seem like a cost, but it’s an innovation enabler that reduces long-term fixed costs while improving educational outcomes.
Redefining Value Beyond Physical Infrastructure:
The traditional college model emphasizes campus facilities, which are inherently high in fixed costs. By shifting the focus from brick-and-mortar facilities to learning outcomes, colleges can innovate in how they deliver education. Think of models where real-world projects, remote internships, or partnerships with industries create rich learning experiences without the overhead of maintaining sprawling campuses.
Collaborative Models and Shared Resources:
Instead of each institution bearing the full weight of infrastructure and administrative costs, we might see more collaborative models emerge—such as shared online platforms, inter-institutional courses, or partnerships with private and public entities. Such collaborative ecosystems can spread costs over a larger base, reducing the pressure on any single institution to choose between cost cutting and innovation.
Changing Cultural and Strategic Priorities:
Lowering tuition need not be seen as a zero-sum game where cost cuts undermine innovation. With a strong leadership commitment to cultural change, institutions can reorient their missions to prioritize both affordability and excellence. This involves redefining success metrics—not just in financial terms but in student outcomes, community engagement, and the ability to adapt to a rapidly changing educational landscape.
Alternative Revenue Models as Innovation Drivers:
To mitigate the risks associated with a drop in traditional revenue, colleges could explore alternative revenue streams (like income share agreements, micro-credentials, or corporate partnerships) that encourage innovation. Such models shift the conversation from “cost cutting” to “value creation” by tying revenue to student success and market-relevant skills.

In essence, while the temptation might be to view lower tuition as a mandate for austerity, it also opens up an opportunity to fundamentally rethink what educational value means. By strategically investing in technology, embracing collaboration, and shifting institutional priorities, colleges can potentially lower costs without sacrificing—and indeed even enhancing—the quality and innovativeness of education. The key is leadership that sees financial pressures not as a threat to innovation but as a spur to reimagine the future of higher education.

Prompt 5: I have one final question. Your conclusion in your response to my previous prompt indicates that cost-cutting does not have to dominate the transformation process. I agree if the college going through transformation has a decade or more to transform. Given the rapid implementation of AI applications in businesses, it appears to me that a shorter transformation period of 3-5 years is more appropriate. How would you suggest that a college or university manage a transformation process over 3-5 years versus a decade or decades?

Reasoned for 9 seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: Accelerating a transformation process from a gradual, decade-long evolution to a rapid, 3–5-year turnaround is ambitious but possible—with the right leadership, strategy, and willingness to embrace radical change. Here are several key strategies and considerations for managing such a rapid transformation:

Establish a Dedicated Transformation Office:
- Centralized Leadership: Form a high-level task force or transformation office with clear authority and accountability. This team should include visionary leaders, change management experts, and representatives from academic, administrative, and IT sectors.
- Clear Mandate and Milestones: Define specific, measurable goals and a detailed roadmap with quarterly milestones. Short-term wins will be crucial for maintaining momentum and building trust across the institution.
Adopt an Agile Change Management Framework:
- Iterative Implementation: Break the transformation into smaller, manageable projects or “sprints.” Use agile methodologies to pilot new initiatives, gather feedback rapidly, and scale up successful experiments.
- Continuous Feedback Loops: Establish robust mechanisms for collecting feedback from faculty, staff, and students. Regular reviews and adjustments will help mitigate risks and ensure alignment with evolving objectives.
Prioritize High-Impact, Scalable Initiatives:
- Digital and AI-Driven Learning: Invest early in AI-enhanced learning platforms, online course delivery, and data analytics tools that can quickly scale to support a larger student base. Focus on initiatives that both reduce costs and improve learning outcomes.
- Process Automation: Identify administrative functions that can be streamlined or automated. This not only cuts costs but also frees up human resources to focus on strategic, innovative tasks.
Reconfigure the Financial Model Upfront:
- Invest for Rapid ROI: Accept that accelerated transformation may require upfront investments—whether in technology, training, or external expertise. Carefully select initiatives that offer a high return on investment within a short timeframe.
- Alternative Revenue Streams: Develop complementary revenue models (such as micro-credentials, industry partnerships, or income share agreements) to diversify income sources and reduce dependence on traditional tuition revenue.
Foster a Culture of Innovation and Agility:
- Change Management and Communication: Rapid transformation demands clear, transparent, and frequent communication. Engage stakeholders at all levels to foster a culture that values experimentation, learning, and adaptability.
- Empower Faculty and Staff: Provide professional development and incentives that encourage faculty and staff to experiment with new pedagogical models and operational processes. Empower them to become champions of the change.
Leverage External Expertise and Partnerships:
- Industry Collaborations: Form partnerships with tech companies, startups, and AI innovators. External expertise can help accelerate the implementation of new technologies and best practices.
- Benchmarking and Consulting: Consider bringing in consultants who specialize in rapid transformation in education. Their experience can provide valuable insights and help avoid common pitfalls during accelerated change.
Monitor, Evaluate, and Pivot Rapidly:
- Performance Metrics: Develop a robust system of KPIs that track progress in real-time. This data-driven approach allows leaders to understand which initiatives are working and which need recalibration.
- Flexibility to Pivot: In a 3–5-year transformation, circumstances will change quickly. Build in the flexibility to pivot strategies when needed, ensuring that the institution remains responsive to both internal feedback and external market dynamics.

In Summary:
A rapid 3–5-year transformation requires a fundamental rethinking of institutional structures, a high degree of agility, and bold leadership. By centralizing decision-making, adopting agile methods, prioritizing scalable initiatives, and fostering a culture of innovation, colleges and universities can accelerate their transformation without resorting solely to cost-cutting. The key is to view the transformation as a holistic reimagining of educational delivery—one that leverages technology and innovative practices to drive both efficiency and improved educational outcomes in a compressed timeframe.

Comparing the Responses of ChatGPT4o to ChatGPT o3-mini

ai robot wearing a headset having a conversation on ai chatbox on a laptop

The ChatGPT o3 responses were very good. I believe I could have used them to create an excellent article about the choices available to college leadership teams considering a strategy to implement lower prices in response to an increased demand for lower tuition and higher return on investment in a college education.

I read through each of the ChatGPT o3-mini responses to my series of prompts and thought that they were similar to the ChatGPT-4o responses. Rather than use a tool such as Compare in Word which would provide me with a word-by-word comparison of the two documents, I thought I would compare the outlines of each from Prompt 2 forward.

I copied the prompts and ChatGPT-4o responses, edited them for their highlights, and pasted them below. I added the prompts and ChatGPT o3-mini responses and edited the responses similarly. After the two edited versions were listed for each prompt, I created a short narrative comparing them.

Prompt 2

ChatGPT-4o: This is a fascinating and deeply relevant question. The tension between the accessibility of information on the internet and the cost of higher education raises important philosophical, economic, and societal issues. Let’s unpack this:

Access to Information vs. Structured Learning

Information
Structure and Guidance:

Credentialing and Legitimacy
Critical Thinking and Mentorship
Experiential Learning
Community and Social Capital
Accountability and Motivation
Inequalities in Access and Skill
Reputation and Resource Access

Is the Current Model Sustainable?

Your question also points to a critique of the cost of higher education. While colleges do offer unique value, the high costs can create significant barriers. This has led to debates about:

Expanding affordable or free higher education models.
Increasing the availability of online degrees and certifications.
Restructuring how education is financed and delivered.

A Potential Hybrid Future

As the internet continues to democratize access to information, colleges might evolve to:

Emphasize skills development, mentorship, and experiential learning.

Integrate online learning into their programs to reduce costs and increase flexibility.
Collaborate with industries to align education with real-world needs.

In summary, while the Internet is an incredible tool for democratizing access to information, colleges provide a comprehensive ecosystem for learning, personal development, and credentialing that the Internet alone cannot yet replicate. However, the question of cost remains valid, and rethinking the affordability and accessibility of higher education is essential for its future.

Reasoned for 6 seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: That’s a great question that touches on the deeper nature of what education is and what colleges provide. While it’s true that the Internet offers a staggering amount of information for free, the value of a college education isn’t simply in the access to information—it’s in how that information is transformed into knowledge, wisdom, and a broader personal development. Here are some philosophical and practical points to consider:

Curated Learning and Structured Curriculum:
Mentorship and Expert Guidance:
Community and Collaborative Learning:
Accreditation and Credentialing:
Access to Specialized Resources:
Formation of Critical and Independent Thinkers:
The Value of Experience:

My Thoughts About the Differences Between the Models’ Prompt 2 Responses

Both models created their responses by using a reasonably constructed outline of categories representing ways in which college provides a “more comprehensive ecosystem for learning, personal development, and credentialing that the internet alone cannot yet replicate.”

ChatGPT o3-mini’s response emphasized the complexity and resource intensity of college. It also stated that colleges charge tuition to maintain the systems and resources without commenting on the reasonableness of that cost.

ChatGPT 4o ended its final paragraph with a sentence “However, the question of cost remains valid, and rethinking the affordability and accessibility of higher education is essential for its future.”

I would award the “win” among Prompt 2 responses to ChatGPT 4o for not forgetting to address my concern about colleges charging tens of thousands of dollars for transmitting information that is essentially freely available on the internet.

Prompt 3

Prompt 3: Most colleges have a business model that is oriented towards fixed costs. As a result, it is difficult to cut costs in order to adjust to lower revenues. If potential college students are attracted to lower-cost colleges or other lower-cost educational options, how could college leaders consider restructuring their business model in order to offer lower tuition?

ChatGPT-4o: Restructuring the business model of colleges to offer lower tuition is a complex challenge, but it is possible with a combination of innovative approaches to reduce fixed costs, diversify revenue streams, and enhance operational efficiency. Here are some strategies that college leaders could consider:

Leverage Technology and Hybrid Learning

Expand Online and Hybrid Programs:
Shared Resources:

Optimize Faculty and Staff Structures

Flexible Staffing Models:

Cross-Department Teaching:
Administrative Efficiency:

Revise Program Offerings

Focus on High-Demand Fields:
Microcredentials and Certificates:
Curriculum Simplification:

Increase Revenue Diversification

Corporate Partnerships: Lifelong Learning Opportunities:
Real Estate Optimization:
Research Commercialization:

Restructure Financial Aid and Tuition Models

Income-Share Agreements (ISAs):
Tiered Tuition Pricing:

Subscription Models: Enhance Campus Utilization

Year-Round Calendars:
Dual-Enrollment Programs:

Endowment and Fundraising Strategies

Targeted Endowment Spending:
Focus on Alumni Giving:

Collaborate and Consolidate

Consortia and Mergers:
Articulation Agreements:

Adopt Performance-Based Budgeting

Rethink Campus Infrastructure

Downsize Underutilized Facilities:
Sustainable Practices:

Cultural Shift

students reading in library

Ultimately, restructuring requires a cultural shift in higher education. Colleges must embrace innovation, be willing to challenge traditional norms and engage stakeholders—faculty, students, alumni, and community partners—in shaping a sustainable future.

This transformation is challenging but can position institutions to remain competitive in a changing educational landscape while offering lower tuition and maintaining academic excellence.

Prompt 3: Most colleges have a business model that is oriented towards fixed costs. As a result, it is difficult to cut costs in order to adjust to lower revenues. If potential college students are attracted to lower-cost colleges or other lower-cost educational options, how could college leaders consider restructuring their business model in order to offer lower tuition?

Reasoned for 5 seconds >

Embrace Hybrid and Online Learning Models:

1. - Shift to a Blended Approach:
  - Invest in Technology:

Rethink the Faculty and Instruction Model:

1. - Competency-Based and Modular Learning:
  - Flexible Staffing Models:

Optimize Administrative and Operational Efficiency:

1. - Streamline Administrative Functions:
  - Shared Services and Partnerships:

Reconfigure Campus Infrastructure:

1. - Reevaluate Campus Space Utilization:
  - Flexible Use of Facilities:

Innovate Revenue Streams and Financial Models:

1. - Subscription or Membership Models:
  - Micro-Credentials and Short Courses:
  - Increased Industry Partnerships:

Focus on Scalability and Standardization:

1. - Standardized Curricula:
  - Competency-Based Education (CBE):

Leveraging Public and Private Funding:

- Government and Philanthropic Support:
- Income Share Agreements (ISAs):

My Thoughts About the Differences Between the Models’ Prompt 3 Responses

The outlines of the two responses to Prompt 3 were similar, but the conclusions were not. In this case, I liked the reasoning of ChatGPT o3-mini better than ChatGPT 4o. Converting fixed costs into variable costs will, in my opinion, achieve a better outcome than focusing on culture.

ChatGPT o3-mini adds a sentence at the end of its summary regarding “reimagining the institution’s mission, culture, and relationship with students and society at large.” However, this is not as emphatic as ChatGPT 4o’s response regarding the importance of a cultural shift necessary to succeed with a transformation.

Prompt 4

Prompt 4: Your response to my question about restructuring college business models concluded with a final statement that “ultimately, restructuring requires a cultural shift in higher education. Colleges must embrace innovation, be willing to challenge traditional norms, and engage stakeholders – faculty, students, alumni, and community partners – in shaping a sustainable future.” I agree that a cultural shift is required for transformation. At the same time, I believe that lowering the tuition will disrupt the current financial model so substantially, that the emphasis will be on cost cutting instead of innovation. Do you have additional thoughts that could dissuade me from my opinion of the outcome?

ChatGPT-4o: Your concern is valid—lowering tuition could initially trigger a focus on cost-cutting that risks undermining innovation. However, a well-managed approach to restructuring, guided by strategic thinking and long-term goals, can align cost reduction with innovative practices. Here are some thoughts that might challenge your perspective:

Innovation as a Tool for Cost Efficiency:
1. Rather than being a competing priority, innovation can drive cost efficiency:
  1. Technology Integration:
  2. Shared Services:
Alternative Credentialing: Revenue Diversification as a Counterbalance: Lower tuition does not mean reliance solely on cuts. Colleges can:
1. Lower tuition does not mean reliance solely on cuts. Colleges can:
  1. Expand Non-Traditional Markets:
  2. Capitalize on Research and Innovations:.
  3. Philanthropy and Endowment Growth: Holistic Cost Management
Philanthropy and Endowment Growth: Holistic Cost Management
1. Cost-cutting does not need to be synonymous with sacrificing quality:
  1. Data-Driven Decisions:
  2. Strategic Program Review:
  3. Culture of Continuous Improvement
Culture of Continuous Improvement
1. A focus on innovation can be embedded into the institutional culture:
  1. Empowered Faculty and Staff:
  2. Student-Centered Approach:
  3. Case Studies of Transformation
Case Studies of Transformation
1. Some institutions have successfully balanced lower tuition with innovation:
  1. Georgia State University:
  2. Arizona State University:
  3. Cultural Shift as a Driver of Innovation
Cultural Shift as a Driver of Innovation
1. The cultural shift necessary for restructuring can inherently lead to innovation:
  1. Collaboration Across Stakeholders:
  2. Mission Reorientation:

Conclusion

While cost-cutting is a natural initial reaction to lowering tuition, it does not have to dominate the transformation process. By prioritizing strategic innovation, focusing on long-term goals, and leveraging opportunities for revenue diversification, colleges can lower tuition while maintaining quality and adaptability. Your concern highlights the need for careful planning, but with the right approach, the emphasis can shift from short-term austerity to sustainable innovation.

Prompt 4: Your response to my question about restructuring college business models concluded with a final statement that “This kind of transformation isn’t solely a financial or administrative challenge; it requires a reimagining of the institution’s mission, culture, and relationship with students and society at large.” I agree that a cultural shift is required for transformation. At the same time, I believe that lowering the tuition will disrupt the current financial model so substantially, that the emphasis will be on cost cutting instead of innovation. Do you have additional thoughts that could dissuade me from my opinion of the outcome?

Reasoned for 9 seconds >

ChatGPT o3-mini: You’re right to be cautious—lowering tuition could easily prompt knee-jerk cost-cutting that sacrifices quality or stifles creativity. However, there are several reasons to believe that a well-conceived restructuring effort could actually couple cost efficiency with genuine innovation, rather than defaulting to mere cost-cutting. Here are some thoughts that might help reframe the outcome:

1. 1. Resource Reallocation Instead of Simple Cutting:
  2. Inherent Innovation Under Constraint:
  3. Leveraging Technology for Scale and Quality:
  4. Redefining Value Beyond Physical Infrastructure:
  5. Collaborative Models and Shared Resources:
  6. Changing Cultural and Strategic Priorities:
  7. Alternative Revenue Models as Innovation Drivers:

My Thoughts About the Differences Between the Models’ Prompt 4 Responses

ai robot arm wrestling another ai robot

It’s a close call comparing which response was best. In this case, I may give ChatGPT o3-mini the edge. While culture is important for a transformation to succeed, I thought that ChatGPT 4o emphasized its importance more than focusing on how to lower costs without sacrificing the quality and innovativeness of education. ChatGPT o3-mini also emphasized the importance of leadership.

Prompt 5

ChatGPT4o: Transforming a college or university within 3–5 years is ambitious but achievable with a focused, strategic approach. It requires prioritization, rapid decision-making, and a willingness to experiment and iterate. Here’s how such a transformation could be managed:

1. - Establish a Clear and Compelling Vision
  - Define Goals:
  - Engage Stakeholders:

Set a Timeline: Adopt a Phased Approach to Transformation

1. - Phase 1: Immediate Actions (Year 1):
  - - Identify and eliminate inefficiencies (e.g., under-enrolled programs, redundant administrative processes).
  - - Implement cost-saving technologies, such as AI-driven administrative tools and learning platforms.
  - - Begin offering hybrid or online versions of popular programs to attract new student segments.
  - Phase 2: Scaling Innovations (Years 2–3):
  - - Expand online and hybrid offerings, using lessons from initial pilots.
  - - Introduce microcredentialing and certificate programs that meet workforce needs.
  - - Foster partnerships with local businesses and industries for internships, research, and corporate training.
  - Phase 3: Embedding Transformation (Years 4–5):
  - - Optimize resource allocation based on data from the first three years.
    - Fully integrate AI and other technologies into teaching, advising, and administrative functions.
    - Scale successful initiatives across the institution and use them as a model for ongoing innovation.

Leverage AI and Technology for Rapid Gains

1. - AI-Powered Efficiency:
  - Personalized Learning:
  - Virtual Collaboration:

Pilot Programs with Rapid Iteration

1. - Start Small:
  - Iterate Quickly:

Cultivate a Culture of Agility

1. - Empower Decision-Making:
  - Encourage Experimentation:
  - Focus on Professional Development:

Prioritize Revenue Diversification

1. - Corporate and Community Partnerships:
  - Lifelong Learning: Philanthropy and Fundraising:

Use Data for Decision-Making

1. - Real-Time Analytics:
  - Predictive Modeling:

Measure and Communicate Progress

1. - Transparent Reporting:
  - Celebrate Wins:

Partner with External Experts

Ensure Financial Sustainability

1. - Short-Term Reserves:
  - Performance-Based Budgeting:

Conclusion

A 3–5-year transformation requires a focus on quick wins, strategic prioritization, and leveraging AI and technology to drive efficiency and innovation simultaneously. While cost-cutting will be necessary, embedding innovation into every step of the process ensures that transformation is sustainable, scalable, and forward-looking. The urgency of such a timeline can also galvanize stakeholders to embrace change, fostering a culture that values adaptability and continuous improvement.

Reasoned for 9 seconds >

1. - Establish a Dedicated Transformation Office:
  1. 1. - Centralized Leadership:
      - Clear Mandate and Milestones:
  - Adopt an Agile Change Management Framework:
  1. 1. - Iterative Implementation:
      - Continuous Feedback Loops:
  - Prioritize High-Impact, Scalable Initiatives:
  1. 1. - Digital and AI-Driven Learning:
      - Process Automation:
  - Reconfigure the Financial Model Upfront:
  1. 1. - Invest for Rapid ROI:
      - Alternative Revenue Streams:
  - Foster a Culture of Innovation and Agility:
  1. 1. - Change Management and Communication:
      - Empower Faculty and Staff:
  - Leverage External Expertise and Partnerships:
  1. 1. - Industry Collaborations:
      - Benchmarking and Consulting:
  - Monitor, Evaluate, and Pivot Rapidly:
  1. - Performance Metrics:
    - Flexibility to Pivot:

In Summary:
A rapid 3–5-year transformation requires a fundamental rethinking of institutional structures, a high degree of agility, and bold leadership. By centralizing decision-making, adopting agile methods, prioritizing scalable initiatives, and fostering a culture of innovation, colleges and universities can accelerate their transformation without resorting solely to cost-cutting. The key is to view the transformation as a holistic reimagining of educational delivery—one that leverages technology and innovative practices to drive both efficiency and improved educational outcomes in a compressed timeframe.

My Thoughts About the Differences Between the Models’ Prompt 5 Responses

I guess I should not have been surprised that at least one of these prompts would generate very similar responses from the two AIs. In this exercise, both products are OpenAI products. I would not give an edge to either response. I found both responses to be well-reasoned, detailed, and aligned with my personal experiences.

ChatGPT-4o provided a suggested list of initiatives as well as when they should/could be implemented during the 3-5 year timeframe. If I was planning to use this as a structured plan for implementation, that level of detailed implementation ideas would be helpful.

Is the Recently Introduced Reasoning Feature Much Different for LLMs?

I didn’t see many major differences between the two AI models that I used for this exercise. Perhaps the few differences I noticed were caused by the way I write my prompts. Quite frankly, the biggest difference I noticed was the printed output as to how many seconds ChatGPT o3-mini took to “reason” its response.

I believe in the value of humans to think and reason better than our currently available AI tools. Clearly, the value in both of these exercises was the ability of ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT o3-mini to generate a high quality series of responses to my prompts. I could have used them (and may still consider it) for a memo to my board or senior management team.

I plan to place a reminder in my Outlook calendar to replicate this exercise in three months. By that time, the reasoning models may have improved and their responses might be more different.

Regular LLM Content Creation Versus LLM Reasoning

Using ChatGPT o3-mini for Its Reasoning Capabilities