College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
311–320 of 451 posts
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#312When I did my Computer Science degree the vast majority of courses were 50% final, 30% midterm - even programming exams were hand written, proctored by TAs in class or in the gymnasium - assignments/labs/projects were a small part of your grade but if you didn’t do them the likelihood you’d pass the term exams was pretty darn low. We already had AI proof education.
Writing papers is a useful skill to have. And many students aren't very good at that. I taught some classes during my Ph. D. and supervised some students with their master thesis and PhD thesis work. Many students get their degrees without that really getting addressed. At least Computer science degrees in the Netherlands just spend very little time on writing skills. You get students with high school levels of English and Dutch and that's it.
I learned to write properly only when I started my Ph. D. My supervisor made me do it right before he allowed me to submit papers for publication.
AI might actually be good for education long term. It will result in a more personalized approach, which I think is good. There are plenty of ways to test students that are more engaging and interesting for both teachers and students than some of the old ways. You can't fake knowledge when you do a verbal test. Or test people with a good old written exam.
And of course for teachers, you can automate a lot of the verification work. This can be a lot of work.
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
A critical difference between a calculator and an LLM is that a calculator doesn't make decisions. A calculator performs the operations you type in, nothing more. An LLM does make decisions. The human operator of the LLM needs to be able to evaluate the decisions made by the LLM. That requires education and experience beforehand. An LLM is a force multiplier only, not a replacement. It's a personal assistant to an ex…
continuing on personal asistant analogy, i bet even now we have ultra rich people who are not smart enough to do things themselves but are smart enough to buy (hire) smart people to work for them. And even allow them to make decisions without understanding them. But with only a guard rails : does this produce wealth for me. If yes, do what you need, i don't care :) So this i think is applicable to AI also, pay for sm…
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#314When I did my Computer Science degree the vast majority of courses were 50% final, 30% midterm - even programming exams were hand written, proctored by TAs in class or in the gymnasium - assignments/labs/projects were a small part of your grade but if you didn’t do them the likelihood you’d pass the term exams was pretty darn low. We already had AI proof education.
Then we did a university reform, partly with the excuse of aligning with the rest of the EU within the Bologna process (and I say "excuse" because that's what it was, because the politicians introduced some things with that pretense that weren't like that in the rest of the EU at all, and it was perfectly possible to comply with Bologna without doing them) and partly to copy the US/UK ways. And one of the pillars of that reform was continuous assessment, and evaluating coursework.
As a consequence of this, first of all working class students were royally screwed. Because suddenly it wasn't OK to just organize yourself to prepare the exam, you had to attend lots of sessions to earn points, which put students who work at a disadvantage. And second, passing by cheating became possible, even before LLMs. People tend to forget that before everyone got access to ChatGPT, some people had access to experts (family members, or even paying someone to do the work).
Now that this kind of cheating has been democratized and everyone can do it instead of just the most privileged with access to experts or money to pay them, people act all outraged. Although pretty much nothing is being done, except for using snake oil detectors, or sometimes increasing difficulty of assignments to make them LLM-proof (with which you screw the students who actually want to learn without LLMs).
They spent years indoctrinating us (professors) in training courses on how the old exam-based ways were wrong (the "Napoleonic" model, they called it... none of them seems to entertain the thought that maybe if it had been working essentially unchanged since Napoleon it wasn't that bad, and you need solid reasons to change it beyond "this is old so let's change") and the new ways were the bee's knees. Like in the Milgram experiment, it's difficult for people to back down and acknowledge that they have been wrong, even when the solution is obvious.
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#315When I did my Computer Science degree the vast majority of courses were 50% final, 30% midterm - even programming exams were hand written, proctored by TAs in class or in the gymnasium - assignments/labs/projects were a small part of your grade but if you didn’t do them the likelihood you’d pass the term exams was pretty darn low. We already had AI proof education.
My networking final in high school was probably my favorite test taking experience - there was a small written portion on eg subnets, but the bulk of our grade was setting up a physical network, testing it, and leaving the room. Our teacher sabotaged three parts of our network - could be hardware, router misconfiguration, etc. when we came in we had iirc 20-ish minutes to diagnose and fix it. The best was when she ba…
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#316you won't always have a calculator in your pocket
I remember having to split bar tabs by hand at the end of the night without a calculator. The waiter delivers a hand-written bill, and we'd calculate how much each person owed, splitting drinks individually and food equally, recalculating tax and tip to derive each person's total. We'd pool the cash in the middle of the table (with people taking their own change as they go where possible), then counting all the cash and making sure it still included sufficient tip. All after many pints. I do NOT miss those days.
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#317I'm old enough to remember a similar controversy over whether to allow calculators in math classes. While most schools were banning them to force kids to learn how to do math without them, my school went the other way. They mandated that every student had one and then changed the assignments and tests to account for it. Gone were questions that had whole number answers that could be computed in our heads. Instead, an…
It's an interesting debate, but I see several reasons not to.
1. As a human you need to learn gradually, e.g. in CS you need to learn the basics of programming before going into more complex stuff. If you embrace AI from the beginning, it can let you skip the basics (why would you code a simple 200-line program if the LLM can do it?) and then you don't have the fundamentals when you reach the more complex level where human thought is needed. It's a similar problem as firing the juniors (because AI can do their work) but then who will become senior if you have no juniors.
2. If you evaluate coursework with the expectation of students using AI, those who pay the $200 subscription will have an advantage over those who pay $20, and in turn over those who use free LLMs. The only way to make it fair would be to provide all students with the best available LLM.
3. While I have heard the analogy with calculators many times, I feel that LLMs are at a different qualitative level. The calculator doesn't really replace human thought, or if it does, it's only some very specific form of it. LLMs replace human thought in a very broad way, so I think they are much more dangerous for learning.
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#318To me this nostalgia is pointless. AI is here and it's good enough only going to get better. The classroom should be about using AI better not ignoring it. But that would require the teacher to be good at AI too. I think that's the problem here.
> The classroom should be about using AI better not ignoring it. No, it shouldn’t. I’m not bearish on AI but it shouldn’t replace any part of a classroom where the objective is to learn and communicate in a new language (German). The typewriter argument is memorable and interesting - the article points out the lack of editing forces kids to slow down and think about their writing, as well as iterate through multiple…
You can do all the same learning with AI tools, with the added benefit of developing extra skills on top.
This notion that AI automatically reduces learning seems more born out of fear than reality. There are also different kinds of learning.
People who really want to can still go back to typewriters. Forcing it into a mandatory curriculum though is a step backwards. Just like it would have been pre AI.
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the companies hiring students from those universities have come to understand there’s no guarantee they learned any of the material.
The dirty secret in HR is that performance in most regular jobs doesn't really depend on having learned anything in college. Companies only require a college degree to filter the candidate pool down to a manageable level. Line managers know they'll have to train entry level hires on almost everything. IBM used to hire software developers based on aptitude test scores regardless of formal education, then put them thro…
People who got through via cheating in college tend to be low performers in work for the exact same reasons.
Re: College instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
>By pawning it off to AI to solve, you have learned nothing, not even how to prompt correctly as test questions are usually formulated well enough that AI doesn't need prompt massaging to get it. If you got AI to produce a working solution, you solved the problem. In the real world nobody who's paying you cares about the method as long as you deliver results. Students taught to solve easy problems by themselves will…
I don't think the entire purpose of schools is to teach you how to answer some specific set of questions; they want to improve your knowledge and skills in various domains, and the questions are merely a roundabout way to assess that. If you can answer the questions but don't know the knowledge, you're missing the most important part.