Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Education AI

'AI Role in College Brings Education Closer To a Crisis Point' (bloomberg.com) 72

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Bloomberg's editorial board warned Tuesday that AI has created an "untenable situation" in higher education where students routinely outsource homework to chatbots while professors struggle to distinguish computer-generated work from human writing. The editorial described a cycle where assignments that once required days of research can now be completed in minutes through AI prompts, leaving students who still do their own work looking inferior to peers who rely on technology.

The board said that professors have begun using AI tools themselves to evaluate student assignments, creating what it called a scenario of "computers grading papers written by computers, students and professors idly observing, and parents paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for the privilege."

The editorial argued that widespread AI use in coursework undermines the broader educational mission of developing critical thinking skills and character formation, particularly in humanities subjects. Bloomberg's board recommended that colleges establish clearer policies on acceptable AI use, increase in-class assessments including oral exams, and implement stronger honor codes with defined consequences for violations.

'AI Role in College Brings Education Closer To a Crisis Point' More | Reply

'AI Role in College Brings Education Closer To a Crisis Point'

Comments Filter:

  • Not every school is Ivy League (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm sure there are still a few honest schools around.

  • And we can add Cursive back to the curriculum while we're at it.

  • Wouldn't mind if people learn from it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @02:11PM (#65408097)
    But they aren't. They use AI instead of learning. People can't state a problem, describe the issue, and recommend a solution. Also can't explain two sides of an issue and compare them. Now, a lot of people couldn't do this before AI came along, but you learn from trying. Now people can just input the question and hand in the answer, with no thought process involved.

    • But they aren't. They use AI instead of learning.

      Speak for yourself. I'm quickly learning that [Baby AI] anything delivering the news is far superior to the real thing.

      Don't disagree with that smirk on your face.

    • When I was a kid I sat down to learn basic on my commodore 64 and hit a wall because I couldn't understand data statements.

      I only had one book and I didn't understand the description of the data statements in that book and my dumb kid brain was incapable of wrapping its head around it. I couldn't even tell you why. As an adult it was the simplest thing in the world but as a kid it was completely Greek.

      If I had had access to the internet alone let alone a chatbot I could have had data statements expl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ve3oat ( 884827 )
      Maybe young people of this tendency should have to pass (by themselves) an IQ/aptitude test before being granted full citizenship on turning 16/18/21 years of age, otherwise it is off to El Salvador with them.

  • Don't grade homework. Test critical thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Talondel ( 693866 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @02:15PM (#65408113)
    Homework assignments, and frankly any work done outside of a controlled environment, should serve only to prepare people for the work that will be done on an exam in a controlled environment. If students want to use AI to complete those assignments they are free to do so. But it likely won't do a good job of preparing them to do the work on an exam. Multiple choice exams and short form writing assignments under controlled conditions (i.e. no electronics, or laptops locked out of anything other than exam writing software) are well suited to assess factual knowledge and the ability to apply those facts to novel circumstances. The problem here isn't that people don't know how to create an assessment that can't be completed by an AI. The problem is that they are unwilling to do so. They are locked into a mindset where take home assignments and projects count for large parts of the grade or where they aren't willing to lock people into a controlled environment for testing. Partly because they can't envision a better way and partly because they're too lazy to do so. The underlying problem is that there's a fundamental disconnect between why people really attend college or post graduate programs and why the people teaching them think they do. People are not there to learn. They are there to get a certificate that says they've learned. Preferably while doing the least amount of actual learning possible. The real value of a degree is not what you learn to get the degree. It's the degree itself. If universities and professors think that it's more important that the people they are purporting to educate are actually educated there are fairly simple ways to accomplish that. But they have to recognize that their students (and a large share of professors) are not going to quietly adapt to that new paradigm without objection. It will be difficult and messy and may require them to ask students to 'unlearn' everything they did to be 'successful' in academics up to that point.

    • Indeed. Assign reading homework, and maybe some practice questions so the student knows whether or not they understood the material, then do the work in class so that you know if the student can do it or not and you can find out where they're failing to get the concepts. You could also prerecord lectures, and replace lecture classes with lecture-watching assignments and a forum where questions can be addressed — and the best answers to prior questions can be pinned for the next class. There's no reaso

      • Assign reading homework

        But why do the reading if you can just generate answers to all assignments using AI?

        prerecord lectures, and replace lecture classes with lecture-watching assignments

        AI is really good at this. Hey Copilot, summarize this content and then answer these questions:

        There's no reason to force students to sit in a room for hours so they can listen to you talk

        This is a terrible instructional strategy and was terrible before AI.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dvice ( 6309704 )

          No missed the point. The idea was that your homework is just to read and watch the video. Nothing else. After reading and watching at home, you go to school and inside the classroom you write the reports and answers questions.

          So you can cheat by asking AI to summarize, but then you will just fail at school when you are not able to do the assignments.

    • Re:Don't grade homework. Test critical thinking. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @02:57PM (#65408303) Journal

      Right and homework is still plenty useful.

      Some of the best classes I had the instructors assigned work, it did not count toward your grade. You could turn it in or not. If you did they'd score it and give you feedback.

      Home work should not be part of the assessment function of teaching. It should be 'here is a curated set of exercise that I the instructor think will help cement the concepts I was trying to impart to you the student, and in reviewing your solutions provide me the diagnostic information to assist you further as required.'

      That way there is no incentive to cheat, or even to just 'blaze thru it'. If you don't think you need the practice you can just skip it. No need to waste the professor or some TA's time slogging thru your AI generated whatever just to go thru the motion. The students that want practice have intelligently chosen activities to practice at, and a path way to get expert feedback.

      • Some of the best classes I had the instructors assigned work, it did not count toward your grade. You could turn it in or not. If you did they'd score it and give you feedback.

        Many of the best ones I had did this. The lecturers assigned work, you did the work and then turned up to tutorials. Some tutors asked for work to be handed in (almost none of mine did) and almost non ever got round to marking it (except for the only one I has who took it in). The actual point of the tutorials is you then go over the

    • If we don't grade homework how do we decide who is and isn't worthy of food, shelter and medicine?

      What? Are you just going to give food, shelter and medicine to everybody?

    • Just to be clear, the reason anyone cares about accurately assessing what students learned is to give them that certificate. There are in fact plenty of us who went to college because we were curious and wanted to learn. Tests have never served that purpose. They are work done solely for the benefit of the schools to help them preserve the value of their certificate. AI threatens that quality control and they will have to come up with some other way to do it. That benefits students only to the extent it add

  • Of all the classes I took (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lunati Senpai ( 10167723 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @02:16PM (#65408127)

    The ones that served me the most of the years were an odd logic course on writing out formal proofs.

    Sociology and different communities that required original research as part of the class along with showing work.

    And finally just regular speech classes, on being able to present and go over a topic, along with project management.

    Every job I've had after college consistently requires those skills in my day to day.

    Other classes, like even coding, computer systems and programing helped. But the best professors often had little home work, and forced students to engage live in class, or along with the TAs. Showing your work in person, and showing you have the skills, live is worth it.

  • We have an end to graded homework, that contributes to the final grade. I don't think we can fix this, but we don't have to. Homework was not always how college courses operated.

    We could have graded homework to show the students how they were doing, to prepare them for the in-class exams, written by hand (or with some inexpensive typing tool provided for class use, no connectivity), but the homework would not contribute to the final grade. So using LLMs would gain the student nothing.

    • True, we need to think outside the box. Go back to in-person oral exams. If you can't explain what you know out loud, then you don't know it. I know, nobody has time to listen to all that, so... have an AI grade the transcript.

      • I know, nobody has time to listen to all that, so... have an AI grade the transcript.

        Just train AI to do an in-person exam. Problem solved. Of course, why not just let AI teach the course then? Why have people go to Universities at all then? I think here may be some good answers to those questions, but AI cheating is not really the problem. The problem is AI is making a lot of what Universities do obsolete.

  • Simple Solution: Just Require In-Person Exams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @02:47PM (#65408263)

    There's a very easy solution to this AI problem: grades can just be based on in-person exams that are either administered on paper or a closed software environment that prohibits AI usage.

    If the class demands a formal paper, it shouldn't ever just be a cold "turn it in" situation. Something like a thesis should be developed with in-person discussions about the state of the research and the student's progress. Those discussions should be touchpoints for evaluating whether the student is understanding the material and really thinking through. That means that such papers only really work in a small seminar environment.

    What is obsolete is the sort of class where students are asked to write a 10-page discussion of a given topic and then the professor just grades that paper cold. I doubt we are ever going to be able to adequately police whether that 10-page analysis of Kantian ethics was written with AI assistance. Likewise, STEM classes with problem sets should only use those problem sets for learning and not for evaluation. If the student wants to use AI on the problem sets they can, but they won't be able to use AI to help them on the exam.

    • These days, there are a lot of augmented reality glasses that aren't always easy to distinguish from "dumb" glasses. These will pose a problem even for in-person tests.

      • Not necessarily that different from the old days of hiding notes in your clothing, writing on your arm, or cribbing off the person next to you. Perhaps they will get better, but I don't know of any current AR glasses that are completely indistinguishable from regular classes to anybody who knows what to look for. You can also require checking phones (similar to many concerts and entertainment events) and locking down any computers so they can't communicate with external devices like AR glasses.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        These days, there are a lot of augmented reality glasses that aren't always easy to distinguish from "dumb" glasses. These will pose a problem even for in-person tests.

        Nah we just aggressively tease and ostracize everyone wearing glasses. "Shut up four eyes", "Get lost poindexter", "love the glasses, anything covers some of face is win"... and so on.

        It will be while before affordable AR contact lenses products exist. That should buy us a decade at least.

    • So they became unfashionable. There is a significant industry in academia proving that all examinations are biased. So best of luck arguing for that against those who believe that 'all should have prizes'.

  • Adapt (Score:5, Interesting)

    by farble1670 ( 803356 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @03:23PM (#65408395)

    1. In-class essays.
    2. Verbal comprehension evaluation.

    Professors might actually have to get involved in teaching.

    It's not using AI that's the problem. Problem is using AI to produce a result without understanding the result. Everyone is already or will be using AI in their jobs in 5 years. Not getting students ready for that world is a mistake.

    AI isn't as big as the internet was, but it's close. Teaching will have to adapt.

    • Everyone is already or will be using AI in their jobs in 5 years. Not getting students ready for that world is a mistake.

      These are two different skills that need to be taught, but not in the same context. When we teach history, languages, physics, etc. we want students to be competent on their own. We can find countless classical examples:
      * we teach students to solve equations even though math software can do that faster. We also teach mathematical software, separately.
      * we teach mechanical and civil engineering students to know how to make the calculations on paper (at least in simple cases) even though they certainly be us

    • Problem is using AI to produce a result without understanding the result. Everyone is already or will be using AI in their jobs in 5 years. Not getting students ready for that world is a mistake.

      One has to walk before one can try to run. One has to walk before one can try to dance.

      This vision of producing capable independent thinkers who meld their own knowledge with that provided by machines tools sounds great. But how does a student get there, if they never ever stand alone and show they can think at all without the mental crutches? How do you judge their own capabilities without asking them to at least sometimes put down the crutches? How do they improve themselves in their role as AI partne

  • If they want to short circuit their education, let them. But institute a proctored, mandatory exam like the Bar for STEM fields. And be ruthless about it. Can't pass the test? Tough titty. Try again.

    Stop protecting people from themselves.

  • everyone's doing it (Score:3)

    by Big Hairy Gorilla ( 9839972 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2025 @03:46PM (#65408477)
    Where are the teachers who spoke up on the other similar discussions?
    They are saying BOTH students AND teachers are using it. And no one is happy. Article last week said student is suing school because the Professor is wimping out with AI to do his work.

    This is the formal definition of cluster fuck. No one knows what tf is going on or how to proceed.

    Take the idea that everyone without exception is gaming the system to get the piece of paper to get the job. Pretty much no one professes the ideals of pure learning. We have an "educational industrial complex". A money making machine, who's days are numbered. Kids are beginning to see that there is no "piece of paper" worth paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for, you'll just end up in debt. The universities and colleges are shitting a brick seeing things that are scaring away the cash cows: foreign students. And businesses are cutting back on hiring entry level positions.

    This is the perfect storm to end not just the educational industrial complex. We're going to have a bulge of young people for whom there is no demand.

    As a society, we have a significant looming problem. There is no road map or even discussion going on as to wtf happens when we just don't need those people to enter the work force or to get educated. Our broad social contract of how our society works, is unraveling.

  • If a student in some field can now fool a university professor with generated knowledge, then someone will write a ChatGPT wrapper for that field and sell it to their future employer as a service, rendering the degree useless.

  • You paid for the class. The rest is up to you. If you don't do the work, you don't learn the subject.

    If you just want to buy a degree, fine -but there are cheap online schools for that.
    If you just want to learn how to use a LLM to generate papers for you, fine -it's a valid skill, but you are wasting your money on college.

    Why are you attending college?

  • I’ve always viewed AI as a collaborator, not a competitor—especially in creative and intellectual domains. For years, I’ve dismissed opposition to AI in education as just the next wave of calculator panic: I remember when using a TI-30 in math class (full disclosure: Jimmy Carter was president) was considered tantamount to cheating. But after reading the recent Bloomberg editorial and the disturbing clarity of the NYMag feature [nymag.com] it linked to on AI abuse in college, I’m starting to re

    • Very interesting and articulate. I, also, can't see how many of our current assumptions can possibly continue without question.

      I think what you, and other commenters, are sort of describing is the Greek gymnasium ... they did it all by talking ... you have to be there face to face ... I doubt there is any other way. There is no one who wants to pursue true transparent excellence. Only the eccentric.

      Many will say, "for what purpose?"
      Why bother pursuing excellence, robot is cheaper, not better, but apparently

  • I actually decided to READ the article and wow, what a let down that was. Nothing at all new added to the conversation on an important topic that does need addressing, for everyone's sake.

    Schools should really break down exactly what is acceptable use for AI and what is considered cheating. Say you have to write a term paper on topic 'x'. You could ask AI something like "I'm having a hard time writing my term paper on 'x'. Can you give me some ideas to work with?" It's an open ended question that should get

  • “For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.”
      Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, circa 330 BCE

  • I don't really understand the pass given to colleges. Even before AI I have a college I'm in a lawsuit for the professor not preparing for classes and abusing children for his faults.

    AI could teach better than this easily. The bar isn't high. I can tell also by the quality of the junior engineers that college isn't everything. You will more likely find someone with drive, that is the difference.

    I lost my leg to cancer. College was hell. I didn't really enjoy it at all. I didn't have fun. The people wh

  • You've heard of something called the "Age of Reason"? It's over.The internet made information available to everyone but people still needed knowledge to be able to use that information.

    AI is ending the need for human reason. AI has made any knowledge you have obsolete. It not only has the information it knows how to use it.

    What it can't handle are things that can't be determined by reason. Humans are irrational. They have emotions and values. And those things are essential to human society. Human intellig

  • Educators are being forced to evolve their service for the first time since the Victorian Era. Many fear they will be asked to grade homework themselves in upcoming reforms.

    More propaganda-masquerading-as-news at ten.

  • As AI does not and cannot give sources, professors could require sources for each thought.

  • so like with Math and calculators... you don't want students to use the tools they would 100% use at work???? Does not sound like your teaching at all. Sounds like your stuck in the past.

  • Handwritten papers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you hear that two rabbits escaped from the zoo and so far they have only recaptured 116 of them?

Close