Welcome to my weekly digest for March 17, 2023. For new subscribers, this contains a roundup of my recent writings and podcasts, as well as links to the best articles from around the web this week. You can control what emails you get from me by
The whole definition of 'cheating' is under intense scrutiny in higher ed as institutions scramble frantically to try to decide what they're going to do (or pretend to do) about their students' use of AI such as ChatGPT. I've seen reactions ranging from threat of expulsion for using AI in any way, to requiring students to base their assignment answers explicitly on AI input. So who knows how this is all going to be sorted out? Will we return to a university system in which the only 'good degree' is one earned through vivas and maybe extremely tightly-controlled written exams? Can't see that happening at American mega-unis, or even at HYPSMC and the like, where, as the article suggests, students are far too entitled to hand back that kind of power to their teachers.
Good points on cheating. It is probably getting worse. Though that Dartmouth example strikes me as a bad one, if we want to blame a culture of cheating amongst the students. Not to excuse the students too much, but I do think most of the practical blame rests with the professor.
I'm not proud to admit that I felt compelled to cheat in high school in the late 1990s. In a subject that I loved, no less -- US History -- and it reminds me of that Dartmouth situation. The teacher (a coach) was checked out and didn't realize or didn't care that the quizzes he was giving us (from a different textbook) ended up being practically impossible even for those who knew the subject well, but trivially easy to cheat on (we graded ourselves), on which most of our grade depended.
At that point, what were our options?
1. Stay honest and get a C or worse that might cost you a slot at the college you're trying to get into
2. Squeal and get the associated social censure
3. Cheat along with everyone else
Now, my mother, a Boomer, and normally a rule-follower with great respect for authority, always liked to tell the story of cheating through a Latin class in which the teacher would take a nap during every test and quiz, which she found funny. So I have to question if kids in the 1950s or 60s would have behaved any better than we did in the late 1990s if presented with the exact same incentive structure. I think a teacher, by not giving a fig, helps to promote the same attitude among students.
But it does say something about the degeneration of *college* if professors are increasingly setting things up this way. One of my favorite aspects of college was that every professor was seemingly both passionate and knowledgeable about the subject, as opposed to high school where it was mostly only the literature teachers.
The whole definition of 'cheating' is under intense scrutiny in higher ed as institutions scramble frantically to try to decide what they're going to do (or pretend to do) about their students' use of AI such as ChatGPT. I've seen reactions ranging from threat of expulsion for using AI in any way, to requiring students to base their assignment answers explicitly on AI input. So who knows how this is all going to be sorted out? Will we return to a university system in which the only 'good degree' is one earned through vivas and maybe extremely tightly-controlled written exams? Can't see that happening at American mega-unis, or even at HYPSMC and the like, where, as the article suggests, students are far too entitled to hand back that kind of power to their teachers.
Good points on cheating. It is probably getting worse. Though that Dartmouth example strikes me as a bad one, if we want to blame a culture of cheating amongst the students. Not to excuse the students too much, but I do think most of the practical blame rests with the professor.
I'm not proud to admit that I felt compelled to cheat in high school in the late 1990s. In a subject that I loved, no less -- US History -- and it reminds me of that Dartmouth situation. The teacher (a coach) was checked out and didn't realize or didn't care that the quizzes he was giving us (from a different textbook) ended up being practically impossible even for those who knew the subject well, but trivially easy to cheat on (we graded ourselves), on which most of our grade depended.
At that point, what were our options?
1. Stay honest and get a C or worse that might cost you a slot at the college you're trying to get into
2. Squeal and get the associated social censure
3. Cheat along with everyone else
Now, my mother, a Boomer, and normally a rule-follower with great respect for authority, always liked to tell the story of cheating through a Latin class in which the teacher would take a nap during every test and quiz, which she found funny. So I have to question if kids in the 1950s or 60s would have behaved any better than we did in the late 1990s if presented with the exact same incentive structure. I think a teacher, by not giving a fig, helps to promote the same attitude among students.
But it does say something about the degeneration of *college* if professors are increasingly setting things up this way. One of my favorite aspects of college was that every professor was seemingly both passionate and knowledgeable about the subject, as opposed to high school where it was mostly only the literature teachers.