The class of 2026 has had generative AI for their entire college career. What started as a novelty in 2022 has become second nature: surveys show >90% of undergrads now use AI for schoolwork, from drafting essays to summarizing readings.
For students, the motivation is pragmatic: AI saves time, reduces stress, and helps balance overwhelming academic and extracurricular demands. It’s less about “cheating” and more about survival in a system that prizes productivity and credentials. Professors, meanwhile, are scrambling—reverting to handwritten exams, shifting grading toward tests, or trying moral appeals. Yet many remain unaware of just how normalized AI has become on campus.
The result: higher ed has been fundamentally reshaped in just three years. Students expect project-based, real-world assignments that resist AI shortcuts. But with faculty stretched thin by budget cuts, research demands, and political headwinds, systemic redesign feels unlikely. For now, both students and professors face the same reality: a college education is what you make of it—AI included.
If you're wondering--yes, I used AI for the synopsis. Big question for me, is what does the future of education look like? How do kids get the skills they need to use AI, while still getting the skills they need to be skeptical of it?
If the writing does the job it needs to do--in this case, a deft summary of an article--why is it better if it comes from a human vs. AI? Analysis, sure. But summary? This is the whole point of the article...do you actually prefer to read bad writing because it was written by a real person?
The class of 2026 has had generative AI for their entire college career. What started as a novelty in 2022 has become second nature: surveys show >90% of undergrads now use AI for schoolwork, from drafting essays to summarizing readings.
For students, the motivation is pragmatic: AI saves time, reduces stress, and helps balance overwhelming academic and extracurricular demands. It’s less about “cheating” and more about survival in a system that prizes productivity and credentials. Professors, meanwhile, are scrambling—reverting to handwritten exams, shifting grading toward tests, or trying moral appeals. Yet many remain unaware of just how normalized AI has become on campus.
The result: higher ed has been fundamentally reshaped in just three years. Students expect project-based, real-world assignments that resist AI shortcuts. But with faculty stretched thin by budget cuts, research demands, and political headwinds, systemic redesign feels unlikely. For now, both students and professors face the same reality: a college education is what you make of it—AI included.
If you're wondering--yes, I used AI for the synopsis. Big question for me, is what does the future of education look like? How do kids get the skills they need to use AI, while still getting the skills they need to be skeptical of it?
If I wanted to read an LLM-generated comment, I'd go to ChatGPT myself.
If the writing does the job it needs to do--in this case, a deft summary of an article--why is it better if it comes from a human vs. AI? Analysis, sure. But summary? This is the whole point of the article...do you actually prefer to read bad writing because it was written by a real person?