What higher education institution is going to listen to kids that say “this course is useless”? The administrators will argue the kids lack the experience to make that call. In my experience the institution hard codifies the paths so much that they forget to look to reality. Sometimes that still makes sense - I know a lot of good engineers that graduated through my college, but I also know of many individuals that skated through classes to get the certification just to move into the real world & use none of their experience in education, because it added little value to their roles in business. The certification (generic college degree) is probably upheld a little to much by the real world as a signal for competency for too many roles, exacerbating the issue of these institutions believing they have something of great value the participants should seek to aquire regardless of method or cost.
We have proof a professor gave a test in a required course and the students used the machine to get an answer in a class they were forced to take to get a degree. That doesn't tell us they will be cheaters for life or that they lack judgment. It tells us they didn't care about the class, and there's likely a good reason it didn't matter to them. By your own logic that was a rational call.
As to whether those kids are lazy or unethical, I would bet most of those students are using the machine every day to expand and amplify their own agency against the things that are important to them. You could surmise that if they were using the machine every day to amplify their own agency, they should have had enough good judgment to at least read and retain the machine's output. But by not reading it, they only emphasized how unimportant the test and the class were to them.
I agree Brown and the rest of higher education are doomed if they don't change the model. But the professor has an even bigger challenge. If he doesn't figure out how to survive in the world of AI, he becomes the dinosaur, while his students likely will flourish, because they hold agency that has never before existed.
The real gap, the one your chart exposed but your essay never name, there is likely a missing layer that needs to be filled between humans and the machine. That layer needs to focus on intent, persistent specification, and continuous improvement on the path to achievement.
The course is likely worthless in its current form. The issue I have with the students is they should have said so. Not simply cheated. They did cheat. Modern definition might not say so, but Balmer would.
I gladly admit I use AI a lot. I do not hide it. I also know how to do the work. The person with both those skills will do loops around others.
What higher education institution is going to listen to kids that say “this course is useless”? The administrators will argue the kids lack the experience to make that call. In my experience the institution hard codifies the paths so much that they forget to look to reality. Sometimes that still makes sense - I know a lot of good engineers that graduated through my college, but I also know of many individuals that skated through classes to get the certification just to move into the real world & use none of their experience in education, because it added little value to their roles in business. The certification (generic college degree) is probably upheld a little to much by the real world as a signal for competency for too many roles, exacerbating the issue of these institutions believing they have something of great value the participants should seek to aquire regardless of method or cost.
Carter, I think you missed the big picture.
We have proof a professor gave a test in a required course and the students used the machine to get an answer in a class they were forced to take to get a degree. That doesn't tell us they will be cheaters for life or that they lack judgment. It tells us they didn't care about the class, and there's likely a good reason it didn't matter to them. By your own logic that was a rational call.
As to whether those kids are lazy or unethical, I would bet most of those students are using the machine every day to expand and amplify their own agency against the things that are important to them. You could surmise that if they were using the machine every day to amplify their own agency, they should have had enough good judgment to at least read and retain the machine's output. But by not reading it, they only emphasized how unimportant the test and the class were to them.
I agree Brown and the rest of higher education are doomed if they don't change the model. But the professor has an even bigger challenge. If he doesn't figure out how to survive in the world of AI, he becomes the dinosaur, while his students likely will flourish, because they hold agency that has never before existed.
The real gap, the one your chart exposed but your essay never name, there is likely a missing layer that needs to be filled between humans and the machine. That layer needs to focus on intent, persistent specification, and continuous improvement on the path to achievement.
The course is likely worthless in its current form. The issue I have with the students is they should have said so. Not simply cheated. They did cheat. Modern definition might not say so, but Balmer would.
I gladly admit I use AI a lot. I do not hide it. I also know how to do the work. The person with both those skills will do loops around others.