How Are Students Using AI at Lehigh?

When Nathan Balderas ’27 and Megan Thomas ’27 met through a Silicon Valley Social Impact Fellowship, Thomas wasn’t using AI that often. “AI hasn’t been adopted as quickly in the health sciences industry,” says Thomas, a student on the pre-med track. “Health care deals with real people, so the risks are high.”

At the same time, she recognized that generative tools were becoming impossible to ignore.

“We’re not in an if-AI world,” she says. “We’re in a when-AI world.”

Since then, Thomas and Balderas have become active voices in conversations surrounding AI use at Lehigh, presenting together at the 2026 Inclusive Excellence in Teaching Workshop and later speaking candidly with members of the university’s board of trustees about how students are using AI in academic settings.

Though they come from very different disciplines, Thomas in molecular biology and Balderas in industrial and systems engineering and finance, their perspectives often intersect around one central idea: AI works best as a support system, not a substitute for learning.

As AI evolves, so do campus conversations surrounding academic integrity and responsible use. In late April, the university provided updated AI guiding principles, adjusting to campus critiques and suggestions from students, faculty and staff. One core revision states that “AI may assist in human work; the effort and ownership that define genuine learning must remain with the person.” This sentiment ties directly into intellectual ownership, a concept Thomas and Balderas take pride in as students.

Thomas has been using AI to simplify the publication process surrounding her healthcare accessibility research. Using this technology, she was able to identify journals accepting submissions related to healthcare and bioethics while streamlining the process of preparing her manuscript for publication. Thomas says publishing her research had long been a goal, and without AI, a project of this magnitude coupled with her regular coursework would’ve slipped through the cracks.

Still, both students draw clear boundaries around what these platforms should and should not do. Thomas avoids using AI to generate written sections of research papers, while Balderas says he never accepts information from AI at face value.

“If I’m going to put my name on something, someone deserves to hear my words,” Thomas says.

“I always ask for links to citations,” Balderas adds.

Thomas says generative technology has helped her become a more efficient student, but not a less involved one. Attending class and office hours are non-negotiables for digesting the material.

She’s begun thinking about AI through a helpful comparison she’s heard on campus: An individual would not bring a forklift to the gym. The purpose of moving weight is to improve what you are doing, not how fast the dumbbells are moving.

Thomas agrees with this approach herself, “You can use chatbots for things that are forklift components—I needed to find publications so I could submit my manuscript, but my betterment in the process was not a concerning detail.”

This mindset, Balderas adds, is increasingly important for students entering industries where generative systems are already reshaping workflows and expectations.

“Anyone who isn’t proactively learning how to use these tools is probably going to fall behind at some point.”

“At the same time,” Thomas says, “AI is not going to get you a job because AI is not a human connection. Going to class, meeting people, networking, has been a big part of success for me.”

As conversations surrounding generative platforms continue evolving across higher education, both students hope more individuals will begin viewing the technology with nuance rather than extremes. Their advice to other students? Explore the tools, learn their limitations and use them responsibly.

“AI is only as good as the person using it,” Thomas says.