Since proposing AIQ University, I've heard plenty of criticism — much of it fair. Here are the five most common objections, and my response to each.
1. The AIQ Framework Lacks Validation
Critics argue there is "no peer-reviewed validation, no standardized measurement methodology" for AIQ. I concede the framework remains unproven. But the observable differences in how people work with AI are real and warrant rigorous study. I'm looking for cognitive scientists and psychometricians to help design measurement studies that get this right.
2. No Viable Funding Strategy
The concern that physical campuses require massive capital investment is valid. Rather than presenting a complete financial model I don't have, the honest answer is to identify the smallest viable first step — one degree, one campus, one city — while exploring European funding mechanisms and potential university partnerships.
3. Sint-Truiden Seems Parochial
Some are skeptical about starting in my Belgian hometown. But every global institution begins somewhere specific. The location represents practicality and sentiment, not a limit on ambition.
4. Curriculum Cannot Keep Pace with AI
This is the sharpest criticism, and it gets a deliberate response: AIQ credentials would include expiration dates requiring periodic recalibration. Traditional degrees remain static; AIQ certifications would demand ongoing renewal. The curriculum is designed to keep moving because the frontier keeps moving.
5. Students Become Less Capable
I'd reframe this one. The institution's job is to raise standards, not blame the technology. The same was said of calculators, which freed mathematics students from routine computation toward more complex problem-solving. The bar should move up, not stay where it was.
Final Thought
There's a difference between an idea and a reality. I'm inviting collaboration to turn this concept into substantive action — and that means taking every objection seriously, one at a time.