Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 771 posts

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#191

Post by tengwar2 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #138
ant6n wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m 40 and forcing students to do handwritten essays during tests has always been stupid. Typing is much faster, why bottleneck ideas by forcing handwriting?

I'm 50. Optimizing testing for speed is goofy. The point of the exercise is to demonstrate the student's understanding of the material, not their WPM.

I'm 60+. I'd be more concerned about the student's physical ability to write for several hours continuously. Writer's cramp used to be a problem, and that was when we were used to hand-writing everything. Legibility is also a consideration: I have to hand-write a lot(keyboards would not be socially acceptable for some of my work), and even with decades of practice and a hand that I designed for legibility, sometimes I have difficulty reading my own writing.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#192

Post by WalterBright »

When I visited Yale recently, a professor who taught comp sci complained to me that most of his students were using AI to do the work. I asked him if he knew which students wanted to learn. He said yes. I suggested he teach to them, and to heck with the cheaters.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#193

Post by JoshTriplett »

Lerc wrote: post #188
recursivedoubts wrote: post #57

In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written. I have written an article on how I have adjusted my classes to the situation: https://htmx.org/essays/universities-and-ai/ Ironically, I think the AI era may make university degrees a better signal of the intellectual abilities of students due to the presence of pre-computer infrastructure like large lecture halls, industrial-scale copiers, etc.

Why hand written? Wouldn't a one-on-one interview be a better way to establish a broad evaluation of competency.

> Wouldn't a one-on-one interview be a better way to establish a broad evaluation of competency.

1) Possibly, depending on the material, but most classes aren't looking for a "broad evaluation of competency", they're looking for the specific material taught. It'd make more sense as a graduation requirement: the equivalent of a dissertation but for undergraduate work.

2) Even in small classes (e.g. 20-30 students) that wouldn't scale, let alone the massive courses earlier in a curriculum or that are shared by many degrees (e.g. hundreds of students).

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#194

Post by Yossarrian22 »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #57

In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written. I have written an article on how I have adjusted my classes to the situation: https://htmx.org/essays/universities-and-ai/ Ironically, I think the AI era may make university degrees a better signal of the intellectual abilities of students due to the presence of pre-computer infrastructure like large lecture halls, industrial-scale copiers, etc.

I recommend reading this article, there is a very good reason that's not an option for this professor.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#195

Post by handoflixue »

davesque wrote: post #105
llbbdd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment. I want my doctor/plumber/etc to be able to recall faster, type faster, work better under pressure. If you're better at those things you should get better grades and be paid more.

What if taking longer leads to a better result? Doesn't faster imply less thought?

People can have multiple values. Tradeoffs exist. Are faster ambulances worse for you?

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#196

Post by 1123581321 »

xp84 wrote: post #171
dwattttt wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your test is bottlenecked on the speed it takes to write it, you're testing writing skills. I also challenge that "hand writing is harder to revise"; again, why is the speed it takes to write it at all relevant?

> challenge "hand writing is harder to revise" What? Suppose you want to fix the opening of your essay. Best case it's pencil and you can erase some, but worst case you have a longer sentence you want to put in there so you can't do it without scribbling all over and making a mess of the page. Word processors let you edit. How is this controversial? > why is the speed it takes to write it at all relevant? Okay, so fr…

It’s fine to erase or use scratch paper on an essay test.

You don’t write the test to fill the 60 minute slot. You time it so students are able to finish early if they’re really good. Slow ones need the whole time but can still do well if they understand the material being tested.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#198

Post by encomiast »

WalterBright wrote: post #184
encomiast wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think everybody should be able to write cursive As someone who has hated both reading and writing cursive since middle school, I'm curious what is significant about cursive specifically?

Doing work with handwriting helps in learning the material. I don't know why that works, but my experience (and others') clearly shows it does.

That's been my experience as well. I'm just curious about cursive writing specifically.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#199

Post by yiyingzhang »

As a university professor, I honestly don't understand the point of grading. Who will look at and care about grades? Likely company HR. But then why should we (professors) do the screening for companies for free? Also, grades have long been inflated to a point we might as well just give everyone an A and let companies figure out how to select people.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#200

Post by aneesh »

This is not surprising. While cheating has always been around, it seems to be more prevalent now with high pressure and easy access.

I’ve talked to a bunch of teachers and school leaders, and see three main ways schools are handling AI use in assessments:

1. Punish it: Detect AI use on homework and take home exams; treat it as cheating.

2. Prevent it: Move to live assessments – oral or offline – that are hard to cheat on.

3. Embrace it: Assess the process, not the output.

The second one seems to be the only real answer for foundational subjects. And the third one can also work for more creative or project-based work.

Post reply on HN