*because
I think the marker could also do with some improvement of their writing style.
"You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
171–180 of 266 posts
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#172AI Detection services are the oiliest of snake oils. Seems like education is going to need to change drastically in the next few years. Maybe we'll go all the way back to oral examinations again.
Mathematics programs in Europe still use oral examinations, though they are increasingly rare in the United States. I'm not European, but I have always preferred oral examinations over written examinations because I can actually communicate my understanding of the problem to the professor and outline my thought process towards a solution, something that is much harder to do in writing, especially since you cannot get any hints or feedback on your attempts during a written examination -- you're on your own.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#173I am an educator at a UK university. The essay is rapidly ceasing to be an appropriate way to assess students knowledge and critical thinking. We regularly organise in person face to face practical exams for our entire several hundred strong year group of undergraduates. It is possible to do assessment properly if the will is there.
When I was a student at a uk university, essays were, I think, written in examinations where one can’t easily use AI, as were most of the other things one would need for a degree. There was a small coursework component of my course and I think others. But I’m still a bit surprised — surely if you are getting a coursework essay from a history or English student or similar, the AI will be a worse writer and won’t have sufficiently detailed knowledge to write about the topic, so either the essay won’t really make any sense if you think about it (which you’d hope examiners would be able to tell) or the student will have done their own research and gotten the AI to form the students opinions into the essay, but they will then likely synthesise a much worse essay than the one the student could have written.
Doing practicals seems good, and I think proctored examinations can add objectivity too.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#174[dead]
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn’t be using AI detectors. They aren’t accurate and other approaches to teaching need to be used instead of leaning on old methods: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8313351-how-can-educator...
What are those "other approaches". Just in-person exams, right?
It's frustrating that I can't know for certain who's going to win the 2024 election, but that doesn't mean I'd be justified in making a prediction based on a magic 8 ball.
AI detectors don't work.
If there aren't any other tools and methods that do detect AI, that genuinely stinks, it's a difficult problem. I definitely sympathize. But all the sympathizing in the world won't change the fact that AI detectors don't work. There are lots of unsolved problems in the world, and they don't justify putting weight behind non-solutions.
I don't know how to cure Alzheimer's disease, but I know that a TV healer can't cure it, and if doctors started prescribing TV healers it would be medical malpractice. Similarly, I don't know how to tell if an essay was AI written... but neither do the AI detectors, and it is unethical for professors to rely on them to make decisions about plagiarism.
When you have an unsolved problem and someone proposes a bad solution with bad consequences, what you end up with is the same unsolved problem, still unsolved, plus a newly created additional problem on top of it from your bad solution. You started with the problem of rampant plagiarism and cheating, now you have both a problem with rampant plagiarism and cheating, and a new problem with making baseless accusations of cheating against potentially honest students with no real evidence.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel cheated by my school years, because I was led to believe that regurgitation of facts is very important. Which school is that? I guess that's probably true of primary or middle / lower secondary school, but I don't feel like regurgitation of facts was particularly endorsed in my experience at upper secondary level, let alone at university level. There might of course be quite a bit of variation between countr…
> but I don't feel like regurgitation of facts was particularly endorsed in my experience at upper secondary level, In my high school experience, most classes could be aced through rote regurgitation of facts. Math class required another step - identification of which category of problem you have, and rote application of one of a few pre-calc/calc algorithms.
Damn right! I got awesome grades, no idea how anything worked(s) though!
There were definitely people in my uni course who got worse grades, but who had a better understanding of the material.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
One someone is standing in front of the room talking it doesn't really matter if there is one person in the room or 1 billion. sure you need a PA system and other technology to support a large crowd, but otherwise it doesn't matter. Most students would prefer to be in a large room with someone who is a great speaker vs a small room with less. If you do have questions - that is what the TA is for and you get to see th…
That's only true of lecture and your hypothesis about answering all potential questions is out of whack with how humans actually learn. Someone asking a question might just be a matter of not hearing something repeated enough times or maybe they just need to hear it phrased in a different way. Even with large classes, there are usually a bunch of TAs to try and provide more one-on-one help and often labs that exist s…
For the record: I fully agree with you. there is good reason things are done in large lectures anyway, but they are not really great.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm assuming this is America? 300 person classes is insane, particular how much debt's involved. I've studied in the UK and EU, and I don't think I've ever been in a class larger than 40.
I have a Dutch CS degree, we had about 200 new freshmen every year. 40 seems excessively low for popular degrees.
same in austria and germany. undergrad lectures usually have hundreds of students.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#179It feels more and more like we need to rethink what scoring schoolwork means. Worksheets and exams can show how familiar you are with the material, or they can be gamed or useless in some other way. But the best they can ever do is show familiarity. What I really want as a consumer of someone's grade or academic history is how well they WORK in the subject area, along with how well they work with other people, not ju…
College admissions have known this for a long time which is why test scores aren't an automatic entrance. Your schools sound irresponsibly myopic.
Colleges are no different at the undergraduate level in many, if not most, courses. Identify what the professor wants to see or hear, repeat it back.
Lab work is probably the biggest exception, in that you tend to need to apply some practical knowledge, but even then I found TAs were very willing to hold your hand through it if you at least demonstrated you had reviewed and memorized any prep materials.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#180As a professor at a community college, I am very hesitant to just declare something is AI generated unless is it very clear. If I suspect something is AI generated I run it through 3 different checkers that I found online and if they don't all agree then I don't call it plagiarism. Normally the writing is so vague that it isn't more than a C anyway.
So you know the detectors are worthless, and you are using them to fail students anyway?
jfc education is dead