Brown University just exposed a problem far bigger than cheating: a system charging $97,000 a year for credentials that may no longer prove competence.
Students aren't "thinking" anymore... they go with "easier" and pound AI for all the answers. They are learning how not to Think. Hence there is no learning. Where does this leave them as adults in the working world, in relationships, decision making. If that function of their brain, a function that has evolved since living in caves, stops evolving and in fact diminishes, what happens to "reasoning"? And how does "meaning" exist when there is no personal interest in learning anything? Will they all become AI bots, with AI emperors and a trillionaire at the helm living somewhere in the world apart from most of humanity? This whole thing is a conundrum and I cannot find the words but they're coming. I have to "think" more on it and learn.
Not on University AI issues, but on one particular graduate who, it appears, didn't have to bother with coursework. Same individual had a daddy endow said university with a wing. The bit of paper, as opposed to the actual work, has long been compromised in the USA.
"Knowing whether the answer is right, wrong, useful, dangerous, incomplete, biased, or nonsense… that’s where the value is moving."
Fred, you hit it here -- these days, most professions/employers want graduates who can think critically and apply what they learn, not just regurgitate content.
The big problem, is that sometimes is very hard to capture in modern assessments: when teaching math 101, for example, you really DO want to see if a student can produce 1 + 1 = 2. Or at least critically, if you provided an "answer" within the question saying "1 + 1 = 3", are you now assessing if students can tell that it is wrong.
Obviously with above, the student still doesn't have to think -- AI can catch this and point it out. Leading assessment theory says "well, give them things in the question that are not black/white as to what the answer could be, and now see if they can provide thought about the situation. That's far more real-world, but also not entirely impossible for AI to "do the homework" for the student (or at least getting there, as AI "learns" more as time goes on).
The mantra of the AI Gods is that "AI will do the easy jobs, humans will then focus on higher value tasks" -- so the problem now, especially with first year, second year courses particularly, is how do you take a first year student and have them"add value" right out of the gate? Usually, you are teaching them the job (that AI will do) so that when AI does the job incorrectly, the graduate would know how to detect or verify the AI's work. But that leads to assessment issues.
My career these days is as an educator -- and I'm running into this issue all the time and trying to strategize how to evolve assessments to better reflect the modern evolution.
Law school exams provide the perfect template for assessment. The question will not ask for example what are the elements of contract. Instead it will provide a complex story with as many legal traps in it as possible, and invite you to analyse by applying the relevant laws to the fact pattern in the hypothetical provided by the story question. Remembering the elements of contract, tbe various torts, the relevant rules of civil or criminal procedure, the law of property: this is the easy part. But applying the law to the facts presented is like musical sightreading: you have a set of skills but you have never seen the piece before. No cheating possible given no laptops or take-home tests.
Primary school teachers complain that 6 year olds are showing up in diapers, can’t count, don’t know the alphabet, can’t spell their names, can’t sit still, can’t control their emotions and some are violent. Some don’t care if they get an F - the attitude is AI knows all this stuff why should I?
By the time they get to post secondary school?
A literature instructor (Tyler Jagt, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education) said not a single student in his class could finish an assigned 20-page article — something he read “without complaint” as an undergrad a decade earlier. One student admitted they lost track of what the paper was even about partway through.
At Wellesley, a professor said the baseline for “reasonable work” has dropped so much that a 750-word essay now strikes many students as long, forcing him to cut readings.
Professors broadly report students who “could not discern key points in articles, stumbled over vocabulary words, or were unable to synthesize readings without altering their meaning” — and students themselves say reading is “hard, confusing.”
Parent Teacher relations?
Parents:
Blame the teacher /curriculum:
“You’re not explaining it the right way — my kid learns differently.”
“The homework load is unreasonable, that’s why he didn’t finish it.”
“You clearly don’t like my daughter.”
“Maybe if you made the class more engaging, he wouldn’t be bored and acting out.”
Blaming other students:
“He only did that because so-and-so provoked him first.”
“She’s just not around the right kind of kids in this class.”
Minimizing or denying the behavior:
“That doesn’t sound like him at all — are you sure it happened that way?”
“Boys will be boys, you’re overreacting.”
“It’s just a phase, you’re making a bigger deal of this than it is.”
Grade/assessment pushback without addressing effort:
“She’s gifted, this grade doesn’t reflect her real ability.”
“He’s bored because the work is beneath him, not because he’s not trying.”
One professor described feeling “like a cruise director organizing games of shuffleboard” from constantly lowering the bar to “meet students where they are.”
Kids are reading less, thinking less critically, and leaning on AI to skip the hard parts — while too many parents shield them from accountability instead of reinforcing it. Teachers are left fighting both fronts at once, watering down lessons or scrambling for AI-proof workarounds just to keep students engaged and honest.
Thanks Fred- this article really triggered thought. Can’t help but wonder when critical thinking began to diverge for the generation in Browns study. I was raised in a curious household-debate and discussion was part of all education including university, so we had a solid grasp on what we were taught. A method of learning that follows a person thru life. Heartbreaking this generation is faced with the idea that grades achieved thru instant knowledge (AI and simply info a click away). Once these young people hit the work force and realize they don’t actually have the skills their grades indicated , anxiety/depression and a host of other mental health challenges will set in. To no fault of their own they have let down. You don’t know what you don’t know
Great post Fred! Ya, you know your purpose for AI, for students it has become a form of cheating, sadly, & not learning. AI is not everything it is cracked up to be.
Students aren't "thinking" anymore... they go with "easier" and pound AI for all the answers. They are learning how not to Think. Hence there is no learning. Where does this leave them as adults in the working world, in relationships, decision making. If that function of their brain, a function that has evolved since living in caves, stops evolving and in fact diminishes, what happens to "reasoning"? And how does "meaning" exist when there is no personal interest in learning anything? Will they all become AI bots, with AI emperors and a trillionaire at the helm living somewhere in the world apart from most of humanity? This whole thing is a conundrum and I cannot find the words but they're coming. I have to "think" more on it and learn.
Well said, Jude.
My concern isn't that students are using AI... it's when they let AI do the thinking for them.
That's like going to the gym and watching someone else lift the weights.
You don't get stronger that way.
The tool isn't the problem.
Replacing your own judgment with it is.
Not on University AI issues, but on one particular graduate who, it appears, didn't have to bother with coursework. Same individual had a daddy endow said university with a wing. The bit of paper, as opposed to the actual work, has long been compromised in the USA.
That's exactly the danger.
Once people believe money or influence can buy the credential, trust in the credential starts to erode.
AI didn't create that problem... it simply exposed how fragile the system already was.
"Knowing whether the answer is right, wrong, useful, dangerous, incomplete, biased, or nonsense… that’s where the value is moving."
Fred, you hit it here -- these days, most professions/employers want graduates who can think critically and apply what they learn, not just regurgitate content.
The big problem, is that sometimes is very hard to capture in modern assessments: when teaching math 101, for example, you really DO want to see if a student can produce 1 + 1 = 2. Or at least critically, if you provided an "answer" within the question saying "1 + 1 = 3", are you now assessing if students can tell that it is wrong.
Obviously with above, the student still doesn't have to think -- AI can catch this and point it out. Leading assessment theory says "well, give them things in the question that are not black/white as to what the answer could be, and now see if they can provide thought about the situation. That's far more real-world, but also not entirely impossible for AI to "do the homework" for the student (or at least getting there, as AI "learns" more as time goes on).
The mantra of the AI Gods is that "AI will do the easy jobs, humans will then focus on higher value tasks" -- so the problem now, especially with first year, second year courses particularly, is how do you take a first year student and have them"add value" right out of the gate? Usually, you are teaching them the job (that AI will do) so that when AI does the job incorrectly, the graduate would know how to detect or verify the AI's work. But that leads to assessment issues.
My career these days is as an educator -- and I'm running into this issue all the time and trying to strategize how to evolve assessments to better reflect the modern evolution.
The professors are students now, themselves. ;-)
Grant, I think you nailed the challenge.
We still have to teach the fundamentals before students can judge whether AI got it right.
You can't fact-check the machine if you don't know the subject yourself.
The job of education is shifting from producing answers to producing good judgment.
As you say, the professors have become students again... and that may be the biggest lesson AI has taught all of us.
Law school exams provide the perfect template for assessment. The question will not ask for example what are the elements of contract. Instead it will provide a complex story with as many legal traps in it as possible, and invite you to analyse by applying the relevant laws to the fact pattern in the hypothetical provided by the story question. Remembering the elements of contract, tbe various torts, the relevant rules of civil or criminal procedure, the law of property: this is the easy part. But applying the law to the facts presented is like musical sightreading: you have a set of skills but you have never seen the piece before. No cheating possible given no laptops or take-home tests.
That's a great example.
Memorizing information has value, but applying it is where real competence shows up.
I think more disciplines will have to move toward that kind of assessment...
less "What do you know?" and more "What can you do with what you know?"
🇨🇦💙 Cheating on exams is the least of it.
Primary school teachers complain that 6 year olds are showing up in diapers, can’t count, don’t know the alphabet, can’t spell their names, can’t sit still, can’t control their emotions and some are violent. Some don’t care if they get an F - the attitude is AI knows all this stuff why should I?
By the time they get to post secondary school?
A literature instructor (Tyler Jagt, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education) said not a single student in his class could finish an assigned 20-page article — something he read “without complaint” as an undergrad a decade earlier. One student admitted they lost track of what the paper was even about partway through.
At Wellesley, a professor said the baseline for “reasonable work” has dropped so much that a 750-word essay now strikes many students as long, forcing him to cut readings.
Professors broadly report students who “could not discern key points in articles, stumbled over vocabulary words, or were unable to synthesize readings without altering their meaning” — and students themselves say reading is “hard, confusing.”
Parent Teacher relations?
Parents:
Blame the teacher /curriculum:
“You’re not explaining it the right way — my kid learns differently.”
“The homework load is unreasonable, that’s why he didn’t finish it.”
“You clearly don’t like my daughter.”
“Maybe if you made the class more engaging, he wouldn’t be bored and acting out.”
Blaming other students:
“He only did that because so-and-so provoked him first.”
“She’s just not around the right kind of kids in this class.”
Minimizing or denying the behavior:
“That doesn’t sound like him at all — are you sure it happened that way?”
“Boys will be boys, you’re overreacting.”
“It’s just a phase, you’re making a bigger deal of this than it is.”
Grade/assessment pushback without addressing effort:
“She’s gifted, this grade doesn’t reflect her real ability.”
“He’s bored because the work is beneath him, not because he’s not trying.”
One professor described feeling “like a cruise director organizing games of shuffleboard” from constantly lowering the bar to “meet students where they are.”
Kids are reading less, thinking less critically, and leaning on AI to skip the hard parts — while too many parents shield them from accountability instead of reinforcing it. Teachers are left fighting both fronts at once, watering down lessons or scrambling for AI-proof workarounds just to keep students engaged and honest.
Roxy, there are a lot of issues tangled together there, but I do think one thing is clear... learning requires effort.
AI can't replace curiosity, discipline, or critical thinking.
If we lower expectations instead of helping students meet them, we're not doing them any favours.
Those are the skills they'll need long after today's technology changes.
Thanks Fred- this article really triggered thought. Can’t help but wonder when critical thinking began to diverge for the generation in Browns study. I was raised in a curious household-debate and discussion was part of all education including university, so we had a solid grasp on what we were taught. A method of learning that follows a person thru life. Heartbreaking this generation is faced with the idea that grades achieved thru instant knowledge (AI and simply info a click away). Once these young people hit the work force and realize they don’t actually have the skills their grades indicated , anxiety/depression and a host of other mental health challenges will set in. To no fault of their own they have let down. You don’t know what you don’t know
Thanks, Shelley.
I think that's exactly the risk.
AI can give you answers instantly, but it can't give you understanding.
If students mistake one for the other, the real test comes after graduation, when life asks questions AI can't answer for them.
Great post Fred! Ya, you know your purpose for AI, for students it has become a form of cheating, sadly, & not learning. AI is not everything it is cracked up to be.
Exactly, Patsy.
AI can sharpen your thinking or replace it.
Used properly, it’s a tool.
Used as a substitute for learning, it’s just cheating with better grammar.
It is frightening just how many scenarios are critical to real knowledge. Pharmacy, medical field,
engineers etc. These fields, and many more cannot be replaced by AI, but only augmented.