ChatGPT is a great resource for learning things, if you really want to learn.
I hope that this leads us to shift education towards helping people learn things, when they do want to learn. Instead of forcing people to learn things that they do not want to learn.
The title really should specify “to teach remotely”. And I think more broadly the context is the dream that widespread internet would make it easier to educate people “at scale” (meaning for less money per student).
So maybe the real question is why we ever expected “teaching at scale” to be effective.
I think that it’s quite clear that for an individual, curious student, the ability to use modern LLMs probably makes the ability to be 1-1 tutored (by a human!) cheaper/better. But I don’t think anyone claims that watching random videos on the internet will be as effective for LeBron James as having a personal trainer focused on him.
It seems like the overriding issue is to understand whether students need to take courses they’re not interested in. If the answer is yes, perhaps we need find ways of having these topics be taught by tutorial…
I think you have the right question, but I think the answer is a resounding "no." Old thinking towards education seems irrelevant in modern times. Children should be taught the basics of mathematics ,language, and technology as a necessity for interacting in the real world. This should include arithmetic up to applied algebra, grammar, reading, and, ideally, critical thinking. These core topics should have traditional testing and homework.
Everything else should be about exposure. So children are lectured on science, history, or whatever other subject; but they don't actually need a grade in these subjects during elementary school. This would reduce the work burden on students and teachers. The only purpose is to light a spark in those with true curiosity.
In high school, students should be able to choose topics of interest that they learned about in elementary school to do more intentional learning with tests and grades. Everyone else continues on a general path with the core subjects being tested and non-core subjects simply being lectured.
In college, those who chose a specific focus in highschool accelerated their learning for that subject. For others, if they didn't find anything interesting, they can go into a trade or whatever else they choose. If they are late bloomers, they go to college and cultivate their newly found interests with a larger back log of pre-reqs.
There's no point in "teaching" children things that they immediately forget only for them to go on to become a generic office worker or retail employee. We should cultivate those with the desire to be cultivated, and stop pretending that it's actually feasible to have an entire society of "intellectuals." There is a place in the world for those who don't care about learning, but there is little sense in throwing significant education resources at them.
A big part of schooling that I didn't realize until I was an adult is learning self discipline. The boring terrible class you hate and can't pay attention for is a feature, not a bug. You ought to learn how to get over yourself, be able to dig in on something uninteresting, and get what you need to get done. That is probably the single greatest skill schools teach people entering adult hood. Unfortunately it only takes for some students. Those students who always get As, who went on to med school and what not. How did they do it? Probably by getting over themselves as a step one. I wish I could slap my 16 year old self across the head.
Rest assured, if you force students to learn basic english and math, the vast majority of students will experience this as being forced to study things they don't care about.
The difference with what I'm suggesting is that they won't be forced to learn about 7 or 8 different things they don't care about at the same time.
The allocation of teachers' time will be better with a more constrained curriculum, and the classes where students choose to learn about a subject will be a more engaged.
Framing learning things you're uninterested in as "learning to get over yourself" is odd. This isn't an ego problem, and dictating personality traits to such an extent is a questionable goal.
>Framing learning things you're uninterested in as "learning to get over yourself" is odd. This isn't an ego problem, and dictating personality traits to such an extent is a questionable goal.
It is an ego problem. You will not have the liberty to be choosy over whatever might be in front of you in life. You will have to shovel the shit, figuratively or quite literally in some cases. The sooner you can learn this lesson, the easier life will be for you, and the more helpful you will be to others around you.
Grading systems in school are and have always been broken, ChatGPT is only making these issues more apparent. Students are great "reward hackers" and are incentivized to find the most efficient solution to getting good grades regardless of whether they're actually learning. Learning takes a back seat to getting good grades.
There's a reason you're only hearing this from schools and not companies. I haven't seen any corporate execs complaining that they don't know who their good and bad employees are because of AI.
I'm in an online course right now (teachers college) that requires weekly discussions. I feel like every discussion is just AI responding to AI. As a student I think it's lame, I'm sure the profs do too. I'm not totally against AI usage as it is incredibly helpful with spelling and grammar, what I hate is reading meaningless, vague and uninteresting discussion posts week after week. There is nothing personal or interesting about anything anyone posts because its all done by AI.
> For the last few years, I’ve been exclusively teaching asynchronous online courses, meaning recorded videos rather than live sessions
This seems like the root issue. In the ChatGPT era, remote student assessments cannot (remotely) be trusted. Since you cannot trust the assessment, it should probably be optional, and not used for credentialing purposes.
> They may view an instructor as an opponent standing in the way of the grade they want. And they see “getting the right answers” as the goal of education because that’s how you secure that grade. But that’s no more true than thinking that logging a count of reps is the goal of bodybuilding.
The author is essentially saying "you're doing education wrong" to students who never signed up for the author's version of what education is for. Students are making a rational economic calculation: they need a degree to get a job.
> Students are making a rational economic calculation: they need a degree to get a job.
Except it's not true. They don't need a degree to get a job. Maybe they need a degree to get a very specific job, but then they will be doing what the degree taught, and so they might as well learn how to do it.
This whole "I need a degree to get a job" is the problem. It's how people end up with $200k in student loans working front line retail.
The default natural state rewards value creation. Corrupt/artificial systems don't, so there are exceptions. If students reframe their reasoning from "get a degree to get a job" to "learn how to create lots of value for others in a way I find sustainable and satisfying" they are far more likely to enjoy the lives they build for themselves.
The author is more right about this than you give them credit for. Students who are getting a degree just to get a job are doing it wrong. If they don't enjoy doing the things the degree teaches, they really won't enjoy what comes after they graduate.
Most white collar jobs require a university degree. They don't care what it's in or your GPA or if you understood history/philosophy/English. Just that you have literally any degree.
I agree some do, but I am very skeptical about most. It's also changing rapidly.
To be clear I'm not disagreeing that a manufacturing engineer role would require a degree in engineering (and countless other examples). I'm pushing back on specifically "most white collar jobs require any degree regardless of what it is".
I believe that assumption is incorrect and harmful.
It's truer than ever because of applicant tracking systems that allow HR to automatically filter out people without degrees before they are even seen by the hiring manager.
In combination with oversaturation of university graduates, it's an easy box HR can tick to lower the applicant pool.
University has never been more not difficult. Cheating is rampant and the whole institution is organized arpund prioritizing students graduating over protecting the integrity of credentials.
As someone with no degree and a great career, who works with others that don't have degrees, and has hired many people who don't have degrees, and has several friends without degrees who also have great careers, I know this isn't true in absolute terms.
I see it as wanting to receive the credential (biology degree) while avoiding what it is supposed to signify (having learned something about biology.) But why would regular companies want graduates in English Literature, or History? Graduates should still be able to read, think critically, and write clearly - and the way you learn to do that is by actually doing the assignments.
Of course a more cynical view is that much of formal education is just teaching compliance (which employers also value), but college usually grants more non-financial freedom than a typical corporate workplace.
In any case, I guess it's good that you can't use ChatGPT to pass driving tests or medical licensing exams. Yet.
How reductive. Sure, there are paper mills and non-reputable colleges that hand out degrees, but that's clearly not what the author is writing about ('lecturers' there won't care about students cheating anyway).
So with that, what student expects college to be an easy pass to a job? College has always involved work, not a coupon for a free job.
> students who never signed up for the author's version of what education is
What? That's what college is. Students sign up to be taught however the college wants to teach. Students can choose to apply to colleges that match their style, but that hasn't changed at all.
I'm curious what you think students expect when they enroll in a reputable college
ChatGPT is a great resource for learning things, if you really want to learn.
I hope that this leads us to shift education towards helping people learn things, when they do want to learn. Instead of forcing people to learn things that they do not want to learn.
The title really should specify “to teach remotely”. And I think more broadly the context is the dream that widespread internet would make it easier to educate people “at scale” (meaning for less money per student).
So maybe the real question is why we ever expected “teaching at scale” to be effective.
I think that it’s quite clear that for an individual, curious student, the ability to use modern LLMs probably makes the ability to be 1-1 tutored (by a human!) cheaper/better. But I don’t think anyone claims that watching random videos on the internet will be as effective for LeBron James as having a personal trainer focused on him.
It seems like the overriding issue is to understand whether students need to take courses they’re not interested in. If the answer is yes, perhaps we need find ways of having these topics be taught by tutorial…
I think you have the right question, but I think the answer is a resounding "no." Old thinking towards education seems irrelevant in modern times. Children should be taught the basics of mathematics ,language, and technology as a necessity for interacting in the real world. This should include arithmetic up to applied algebra, grammar, reading, and, ideally, critical thinking. These core topics should have traditional testing and homework.
Everything else should be about exposure. So children are lectured on science, history, or whatever other subject; but they don't actually need a grade in these subjects during elementary school. This would reduce the work burden on students and teachers. The only purpose is to light a spark in those with true curiosity.
In high school, students should be able to choose topics of interest that they learned about in elementary school to do more intentional learning with tests and grades. Everyone else continues on a general path with the core subjects being tested and non-core subjects simply being lectured.
In college, those who chose a specific focus in highschool accelerated their learning for that subject. For others, if they didn't find anything interesting, they can go into a trade or whatever else they choose. If they are late bloomers, they go to college and cultivate their newly found interests with a larger back log of pre-reqs.
There's no point in "teaching" children things that they immediately forget only for them to go on to become a generic office worker or retail employee. We should cultivate those with the desire to be cultivated, and stop pretending that it's actually feasible to have an entire society of "intellectuals." There is a place in the world for those who don't care about learning, but there is little sense in throwing significant education resources at them.
A big part of schooling that I didn't realize until I was an adult is learning self discipline. The boring terrible class you hate and can't pay attention for is a feature, not a bug. You ought to learn how to get over yourself, be able to dig in on something uninteresting, and get what you need to get done. That is probably the single greatest skill schools teach people entering adult hood. Unfortunately it only takes for some students. Those students who always get As, who went on to med school and what not. How did they do it? Probably by getting over themselves as a step one. I wish I could slap my 16 year old self across the head.
A couple years of work experience in grueling or soul crushing dead end jobs before going to college can do wonders for this dynamic.
Rest assured, if you force students to learn basic english and math, the vast majority of students will experience this as being forced to study things they don't care about.
The difference with what I'm suggesting is that they won't be forced to learn about 7 or 8 different things they don't care about at the same time.
The allocation of teachers' time will be better with a more constrained curriculum, and the classes where students choose to learn about a subject will be a more engaged.
Framing learning things you're uninterested in as "learning to get over yourself" is odd. This isn't an ego problem, and dictating personality traits to such an extent is a questionable goal.
>Framing learning things you're uninterested in as "learning to get over yourself" is odd. This isn't an ego problem, and dictating personality traits to such an extent is a questionable goal.
It is an ego problem. You will not have the liberty to be choosy over whatever might be in front of you in life. You will have to shovel the shit, figuratively or quite literally in some cases. The sooner you can learn this lesson, the easier life will be for you, and the more helpful you will be to others around you.
Grading systems in school are and have always been broken, ChatGPT is only making these issues more apparent. Students are great "reward hackers" and are incentivized to find the most efficient solution to getting good grades regardless of whether they're actually learning. Learning takes a back seat to getting good grades.
There's a reason you're only hearing this from schools and not companies. I haven't seen any corporate execs complaining that they don't know who their good and bad employees are because of AI.
I'm in an online course right now (teachers college) that requires weekly discussions. I feel like every discussion is just AI responding to AI. As a student I think it's lame, I'm sure the profs do too. I'm not totally against AI usage as it is incredibly helpful with spelling and grammar, what I hate is reading meaningless, vague and uninteresting discussion posts week after week. There is nothing personal or interesting about anything anyone posts because its all done by AI.
> For the last few years, I’ve been exclusively teaching asynchronous online courses, meaning recorded videos rather than live sessions
This seems like the root issue. In the ChatGPT era, remote student assessments cannot (remotely) be trusted. Since you cannot trust the assessment, it should probably be optional, and not used for credentialing purposes.
> They may view an instructor as an opponent standing in the way of the grade they want. And they see “getting the right answers” as the goal of education because that’s how you secure that grade. But that’s no more true than thinking that logging a count of reps is the goal of bodybuilding.
The author is essentially saying "you're doing education wrong" to students who never signed up for the author's version of what education is for. Students are making a rational economic calculation: they need a degree to get a job.
> Students are making a rational economic calculation: they need a degree to get a job.
Except it's not true. They don't need a degree to get a job. Maybe they need a degree to get a very specific job, but then they will be doing what the degree taught, and so they might as well learn how to do it.
This whole "I need a degree to get a job" is the problem. It's how people end up with $200k in student loans working front line retail.
The default natural state rewards value creation. Corrupt/artificial systems don't, so there are exceptions. If students reframe their reasoning from "get a degree to get a job" to "learn how to create lots of value for others in a way I find sustainable and satisfying" they are far more likely to enjoy the lives they build for themselves.
The author is more right about this than you give them credit for. Students who are getting a degree just to get a job are doing it wrong. If they don't enjoy doing the things the degree teaches, they really won't enjoy what comes after they graduate.
Most white collar jobs require a university degree. They don't care what it's in or your GPA or if you understood history/philosophy/English. Just that you have literally any degree.
I don't think this is true anymore.
I agree some do, but I am very skeptical about most. It's also changing rapidly.
To be clear I'm not disagreeing that a manufacturing engineer role would require a degree in engineering (and countless other examples). I'm pushing back on specifically "most white collar jobs require any degree regardless of what it is".
I believe that assumption is incorrect and harmful.
It's truer than ever because of applicant tracking systems that allow HR to automatically filter out people without degrees before they are even seen by the hiring manager.
In combination with oversaturation of university graduates, it's an easy box HR can tick to lower the applicant pool.
If that's true, it's painfully tragic.
Still comes off as jaded and pessimistically biased. Not representative of whole white collar, just some segment in it.
It's VERY different than my direct experience, and indirect exposure including statements I've read about hiring policies at attractive employers.
This sound pretty insane on its own. If you don't care about the content of the degree at all, what does the degree even prove?
It proves you could sit through 4 years of university and not fail out.
Since basically anyone can graduate high school nowadays, this proves you put at least some effort into your education without being forced to.
It doesn't really matter if it's low signal, just that it narrows the applicant pool.
Mostly it proves you have money
University is not difficult. Money is
University has never been more not difficult. Cheating is rampant and the whole institution is organized arpund prioritizing students graduating over protecting the integrity of credentials.
That may all be true
But you still need a degree to get a job
As someone with no degree and a great career, who works with others that don't have degrees, and has hired many people who don't have degrees, and has several friends without degrees who also have great careers, I know this isn't true in absolute terms.
> they need a degree to get a job
I see it as wanting to receive the credential (biology degree) while avoiding what it is supposed to signify (having learned something about biology.) But why would regular companies want graduates in English Literature, or History? Graduates should still be able to read, think critically, and write clearly - and the way you learn to do that is by actually doing the assignments.
Of course a more cynical view is that much of formal education is just teaching compliance (which employers also value), but college usually grants more non-financial freedom than a typical corporate workplace.
In any case, I guess it's good that you can't use ChatGPT to pass driving tests or medical licensing exams. Yet.
How reductive. Sure, there are paper mills and non-reputable colleges that hand out degrees, but that's clearly not what the author is writing about ('lecturers' there won't care about students cheating anyway).
So with that, what student expects college to be an easy pass to a job? College has always involved work, not a coupon for a free job.
> students who never signed up for the author's version of what education is
What? That's what college is. Students sign up to be taught however the college wants to teach. Students can choose to apply to colleges that match their style, but that hasn't changed at all.
I'm curious what you think students expect when they enroll in a reputable college
And it's ironic since the LLM will most likely have used previous students work to train itself.