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.
> In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written.
Forcing hand written should really not be necessary. It would be very cheap in terms of old computing hardware to set up a test room with old desktop PCs that have wired only NICs (with a network connection that goes to a switch in the same room with no uplink, connected to a decent size laser printer only), running something like lubuntu and libreoffice writer as a basic word processor.
Let people at least type their essay with the standard features of a word processor as usable as MS Word 2000 or better.
I'm quite a bit older than you, old enough that I remember learning to touch type in elementary school on Apple IIe and IIgs desktop computers. It's not reasonable these days to expect people to hand write a 4, 6, 8 page length essay on paper and pen with a finite time limit in a classroom. Being able to edit and revise things in a word processor type interface is an essential part of writing an academic paper.
Additionally expecting whoever is reading the paper to comprehend everyone's (likely very sloppy, in this era) handwriting is an exercise in frustration for the person who would be evaluating the papers.
Not that tests/exams can't be given on paper, ever (multiple choice still works), but for something where people are expected to provide multiple pages of coherently written essay output, I would struggle to do it by hand. And I'm old enough that we did do a lot purely on paper when I was in school.
If you did it before then, barring physical limitations which have occurred since then, you would struggle for a short while and then you would be fine. I also did coursework purely on paper, got out of practice, and then once my kids were in school got back into the habit of handwriting. I can even write cursive again. Cursive makes it much easier on the hand and wrist. There's a reason it was invented. :)
I think you're missing the point. This is a physical limitation. People don't write as much as they used to. I used to be able to write for hours, taking notes, writing papers, etc... Now, I try to take notes during a meeting and my hand cramps. And as a bonus, my handwriting never was great, but now it's illegible for me.
Yes, we all "could" re-learn this skill, but how many people will? If you asked me to type a paper on a locked-down computer, I could easily. If you asked me to write a 2000 word paper by hand in an hour, I doubt it would happen.
If we expect students to take in-person tests on paper, then you should also do the rest of the classwork on paper. I am completely in the camp that we learn more when we write something. The physical act is part of the learning process. But you can't expect students to write an in-depth exam without having the practice of doing it often.
I have never been able to handwrite well and my family suspects I have dysgraphia. I can write, but slowly and unreadably. But I can type over 160 wpm. Typing for me is strictly superior, probably by an order of magnitude.
My child's high school is doing the same thing: all exams are now handwritten on paper in a supervised room. Phones and smartwatches are always banned during the school day, but laptops are banned during exams. This is standard at state-funded high schools in Australia.
There will likely be a period where those who went through high school with computers struggle with hand writing stuff, but the next generation will have done it all their lives.
I had to do "write code on paper" stuff as part of french engineering school entrance exams.
It's fine (tho annoying when you lose points to "typos"), but it limits what kinds of problems you can reasonably put on the exam. You'll definitely lean a bit more into theoretical stuff than practicals. Which is fine for some courses, I think a bit less interesting in other courses.
Remember, the hand written code is also harder for reviewers to grade! You have to manually run the code in your head, for example
Having said all that... "we've booked the computer room, you don't have internet, go type up all your stuff in this VM we have set up" feels fine if you don't like this constraint IMO
Jfc, this is a solved problem at the community college near me. All of the computers in the testing room are thin clients that effectively remote into a vm, and you get checked with a metal detector before going into the room with the computers.
If you can escape the vm on the fly and manage to use an llm to cheat, you deserve that A.
If you're doing a good job, you have to do that anyway, or at least have enough of a spidey sense for broken code to know when to investigate and add an extra test case.
Something like 30% of the time at $WORK, interviewers report the candidate as having solved the problem when a closer inspection reveals UB, memory corruption, and other bullshit. The test cases pass, and I think that's part of the problem. You can't tune out and avoid deeply understanding the submission.
I would imagine every professor (or assistant) who graded any programming exam I wrote was doing just that and further expect them to let some things slide as long as the general direction was correct.
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?
If you can't concentrate while people are working on computers near you, I don't think you'll do well in any workplace that is based around knowledge work.
This is why I prefer working alone at night and am massively more productive. In any case, what's being tested in an exam setting is one's understanding of the course material, not whether they are a good fit for your idea of a normal workplace.
Typewriters are an expensive and niche item these days, due to no longer being manufactured, and the good ones being collected by weird nerds. Sort of like buying a 40-year-old vinyl turntable that is in good and usable condition.
If I build you a custom device that receives questions from a central computer and lets the user plug in whatever keyboard they want via bluetooth or usb to only type and answer the questions (ability to edit the text and submit when ready). The central computer can receive all the questions submitted to any of these devices connected to it via wifi or cloud. How much would pay per device? Would you pay for a subscription?
I think this can already be implemented through a fairly mundane thin client approach, such as Dell/Wyse type thin clients, citrix stuff, or an ordinary x86-64 desktop PC setup with an absolute barebones OS that connects a graphical desktop session to something centralized over a LAN.
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.
I have absolutely no concern over a 20 yr old's ability to weather the rigors of manipulating a 7 gram pencil. It's not like we're talking about getting them to spend a week on a roofing crew or swap their gaming mouse for a set of post hole diggers here. If someone needs an accommodation then that should absolutely be made available.
I'm all for handwritten tests, but it's more complicated than that. If you're actually writing for 2hr+ and haven't studied appropriate technique or bought some sort of crutch like a pencil holder then the repetitive motion will absolutely cause cramps for a fraction of the class regardless of being 20ish and healthy, and they might not find that out until they're forced to write for 2hr. The muscles manipulating a pencil (with poor technique) are much smaller than those manipulating a post hole digger, so that comparison isn't fair.
You should definitely take speed into consideration. If your're writing an essay, being able to type it out and still have both the opportunity and time to edit it is great. If you're writing it on paper, you likely have neither. What comes to you first is what's submitted.
When I was in grade school the common practice was to use the back page of the exam booklet to do a quick outline (assuming there was no other scrap paper available) and just cross it out when you were done with it. Being able to organize your thoughts and maintain a clear direction in writing 500-1000 words seems like an important thing to test for.
And that's exactly the point! By making sure the student can't edit the entire text once its written, you force him to think about the essay's structure and force him to plan much more before writing :)
If the goal is to assess the ability of the student to produce a professional product, then why prevent them from using AI in the first place? The vast majority of professionals have access to AI nowadays?
Most curricula should probably feature both forms of assessment, demonstrating your knowledge of the basics in a closed book assessment and your ability to produce high quality final products using all resources available to you in take home assignments.
If you’re suggesting that the test favors those capable of arranging their thoughts and words before putting pen to paper then.... I’m not sure there’s a problem
Sure but given any length of time, which does tend to be finitely allocated for a test (if for no other reason than the prof or proctor does have other places to be eventually), having to hand write is slower and harder to revise, which means it's harder to get that full, understanding-demonstrating essay, done and polished.
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 from first principles:
1. Time is finite, we will all perish
2. Unless you are doing open book, needs to be supervised (proctored / or prof/TA is there)
3. That person is paid for a shift
4. That shift must end
5. Therefore, anything that enables people to write faster is good for the students, who can get more paper written, or the paper better revised, during the finite time available for writing.
> 5. Therefore, anything that enables people to write faster is good for the students, who can get more paper written, or the paper better revised, during the finite time available for writing.
I think you're missing some logic in there somewhere. If a student fills in as many pages as they can, each with the number 1 written on it as large as possible, was this a good conclusion? The quantity of writing is not a good metric.
EDIT: to give a closer to reality example, an essay that's 4 times longer than a competing essay does not make it better.
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.
Well, to some extent, yes. Of course the literal number of works you can write per minute is not, but:
- someone with a good understanding will often come to a concise, clear answer while someone struggling will produce a convoluted paragraph.
- the way to get to the result will vary depending on your understanding (e.g., are you blindly applying some method or understanding what's going on). For instance, "hey, this is a vector field, I don't need to evaluate this complex integral, I just need to compute the difference between the start and endpoint of the curve!". Both answers will be correct, but one denotes a much better actual understanding (and will take way less time).
I meant to say they usually aren’t a rush for non-ace students, just a full hour. You have to work diligently, though. Competitive tests excepted, obviously.
Re "hand writing is harder to revise", I never had an issue with erasing words or parts of the text and using asterisks, end footnotes, the margins and whatever free space available (with arrows or not) to do revisions in written exams. Nobody complained and afaik it was fairly standard to do where I studied, as long as your exam itself was actually legible. Granted, I refer to math-related exams not essays on literature or philosophy where form may have mattered more. On the other hand, I cannot imagine writing any math during an exam on a computer.
I would often do a bullet point summary/outline of my answer on the paper. That would have arrows and insertions and crossed-out stuff everywhere -- it was usually a mess.
But then I'd use that to write the actual text answer, and consequently, it was mostly clean. I'd still have to cross stuff out or add a phrase between the lines every so often, but once the basic structure was done, that was mostly unnecessary.
And if I was ever pressed for time, I'd usually get part marks for the outline anyway. Depending on the subject, I'd sometimes race through the questions doing just the outlines, and then come back to write the full text as a complete second pass.
To be fair, this wasn't creative writing. I think it'd be harder when the expression is the content.
> Forcing hand written should really not be necessary.
I do think it's necessary. And I felt unsure at first of how extremely strong I feel about this -- I think everybody should be able to write cursive, and even doctors should be able to write legibly, which ALL of them could learn in one single day, an afternoon, if they had to -- but then I did a simple search for "the benefits of writing by hand studies" and now I'm even more radical.
It's like PE or brushing your teeth. Nobody initially wants it, so we, knowing better, force them.
i was taught cursive in 2nd grade. and my handwriting is gobsmackingly horrible. coming back to stuff I've written after I've forgotten the context, makes it impossible for me to understand what I've written.
and it's not for lack of trying. I spent almost every summer till 10th grade, practicing writing 30 pages a day. and still it gets reset to my horrible hand writing in weeks after school start. at this point, i just consider myself hand writing challenged.
i cannot tell you how much happy i am that, computers have made handwritten exams obsolete.
I was in the same boat as a kid. My handwriting is so bad, for the essay portion of the state test we had to take one year, they got an exemption and let me use Notepad to type mine out because they didn't want to risk my grade if the person couldn't read my writing. This was in the mid-2000s.
These days I just disclaim to people when I hand them anything handwritten that I'm very aware my writing is terrible, and I will not be offended at all if they have to ask what it says.
I appreciate the sentiment, as someone who vastly prefers handwriting, but the downfall of this might be the situation we have historically had in the US with math, where the experience of being clumsily force fed this additional material can be so painful that it induces PTSD-like symptoms and a lifelong aversion to the material. A similar phenomenon even occurs with cursive and PE class.
That obviously isn't to say that I don't think people should learn these subjects, nor that we should avoid presenting them at all to young minds. It's just that, as someone who failed math all through grade school and now does pure math research as an adult, I don't think "forcing them" in the sense of introducing yet another high stakes and high pressure set of evaluations to all the others is really the enlightened path here
Well sure, but if you force feed anything clumsily you can ruin it. We had a nice teacher, and took our sweet time in first grade learning to write the alphabet in first grade. Then it was done. IMO it wasn't "additional material", or material at all, it was part of the fundamental skill set with which to interact with the material. And there wasn't a thought in my mind that it could be any other way, of course you learn to read and write when you go to school.
I'm neither fully left handed or fully right handed. I mostly write with my left hand, but it has never been clean, despite doing all of my school work for 18 years with either pencil or pen and paper.
I wish I could have a just spent "an afternoon" to magically make either my printing or cursive better, but it basically stalled out early on and never improved despite years of practice.
Not disagreeing with your opinion, just answering your question:
The big advantage of writing in cursive is speed and less muscle fatigue. Writing in cursive requires far less lifts of the pen and far less tiny movements... a reasonable cursive script (Spencerian, but with a little less flourish) is quite easy to write legibly and with speed, with just a little practice.
The junk that used to be taught in US schools (a type of Palmer cursive) it not fun to read or write.
BUT, the above analysis only really applies to people who want to write, and want to write a lot.
It's been clearly shown to be beneficial for some people. I too happen to be one of them.
For others, hearing stuff (and saying stuff) out loud is more useful. I had a friend who'd make nonsense songs of stuff to learn: just doggerel, but by singing it to himself when revising, he had a massive uptick in retention. He was so happy when he worked that out.
I imagine there might be other modes that work for other people too?
Same here, apparently it’s a major ADHD thing. I can take notes or I can pay attention and try to understand, but I can’t do both, you have to pick one (a calculus teacher in high school was very insistent that constant note taking for her rapid-fire example-heaving lectures was required, so… yeah I didn’t have a clue WTF we’d even been covering after each of those classes, though I’d have lots of notes!)
Having to write stuff down made it impossible for me to pay attention to the lecture. But I was definitely more likely to remember what I did write down. Bit of a catch 22
Are you sure this is a permanent fact about you and not something that would change if it became habitual?
I mean, I have no way of knowing if it's the former or the latter. But I've been noticing recently when people treat their traits as changeable and when they treat them as core to their being. I don't really have any faith that, in most cases, one can differentiate the two as much as one thinks one can.
I detest writing and have terrible handwriting but have seen first hand that typing or just listening is not as effective. In grad school I sucked it up and just typed up my handwritten notes so they were searchable when I actually needed them to be.
But writing by hand and just reading them over was usually enough.
I'm hopeless at pure cursive writing. My default writing is a joined-up-ish kind of printing. Writing using it works really well for retaining information for me.
My dentist, while teaching dentistry commented that if the student did not learn cursive in school, it takes them another 3-4 months of practice in order to acquire the fine motor control for holding dental instruments.
So the logical entailment here is what? That everyone should have the dexterity of a dental surgeon so we can save the 7000 dental surgeons 3 months of training? Am I missing something?
If everything is just extremes, then acknowledge that the other extreme then is everybody sitting on their ass watching "Ow! My balls!", clad in advertisements. And given the choice between those two worlds, yes, everybody should have the dexterity of a surgeon.
I few interesting bits — it does involve cursive, but it's Arabic and it's graded on a rubric that includes things like "Presenting the beauty aspects of Arabic writing'. Also, given a sample of 71 students and a p<0.001 means the correlation coefficient only needs to be around 0.40 which means handwriting and drawing may only explain about 16% of the variance of these dental skills. That's not nothing, but given the subjective nature of the test and the confounders (does this handwriting sample really measure motor skills or maybe it measures care and attention to detail, or conscientiousness), I'd be a little wary of using this to argue for education policy.
Still, glad you posted it and glad I read it. It interesting.
What's the benefit of a HNSW KNN search over brute forcing it? Speed, with minimal loss of accuracy.
Cursive vs printing (I'm guessing that's what you mean by "standard writing") is exactly the same, provided you can actually write in cursive. If you weren't taught in school, then sucks to be you, I guess? Modern pedagogy has a lot to answer for :(
The big advantage of writing in cursive is speed and less muscle fatigue. Writing in cursive requires far less lifts of the pen and far less tiny movements... a reasonable cursive script (Spencerian, but with a little less flourish) is quite easy to write legibly and with speed, with just a little practice.
The junk that used to be taught in US schools (a type of Palmer cursive) it not fun to read or write.
BUT, the above analysis only really applies to people who want to write, and want to write a lot.
(Apologies for repeating my reply from above here as well.)
When each word is a smooth continuous line I can write faster and with less effort. The short up and down motions of printed letters tires out my hand.
No. Most people handwrite most things in print lettering, not cursive. I'm nearly 40 and no one in my life writes anything other than their name (signature) in cursive ever.
In 2nd grade I was assured by my teachers that all adults wrote cursive and you had to relearn the alphabet again. Then in 3rd grade the teachers all said they couldn't read anyone's handwriting and to print everything.
In high school the most difficult part of the SAT was the honor pledge that you didn't cheat that you had to write in cursive. Nobody writes cursive.
When I was in school we started with "manuscript" writing, which is detached letters similar to a typical sans-serif typeface without the two-story `a` and other fanciness. We then progressed to cursive.
With all the work around AI sandboxes, microVMs, browser sandboxes, device attestation, secure boot etc. I feel like we should be able to construct a proper software sandbox that works on most PCs and guarantees that e.g nothing outside of the word processor runs now. Like the OS would need to guarantee that nothing outside some narrow well-defined qemu VM runs for some time an the VM takes care of the rest.
Talking about programming-related courses, I can see the point of testing on a computer where one can run and debug actual code (that's how I had my programming courses) but I am not sure I get the advantage or writing code or pseudocode on a "basic word processor".
Moreover, for math or math-heavy courses (assuming most people with degrees here have STEM degrees, and many with at least some math) I cannot imagine how to comfortably write math in a word processor. Or use latex and not spend half the time troubleshooting latex, esp without internet access. So for some kind of courses at least, imo pen and paper for a timed in-person exam is the only way.
Otherwise def doable, but knowing how some universities function, I think the main problem would be getting the agreement and initiative to set such a computer room up. Getting some kind of consensus between professors that this is how (some) exams should be held and including it in the Holy Curriculum. Getting bureaucrats understand what it is about eg why you need these wired connections when the uni has a campus-wide wifi. Getting IT security agree with using old computers with lubuntu instead of their bloated enterprise windows "secure" OS. And if they are not connected to the internet how will they get security updates? How do we conform to whatever IT security rules are in place?
Writing on paper is much simpler, everybody can understand it and has been standard for decades at least. It can start tomorrow and be used in the interim while waiting approval for such a computer setup.
Physics 107 at U of I in the 80’s had all quizzes on the PLATO system. Please for the love of mercy do not not go back to inflexible systems for exams and quizzes.
Even a setup with cheap Raspberry Pi's? And Vim. (built-in bonus points for students being able to save and exit). Was just reading about LEAP[0][1] that thought you may find interesting if you have not yet seen it.
Separately, wanted to say I enjoyed your essay and appreciate how you think about improvement with a focus on the practical usefulness for the student.
TL;DR: I especially think the concept of Interview-Based Grading would be the way to go.
A couple progressive Whiteboard interviews for CS a semester, power point for Business etc. If they use AI to prepare, create material or learn/improve from then they are gaining the skills that will be required in real-world work. If they choose to not learn the material (or understand/check AI output) it would show during the back and forth with a panel of professors (dunno if you guys like working together though); built-in load sharing with a wider range of questions.
I guess with issues you mentioned the whole system needs overhauled for it to work. Adjusted for different courses -- and I dunno how practical this is but -- but why not let kids do more guided self-learning, keep office/lab hours for individual help. Fewer lectures due to self study with repurposed time for live evaluations. Eliminating non essential courses a student takes for a major/minor would also lessen the collective workload of professors (fewer student, but ones that want to be there).
That learning & evaluation set-up would be my dream college -- I would have pursued
completely different life in that setup. I wanted to learn and engage, not prove I can regurgitate rote-memory notes that are handed out while my employment required me to grasp changing context and modify the code while not unwittingly automating the deletion of production dbs.
I (as part of a small team) run the IT side of exams for a UK University and as well as the many exams intended to be taken entirely with computers, we also deliberately have an exam that's always marked as "Available to take" regardless of where on campus you are and what machine you're using, that exam just launches a stripped down Microsoft Word, with no way to start other software or access your own data.
So instead of reading the instruction book and writing either in the book or on separate provided paper, you read the book and type your answers in Word, when you're done either your work is printed or these days often it's automatically sent to the markers electronically.
There's a spectrum of people using this, going from the profoundly blind who couldn't have attempted an actual hand written exam through to people who have dyslexia or similar problems and would be able to write but it might be very difficult to mark. It also becomes a "last ditch fallback" for a number of scenarios where plans went wrong or something was forgotten and so that's why it's always available - we do run exams specifically planned to be in Word, but those have distinct IDs so that you know you're taking the exam "HIST1234/C4 History of Clowns and Clowning. Essay on prepared topic" or whatever, as well as "Multiple choice" style exams, and a large number of exams which involve using computer tooling, e.g. R, Stats packages, programming.
There's no such thing as "filtering" in academics. You don't get to kick out the students who didn't do well on the multiple choice and only proceed with the ones who scored highly.
When I started university, it did indeed have a dedicated building that was essentially a computer lab specifically for testing. In theory, cheating was prevented by having people walk around the lab watching the students. Toward the end, I did have a couple exams that needed the absolutely batshit insane malware installed on a personal device, but I think if I were to do it again today, I could still demand to use the testing center instead. It still exists.
The same method that any test given in the last 150 years has done to prevent people from using cheat sheets or similar, by having roaming proctors in the room? Or policies like certain models of HP or TI graphing calculator only allowed on the table, for the sort of test that requires one...
At my child's high school, phones are "off and away all day", and the punishment for being caught with a phone in your pocket (or hands) is pretty severe.
During an exam, it's an instant zero mark, on top of the after-school detention (the punishments escalate to suspension and expulsion for repeat offenses).
Lots of ways to disable USB ports in bios and at the operating system level, additionally have a proctor watching to be sure everyone is in a word processor. Heck, ewaste grade computers can run a basic word processor, fill all USB ports except the mouse and keyboard with epoxy. Mount the computer in such a way the rear ports are inaccessible without it being very obvious what someone is doing and fill just the front ports (if they exist) with epoxy. Lots of ways to go about it.
Pretty sure that augmented reality glasses, and things in the category of the meta glasses with built-in camera are already banned in most academic test environments, by a blanket policy prohibiting the use of any camera in the room.
Right, they're easy to detect today, that's not going to last long. The whole point is to prevent cheating, well, cheats aren't going to follow the rules. Written tests/in person tests aren't a complete answer to this.
If augmented reality glasses advance to the point where you can’t easily tell from a distance, then make the students hand them over for a close inspection.
If we get to the point where even that doesn’t work then we’ll be at the point where a camera in the room with an AI analyzing eye movements should be able to detect it. And no matter how advanced they get they’ll still need to radiate heat, so a thermal camera should work. If that fails, industrial CT scanners are getting cheaper and cheaper.
Heck if it gets too bad there’s always mm wave body scanners and a set of cheap glasses kept at school.
> If augmented reality glasses advance to the point where you can’t easily tell from a distance, then make the students hand them over for a close inspection.
We had a 'fix' for this back when they checked your TI83.
It's a 2 line basic program to display "MEMORY CLEAR" the exact same way as if somebody had spent the time to find the actual memory clear function in the settings.
About 95% joking, but in that case, have everyone lock their phones in a tiny locker shelf thing and wand everyone with a nonlinear junction detector. If we get to the point in technology and battery capability where camera glasses are compact enough to be indistinguishable from ordinary metal eyeglass frames, we'll probably also have really good low cost portable tech to detect any on-body electronics (vs the flesh and clothing and metal accessories like belt buckles on a human body).
Computers good enough to run libreoffice writer or the equivalent and print to a networked laser are thrown in the ewaste trash all the time, the cost really would be in the labor and somewhat custom software setup. Could also reuse old flat panel displays that have been decommissioned from office use.
I would bet good money, statistically, that forcing hand written tests with pen and paper is much more likely to disadvantage students with a medically documented physical disability than you are to encounter someone who can't type at all on a standard 101 key qwerty layout keyboard.
At my university, students with verified disabilities are allowed to use a university-provided laptop (properly locked-down, with allowed tools such as screen readers). But these are special cases. Computers for everyone would be costly and impractical given exams are punctual but all roughly over the same week or so.
I agree that that is probably the lowest stake solution. Alternatively there are solutions like the safe exam browser which locks down the device quite well during the exam session.
—- Disclosure:
I run a small start up which offers teachers a platform to create and conduct digital exams and interfaces with the safe exam browser precisely because cheating is the number one complaint teachers I have spoken to have when it comes to digital exams.
There are limits to what you can assess on timed assessments, and there are students whose performance on such assessments is not a good signal of their intellectual ability.
In addition, at many institutions such tests are given infrequently and can be worth a significant component of a student's overall grade, increasing both student stress levels and the tendency for such assessments to measure short term knowledge students have obtained by cramming, not more meaningful longer-term knowledge gains.
I see you're giving quizzes every three weeks, which is better than twice a semester, but still not what I would consider an ideal cadence. In my course weekly computer-based quizzes comprise 70% of a student's grade, but that's supported by a significant institutional investment in high-frequency computer-based testing: https://cbtf.illinois.edu/.
Fruit of labor? Good students of science produce novel science..as in testable ideas without precedent.. a thing llms struggle with, as they at best can interpolate and mash up previous ideas
Many good students don't produce such artifacts. That's one of the big problems in academia -- a smart person with good ideas can inadvertently pursue a less promising path and not produce ground-breaking research, so how do you tease that apart from somebody scamming the system? The current approach is to measure unrelated bullshit like citation metrics. I'd hate to see those sorts of perverse incentives pushed down into the student body as well.
I agree and would like to move towards a customized computer setup like you mention. A friend at Berkeley manages a similar setup. Unfortunately Montana State is too small to have set one up yet.
Same with job interviews. Right now Hr insists on us doing them over zoom so we get this absurd result that we eliminate candidates that perform too well to be true, at the risk of eliminating a genuine excellent candidate. You have to look a bit messy!
it will be interesting to see if any new formats emerge. if ai kills the take home, what can replace it for similar "let's see how far you can go if you have resources available" style examinations?
maybe we'll see specialty chatbots that give the equivalent of oral examinations and/or are willing to provide reference material but not make suggestions, connections, solutions or generate prose on behalf of the user?
It's news to me that they weren't already. My exams were all in person and on paper in the early 2020s, and even my physics homework was a "do it on engineering paper and drop it in a mail slot" affair. The professors would forbid computers and phones during lectures and would stop to shame anyone who thought they were being sneaky.
Computer Science classes were all on paper for exams, and low level ones did the old "here's a Javadoc, write some code with a pencil."
The only online exams I had were for 100 level electives.
It’s an old (and outdated IMO) tradition at some Ivy Leagues, as the article notes.
It may have worked in the era when students had a little more fear of repercussions and a little more sense that cheating on a test would only cause them problems when courses got harder later.
Now it seems there is little interest in dealing with cheating, as evidenced by how hard it was for this professor to even get attention to the matter within his department. Students also don’t believe cheating will cause them future harm because they assume they can cheat everything up through graduation the same way.
When the rug gets pulled and they have to demonstrate their knowledge in person without ChatGPT, the cheaters collapse. I fear that we’re delaying this reckoning so deep into academic careers now that by the time these students encounter the point where they can’t cheat their way to completion of a course they’re in for a world of hurt, if they continue at all. We really should be coming down hard on cheating earlier and more often.
It's an old enough tradition that there are jokes that rely on you knowing the tradition.
My favorite: professor known for being VERY strict tells class repeatedly in weeks leading up to exam, "You will have exactly two hours to finish your exam, and no more. I will not accept exam booklets turned in even one minute past the two hour mark: they will score a zero. Be warned."
Exam day comes, and all but one student are in their seats with the blue exam booklet in front of them when the professor says "Begin." He arches an eyebrow at the empty desk, but says nothing.
Fifteen minutes later, the tardy student rushes in. "Family emergency," he says, "sorry." The professor tells him "You have one hour forty-five minutes." Student says nothing, but opens his book and starts writing furiously.
The two hour mark comes up, and everyone except the tardy student turns in their booklets and leaves the room. The professor reminds him "Time's up," but he just keeps writing in the booklet.
At the 2:12 mark, one hour fifty-seven minutes after he ran into the exam room, the student closes his blue book and walks up to the desk where the other books are stacked up in a messy pile. The professor is reclining in his chair with his feet up on the desk. "Nope," he says, "you're late. I won't accept your exam booklet, and you're going to get a zero on the final exam."
"That's not fair," said the student, "I had to drive my mother to the hospital. I shouldn't be punished for that. I took no more time than anyone else."
"Nope, you knew the rules," says the professor.
"Don't you know who I am?" says the student, raising his voice.
"Nope, don't know, don't care," says the professor.
"Good!" says the student. He slides his exam book into the middle of the messy stack, straightens it up neatly, and before the professor has gotten his feet off the desk, walks briskly out into the hallway.
I like to think he was amused by the student's audacity and decided that yes, he was being unfair in this particular case. I know not everyone would be so fair-minded, but I like to think that this guy would be.
> as evidenced by how hard it was for this professor to even get attention to the matter within his department
This is the crux of it. The incentives don't support cracking down on AI cheating much. At least in the short term, for individual department administrators. Overall it will likely hurt the universities collectively to hand out degrees like candy this way, but grade inflation was already a problem and universities treat students like paying customers and they also want good statistics, fend off possible discrimination accusations etc.
So it's really not just about AI, the AI is simply exposing this underlying misaligned incentive. Professors complain about it all the time. It was similar during covid and cheating in online exams and that was solidly before ChatGPT.
IMO many CS classes should be lab based already, except the theory heavy ones. I still wonder why MIT needs to test students of OS courses on paper when the labs cover a lot of the ground. If I can do well in the labs I wouldn’t bother to memorize stuffs for the exams.
Mine were like this is 2005. The math classes also didn't allow calculators, engineering classes did, but not graphing ones that could store information.
Yeah, many of my physics exams were take-home open-book. One that I particularly remember: "Here's your exam. There's one problem. It's due when you come back from spring break."
I graduated forever ago, but I still have bad dreams about this type of homework. That and the "oh no, I somehow forgot to go to this class all semester and now I have to take the final exam!"
Writing code like that just seems like such a poor test of actual ability. More like just a rote memorization test. On the other hand I can't think of a better way to do it fairly now. I think it speaks to the obsolescence of the educational model more than anything.
I think most teachers have adapted pretty well. I'm really surprised to find teachers that haven't reckoned with possibility of AI cheating in 2026.
In person writing, etc. But also for anything take home students have to verbally discuss their work in some fashion. Seems to mostly work. Students still us ChatGPT as a search engine, which seems fine.
(Source: married to a professor. And my son is in high school)
> 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).
Maybe not everything needs to "scale"? You're asking each student to spend well over 100 hours in lectures and study for each class. Surely you can find 20 or 30 minutes per student for evaluation.
Please by all means direct more funding at universities, hire several times as many professors, and have them each teach half as many classes with a fraction of the students. The result would absolutely be an improvement.
(That said, any kind of subjective assessment has its own pile of hazards compared to objective assessments.)
All my stem exams were hand written, it's how it should be. The best part is coming out with everyone else already disheveled and then grabbing a drink (or many) after the last one is over. That's some solidarity drinking right there.
Being hand written would be silly theatre that excludes perfectly capable people (like me) who cannot sustain writing more than a few minutes.
Edit: I think we’re actually all agreeing. That a typed exam as an option is perfectly cromulent. I’m just saying the idea that it must be written is silly.
I don't want to dismiss your limitation, but it's better to create an acommodation for your particular case than to prevent the system from being implemented for everybody else.
Yeah, that’s the way it worked in undergrad for me. People would have hand written exams and the ones that had essay portions I’d do under more careful scrutiny in a different location using their hardware.
We have a testing center set up for people who require accommodations, another piece of legacy functionality I never expected to use back when I gave my tests online.
I don't think it's theatre, in the sense that it is effective for the advertised purpose (preempting AI-based cheating). But it seems to me like there are also plenty of ways to make reasonable accommodations for people who can't do a pen-and-paper exam, such as an offline computer.
I have seen it firsthand in the CS department here at Dartmouth. It is bad.
We're currently designing a new intro systems curriculum, and we're thinking of it as an adversarial problem. That is, we're designing the course to ensure that a student optimizing for the best grade per unit work still meets our learning objectives. That means, as everyone else is saying, paper exams, but also 1-on-1 interviews to check that students understand each assignment they turn in. These interviews feature both factual questions ("You're using this macro from that library. What does it do?", "Please describe what this function does and how it works.") and conceptual questions ("Why is this code structured this way instead of $whatever?", "How else did you try solving this?", etc.) This doesn't stop students from generating code, but at least they have to understand that code in detail.
This is not as good as writing the code yourself, but how much worse is it? For math classes, this gap is gigantic. Obviously, understanding someone else's proof is much easier than writing your own. For programming classes, I think (without evidence) that the gap is somewhat smaller.
My experience from the past is that when this kind of evaluation is made clear up front, the students know what to expect and either do fine or drop the class in the first week. If you start with take-home exams and then spring paper exams on them halfway through the course, then half the class is cheating and won't be able to recover, as we read in the article.
In general, our students are somewhat motivated by an abstract desire to learn, but are much more motivated by grades. If there exists a straightforward path through your course that leads to a good grade without doing much work, most students will take it. (Our undergrads' course review website is literally called "Layup List." They are actually this shameless.) It's our job as instructors to ensure that all paths leading to a good grade either require learning the material or are more difficult to pull off than just learning the material.
It's best not to blame the students. They are good at optimizing metrics; that's how they ended up here in the first place. We just need to better align the evaluation metrics with the outcomes that we're looking for.
There are dozens for every one who didn't get the opportunity to attend an Ivy. The penalty for cheating should be automatic expulsion. I'll note as a hiring manager the college degree won't be worth shit unless the school can show their students have any integrity.
The penalty for cheating should be automatic expulsion.
Universities need to stay ahead of how people actually work. Framing the use of AI as 'cheating' gives a university a reputation that it isn't keeping up with industry, which has a wildly negative impact on admissions. You can't expel people for 'working like they do in the real world'.
Totally agree. The moral decay in higher education has a lot to do with it deciding to trade its integrity around cheating by students and professors in exchange for tuition cheques and grant money.
Yes. Best not blame the technology that was specifically built to pass up automatically generated text for human work, or companies that profit from students using it, or government that won't introduce measures that would at least make it possible to comprehensively ban it on campuses.
There are schools with severe penalties for cheating (Army/Navy, Haverford, Davidson), but most aren't set up for that. Professors didn't self-select to be prosecutors, and we didn't spend decades becoming world experts to then become cops.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. If you let yourself start blaming students, you open a pretty corrosive path of moral judgement. Students are clever, and they're making choices informed by what they see in the world. Don't blame them for being unwilling to fail a class that cost a down payment on a house. Don't blame them for seeing powerful people get away with cheating and trying to do the same.
Kallus is right: qualitative assessment is an adversarial problem. Build the assessment correctly, and all of those previous points become moot. By clearly establishing and enforcing the rules you make it more fair to boot.
I doubt it. The concept of cheating is largely unique to academia and a few uptight professions like law. Everywhere else it is just collaboration or learning or simply something nobody cares about.
I would say that tech largely rewards the behaviours people in academia call cheating.
> Obviously, understanding someone else's proof is much easier than writing your own.
Unrelated, but once you get to a more mature level, say grad school and above, I can say this is not always the case! Just like it's easier sometimes to Roll Your Own Damn X in programming, so too are some expositions of proof so dense (necessarily or unnecessarily so) that it is a less taxing affair to simply figure it out yourself, or at least figure out 90% of it, consulting a suggestive sentence or two in the proof in order to get at that last 10%.
Maybe this observation of mine is not so unrelated after all. I don't regret many of the times that I've thrown up my hands at the rococo explanations or solutions given to me by LLMs and simply did my own work. The Socratic method with AI is sometimes more effort than it's worth.
Understanding 90-95% of someone else's proof is much easier than writing your own ;)
It's hard to verify that you understand someone else's work at 100%, but it's reasonable for an expert to tell once they've built it themselves, right?
People optimizing for grades is so sad. I got a BS in CS and no one has ever asked about my grades. I tried to optimize for learning and it turns out that pays off really well once you hit the real world.
Do you mean very well? Lots of proof out there that it works; Fin, Sierra and others already operate on a value based pricing model where they only get paid if the AI actually resolves issues.
A lot of restaurants in Korea and elsewhere have replaced human cashiers with touch screen kiosks. You’re given a number, someone calls it out when your drink’s ready.
For the places I went to it worked just fine. Did you have a bad experience?
His research is in Game Theory. He should have realized that, in a situation where all competitors are (possibly) using LLMs, the game theoretic optimal choice is to use LLMs.
Students aren’t optimizing for what is best for society. They are optimizing for themselves, which almost always means getting a job.
The credential is a prerequisite but skills are a differentiator. Problem is, not all skills are equal.
Amazon isn’t going to ask you about your opinions on The Illiad, they are going to check if you can write an efficient algorithm to rob houses or merge sorted linked lists.
Game Theory seems sort of useless in the real world because people are not rational players, and the real challenge is in getting an accurate model of their behavior. The honor system would work probably fine in a tiny close-knit liberal arts college, while it would obviously wouldn't in a place where the degree itself is the target.
Game theory seemed kind of useful when the US was negotiating nuclear weapons control with the Soviets. It allowed successful negotiations in an extremely low trust situation.
Also, your own example is an application of game theory; you've basically stated a 'prisoner's dilemma' problem. You state that in a high trust society, most people will choose cooperation, while in a low trust society, most people will defect.
Aside from evolutionary biology, cancer research, embryonic development, economics, internet routing, spectrum auctions, counter-terrorism, kidney exchanges, generative AI, and preventing nuclear apocalypse...What HAS game theory done for us?!
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.
During my bachelor I remember getting a distinction for an assignment that I put a shit ton of effort into and being elated. And then finding out that my tutor had taken it to the board trying to make the case for a high distinction, and narrowly failing, but it then being archived as an example of the output that the class wanted anyway.
That bowled me over when I was young and still sort of working out effort/reward sort of stuff. I had put a lot of work into a lot of subjects where I wasnt very naturally talented and got a lot of mediocre results, but seeing that if I put the effort in continually I could make stuff thats worthy of recognition was amazing.
Meanwhile, my (now) wife was completing a diploma subject at the same institution and they were handing out pass/fail only. You could see a lot of people really confused about that. The quality of work that fit into "pass" ran a very large gamut.
Wow. Do you care at all about the reputation of your university?
I worked briefly in post-secondary CS education a long time ago, before academia turned into the ideological warzone it is today, and if I said such a thing, I would've probably lost my job.
Also, grades have long been inflated
Then stop inflating them. This is also what standardised testing is good for --- but no surprise, so many are against it because it would just show how terrible they actually are.
I know someone who went to Reed College, which has semi-famously not suffered from grade inflation[1]. They send your transcripts out with an explanatory note, so that the recipient will not view the graduate poorly when they see the numbers.
Interestingly, at Reed, there is a low emphasis (or even anti-emphasis) on grades — a student has to go out of their way to obtain them. Instead, emphasis is on written feedback and discussion, to understand one's performance on assignments.
All this to say: de-emphasizing grades in school is not necessarily a bad thing, and does not necessarily harm the reputation of the university. It can be a sign of good priorities (eg: learning, rather than numbers-gaming).
Good idea! Nothing bad could possibly come from advocating for centralization of academic assessment! Let's give more authority to a handful of private publishers who adapt their curricula to the whims of Texas!
It's not just because "it would just show how terrible they actually are"
If I'm studying something, it's nice to get an external assessment of how well I'm doing, so i don't fall victim to over-confidence or imposter syndrome. When you're dealing with new material it's hard to be truly objective about your own project level.
Grading is to provide your students with a goal, one that isn't so high-minded as "the goal is education". The human mind uses a "reward system", within a feedback cycle. If you want to do away with that, just because it's what you prefer, then you're ignoring the reality of being human.
Indeed, and it also gives students a way to budget their time between the demands of multiple classes. I studied enough for each course to put me in good enough stead for the exams, then moved on to the next course. I got it right most of the time.
It saddens me to see how creativity seems to "peak" at "let's go back to how we did it in 20th century" instead of asking the better questions like you did.
The flip side of this is "Chesterton's Fence"[1]. It's easy to propose "better" solutions, but grading has evolved to be what it is over the past 100+ years. Any novel solution will have different (and not necessarily better) second, third, or fourth order effects.
Let's play this out further. How about high school, should there be grades there? Tests at all levels also typically involve a grade / metric -- are those included too?
To play devil's advocate, evaluations and scoring should probably be used at the systemic or team level rather than stack ranking individual employees... I mean students. Improve the educational system rather than blame the individuals.
At least where I live, universities used to run entrance exams. They didn't care about high school grades, or even if you'd ever been to high school: if you passed the entrance exam, you could enroll.
>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.
Between this and a decline in junior hiring, this is sorting itself out in the form of sharply declining CS enrollment. Which is fine, except for anyone with an interest in keeping enrollment high.
CS enrollment is declining, but not demand. Everyone is citing the numbers from UC Berkeley showing a 26% percent decline in enrollment. What they fail to mention is that the CS department reduced their admit slots by 25% because the TAs negotiated an $80/hr rate, and they can't afford as many, so they can't open as many classes.
But the number of students applying for CS is actually up slightly.
You should know full well you need some method of determining if a student is competent enough to move on to the next class in whatever sequence. Perhaps universities are slacking on this front, but at a minimum a student who doesn't understand the basics of Calc I should not go take Calc II
During my undergraduate university, the best scores had priority when choosing the limited slot numbers, including the time slots and sometimes which professor we were to attend. e.g. I would pick Calculus MWF mornings, group two because professor XxXx was in charge; lower grade students who polled agaisnt me would be bumped to a different group, or to a different time slot, or not making it to the lowest grade cut
Law schools are entirely essay driven. They’ve had armored word processors for testing for at least twenty years. I’m sure those companies would license a version for the rest of campus (most universities have a law school already so they have a contract they can simply extend to the whole campus)
I seem to recall they submit the exam via usb drive.
now they may have a closed exam mode where they can finish the exam without network and the. Submit over the network.
Of course this type of exam must be conducted in person or else the examinee could simply use a phone and type the ai provided answer.
Also is the professor living under a rock? Everyone is going to use AI if they can. So if you want them to not, asking them nicely isn’t going to cut it.
After being in the workforce for decades, this whole issue is just so incomprehensible to me.
I went an ungrad school that was top-5 in engineering. But my experience - and in the experience of other people I've talked to - formal undergrad education was, and always has been, a farce. At best, you learn through working on projects that are meaningful to you and learn "how to be an adult" (and later, you learn how to manage the enormous financial debt you acquired). But more typically, it's pure credentialism - no one cares what your grades were, only what school you graduated from.
The amount of actual learning that goes on from classes is minimal, but somehow we can't shift the overton window away from this silly game of grades that don't measure anything meaningful.
After graduating, I've was asked about my grades exactly twice in my life -- once when I applied to a master's program, and at one job interview (the company had a policy of asking about GPA for anyone who graduated less than 10 years ago).
I'm pro-education but anti-school, and all this nonsense makes me this way even more.
The final exam was not take-home, which is where the massive discrepancy showed up.
I do agree that the idea of giving take-home exams and expecting students not to cheat has long since passed its prime. There may have been a time when it was reasonable to expect most students to behave honestly, but that does not hold at all in today’s climate. Especially post-COVID, for whatever combination of reasons, students just don’t seem to care at all about anything other than min-maxing their effort to grade ratio.
Which leads to a lot of outcomes like this one where students start using ChatGPT early, think it will continue forever, and then get completely crushed when they encounter the first assignment where they can’t cheat.
I've had such exams. It was the honor system. The idea is that a typical exam is too short to evaluate the student's knowledge and a belief that fast students shouldn't have an advantage.
How long is too short? Each exam in my BSc Applied Physics final (1977, Exeter Uni.) was three hours and we had similar exams in each of the preceding years to weed out those who weren't keeping up. I'm pretty sure that having more time would not have helped the weaker students get through the Quantum Mechanics exam.
In addition I had to defend the report (120 pages of typescript and charts) of my final year project to my supervisor and another senior academic. And it was clear that they had actually read it.
All those exams were open note; anything in your own hand or a copy of a lecture handout was permitted. Again the weaker students would not have been helped by more time because they hadn't understood that you have to have enough familiarity with your notes to be able find the right information. Some brought in 50 litre rucksacks stuffed with ring binders and the noise of them furiously leafing through was enough for the invigilators to warn them to make less noise or risk being ejected.
In Norway it is typical that an exam of similar standard allows five hours.
I sat one exam at uni (in person, invigilated) for History and Philosophy of Science, which had no time-limit. You could take as long as you needed, whether that was one hour, five hours or all day.
Pretty much everyone still took three hours. But you felt so much calmer, knowing you weren't racing against the clock.
3 hours for us as well. When you start doing graduate level work, a problem could easily last over an hour. And many people will have false starts before they figure it out.
It's not a problem with homework assignments as they have multiple days to finish.
So the professor has to decide between poor data with high variance, or good data with lower variance.
> I'm pretty sure that having more time would not have helped the weaker students get through the Quantum Mechanics exam.
Funny you mention that. When I did my (undergrad) QM II exam, I likely got the highest score, and I'm sure my score was below 40%.
All of my exams were three hours as well. I don’t think there’s a single instance where more time would have helped me. If I didn’t immediately know the answer to a question, I’d just move on, then revisit. When you don’t know the material/answer, more time won’t help. But you do have to know how to take a test and manage your time.
A lot of challenging problems are not solved in one go. You work on it, don't get too far, and then you get more ideas later at night while cooking dinner.
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure people cheated even in my day. But this is the spirit - they're trying to give problems as challenging as they would for homework - and a lot of those classes have very challenging homework problems.
Assuming this is true (others have already addressed a few of the many reasons it might not be), wouldn't that imply that practically all existing tests are already flawed? If you want to grade on time, every exam should be graded with a formula taking both the time and the correctness into account. A binary "fast enough" vs "not fast enough" is about as useful as a pass/fail class grade.
The exams that felt like the fairest reflections of my own knowledge were proctored in-person, closed book, and time unlimited. Of course, being time unlimited works better for quantitative/engineering exams. I haven't put much thought into more qualitative/liberal arts type exams.
In my experience, it was common to test speed - my favorite was solving 100 arithmetic problems in, I think it was 3 minutes? Perhaps shorter. The point was that it was basically impossible to solve them all, so it evaluated both your speed and your self-assessment: if you move too quickly, you'll make errors. If you spend too much time second-guessing yourself, you won't get enough problems finished.
It always struck me as an ingenious way to get a feel for a new group of students, since it's quick to administer and equally quick to grade, while revealing quite a lot of information.
Certainly we hold speed to some regard, since a lot of academic accommodations involve granting extra time. If we aren't testing on speed, then surely we should give that to anyone that asks?
> "smarter" here means how well the student will perform in a career in their chosen field. Fast + accurate is the ideal.
Still dubious.
Also, I don't know where you work, but in most of my jobs, career growth is not limited by speed with which you do the work. It's one factor among, say, 10. Most of the people who got ahead were not the fastest.
They're not trying to gauge who is the fastest. Or even the smartest. Just those who have the skills. In the real world, you'll rarely (as in, never) have to solve those same problems with the same speed you will in the exam.
In a lot (all?) of the jobs I worked, taking a day to solve a Medium level Leetcode problem was quite OK.
Those are all proxies for "is smarter". They have better memories, perform better under pressure, etc. Universities are meant to prepare students for the real world where these things matter.
Arguably someone who is faster is more likely to just be recalling memorized things faster, while someone who's slower may have a deeper understanding but needs time to actually think it through.
Memorization is already hacking the rules of the game that's supposed to be gauging understanding. An ideal test is resistant to rote memorization as well as outright cheating.
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.
I can't say what the reality looks like today, but when I was in college 25 years ago (Harvey Mudd), closed-book take-home exams were pretty common (often with a specific time limit: maybe 3/5/8 hours), and I would have been shocked and aghast at the thought of anyone cheating. We took our Honor Code deeply seriously. (I've given my own students take-home open-book exams with "no outside resources" rules regularly in the past, but I've pretty much concluded that isn't viable anymore. But then, we don't have a formal Honor Code here.)
One particularly striking example was a timed, closed-book math exam where the exam paper just listed four problem numbers from the book. We were expected to open the book, copy down those problems without looking at anything else, and then put the book away. Honestly, that one felt like just asking for trouble and now that I'm a professor myself I think that the prof was unreasonably lazy, but it certainly captured the spirit of the thing. (Technically, that wasn't a Harvey Mudd professor but rather a professor at the adjacent graduate university. Maybe that had something to do with it.)
The other day some sucker told me, "don't throw that trash over there it's littering" and I told that sucker "there's no way anyone could enforce it" lol.
Some people get up in their jimmies about this but if they don't want me doing something they should make it impossible to do it
When you're a student in a competitive program at a top university, graded on a curve, and you know your fellow classmates are cheating with AI, you have little choice but to do the same. Especially when jobs for new grads are harder to come by and there's more pressure to also go above and beyond with internships and side projects during your time in school. There's no way to compete without cheating.
After retiring at 65 from a university teaching and research science career (all pre-AI), I went back to teaching, but this time teaching high school science, mostly AP STEM courses at an A-ranked public high school. The cheating/AI problem is now a crisis greater than COVID. My experience: very few students in advanced and AP classes do not cheat — largely for the reasons given above — and it takes enormous resourcefulness on the teacher's part to design coursework and examinations in which cheating through AI is not an issue. Many teachers I know have all but given up — the cost and effort required to circumvent cheating are simply too great given the already sky-high demands on teachers' time and energy. And school administrations are little help, due to thoughtless and enthusiastic reliance on software at every level. In some ways they are part of the problem. I don't know what the situation is in schools outside the US. But here it had become an arms race.
Personally I believe AI has made exams and high stakes testing unworkable. Even before AI I would argue teaching to the test made high stakes testing unworkable. How grades are assigned IMO will be more like how employees are evaluated in the workplace: some metrics, some oral exams, some peer feedback, but mostly on what they produced.
Yes, oral exams, content created in plain sight, project-based activities, all of these can provide a true appraisal of student understanding. But these approaches, although highly rewarding for both student and teacher, are extremely time-consuming. They also run counter to the priorities of the district, which are forever and always: student achievement on standardized tests accomplished with minimal teaching personnel. The only ones benefiting here are the corporations providing and grading the tests. To a large extent it is a sham. More importantly, IRL science is not a multiple choice test. As you state above, whether you work in industry or academia, your value is what you can produce (usually by plain hard work), what problems you can solve, your imagination, creativity, what you can create yourself or with a group. But from what I've seen thus far: AI has little place in education.
My daughter just finished her Grade 11 finals in Canada. They were done on locked down school Chromebooks, which should be enough to prevent cheating by all but the most dedicated.
Are those exams a contest? Like, they will only take the best N percentiles? Because if not, you’re competing only against yourself and should ignore others’ grades
Ivy League kids tend to not be facing some extreme economic precarity. In fact a decent number of them likely have enough family wealth to not need to work a day in their lives. The others are unlikely to face too much trouble over a few Bs at Brown.
Yes they are, that's what 'graded on a curve' means. It's common in the US to give students a percentile or Z-score or T-score rather than the raw score for the examination. This was a source of massive frustration to me when I first encountered because I had no way of self-reviewing my exam performance to guess which questions I might have gotten wrong.
I did not go to an Ivy League but many of my classes at an alright school were graded on a curve and so C was average, B/D was one standard deviation above/below, and A/F was two.
> graded on a curve, and you know your fellow classmates are cheating with AI, you have little choice but to do the same
You always have a choice. The right move, in this case, is to raise a stink to administration, donors and politicians. Hell, use AI to do it. Schools refusing to punish teaching is a problem that’s leaking into business and politics.
This is bullshit and basically this kind of justification is part of the moral and ethical rot of most institutions in the US now. You do have a choice, you just want to pretend you don't to get away with it. Besides, no one outside of a few stuffy finance/quant shops ever even asked what my GPA was in college, they don't care.
In his generation, only cheating cyclists could stay in teams. He was the one who created the situation, but in fact, cyclists had two choices - stop being cyclist or cheat.
Note the quantity that actually got caught and with enough evidence. Lance won it 6 times without getting caught.
Looking at it systematically there's no way all of the top finishers were not taking drugs (how else could they compete with the world's best who were? The advantage isn't small.) And it had clearly been going on for many years before Armstrong entered the event for the first time.
I really don't care for Armstrong's yellow banded hypocrisy but blaming him for the "cheat or don't bother competing" reality lets rather a lot of people off the hook with a convenient scapegoat.
But I'm sure that's all in the past and it's not like that now. Just as was said when Armstrong won 6 times while correctly stating he was the most tested athlete on the planet.
Wrapping it up and tying all that to Armstrong, as has been done, stinks. He was clearly a bit player in that extensive fraud. Six titles with no meaningful positive drug test as the most tested athlete on the planet.
While I am in no way a supporter of AI cheating, or whatever we want to call it, I can tell you from experience that there is nothing more tedious or soul destroying than invigilating a written multi-hour exam. It put me off teaching in higher education.
> make education about education, not testing and certification
We tried this. The whole grades-are-racist nonsense movement (in part a reaction to NCLB).
It doesn’t work. Learning requires confronting difficulty and evaluation, even if you’re learning alone. If you want to see what attempting to learn without tests looks like, see people who think they’ve taught themselves a topic by chatting with AI. Nine times out of ten they think they know something but can’t solve actual problems on their own.
I have learned a lot about computer programming from reading books and from more experienced programmers. This is what Illich was talking about - give people an allowance and let them spend it as they will, for example on books and mentors, or indeed on classic universities.
> The whole grades-are-racist nonsense.
Wow, swerve off topic. I never mentioned anything like that and I do not want to.
> have learned a lot about computer programming from reading books and from more experienced programmers
I like learning from textbooks and others. I would say self testing myself is the difference between reading nonfiction and trying to learn something.
> never mentioned anything like that and I do not want to
It’s the rhetoric that was used to push back against examination in California and New York. Explicitly. The rhetoric was new, but it was essentially Illich’s ideas.
The result was kids in wealthy districts with tutors or with educated parents who valued learning for its own purpose (and had the time and skill to convey that to their kids) did well while those in poorer districts got left behind because absent measurement you have no accountability.
How is invigilation "soul destroying"? You just walk or stand around as students write exams. Grading exams is tedious, but invigilating them is a neutral experience.
> Grading exams is tedious, but invigilating them is a neutral experience.
I don't mind grading exams (though I think grading is somewhat futile - see my link elsewhere). Sometimes an examinee will come up with a new idea, but we don't need formal examinations to check that kind of thing out. And you can do it in a comfortable chair, while listening to Miles Davis, unlike invigilation.
I remember getting to college just being stunned at how many people weren’t there to learn. I wasn’t a perfect student, but I was there to become smarter.
Back in my day, you could also just Google the problems and find the solutions. What mitigated cheating at UVA was the honor code and each professor's faith and trust in our integrity. That culture was enough to not cheat.
Imo, the fix should be to work on culture. Cheating should always be a tempting choice, so that the student may challenge their integrity, which is a muscle that can atrophy.
> What mitigated cheating at UVA was the honor code and each professor's faith and trust in our integrity. That culture was enough to not cheat.
The decline of actual consequences for cheating has played a big role.
When I was in college, people who got caught cheating found themselves in a world of trouble. Repeat offenders faced severe consequences like failing courses, which could delay their graduation date if it was a critical-path course. This has a real dollar amount attached to it because you start working later.
Now it seems universities avoid addressing cheating problems at all costs. The professor in this article complains about how hard it was to draw attention to the cheating problem, with no response within his own department.
Students know this. As cheating gains critical mass and you see that nothing bad is happening to the cheaters, you start feeling like you're at risk of falling behind if you aren't cheating. The cheaters are getting higher grades (100% for many in this case) and they get to go out partying while you're still working through the material. You're really screwed if grades are distributed on a curve.
So temptation spreads. Anecdotally, I've seen a few young people lie to themselves and think that they're just going to use ChatGPT to check their answers and learn from it, but they don't realize how superficial it is to have ChatGPT fix your problem and then skim the correct answer. They put less effort into checking their work because they know they have a button to push to check it for them. When they get put into a situation where they can't rely on that button, it all falls apart
> When I was in college, people who got caught cheating found themselves in a world of trouble. Repeat offenders faced severe consequences like failing courses, which could delay their graduation date
We had a very real threat of rustication. People still cheated. I think culture does play a big role. Of course, there need to be consequences too.
At UVA many years ago, one of my roommates was one of the unfortunate 20 or so annually expelled -- the only outcome of being convicted of breaking the "no cheating, stealing, or lying" honor code. It didn't take repeat offenses, expulsion was a first offense consequence.
Interestingly, it seems like you weren't joking about the decline:
> Finally in the spring of 2022, a sanction reform referendum succeeded with more than 80% of the vote, changing the penalty for an Honor violation from expulsion to a two semester suspension. [1]
That’s a different debate, and imo, the lack of a severe curve makes it safer for students to resist temptations to cheat. Severe curves ratchet up structural pressures for students to cheat, due to a prisoners’ dilemma effect in a zero-sum competitive environment. When there is a severe curve and students are able to cheat, acting with integrity becomes a failing strategy.
I agree with the sentiment, however I think the erosion of the honor system is inevitable given the rising cost of college. Somewhere in the last 20 years college became a luxury good, and with it a natural sense of entitlement from their customers.
Couple that with increased awareness that classroom instruction (delivered by tenured research facility who seem annoyed at the idea of teaching) often has little relevance to workplace skills, I think kids have correctly surmised that the smart thing to do is say fuck the code and focus on checking boxes.
"Fixing" the culture includes a much much broader context than just what an individual professor preaches about to a set of students. It includes the entire intergenerational contract, earning the trust of students as well, getting their buy-in. There's a lot of cynicism and distrust against it all and a lot of disengagement because they just don't buy into it anymore with sincerity. It's not simply about scolding them a bit more and telling them that actually cheating is bad, mkay.
One place to start is to question seriously who actually needs a university degree and why, how this credentialism has been stealing years of productivity from young people. Though at least the deal was that in exchange you could expect some middle class job, even if gated behind a totally unrelated bachelor degree. But then this deal also got soured.
The culture comes from the role of the institution and the degree. The fact is that the primary role of the degree is as a gatekeeper to high paying job opportunities, regardless of what anyone idealistically thinks it should be.
This creates some problems. Let's say that you go to university and major in X to get a job in Y. So you assume that the companies are requiring you to get the degree to prove that you are competent in X which is necessary to do job Y. But when you get to university you realize that most of your classes required to get a degree in X actually have nothing to do with X. Furthermore you also notice that students who just cram for the test and have no functional knowledge of X are still getting As and graduating.
Then you get a summer internship in a job doing Y. You notice that learning to do job Y really has nothing to do with what you learned about X in school. You notice that your mangers an the company who are really good at job Y (and all majored in X) have basically forgotten everything they know about X and know much less about it than you, but are excellent at job Y. You finish your internship and now know that you are perfectly capable of doing job Y. But, of course you can't get job Y yet because you don't have your degree in X. You have to go back to school and learn more about X before anyone will hire you even though you already know more about X than the people who do job Y and who you can see really don't need knowledge in X to do the job.
So you are being forced to get a degree in X to get job Y, but job Y doesn't really require knowledge of X. And on top of that, a degree in X doesn't even really mean you have any functional knowledge of X! Everybody just learns Y on the job anyway!
So now you have an exam in X, so you decide fuck it, why would I spend time on this? This whole system is retarded, I'm just going to use ChatGPT.
This was basically my experience in college. I never cheated, both because it was harder before LLMs and because I didn't really need to study much to get As, but I find it hard to fault people who do. I really struggle to see how integrity plays into this system. The system itself has no integrity, so having integrity inside it almost seems like being a sucker. If you want to change the culture to promote integrity, the education and the degree have to mean something besides an arbitrary bureaucratic gatekeeping device.
Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life. The honor system is idyllic and requires idyllic circumstances: people who pursue education for no reason other than curiosity or self improvement. If you want the honor system back then you need to offer more stable safety nets. It's not "kids these days", it's the natural result of the systems adults have made.
> Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life.
Yes it was. This was the pitch for as long as Google has existed. The only relevant change from the early days of Google is that now you also need to go to a T20 school and GPA inflation has gone completely insane.
Even in the old times, including at medieval universities, most students weren't simply hobbyist curious gentlemen who studied it for idyllic leasure reasons, but people studied things to then get various jobs, teaching, administrative and clerical or legal work, etc.
> Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life.
Assuming the person you're talking to is still alive, this isn't true.
> The honor system is idyllic and requires idyllic circumstances: people who pursue education for no reason other than curiosity or self improvement.
This isn't true either; if your student body consists of only those people, you don't need any system at all. There is no point in even notionally punishing students who don't want anything from you.
The world is getting more competitive. Integrity goes out the window when cheating in a test can mean meaningful better life outcomes and when you believe everyone else will be too.
The thing about the community of trust—of which all stewards—is that camaraderie, respect, identifying with the community, and integrity will keep the majority of students from cheating. And if that isn’t enough, the “single sanction” was historically a sufficient danger to raise the stakes immensely.
However, some students will cheat, and for that reason, I am very much against curves. If you learn the material and demonstrate that you have, you should get the A. But it’s more work for professors to calibrate their curriculums, and there seems to be no real accountability for the inverse of learning objectives—teaching objectives—so curves are likely here to stay.
I would argue the barrier to cheating has become lower just by virtue of how easy it is to do it now. You open an app and type your question. Rue if different from Brit where you had to basically have either a skill in cheating to find and adapt the right resources or you would have to have money to pay someone to do it for you. AI as the great equaliser I suppose.
In Serrano's class and other introductory classes like it, cheating has been widespread before AI and after. The truth is that the social stigma around cheating has gone away (perhaps this is only a post-remote-schooling phenomena) so cheating is trivial. All you have to do is go text a friend in the class (most people will have many friends in any large intro class they're taking).
A time when a take-home, closed-book test, relying on the honesty and integrity of the students, was viable seems completely unrealistic now. I assume there were always some who cheated, but I can imagine that it was sufficiently socially unacceptable that many didn't.
Hmm I think one part every commenter is missing is that students have grown way more mercenary and cynical over the last 20 years. I was shocked in grad school that:
a) I got bullied into sharing my math homework so people could copy it, just like high school and college... but this was math grad school!
b) In 2011 I TAed a 4000-level course where the instructor left the solutions to the homework online (he wrote the book). I estimate 95% of students copied the solutions. It was only 5% of the grade and they paid for it on the exams. Still. Kind of stunning to see at U Waterloo - it was a continuous optimization course and most of them wanted to work in finance, yikes.
I would not agree with this from my own experience. The truth is the culture, at least at Brown in the 2020s, has little stigma around cheating in big classes. Unclear how different this is in the past, but a friend and I often joke that the student body is very good at reward hacking. If there's a reward, people will find a way to get it! That's across grades (people will cheat), housing (a huge % people will competitively apply for specialty housing or accommodations to beat the lottery), and a whole lot of other things. I don't think this is correlated with legacy, athletics, ect. but an artifact of the current culture unfortunately.
Not quite true. As a student who had many friends in Serrano's class in question among others at Brown, I'm be quite doubtful that AI has led to an increase in this particular class. The truth is that (at least post-covid) cheating is very widespread on take-home exams. If you are taking an introductory class such as Serrano's, you will have many friends in the class and cheating is so widely accepted that there is little to no stigma to doing it and so many people do. The primary limiting factor on whether a student cheats is not access or ease but desire.
I was in a class where around 12% of the class got caught directly copying a journal assignment. I'm sure more went undetected. AI has made it easier, but it's in the same magnitude.
The whole discussion consistently fails to acknowledge that, in a day where we have a Supreme Court Justice who cannot define "woman", education devolves into anarchy.
Because for many a college degree is a pure formality to land a job.
My first job out of college, I worked with veterans at the company who all got in with a HS diploma. Now you realistically need a masters degree to be competitive, for no other reason than that where I live (Norway) most applicants have a 5-year masters degree. It is basically academic inflation.
Here we have a tongue-in-cheek word "Mastersyken" which translates to "Master's illness/disease", a word for the phenomena that too many people are pursuing a master's degree for the sake of the diploma alone, trying to become more attractive in the search for a job, but with the side effect that suddenly "everyone" has a master's degree, and in the end everyone is stuck at the same place as before, but with extra student loans.
The worst part is when you start working, and indeed discover that this is a job you could have done just fine straight out of HS.
A master's in CS can teach you interesting and very useful things, like how OS kernels, distributed systems, networks, and microprocessors work. A master's in EE will teach you things like signal processing and analog circuit design as well. Knowing these things helps you to design, build, and evaluate systems that are reliable and efficient.
A master's in science helps you understand how the physical world works and how to reason quantitatively as well as qualitatively. A master's in humanities gives you knowledge and understanding of human culture, such as literature and the arts, and history - subjects that can be deeply enriching and can provide insights that transcend disciplines. A master's in social science will teach you about how humans behave in groups and how they interact with their environment, and about statistical analysis.
Writing a master's thesis will also teach you a lot and make you a better writer - if you actually write it yourself and don't rely on AI.
Any of these degrees will certainly qualify you to be a more interesting, knowledgeable, and insightful barista or Uber driver.
Don't assume that TrackerFF is doing the kind of job that requires higher education.
It's also dangerous to assume that higher education is for everyone. (Although I agree the opportunity needs to be there for anyone who wants to try it.) Some people just want to get on with their life after high school. (I raise my children assuming that they will go to college, and if they want to seek an alternate way through life, I will support it.)
(Serious answer in spite of the punch line at the end of my parent post which perhaps addresses your first point.) I think it's good for people to be educated, and to have the opportunity when they want it, but it can be self-defeating to force people to be there who don't want to be.
There should be no reason you have to jump to a master’s for that. A bachelor’s in CS or EE would be a joke if it didn’t (doesn’t) cover those things. Arguably, even the current 4 year bachelor’s is a waste compared to a focused 2 year program: looking at my college’s requirements, many classes are wasted. Business majors taking a physical science with lab component, entry level English classes being taught by a TA that doesn’t speak English natively, etc.
I guess it depends on the program, but at my university an undergrad EE major, even though it had more units than any other major, didn't get to the best and most interesting stuff (perhaps because engineering majors also had to learn about things other than engineering, which seems like a pretty good idea.) Personally I wish more CS grads (including many people I worked with) had a better understanding of compilers, programming languages, databases, operating systems, distributed systems, networks, and computer architecture, as well as applications programming and interaction design. It's hard to get all of that while working at a single job, but readily achievable at a university, and an extra year of coursework really helps.
Business majors should take physical science courses with a lab component! How else are they going to learn anything about reality?
But there is no excuse for bad teaching, anywhere (especially given how insanely competitive faculty positions are - even crummy adjunct and lecturer positions.)
Unfortunately research universities prioritize fundraising > research > teaching. And sometimes grad students are selected to teach based on financial need or departmental requirements rather than interest or ability.
>you're paying so much for an education and then you just skip the education part? Why bother?
Because you are viewing the motivation of college wrong for most people. For most people, the purpose of college is to get piece of paper that will open up higher salary opportunities. Ergo, they are just doing whatever required to get said piece of paper with least amount of effort.
Until degrees, in particular, degrees from well-regarded universities stop being that method, this behavior will continue.
> For most people, the purpose of college is to get piece of paper that will open up higher salary opportunities
More true at an Ivy than anywhere else.
> This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools).
If this guy thinks AI is motivating his previously guiless student body to start cheating on these tests, rather than simply changing the way they are cheating, he's been sniffing too many of his own farts.
Sadly this is true. Another take is that if you don’t use AI but everybody outperforms you on exams using AI at some point you’re forced into it as well.
Until degrees, in particular, degrees from well-regarded universities stop being that method, this behavior will continue.
This is already starting to happen, at least for software engineering positions. There have been plenty of stories of candidates with degrees from prestigious institutions failing to answer the simplest of questions correctly. FizzBuzz is a famous example, but there are many others.
That motivation isn't necessarily inherent in the attendees though. That has been formed by corporations increasingly placing pressure on universities to be their personal training grounds, without any actual investment. Corporations don't want to train anymore. They want universities and other companies to do their training for them.
It's why we're seeing the death of the liberal arts majors. It's sad, because usually the smartest and most creative people I've worked with in the field of engineering and software have been liberal arts majors. But corporations don't want intelligent people. They want people who have been molded to whatever the soup du jour is.
> That [motivation] has been formed by corporations increasingly placing pressure on universities to be their personal training grounds, without any actual investment. Corporations don't want to train anymore. They want universities and other companies to do their training for them.
I don't think so.
The problem rather is that corporations very often want some very different knowledge of employees than what universities teach to the students.
If what the universities teach was very important for the job, applicants who have not invested serious effort into getting a deep understanding of the topics of the courses would nearly all fail in the job interviews.
The problem rather is that for many jobs the knowledge that you could have gotten from the university typically does not matter, and thus investing minimal effort into the courses does not get you rejected in a job interview.
If only they could communicate with each other and explain their reasoning.
Corporation A "Hi University, here is what we hire highly paid people to do, and what we need to improve as a company."
University B, "Hi Corp A, here is our educational mandate to create well-rounded, highly educated people, we can probably fit your needs into the curriculum in the last couple of semesters, let's work together to make sure you have good employees and we have people who aren't struggling to pay back loans because they have an engineering degree but can't make more than 50K at a dead end job."
I basically do agree with you. The only problem that I see with your suggestion is that companies often don't know what they actually, really want from their employees.
But in practice the typical situation is that it is perfectly easy to graduate from University B without being well rounded and highly educated, and also you can skate by without actually learning any of the job relevant stuff in the last 2 semesters either.
I'm surprised Corporation A doesn't say "FU, we're just going to hire HS grads with high SAT scores and train them ourselves," but for whatever reason they typically don't.
Apparently some students aren't actually interested in learning and view the diploma as a meal ticket rather than a meaningful credential. Or perhaps the university is just seen as a networking opportunity.
If students don't want to be there in the first place and/or don't see any value in learning, it is unsurprising that they'd take the easy way out. Or maybe they cheated their way into Brown and are just continuing.
But I was always interested in learning, and understood that cheating was a method of learning avoidance. Why waste the amazing learning resources - faculty, teaching assistants, courses, labs, libraries, studios, rehearsal spaces, interesting speakers, arts and culture events, computing facilities, maker spaces, etc. - that are available at a place like Brown?
Take home tests were always rife with cheating, although it's probably worse now.
Teachers really need to stop doing it, it's so destructive to create a metric that tracks how well you can cheat and lie, and basically forces you to cheat and lie (because everyone else is) if you want to get a job.
Because it's an important aid to getting to a high-paying job in the US, not just a means to learn.
One need only look at the resume filtering process, a once manual bias that has now been codified into algorithmic bias with AI. A degree from a good school boosts your chances immensely, and other facets such as coursework don't matter much.
If you have ever seen someone filter applicant resumes, you will understand instantly. There are too many, you have to filter them somehow and the allure is irresistible.
> then you just skip the education part? Why bother?
You've never put anything off in your life or taken the easy short term route? Come on this is not difficult to understand. You aren't different either.
i mean, even if you are truly there for learning, doesn't it make sense in a low risk setting to try and boost your grade? it's different if you're cheating on your homework or other learning, but there isn't much learning left to do on the exam, that's for the grade
When it costs a lot of money, the failure itself costs a lot of money. And you cant afford it. Because failure means you paid a lot of money for nothing.
An expensive education comes with higher temptation to cheat.
let people use as much ai as possible. encourage it. and as an educator, you have to learn to leverage it oneself or not (depending on the subject). and be better at using it than students if it does make one 'better'.
if ai doesn't help, then it won't help. if it does help, then you should use it. the metric is your output of whatever is being tested. writing an essay well and clearly understanding the material. solving a pset. whatever.
if you give access all the time for that, and then you test on a hard problem that could be done with or without ai, then it's fair. e.g. "clearly explain these four sentences of Y." obviously ai researching loosely and blathering isn't useful. won't be high signal / dense and correct and worthy of an 'a'. but someone who can harness ai and someone who knows the material well in the end will be rewarded the same by society. what you are testing is correctness and information density in a response. so you have to start now in accepting the reality that those who use ai to get there should be rewarded just the same as those who don't.
the burden is on educators to be as good as they can with ai if it is relevant or not if it is not relevant (and schools to fund them and ai companies to fund them if they have excess capital and are humanitarian).
and note the hard part even for us engineers at tech companies is in the correctness. it is very hard. but the sooner we start teaching how to do things correctly with ai, the more prepared the next generations will be.
I'm from Hungary and the majority of the exams here are oral one-on-one interviews (depends on the course of course but still). I've never ever had take home exams and or even quiz like tests were very uncommon.
I’m no longer in college still, The day I longer have to worry about putting a meal on my table, I’ll treat college as this fantasy “thirst for knowledge” thing as some of the commenters here suggest. Till then, it’s just a meal ticket.
It seems that the Oxbridge model is really going to be the only workable one here in the future. Small groups of about 8 total, lead by a proctor, meeting regularly. The social pressures to not cheat in such small groups keep it honest.
The obvious problem with that is it is terribly expensive. You need Masters or Doctoral level people for long periods alone with students and you need to trust that these proctors won't be some form of -ist towards the students and also that their grades will be fair.
It is by design not something that scales.
But it seems that is where the path lies at this point.
Essentially, the aristocracy gets education again and the plebs get to fight/cheat it out amongst each other and paying to do nothing in the end.
> Turkstra said he’ll still use the AI detection tool going forward.
That's crazy! AI detection tools are notably unreliable, and even if they had only 1% false positive rate (I am sure it's actually much higher) that'd still be multiple innocent people failing the class for no reason.
Imagine enrolling in the class, and the professor says: "oh, and btw I am going to randomly pick three students and accuse them of cheating". Would you want to stay in this class
I think the future is going to be proctored exams on paper or on locked-down devices. If there will be projects, they should be accompanied by secondary evidence, like interviews about them.
lol okay. Why else do you, after acing a midterm, then not even come to the final once it's been announced that you can't use your previous cheating method?
Nobody would hire a chess coach and then use Stockfish to cheat on the problems. Whatever the students are paying for here, it certainly isn't an education.
Of course not. Education is free on the internet. University provides motivation and credentials. The motivation part is important because most people can't stick to such rigorous education for so long without some external force. Universities need to enforce rules against cheating as part of the motivation service they're providing.
Not really, bluetooth/wifi detectors are absolutely a thing, and emissions from camera in glasses are easily detectable by the right equipment.
This equipment is not very common today, but if the smart glasses become popular, then universities (or proctoring centers) will get it.
And if they don't become common, then some fraction of cheating is acceptable, as long it's not too high. After all, one could do micro-camera + earbuds even before AI, with human conspirator.
We don’t allow calculators in elementary school when we teach and test students for multiplication and division. We don’t allow for dictionary when we test for vocabulary.
Instead of denouncing them, the professors should expel every single one of these students. These people cannot be allowed into the economy. (And don’t “what about” me about dishonestly already existing in the economy. I know it does. But it’s like littering—you’re not justified in adding another piece even if the ground is already dirty.)
One of the hardest and best exams I had to do in university was my behavioural finance midterm exam: the format was that I had to sit down with the professor and have a five minute discussion on a topic of my choosing. It was surprisingly tough, and the process of verbalising what you know about a topic doesn't give you much room to hide.
Accurate and high-quality exams are a solved problem. The issue is that universities aren't necessarily judged on teaching quality and opt for examination methods that scale well.
> He has conclusive evidence that at least 50 students cheated on the March midterm exam, making it the biggest known scandal at Brown and in the entire Ivy League
I'd like a citation for this being the "biggest known scandal" in the "entire Ivy League". Frequently such situations are kept somewhat quiet, for a variety of reasons. But fifty students is not a large number in courses that can enroll hundreds or up to a thousand students.
Ivy League classes usually aren't as large as their state school counterparts. At most you might get around a hundred students in a large lecture course; this is rare by design.
You can crunch the numbers on this to verify for yourself – most of these have a population of 6000 undergrads or so. 1/6 of all of the undergraduates need to take a single course for your "up to a thousand" to be true.
I agree that a citation would be nice, but the number of students is indeed large for Ivy League courses (as per the article, in this econ course, he had 86 students for a class that usually only has 30).
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.
Assessment should probably a mix of all of the various forms: handwritten blue book, verbal, multiple choice, and AI assisted essay. It really depends on what is being asssesed.
"This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools). “It’s a very nice kind of exam, because as you’re giving students practically unlimited time to complete it, it lets you make it harder than normal, to see how far they can go.”
...
"But it also hurts him that the one time in 34 years that he decided to offer a take-home exam, for highly justified reasons, the response was wide-scale fraud."
-----------------
Not to in any way defend or condone academic misconduct, the fact that this was his teaching-career-first take-home exam is probably relevant. Take home exams can be fiendish. I remember having one in grad school where we were given a very insufficient 36 hours to complete it, and many people just didn't sleep. That was from a prof who knew what he was doing. This guy may have accidentally made his exam absolutely sadistic.
Couple this with the fact that students often have other exams they need to be studying for in the same time window. The pressure can be immense. The temptation to use AI to help is going to be hard for many to resist unless the penalties are severe and strictly enforced.
AI cheating is probably going to be a problem going forward in all situations, but open-book, take-home tests are going to bring it out more strongly than other test formats.
It was closed-book. Take-home, closed-book seems like an oxymoron anyway.
A lot of the cheating students would have concluded that other students are going to cheat and get a much better result, so they might as well do the same.
Administration needs to eschew "technology" and demand analog solutions: hand written exams in proctored rooms, no devices out in the classroom, no take home work, etc.
Ensuring integrity definitely requires in person proctored exam centers. It does not require hand written exams.
Hand written exams are either very labor intensive to grade or are confined to multiple choice, so either inflationary to cost of education or inauthentic / inaccurate representation of most knowledge and skills.
The best answer, which enables authentic meaningful high integrity assessment that is also unit cost efficient is to have testing center facilities with institution supplied devices and well trained proctors.
This way instructors can assess students in ways that are relevant and authentic to the subject matter while ensuring the assessments are accurate, consistent, fair and actually reflect the students abilities.
I've been trying to figure out how to avoid AI fraud in my classes, like many others. While not perfect, I've written down my thoughts and attempts in the hope it might help someone else:
Is it paywalled? I honestly didn't realize that. Sorry.
I'll edit the comment and change to an open URL and paste the two main ideas here:
FORCED SKILL-BUILDING GOALS
Where my original purpose of giving homework assignments was to help students build their skills through active engagement, I can no longer trust that all my students will have done it by hand. But I still want my students to feel the need to improve their skills. So, I start by considering which skills I think are most important for that class (writing, for example) and build a forced need for my students to improve that skill. For example, in my writing-focused classes, I now give students in-class hand-written exams. I let them know about the essay-based tests (mid-term and final) on the first day of class and encourage them to practice their writing each week, in-class and at home, thus giving them a very clear reason to practice — to get a good grade. Additionally, I take away the need to get a “good grade” on written homework by giving them full points if the homework is turned in on time, regardless of contents or mistakes. Thus, with the need to practice their writing skills for exams and no need to worry about making a good grade on homework assignments, students are encouraged to try the homework themselves — they cannot fail and they can only benefit by doing it themselves. In fact, using an LLM to complete an assignment will likely hurt them as other students who improved their skills will do better on the exams.
Homework once again can be used as a tool for them to improve their abilities through engagement, not just a pointless activity that an LLM can do to help them “get a good grade”.
FORCED LLM FRICTION
Another method I have found for encouraging students to complete assignments on their own is to purposely create friction to using an LLM. I try to plan assignments that it would be MORE work to use an LLM than to simply do it themselves. Humans being what we are, we often will choose the path of least resistance, especially if a grade is on the line!
For example, in one of my classes, I have students write a short story for homework (of about 250 words) about a picture I show them in class. Spelling and grammar mistakes are OK, they are guaranteed to get full marks if they turn it in on time, but the story has to be written BY HAND. To use an LLM, a student would first have to write a lengthy prompt describing the picture in detail and explain the type of output they need (a lot of work), and then they would still have to rewrite the entire story by hand (forcing them to focus on reading, spelling, and handwriting anyway). Thus, by introducing forced friction to using an LLM, especially where there is no danger (no friction) of getting a bad score because of mistakes, encourages students to take the easier path — just do it themselves.
The same idea also applies to shorter listening assignments. As long as the homework receives full marks for turning it in on time (low friction against the fear of poor ability) and the exams including a listening element (clear purpose for trying), the hassle of downloading the audio, sending it to an AI to transcribe it, then upload pictures of the homework questions just isn’t worth it. It’s just easier and more beneficial for students to do it themselves.
For homework: if you make homework results not count towards the final grade, then there's no reason to use an LLM - the point then just becomes to have practice problems and feedback on how well you are doing.
This is what my university (EPFL) was doing ~40 years ago. And yes, some students didn't bother with the homework, and mostly paid the price at the final exam...
For real. Sneaking peeks at the textbook is "good" cheating, in that you're still doing a form of learning. Having LLM write your paper is just a waste of everyone's time.
He is fighting a losing battle. That's why nobody in the administration cared. Academic integrity already doesn't exist anymore. As Nassim Taleb would say; there are plenty of highly educated idiots with PhDs.
Even the idea that MIT is somehow better than some other universities is itself a fiction. People are conflating financial success with academic ability. The former is mostly the result of social connections which are formed within the academic institutions and have very little to do with actual capabilities.
Universities should just sell degrees for a high price without requiring the students to attend. If they're rich enough, their skills aren't going to matter anyway; they'll succeed in their careers regardless so the university will still look good. 'Academic integrity' will be intact. Especially true for business, economic degrees or other humanities.
The problem is that kids, even (or especially?) in the elite schools, are treating college as a box to tick. At the Ivies, for many students, it's nothing more than the requisite means to get their ticket punched so they can become/remain part of the elite class. This has been the conventional wisdom for half a century.
Now, this paragraph doesn't apply to an economics class like his, which is actually a useful degree, but many students will never use what they learn in college in a professional capacity, so it barely even matters if some (maybe even most?) students cheat because outside of the useful degrees, it's mainly a sorting hat to determine who works at Starbucks to pay back student loans, while rolling their eyes because of their 'valuable degree,' and who works there unironically, to pay their bills.
What needs to happen though is that students at all levels need to either believe that they need to learn what they're choosing to take courses in, or even better, actually innately want to learn it to satisfy their own interest. Either will do. If you have neither intention toward the material, of course you'll cheat your way through it. No student who actually wants to learn would waste their time and money taking a class only to not learn, and cheat their way through it.
All these over-complicated "solutions" are incredibly funny. At my uni in Germany education worked in a very straight forward way. There is no graded homework (you're in a university not an elementary school), at the end of the semester there's a three hour exam, on pen and paper (our CS profs deducted a point per syntax error btw so mind your parentheses) and if you don't do any homework or don't show up that's on you because you're an adult, but good luck making it through the test.
Of course 70% or so usually crashed out in particular in Calculus and I suspect given that US education is paid for daycare that's exactly the thing that can't happen which is why they're never fixing it
As of now chatgpt subsidies its consumer subscription-I wonder if cheating on exams will be still promiment once students are forced to pay $30 a month
Students may be notorious for being cheap (rightfully so, given the financial situation they are placed in) although when a single textbook cost $200 and you need 3 different ones every term, a $30/m subscription that effectively is a magic textbook that writes for you is worth its weight in gold.
> This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools).
These news articles are just tiresome at this point. Obviously folks cheated previously, obviously it's easier now, obviously the answer has been to not have take homes all along.
the professor has all the power in the classroom. If you don't want cheating, define better conditions for the exam. You allowed a take-home exam which means students are able to use any and all resources.
> You allowed a take-home exam which means students are able to use any and all resources.
It was a closed-book exam. The professor shouldn’t have to hold students’ hands for them to act with integrity, they are all adults.
In this particular class, the professor made the final exam in-person, and didn’t count the take-home midterm because the score distribution wasn’t consistent between the two exams. I think that’s a reasonable approach, but it’s kind of sad that it was necessary
When the highest offices of the land are packed to the gills with liars and grifters and anyone with a brain can observe there’s no downside to such behavior, "just be honest" rings rather hollow
Maybe I have too optimistic a mindset, but “just be honest” in academia isn’t about being a rule-follower, it’s about not short-changing yourself by coasting though on autopilot instead of learning to think and solve problems for yourself.
Whether that really matters if your goal is to climb the social ladder and have power and influence, I don’t know.
Replace "climb the social ladder and have power and influence" with "be able to afford a home, have kids, and go on vacation occasionally."
It's become very difficult to have even a middle class lifestyle without a college degree. Obviously a huge percentage of people there don't want to be.
I've noticed more and more that people lie to me and I call them out immediately (aggressively, as if they've just spat in my face) and they just don't care.
Does "my word is my bond" not have meaning any more?
Not really. I'm not responsible for how others behave; I'm responsible for how I behave. I don't like the rampant immoral behavior in society any more than you, but I still hold myself to a higher standard of behavior and others should too.
The thought of a closed book take home exam really made me laugh. They also mentioned Princeton hasn’t had professors in the room for exams since the 1890s… They just have a code of honor and rely on other students to report cheaters??
Ivy league is such a scam, in so many different ways.
They're going to have change everything so use of an AI assistant doesn't matter because once they graduate they're just going to continue using it anyway.
If it's a math for finance course then some kind of model building for the midterm and being marked on the quality of the model or something. If AI becomes so good that it always chooses the best fitting model and requires no numerical optimization then they will have to change the courses to be more like UChicago where it's primarily undergrad directed research but AI assisted.
The challenge I think is that students then struggle because they used AI throughout the semester and didn't actually learn. The proper response would be to be strict and fail students that don't perform to a satisfactory level, but this messes with the funding incentives.
You can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. Maybe a student's sincerity should play a larger role in the admission process, maybe with a sharp expense curve such that students judged to be more sincere have to pay less tuition. It is an inherently subjective evaluation though.
Edit: I completely misread your comment. Asking students to build a model is not a finance class anymore.
It's a welfare economics theory course that requires many frameworks with measures where you are maximizing some graphical representation. It also requires assumptions to work and can be visualized in a model where you can see what happens when one of the assumptions doesn't hold.
For example the old and new Berkeley model to study rent control effect on market prices
It's the old game that he's trying to preserve. It's time to move on to the new game. When the landscape shifts beneath you, its very low probability that the existing structures on the landscape are a good fit for the new landscape, and the structures on the new landscape must be rethought from first principles.
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.
Wait, is this not how things are now? Do students do exams at home now?
I guess it has been 14 years since I graduated but I didnt expect it to change that much.
> In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written.
Forcing hand written should really not be necessary. It would be very cheap in terms of old computing hardware to set up a test room with old desktop PCs that have wired only NICs (with a network connection that goes to a switch in the same room with no uplink, connected to a decent size laser printer only), running something like lubuntu and libreoffice writer as a basic word processor.
Let people at least type their essay with the standard features of a word processor as usable as MS Word 2000 or better.
I’m 30 and “we can’t do tests in paper” seems _insane_. Just how metastatic has ed tech been in what, 9 years since my undergrad?
I'm quite a bit older than you, old enough that I remember learning to touch type in elementary school on Apple IIe and IIgs desktop computers. It's not reasonable these days to expect people to hand write a 4, 6, 8 page length essay on paper and pen with a finite time limit in a classroom. Being able to edit and revise things in a word processor type interface is an essential part of writing an academic paper.
Additionally expecting whoever is reading the paper to comprehend everyone's (likely very sloppy, in this era) handwriting is an exercise in frustration for the person who would be evaluating the papers.
Not that tests/exams can't be given on paper, ever (multiple choice still works), but for something where people are expected to provide multiple pages of coherently written essay output, I would struggle to do it by hand. And I'm old enough that we did do a lot purely on paper when I was in school.
> I would struggle to do it by hand.
If you did it before then, barring physical limitations which have occurred since then, you would struggle for a short while and then you would be fine. I also did coursework purely on paper, got out of practice, and then once my kids were in school got back into the habit of handwriting. I can even write cursive again. Cursive makes it much easier on the hand and wrist. There's a reason it was invented. :)
> barring physical limitations
I think you're missing the point. This is a physical limitation. People don't write as much as they used to. I used to be able to write for hours, taking notes, writing papers, etc... Now, I try to take notes during a meeting and my hand cramps. And as a bonus, my handwriting never was great, but now it's illegible for me.
Yes, we all "could" re-learn this skill, but how many people will? If you asked me to type a paper on a locked-down computer, I could easily. If you asked me to write a 2000 word paper by hand in an hour, I doubt it would happen.
If we expect students to take in-person tests on paper, then you should also do the rest of the classwork on paper. I am completely in the camp that we learn more when we write something. The physical act is part of the learning process. But you can't expect students to write an in-depth exam without having the practice of doing it often.
> Cursive makes it much easier on the hand and wrist.
For righties.
I'm left handed. It's still easier than print for me.
I have never been able to handwrite well and my family suspects I have dysgraphia. I can write, but slowly and unreadably. But I can type over 160 wpm. Typing for me is strictly superior, probably by an order of magnitude.
My child's high school is doing the same thing: all exams are now handwritten on paper in a supervised room. Phones and smartwatches are always banned during the school day, but laptops are banned during exams. This is standard at state-funded high schools in Australia.
There will likely be a period where those who went through high school with computers struggle with hand writing stuff, but the next generation will have done it all their lives.
Or we can just require school to actually, you know, teach people how to write?
I had to do "write code on paper" stuff as part of french engineering school entrance exams.
It's fine (tho annoying when you lose points to "typos"), but it limits what kinds of problems you can reasonably put on the exam. You'll definitely lean a bit more into theoretical stuff than practicals. Which is fine for some courses, I think a bit less interesting in other courses.
Remember, the hand written code is also harder for reviewers to grade! You have to manually run the code in your head, for example
Having said all that... "we've booked the computer room, you don't have internet, go type up all your stuff in this VM we have set up" feels fine if you don't like this constraint IMO
> we've booked the computer room, you don't have internet
How practical is this?
1. Is your institution able to provide this support?
2. Do you believe you are able to supervise the room well enough that students will be caught if they cheat? (Eg, bring a phone and look up answers.)
2 is “fine”, or that’s just the status quo. The friction from copying over stuff from a tiny phone screen discretely is the cost to cheat as well
I don’t know about 1s practicality. In my schooling it would always be doable but I have the impression US schools are a different scale
Jfc, this is a solved problem at the community college near me. All of the computers in the testing room are thin clients that effectively remote into a vm, and you get checked with a metal detector before going into the room with the computers.
If you can escape the vm on the fly and manage to use an llm to cheat, you deserve that A.
> have to manually run the code in your head
If you're doing a good job, you have to do that anyway, or at least have enough of a spidey sense for broken code to know when to investigate and add an extra test case.
Something like 30% of the time at $WORK, interviewers report the candidate as having solved the problem when a closer inspection reveals UB, memory corruption, and other bullshit. The test cases pass, and I think that's part of the problem. You can't tune out and avoid deeply understanding the submission.
> If you're doing a good job
I think the problem is that the grader has to run your code in their head. That's a whole different problem.
I would imagine every professor (or assistant) who graded any programming exam I wrote was doing just that and further expect them to let some things slide as long as the general direction was correct.
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?
A lecture hall full of click-click-click isn't going to be conducive to concentrating on a test.
If you can't concentrate while people are working on computers near you, I don't think you'll do well in any workplace that is based around knowledge work.
This is why I prefer working alone at night and am massively more productive. In any case, what's being tested in an exam setting is one's understanding of the course material, not whether they are a good fit for your idea of a normal workplace.
I had tons of exams like that. Its not an issue as the computers simply do not have loud mechanical keyboards connected
because writing speed isn't the bottleneck for what is being tested
Because students aren’t AI and aren’t measured by tokens/s
Fill the room with typewriters.
Typewriters are an expensive and niche item these days, due to no longer being manufactured, and the good ones being collected by weird nerds. Sort of like buying a 40-year-old vinyl turntable that is in good and usable condition.
If I build you a custom device that receives questions from a central computer and lets the user plug in whatever keyboard they want via bluetooth or usb to only type and answer the questions (ability to edit the text and submit when ready). The central computer can receive all the questions submitted to any of these devices connected to it via wifi or cloud. How much would pay per device? Would you pay for a subscription?
I think this can already be implemented through a fairly mundane thin client approach, such as Dell/Wyse type thin clients, citrix stuff, or an ordinary x86-64 desktop PC setup with an absolute barebones OS that connects a graphical desktop session to something centralized over a LAN.
Or you can do a much cheaper tiny esp32 typewriter with a basic display and a usb for a keyboard. But who wants cheap for education.
Frankly, the problem is finding someone with the knowledge to administer it.
Initial cost is almost certainly not a factor; the components could be so old as to be free.
You cant type fast on them either
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.
I have absolutely no concern over a 20 yr old's ability to weather the rigors of manipulating a 7 gram pencil. It's not like we're talking about getting them to spend a week on a roofing crew or swap their gaming mouse for a set of post hole diggers here. If someone needs an accommodation then that should absolutely be made available.
I'm all for handwritten tests, but it's more complicated than that. If you're actually writing for 2hr+ and haven't studied appropriate technique or bought some sort of crutch like a pencil holder then the repetitive motion will absolutely cause cramps for a fraction of the class regardless of being 20ish and healthy, and they might not find that out until they're forced to write for 2hr. The muscles manipulating a pencil (with poor technique) are much smaller than those manipulating a post hole digger, so that comparison isn't fair.
What are you even talking about? It’s normal for young students to be using a pencil to write for multiple hours in a day in school.
You should definitely take speed into consideration. If your're writing an essay, being able to type it out and still have both the opportunity and time to edit it is great. If you're writing it on paper, you likely have neither. What comes to you first is what's submitted.
When I was in grade school the common practice was to use the back page of the exam booklet to do a quick outline (assuming there was no other scrap paper available) and just cross it out when you were done with it. Being able to organize your thoughts and maintain a clear direction in writing 500-1000 words seems like an important thing to test for.
And that's exactly the point! By making sure the student can't edit the entire text once its written, you force him to think about the essay's structure and force him to plan much more before writing :)
Sure, but you know that professionals edit, right? It improves the quality of the product.
If the goal is to assess the ability of the student to produce a professional product, then why prevent them from using AI in the first place? The vast majority of professionals have access to AI nowadays?
Most curricula should probably feature both forms of assessment, demonstrating your knowledge of the basics in a closed book assessment and your ability to produce high quality final products using all resources available to you in take home assignments.
If you’re suggesting that the test favors those capable of arranging their thoughts and words before putting pen to paper then.... I’m not sure there’s a problem
And yet strangely this hasn't proved a major impediment to the species at any point in the last ~5000 years...
Sure but given any length of time, which does tend to be finitely allocated for a test (if for no other reason than the prof or proctor does have other places to be eventually), having to hand write is slower and harder to revise, which means it's harder to get that full, understanding-demonstrating essay, done and polished.
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 from first principles:
1. Time is finite, we will all perish
2. Unless you are doing open book, needs to be supervised (proctored / or prof/TA is there)
3. That person is paid for a shift
4. That shift must end
5. Therefore, anything that enables people to write faster is good for the students, who can get more paper written, or the paper better revised, during the finite time available for writing.
> 5. Therefore, anything that enables people to write faster is good for the students, who can get more paper written, or the paper better revised, during the finite time available for writing.
I think you're missing some logic in there somewhere. If a student fills in as many pages as they can, each with the number 1 written on it as large as possible, was this a good conclusion? The quantity of writing is not a good metric.
EDIT: to give a closer to reality example, an essay that's 4 times longer than a competing essay does not make it better.
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.
I don't generally get why tests are designed to rush a student. Is speed a proxy for understanding?
Well, to some extent, yes. Of course the literal number of works you can write per minute is not, but:
- someone with a good understanding will often come to a concise, clear answer while someone struggling will produce a convoluted paragraph.
- the way to get to the result will vary depending on your understanding (e.g., are you blindly applying some method or understanding what's going on). For instance, "hey, this is a vector field, I don't need to evaluate this complex integral, I just need to compute the difference between the start and endpoint of the curve!". Both answers will be correct, but one denotes a much better actual understanding (and will take way less time).
I meant to say they usually aren’t a rush for non-ace students, just a full hour. You have to work diligently, though. Competitive tests excepted, obviously.
Speed is part of fluency. Fluency and understanding feel related
Re "hand writing is harder to revise", I never had an issue with erasing words or parts of the text and using asterisks, end footnotes, the margins and whatever free space available (with arrows or not) to do revisions in written exams. Nobody complained and afaik it was fairly standard to do where I studied, as long as your exam itself was actually legible. Granted, I refer to math-related exams not essays on literature or philosophy where form may have mattered more. On the other hand, I cannot imagine writing any math during an exam on a computer.
I would often do a bullet point summary/outline of my answer on the paper. That would have arrows and insertions and crossed-out stuff everywhere -- it was usually a mess.
But then I'd use that to write the actual text answer, and consequently, it was mostly clean. I'd still have to cross stuff out or add a phrase between the lines every so often, but once the basic structure was done, that was mostly unnecessary.
And if I was ever pressed for time, I'd usually get part marks for the outline anyway. Depending on the subject, I'd sometimes race through the questions doing just the outlines, and then come back to write the full text as a complete second pass.
To be fair, this wasn't creative writing. I think it'd be harder when the expression is the content.
> Forcing hand written should really not be necessary.
I do think it's necessary. And I felt unsure at first of how extremely strong I feel about this -- I think everybody should be able to write cursive, and even doctors should be able to write legibly, which ALL of them could learn in one single day, an afternoon, if they had to -- but then I did a simple search for "the benefits of writing by hand studies" and now I'm even more radical.
It's like PE or brushing your teeth. Nobody initially wants it, so we, knowing better, force them.
i don't at all think it's that obvious / easy.
i was taught cursive in 2nd grade. and my handwriting is gobsmackingly horrible. coming back to stuff I've written after I've forgotten the context, makes it impossible for me to understand what I've written.
and it's not for lack of trying. I spent almost every summer till 10th grade, practicing writing 30 pages a day. and still it gets reset to my horrible hand writing in weeks after school start. at this point, i just consider myself hand writing challenged.
i cannot tell you how much happy i am that, computers have made handwritten exams obsolete.
I was in the same boat as a kid. My handwriting is so bad, for the essay portion of the state test we had to take one year, they got an exemption and let me use Notepad to type mine out because they didn't want to risk my grade if the person couldn't read my writing. This was in the mid-2000s.
These days I just disclaim to people when I hand them anything handwritten that I'm very aware my writing is terrible, and I will not be offended at all if they have to ask what it says.
I appreciate the sentiment, as someone who vastly prefers handwriting, but the downfall of this might be the situation we have historically had in the US with math, where the experience of being clumsily force fed this additional material can be so painful that it induces PTSD-like symptoms and a lifelong aversion to the material. A similar phenomenon even occurs with cursive and PE class.
That obviously isn't to say that I don't think people should learn these subjects, nor that we should avoid presenting them at all to young minds. It's just that, as someone who failed math all through grade school and now does pure math research as an adult, I don't think "forcing them" in the sense of introducing yet another high stakes and high pressure set of evaluations to all the others is really the enlightened path here
Well sure, but if you force feed anything clumsily you can ruin it. We had a nice teacher, and took our sweet time in first grade learning to write the alphabet in first grade. Then it was done. IMO it wasn't "additional material", or material at all, it was part of the fundamental skill set with which to interact with the material. And there wasn't a thought in my mind that it could be any other way, of course you learn to read and write when you go to school.
How can you tell if they learned anything if you don't test them?
I'm neither fully left handed or fully right handed. I mostly write with my left hand, but it has never been clean, despite doing all of my school work for 18 years with either pencil or pen and paper.
I wish I could have a just spent "an afternoon" to magically make either my printing or cursive better, but it basically stalled out early on and never improved despite years of practice.
> 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?
Not disagreeing with your opinion, just answering your question:
The big advantage of writing in cursive is speed and less muscle fatigue. Writing in cursive requires far less lifts of the pen and far less tiny movements... a reasonable cursive script (Spencerian, but with a little less flourish) is quite easy to write legibly and with speed, with just a little practice.
The junk that used to be taught in US schools (a type of Palmer cursive) it not fun to read or write.
BUT, the above analysis only really applies to people who want to write, and want to write a lot.
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.
It's been clearly shown to be beneficial for some people. I too happen to be one of them.
For others, hearing stuff (and saying stuff) out loud is more useful. I had a friend who'd make nonsense songs of stuff to learn: just doggerel, but by singing it to himself when revising, he had a massive uptick in retention. He was so happy when he worked that out.
I imagine there might be other modes that work for other people too?
If I say "people have two legs", someone is bound to reply "My friend Bob has only one leg."
And I strongly disagree.
The moment I have to write stuff down my focus is gone and I might as well be taking a nap.
And having to read my own handwriting assures I’ll never look at that page, again.
Different strokes
Same here, apparently it’s a major ADHD thing. I can take notes or I can pay attention and try to understand, but I can’t do both, you have to pick one (a calculus teacher in high school was very insistent that constant note taking for her rapid-fire example-heaving lectures was required, so… yeah I didn’t have a clue WTF we’d even been covering after each of those classes, though I’d have lots of notes!)
Having to write stuff down made it impossible for me to pay attention to the lecture. But I was definitely more likely to remember what I did write down. Bit of a catch 22
Are you sure this is a permanent fact about you and not something that would change if it became habitual?
I mean, I have no way of knowing if it's the former or the latter. But I've been noticing recently when people treat their traits as changeable and when they treat them as core to their being. I don't really have any faith that, in most cases, one can differentiate the two as much as one thinks one can.
Do you acknowledge you're a minority?
I detest writing and have terrible handwriting but have seen first hand that typing or just listening is not as effective. In grad school I sucked it up and just typed up my handwritten notes so they were searchable when I actually needed them to be.
But writing by hand and just reading them over was usually enough.
That's been my experience as well. I'm just curious about cursive writing specifically.
I'm hopeless at pure cursive writing. My default writing is a joined-up-ish kind of printing. Writing using it works really well for retaining information for me.
point taken. I learned to take notes by printing by hand, as my cursive was illegible.
It helps with fine motor skills at a time that people are capable of learning them.
... And there are jobs that use those skills.
Correlation between handwriting, drawing skills and dental skills of junior dental students - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22269191/
My dentist, while teaching dentistry commented that if the student did not learn cursive in school, it takes them another 3-4 months of practice in order to acquire the fine motor control for holding dental instruments.
So the logical entailment here is what? That everyone should have the dexterity of a dental surgeon so we can save the 7000 dental surgeons 3 months of training? Am I missing something?
If everything is just extremes, then acknowledge that the other extreme then is everybody sitting on their ass watching "Ow! My balls!", clad in advertisements. And given the choice between those two worlds, yes, everybody should have the dexterity of a surgeon.
Learning cursive won't automatically give you the dexterity of a dental surgeon, that's just a silly conclusion you have drawn from one example.
What is the downside of learning cursive?
If anyone is interested, here is a link where you can download the study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221770027_Correlati...
I few interesting bits — it does involve cursive, but it's Arabic and it's graded on a rubric that includes things like "Presenting the beauty aspects of Arabic writing'. Also, given a sample of 71 students and a p<0.001 means the correlation coefficient only needs to be around 0.40 which means handwriting and drawing may only explain about 16% of the variance of these dental skills. That's not nothing, but given the subjective nature of the test and the confounders (does this handwriting sample really measure motor skills or maybe it measures care and attention to detail, or conscientiousness), I'd be a little wary of using this to argue for education policy.
Still, glad you posted it and glad I read it. It interesting.
I just like it, the same way you hate it. If disliking it is valid, surely so is liking it?
What's the benefit of cursive over standard writing?
What's the benefit of a HNSW KNN search over brute forcing it? Speed, with minimal loss of accuracy.
Cursive vs printing (I'm guessing that's what you mean by "standard writing") is exactly the same, provided you can actually write in cursive. If you weren't taught in school, then sucks to be you, I guess? Modern pedagogy has a lot to answer for :(
The big advantage of writing in cursive is speed and less muscle fatigue. Writing in cursive requires far less lifts of the pen and far less tiny movements... a reasonable cursive script (Spencerian, but with a little less flourish) is quite easy to write legibly and with speed, with just a little practice.
The junk that used to be taught in US schools (a type of Palmer cursive) it not fun to read or write.
BUT, the above analysis only really applies to people who want to write, and want to write a lot.
(Apologies for repeating my reply from above here as well.)
When each word is a smooth continuous line I can write faster and with less effort. The short up and down motions of printed letters tires out my hand.
What is "standard writing"? Isn't cursive the standard you're taught and then everyone writes however they want?
No. Most people handwrite most things in print lettering, not cursive. I'm nearly 40 and no one in my life writes anything other than their name (signature) in cursive ever.
In 2nd grade I was assured by my teachers that all adults wrote cursive and you had to relearn the alphabet again. Then in 3rd grade the teachers all said they couldn't read anyone's handwriting and to print everything.
In high school the most difficult part of the SAT was the honor pledge that you didn't cheat that you had to write in cursive. Nobody writes cursive.
When I was in school we started with "manuscript" writing, which is detached letters similar to a typical sans-serif typeface without the two-story `a` and other fanciness. We then progressed to cursive.
With all the work around AI sandboxes, microVMs, browser sandboxes, device attestation, secure boot etc. I feel like we should be able to construct a proper software sandbox that works on most PCs and guarantees that e.g nothing outside of the word processor runs now. Like the OS would need to guarantee that nothing outside some narrow well-defined qemu VM runs for some time an the VM takes care of the rest.
Talking about programming-related courses, I can see the point of testing on a computer where one can run and debug actual code (that's how I had my programming courses) but I am not sure I get the advantage or writing code or pseudocode on a "basic word processor".
Moreover, for math or math-heavy courses (assuming most people with degrees here have STEM degrees, and many with at least some math) I cannot imagine how to comfortably write math in a word processor. Or use latex and not spend half the time troubleshooting latex, esp without internet access. So for some kind of courses at least, imo pen and paper for a timed in-person exam is the only way.
Otherwise def doable, but knowing how some universities function, I think the main problem would be getting the agreement and initiative to set such a computer room up. Getting some kind of consensus between professors that this is how (some) exams should be held and including it in the Holy Curriculum. Getting bureaucrats understand what it is about eg why you need these wired connections when the uni has a campus-wide wifi. Getting IT security agree with using old computers with lubuntu instead of their bloated enterprise windows "secure" OS. And if they are not connected to the internet how will they get security updates? How do we conform to whatever IT security rules are in place?
Writing on paper is much simpler, everybody can understand it and has been standard for decades at least. It can start tomorrow and be used in the interim while waiting approval for such a computer setup.
Writing on paper requires higher level planning skills.
A word processor allows you to edit, which is a major part of the writing process.
Forcing learners to plan everything “perfectly” before they write is a big ask. And you’re probably not teaching that skill.
I remember how much my technical writing skills improved once I started writing in a computer and editing. It was a huge difference.
Physics 107 at U of I in the 80’s had all quizzes on the PLATO system. Please for the love of mercy do not not go back to inflexible systems for exams and quizzes.
More expensive than you'd think, but I am pushing for something like that.
> More expensive than you'd think
Even a setup with cheap Raspberry Pi's? And Vim. (built-in bonus points for students being able to save and exit). Was just reading about LEAP[0][1] that thought you may find interesting if you have not yet seen it.
Separately, wanted to say I enjoyed your essay and appreciate how you think about improvement with a focus on the practical usefulness for the student.
TL;DR: I especially think the concept of Interview-Based Grading would be the way to go.
A couple progressive Whiteboard interviews for CS a semester, power point for Business etc. If they use AI to prepare, create material or learn/improve from then they are gaining the skills that will be required in real-world work. If they choose to not learn the material (or understand/check AI output) it would show during the back and forth with a panel of professors (dunno if you guys like working together though); built-in load sharing with a wider range of questions.
I guess with issues you mentioned the whole system needs overhauled for it to work. Adjusted for different courses -- and I dunno how practical this is but -- but why not let kids do more guided self-learning, keep office/lab hours for individual help. Fewer lectures due to self study with repurposed time for live evaluations. Eliminating non essential courses a student takes for a major/minor would also lessen the collective workload of professors (fewer student, but ones that want to be there).
That learning & evaluation set-up would be my dream college -- I would have pursued completely different life in that setup. I wanted to learn and engage, not prove I can regurgitate rote-memory notes that are handed out while my employment required me to grasp changing context and modify the code while not unwittingly automating the deletion of production dbs.
[0] https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/leap-low-bandwidth-educatio...
[1] https://github.com/T4EQ/leap
It would also be a huge discrimination problem.
I (as part of a small team) run the IT side of exams for a UK University and as well as the many exams intended to be taken entirely with computers, we also deliberately have an exam that's always marked as "Available to take" regardless of where on campus you are and what machine you're using, that exam just launches a stripped down Microsoft Word, with no way to start other software or access your own data.
So instead of reading the instruction book and writing either in the book or on separate provided paper, you read the book and type your answers in Word, when you're done either your work is printed or these days often it's automatically sent to the markers electronically.
There's a spectrum of people using this, going from the profoundly blind who couldn't have attempted an actual hand written exam through to people who have dyslexia or similar problems and would be able to write but it might be very difficult to mark. It also becomes a "last ditch fallback" for a number of scenarios where plans went wrong or something was forgotten and so that's why it's always available - we do run exams specifically planned to be in Word, but those have distinct IDs so that you know you're taking the exam "HIST1234/C4 History of Clowns and Clowning. Essay on prepared topic" or whatever, as well as "Multiple choice" style exams, and a large number of exams which involve using computer tooling, e.g. R, Stats packages, programming.
What's wrong with https://www.scantron.com/?
For nearly any subject of learning at a level above high school, multiple choice is a terrible way to assess knowledge.
Multiple choice can only tell if you reached a final answer (or guessed it). It cannot tell anything about how you reached that conclusion.
However, it is a fast and simple method of assessment.
Measuring what is easy to measure instead of what actually matters is a classic fallacy.
It's a good first step, a pre-filter to more demanding questions.
There's no such thing as "filtering" in academics. You don't get to kick out the students who didn't do well on the multiple choice and only proceed with the ones who scored highly.
When I started university, it did indeed have a dedicated building that was essentially a computer lab specifically for testing. In theory, cheating was prevented by having people walk around the lab watching the students. Toward the end, I did have a couple exams that needed the absolutely batshit insane malware installed on a personal device, but I think if I were to do it again today, I could still demand to use the testing center instead. It still exists.
how do you make sure they are not using their mobile phone with llms while the exam? I have seen that happening.
The same method that any test given in the last 150 years has done to prevent people from using cheat sheets or similar, by having roaming proctors in the room? Or policies like certain models of HP or TI graphing calculator only allowed on the table, for the sort of test that requires one...
Somehow I got through high school and 4 years of every class being a math class in college without a graphing calculator.
At my child's high school, phones are "off and away all day", and the punishment for being caught with a phone in your pocket (or hands) is pretty severe.
During an exam, it's an instant zero mark, on top of the after-school detention (the punishments escalate to suspension and expulsion for repeat offenses).
If people wanted to get really serious you could use a cell phone jammer and have students pass through a mini EMP at the door.
Build a Faraday cage around your examination hall :)
Seems like a problem an entrepreneur / technologist can easily solve.
Can you fit a decent LLM on a thumbdrive?
Lots of ways to disable USB ports in bios and at the operating system level, additionally have a proctor watching to be sure everyone is in a word processor. Heck, ewaste grade computers can run a basic word processor, fill all USB ports except the mouse and keyboard with epoxy. Mount the computer in such a way the rear ports are inaccessible without it being very obvious what someone is doing and fill just the front ports (if they exist) with epoxy. Lots of ways to go about it.
A proctored exam doesn't need to have perfect lock-down. The proctor should notice the thumb-drive. They might miss it, but the risk will deter most.
It can fit on augmented reality glasses, eventually.
Pretty sure that augmented reality glasses, and things in the category of the meta glasses with built-in camera are already banned in most academic test environments, by a blanket policy prohibiting the use of any camera in the room.
Right, they're easy to detect today, that's not going to last long. The whole point is to prevent cheating, well, cheats aren't going to follow the rules. Written tests/in person tests aren't a complete answer to this.
If augmented reality glasses advance to the point where you can’t easily tell from a distance, then make the students hand them over for a close inspection.
If we get to the point where even that doesn’t work then we’ll be at the point where a camera in the room with an AI analyzing eye movements should be able to detect it. And no matter how advanced they get they’ll still need to radiate heat, so a thermal camera should work. If that fails, industrial CT scanners are getting cheaper and cheaper.
Heck if it gets too bad there’s always mm wave body scanners and a set of cheap glasses kept at school.
> If augmented reality glasses advance to the point where you can’t easily tell from a distance, then make the students hand them over for a close inspection.
We had a 'fix' for this back when they checked your TI83. It's a 2 line basic program to display "MEMORY CLEAR" the exact same way as if somebody had spent the time to find the actual memory clear function in the settings.
About 95% joking, but in that case, have everyone lock their phones in a tiny locker shelf thing and wand everyone with a nonlinear junction detector. If we get to the point in technology and battery capability where camera glasses are compact enough to be indistinguishable from ordinary metal eyeglass frames, we'll probably also have really good low cost portable tech to detect any on-body electronics (vs the flesh and clothing and metal accessories like belt buckles on a human body).
Probably safer to use typewriters.
There should be no computer at all just give students a typewriter. It could prompt a resurgence of the typewriter :)
These days pretty sure computers are cheaper than typewriters.
You can get a manual typewriter (hammer rather than ball) on Amazon for about $200. Brand name ones run in the $300 - $400 range.
A college instructor turns to typewriters to curb AI-written work and teach life lessons - https://apnews.com/article/typewriter-ai-cheating-chatgpt-co...
Computers good enough to run libreoffice writer or the equivalent and print to a networked laser are thrown in the ewaste trash all the time, the cost really would be in the labor and somewhat custom software setup. Could also reuse old flat panel displays that have been decommissioned from office use.
Lubing typewriters and ensuring they have a fresh ribbon also sounds pretty labor intensive.
(Where do you even get ribbons these days)
Nobody is going to do that.
Why not?
Do you let students bring their own keyboards? If not, does that disadvantage a Dvorak user? Or a Kinesis user? Or a non-US layout? Or a Mac user?
If you do let them bring their own keyboards, how sure are you that those are just dumb keyboards?
I would bet good money, statistically, that forcing hand written tests with pen and paper is much more likely to disadvantage students with a medically documented physical disability than you are to encounter someone who can't type at all on a standard 101 key qwerty layout keyboard.
At my university, students with verified disabilities are allowed to use a university-provided laptop (properly locked-down, with allowed tools such as screen readers). But these are special cases. Computers for everyone would be costly and impractical given exams are punctual but all roughly over the same week or so.
I agree that that is probably the lowest stake solution. Alternatively there are solutions like the safe exam browser which locks down the device quite well during the exam session.
—- Disclosure: I run a small start up which offers teachers a platform to create and conduct digital exams and interfaces with the safe exam browser precisely because cheating is the number one complaint teachers I have spoken to have when it comes to digital exams.
Sure, and those require kernel level access, strip privacy, and don’t run on all OS
There are limits to what you can assess on timed assessments, and there are students whose performance on such assessments is not a good signal of their intellectual ability.
In addition, at many institutions such tests are given infrequently and can be worth a significant component of a student's overall grade, increasing both student stress levels and the tendency for such assessments to measure short term knowledge students have obtained by cramming, not more meaningful longer-term knowledge gains.
I see you're giving quizzes every three weeks, which is better than twice a semester, but still not what I would consider an ideal cadence. In my course weekly computer-based quizzes comprise 70% of a student's grade, but that's supported by a significant institutional investment in high-frequency computer-based testing: https://cbtf.illinois.edu/.
> there are students whose performance on such assessments is not a good signal of their intellectual ability
Is there a form of assessment that is a good signal of the intellectual ability of all students?
Fruit of labor? Good students of science produce novel science..as in testable ideas without precedent.. a thing llms struggle with, as they at best can interpolate and mash up previous ideas
Many good students don't produce such artifacts. That's one of the big problems in academia -- a smart person with good ideas can inadvertently pursue a less promising path and not produce ground-breaking research, so how do you tease that apart from somebody scamming the system? The current approach is to measure unrelated bullshit like citation metrics. I'd hate to see those sorts of perverse incentives pushed down into the student body as well.
I agree and would like to move towards a customized computer setup like you mention. A friend at Berkeley manages a similar setup. Unfortunately Montana State is too small to have set one up yet.
so let say you give the students a pop-quiz. is that not acceptable anymore because some students don't do well when surprised?
Acceptable is different from being an accurate assessment of knowledge. The question is what is the teacher attempting to measure?
Same with job interviews. Right now Hr insists on us doing them over zoom so we get this absurd result that we eliminate candidates that perform too well to be true, at the risk of eliminating a genuine excellent candidate. You have to look a bit messy!
it will be interesting to see if any new formats emerge. if ai kills the take home, what can replace it for similar "let's see how far you can go if you have resources available" style examinations?
maybe we'll see specialty chatbots that give the equivalent of oral examinations and/or are willing to provide reference material but not make suggestions, connections, solutions or generate prose on behalf of the user?
Even then, AI smart glasses are now making an appearance in classrooms [1]. The situation is getting really quite ridiculous.
[1] https://www.evenrealities.com/en-GB/blogs/buyers-guide/ai-mo...
That should result in an immediate expulsion
It's news to me that they weren't already. My exams were all in person and on paper in the early 2020s, and even my physics homework was a "do it on engineering paper and drop it in a mail slot" affair. The professors would forbid computers and phones during lectures and would stop to shame anyone who thought they were being sneaky.
Computer Science classes were all on paper for exams, and low level ones did the old "here's a Javadoc, write some code with a pencil."
The only online exams I had were for 100 level electives.
> It's news to me that they weren't already.
It’s an old (and outdated IMO) tradition at some Ivy Leagues, as the article notes.
It may have worked in the era when students had a little more fear of repercussions and a little more sense that cheating on a test would only cause them problems when courses got harder later.
Now it seems there is little interest in dealing with cheating, as evidenced by how hard it was for this professor to even get attention to the matter within his department. Students also don’t believe cheating will cause them future harm because they assume they can cheat everything up through graduation the same way.
When the rug gets pulled and they have to demonstrate their knowledge in person without ChatGPT, the cheaters collapse. I fear that we’re delaying this reckoning so deep into academic careers now that by the time these students encounter the point where they can’t cheat their way to completion of a course they’re in for a world of hurt, if they continue at all. We really should be coming down hard on cheating earlier and more often.
It's an old enough tradition that there are jokes that rely on you knowing the tradition.
My favorite: professor known for being VERY strict tells class repeatedly in weeks leading up to exam, "You will have exactly two hours to finish your exam, and no more. I will not accept exam booklets turned in even one minute past the two hour mark: they will score a zero. Be warned."
Exam day comes, and all but one student are in their seats with the blue exam booklet in front of them when the professor says "Begin." He arches an eyebrow at the empty desk, but says nothing.
Fifteen minutes later, the tardy student rushes in. "Family emergency," he says, "sorry." The professor tells him "You have one hour forty-five minutes." Student says nothing, but opens his book and starts writing furiously.
The two hour mark comes up, and everyone except the tardy student turns in their booklets and leaves the room. The professor reminds him "Time's up," but he just keeps writing in the booklet.
At the 2:12 mark, one hour fifty-seven minutes after he ran into the exam room, the student closes his blue book and walks up to the desk where the other books are stacked up in a messy pile. The professor is reclining in his chair with his feet up on the desk. "Nope," he says, "you're late. I won't accept your exam booklet, and you're going to get a zero on the final exam."
"That's not fair," said the student, "I had to drive my mother to the hospital. I shouldn't be punished for that. I took no more time than anyone else."
"Nope, you knew the rules," says the professor.
"Don't you know who I am?" says the student, raising his voice.
"Nope, don't know, don't care," says the professor.
"Good!" says the student. He slides his exam book into the middle of the messy stack, straightens it up neatly, and before the professor has gotten his feet off the desk, walks briskly out into the hallway.
Not to ruin the joke, but he knows and can remember the student's face so I don't think that student can get away with it.
I like to think he was amused by the student's audacity and decided that yes, he was being unfair in this particular case. I know not everyone would be so fair-minded, but I like to think that this guy would be.
Classic story indeed. They gave a version of it in the movie Slackers: https://youtu.be/totdoS6px5k
> as evidenced by how hard it was for this professor to even get attention to the matter within his department
This is the crux of it. The incentives don't support cracking down on AI cheating much. At least in the short term, for individual department administrators. Overall it will likely hurt the universities collectively to hand out degrees like candy this way, but grade inflation was already a problem and universities treat students like paying customers and they also want good statistics, fend off possible discrimination accusations etc.
So it's really not just about AI, the AI is simply exposing this underlying misaligned incentive. Professors complain about it all the time. It was similar during covid and cheating in online exams and that was solidly before ChatGPT.
IMO many CS classes should be lab based already, except the theory heavy ones. I still wonder why MIT needs to test students of OS courses on paper when the labs cover a lot of the ground. If I can do well in the labs I wouldn’t bother to memorize stuffs for the exams.
You have to test to make sure the student who you are giving the grade to is the student who did the work.
Without certifying someone’s abilities, the degree doesn’t mean much.
The degree doesn’t mean much and never did. Minimum bar that’s all
CS is a science of computation curriculum, not programming. You can have automation do all the work for you in the labs.
Mine were like this is 2005. The math classes also didn't allow calculators, engineering classes did, but not graphing ones that could store information.
I think “take home open book exam, good luck,” followed by evil laughter, is mostly a math department thing.
And physics
Yeah, many of my physics exams were take-home open-book. One that I particularly remember: "Here's your exam. There's one problem. It's due when you come back from spring break."
I graduated forever ago, but I still have bad dreams about this type of homework. That and the "oh no, I somehow forgot to go to this class all semester and now I have to take the final exam!"
Writing code like that just seems like such a poor test of actual ability. More like just a rote memorization test. On the other hand I can't think of a better way to do it fairly now. I think it speaks to the obsolescence of the educational model more than anything.
I think most teachers have adapted pretty well. I'm really surprised to find teachers that haven't reckoned with possibility of AI cheating in 2026.
In person writing, etc. But also for anything take home students have to verbally discuss their work in some fashion. Seems to mostly work. Students still us ChatGPT as a search engine, which seems fine.
(Source: married to a professor. And my son is in high school)
> In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person…
So are jobs.
oddly enough, since AI can be used to read and interpret written text, it could itself usher in a return to physical pen and paper.
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).
Maybe not everything needs to "scale"? You're asking each student to spend well over 100 hours in lectures and study for each class. Surely you can find 20 or 30 minutes per student for evaluation.
Please by all means direct more funding at universities, hire several times as many professors, and have them each teach half as many classes with a fraction of the students. The result would absolutely be an improvement.
(That said, any kind of subjective assessment has its own pile of hazards compared to objective assessments.)
I think suspected cheaters should be subjected to an interview.
I recommend reading this article, there is a very good reason that's not an option for this professor.
All my stem exams were hand written, it's how it should be. The best part is coming out with everyone else already disheveled and then grabbing a drink (or many) after the last one is over. That's some solidarity drinking right there.
Being hand written would be silly theatre that excludes perfectly capable people (like me) who cannot sustain writing more than a few minutes.
Edit: I think we’re actually all agreeing. That a typed exam as an option is perfectly cromulent. I’m just saying the idea that it must be written is silly.
I don't want to dismiss your limitation, but it's better to create an acommodation for your particular case than to prevent the system from being implemented for everybody else.
Yeah, that’s the way it worked in undergrad for me. People would have hand written exams and the ones that had essay portions I’d do under more careful scrutiny in a different location using their hardware.
Writing by hand for extended periods is a capability.
It was mandatory in an earlier age. Now it has become optional, but it could become mandatory again.
Presumably someone who is unable would get an accommodation of some kind.
Gen Xer here: we coped with hand written exams just fine. Accommodations (extra time and/or a scribe) were available for those who needed them.
We have a testing center set up for people who require accommodations, another piece of legacy functionality I never expected to use back when I gave my tests online.
I don't think it's theatre, in the sense that it is effective for the advertised purpose (preempting AI-based cheating). But it seems to me like there are also plenty of ways to make reasonable accommodations for people who can't do a pen-and-paper exam, such as an offline computer.
I have seen it firsthand in the CS department here at Dartmouth. It is bad.
We're currently designing a new intro systems curriculum, and we're thinking of it as an adversarial problem. That is, we're designing the course to ensure that a student optimizing for the best grade per unit work still meets our learning objectives. That means, as everyone else is saying, paper exams, but also 1-on-1 interviews to check that students understand each assignment they turn in. These interviews feature both factual questions ("You're using this macro from that library. What does it do?", "Please describe what this function does and how it works.") and conceptual questions ("Why is this code structured this way instead of $whatever?", "How else did you try solving this?", etc.) This doesn't stop students from generating code, but at least they have to understand that code in detail.
This is not as good as writing the code yourself, but how much worse is it? For math classes, this gap is gigantic. Obviously, understanding someone else's proof is much easier than writing your own. For programming classes, I think (without evidence) that the gap is somewhat smaller.
My experience from the past is that when this kind of evaluation is made clear up front, the students know what to expect and either do fine or drop the class in the first week. If you start with take-home exams and then spring paper exams on them halfway through the course, then half the class is cheating and won't be able to recover, as we read in the article.
In general, our students are somewhat motivated by an abstract desire to learn, but are much more motivated by grades. If there exists a straightforward path through your course that leads to a good grade without doing much work, most students will take it. (Our undergrads' course review website is literally called "Layup List." They are actually this shameless.) It's our job as instructors to ensure that all paths leading to a good grade either require learning the material or are more difficult to pull off than just learning the material.
It's best not to blame the students. They are good at optimizing metrics; that's how they ended up here in the first place. We just need to better align the evaluation metrics with the outcomes that we're looking for.
"best not to blame the students"
There are dozens for every one who didn't get the opportunity to attend an Ivy. The penalty for cheating should be automatic expulsion. I'll note as a hiring manager the college degree won't be worth shit unless the school can show their students have any integrity.
The penalty for cheating should be automatic expulsion.
Universities need to stay ahead of how people actually work. Framing the use of AI as 'cheating' gives a university a reputation that it isn't keeping up with industry, which has a wildly negative impact on admissions. You can't expel people for 'working like they do in the real world'.
Totally agree. The moral decay in higher education has a lot to do with it deciding to trade its integrity around cheating by students and professors in exchange for tuition cheques and grant money.
Yes. Best not blame the technology that was specifically built to pass up automatically generated text for human work, or companies that profit from students using it, or government that won't introduce measures that would at least make it possible to comprehensively ban it on campuses.
What sort of measures would those be? The government also banned alcohol on campus (except Louisiana) but as a 20 year old I was too stubborn to care.
There are schools with severe penalties for cheating (Army/Navy, Haverford, Davidson), but most aren't set up for that. Professors didn't self-select to be prosecutors, and we didn't spend decades becoming world experts to then become cops.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. If you let yourself start blaming students, you open a pretty corrosive path of moral judgement. Students are clever, and they're making choices informed by what they see in the world. Don't blame them for being unwilling to fail a class that cost a down payment on a house. Don't blame them for seeing powerful people get away with cheating and trying to do the same.
Kallus is right: qualitative assessment is an adversarial problem. Build the assessment correctly, and all of those previous points become moot. By clearly establishing and enforcing the rules you make it more fair to boot.
I doubt it. The concept of cheating is largely unique to academia and a few uptight professions like law. Everywhere else it is just collaboration or learning or simply something nobody cares about.
I would say that tech largely rewards the behaviours people in academia call cheating.
> The concept of cheating is largely unique to academia and a few uptight professions
What? The concept of cheating exists in marriages, sports, relationships, business agreements, accounting, and nearly every facet of human life.
> Obviously, understanding someone else's proof is much easier than writing your own.
Unrelated, but once you get to a more mature level, say grad school and above, I can say this is not always the case! Just like it's easier sometimes to Roll Your Own Damn X in programming, so too are some expositions of proof so dense (necessarily or unnecessarily so) that it is a less taxing affair to simply figure it out yourself, or at least figure out 90% of it, consulting a suggestive sentence or two in the proof in order to get at that last 10%.
Maybe this observation of mine is not so unrelated after all. I don't regret many of the times that I've thrown up my hands at the rococo explanations or solutions given to me by LLMs and simply did my own work. The Socratic method with AI is sometimes more effort than it's worth.
Understanding 90-95% of someone else's proof is much easier than writing your own ;)
It's hard to verify that you understand someone else's work at 100%, but it's reasonable for an expert to tell once they've built it themselves, right?
People optimizing for grades is so sad. I got a BS in CS and no one has ever asked about my grades. I tried to optimize for learning and it turns out that pays off really well once you hit the real world.
Without a hint of irony, wouldn't a Voice AI solution help better manage the 1-1 interview process?
1-on-1 interviews with a LLM sounds like it'd go over about as well as AI customer service.
Do you mean very well? Lots of proof out there that it works; Fin, Sierra and others already operate on a value based pricing model where they only get paid if the AI actually resolves issues.
It works about as well as replacing your barista with an iPad.
A lot of restaurants in Korea and elsewhere have replaced human cashiers with touch screen kiosks. You’re given a number, someone calls it out when your drink’s ready. For the places I went to it worked just fine. Did you have a bad experience?
His research is in Game Theory. He should have realized that, in a situation where all competitors are (possibly) using LLMs, the game theoretic optimal choice is to use LLMs.
That depends on the reward function. Should society reward credentials or skill?
Students aren’t optimizing for what is best for society. They are optimizing for themselves, which almost always means getting a job.
The credential is a prerequisite but skills are a differentiator. Problem is, not all skills are equal.
Amazon isn’t going to ask you about your opinions on The Illiad, they are going to check if you can write an efficient algorithm to rob houses or merge sorted linked lists.
Ideally a mix of skill and will.
Earned credentials are a marker that you once demonstrated some sufficient combination of both.
Society rewards credentials and skill. So both are but one is easier to get with cheating.
"Should" is one thing, reality is another
Another irony from TFA:
"We economists understand reality as a set of people responding to optimization problems with restrictions."
Game Theory seems sort of useless in the real world because people are not rational players, and the real challenge is in getting an accurate model of their behavior. The honor system would work probably fine in a tiny close-knit liberal arts college, while it would obviously wouldn't in a place where the degree itself is the target.
Game theory seemed kind of useful when the US was negotiating nuclear weapons control with the Soviets. It allowed successful negotiations in an extremely low trust situation.
Also, your own example is an application of game theory; you've basically stated a 'prisoner's dilemma' problem. You state that in a high trust society, most people will choose cooperation, while in a low trust society, most people will defect.
Aside from evolutionary biology, cancer research, embryonic development, economics, internet routing, spectrum auctions, counter-terrorism, kidney exchanges, generative AI, and preventing nuclear apocalypse...What HAS game theory done for us?!
Proved that everyone asking that question is playing a signalling game!
Everything in life is game theory
when you know what is game theoretic, deviation from it carries information you can potentially exploit.
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.
During my bachelor I remember getting a distinction for an assignment that I put a shit ton of effort into and being elated. And then finding out that my tutor had taken it to the board trying to make the case for a high distinction, and narrowly failing, but it then being archived as an example of the output that the class wanted anyway.
That bowled me over when I was young and still sort of working out effort/reward sort of stuff. I had put a lot of work into a lot of subjects where I wasnt very naturally talented and got a lot of mediocre results, but seeing that if I put the effort in continually I could make stuff thats worthy of recognition was amazing.
Meanwhile, my (now) wife was completing a diploma subject at the same institution and they were handing out pass/fail only. You could see a lot of people really confused about that. The quality of work that fit into "pass" ran a very large gamut.
Wow. Do you care at all about the reputation of your university?
I worked briefly in post-secondary CS education a long time ago, before academia turned into the ideological warzone it is today, and if I said such a thing, I would've probably lost my job.
Also, grades have long been inflated
Then stop inflating them. This is also what standardised testing is good for --- but no surprise, so many are against it because it would just show how terrible they actually are.
"The fish rots from the head."
I know someone who went to Reed College, which has semi-famously not suffered from grade inflation[1]. They send your transcripts out with an explanatory note, so that the recipient will not view the graduate poorly when they see the numbers.
Interestingly, at Reed, there is a low emphasis (or even anti-emphasis) on grades — a student has to go out of their way to obtain them. Instead, emphasis is on written feedback and discussion, to understand one's performance on assignments.
All this to say: de-emphasizing grades in school is not necessarily a bad thing, and does not necessarily harm the reputation of the university. It can be a sign of good priorities (eg: learning, rather than numbers-gaming).
[1] https://www.gradeinflation.com/Reed.html
Good idea! Nothing bad could possibly come from advocating for centralization of academic assessment! Let's give more authority to a handful of private publishers who adapt their curricula to the whims of Texas!
It's not just because "it would just show how terrible they actually are"
Trying to derail an argument about standard absolute competency into ideological culture-war? Not going to happen, wokie.
If I'm studying something, it's nice to get an external assessment of how well I'm doing, so i don't fall victim to over-confidence or imposter syndrome. When you're dealing with new material it's hard to be truly objective about your own project level.
Grading is to provide your students with a goal, one that isn't so high-minded as "the goal is education". The human mind uses a "reward system", within a feedback cycle. If you want to do away with that, just because it's what you prefer, then you're ignoring the reality of being human.
Education has existed in some form since prehistory. Grading didn't become widespread until the 1940s.
Indeed, and it also gives students a way to budget their time between the demands of multiple classes. I studied enough for each course to put me in good enough stead for the exams, then moved on to the next course. I got it right most of the time.
I think the point is that your college/university want the earned credential to mean something.
Presumably you need some way to gauge the quality of your graduates
It saddens me to see how creativity seems to "peak" at "let's go back to how we did it in 20th century" instead of asking the better questions like you did.
The flip side of this is "Chesterton's Fence"[1]. It's easy to propose "better" solutions, but grading has evolved to be what it is over the past 100+ years. Any novel solution will have different (and not necessarily better) second, third, or fourth order effects.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
it saddens me to see people testing parachutes on others instead of giving them functional existing parachute designs
Let's play this out further. How about high school, should there be grades there? Tests at all levels also typically involve a grade / metric -- are those included too?
To play devil's advocate, evaluations and scoring should probably be used at the systemic or team level rather than stack ranking individual employees... I mean students. Improve the educational system rather than blame the individuals.
The same logic applies.
At least where I live, universities used to run entrance exams. They didn't care about high school grades, or even if you'd ever been to high school: if you passed the entrance exam, you could enroll.
>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.
Between this and a decline in junior hiring, this is sorting itself out in the form of sharply declining CS enrollment. Which is fine, except for anyone with an interest in keeping enrollment high.
CS enrollment is declining, but not demand. Everyone is citing the numbers from UC Berkeley showing a 26% percent decline in enrollment. What they fail to mention is that the CS department reduced their admit slots by 25% because the TAs negotiated an $80/hr rate, and they can't afford as many, so they can't open as many classes.
But the number of students applying for CS is actually up slightly.
lol they can absolutely afford TAs, i don’t know why they might reduce class slots but that’s not why
They specifically said that is why. Not sure why you think they can afford TAs at that rate (4x the average at other schools).
Here is a whole article about it: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/2026-summer/...
You should know full well you need some method of determining if a student is competent enough to move on to the next class in whatever sequence. Perhaps universities are slacking on this front, but at a minimum a student who doesn't understand the basics of Calc I should not go take Calc II
During my undergraduate university, the best scores had priority when choosing the limited slot numbers, including the time slots and sometimes which professor we were to attend. e.g. I would pick Calculus MWF mornings, group two because professor XxXx was in charge; lower grade students who polled agaisnt me would be bumped to a different group, or to a different time slot, or not making it to the lowest grade cut
Law schools are entirely essay driven. They’ve had armored word processors for testing for at least twenty years. I’m sure those companies would license a version for the rest of campus (most universities have a law school already so they have a contract they can simply extend to the whole campus)
I seem to recall they submit the exam via usb drive.
now they may have a closed exam mode where they can finish the exam without network and the. Submit over the network.
Of course this type of exam must be conducted in person or else the examinee could simply use a phone and type the ai provided answer.
Also is the professor living under a rock? Everyone is going to use AI if they can. So if you want them to not, asking them nicely isn’t going to cut it.
After being in the workforce for decades, this whole issue is just so incomprehensible to me.
I went an ungrad school that was top-5 in engineering. But my experience - and in the experience of other people I've talked to - formal undergrad education was, and always has been, a farce. At best, you learn through working on projects that are meaningful to you and learn "how to be an adult" (and later, you learn how to manage the enormous financial debt you acquired). But more typically, it's pure credentialism - no one cares what your grades were, only what school you graduated from.
The amount of actual learning that goes on from classes is minimal, but somehow we can't shift the overton window away from this silly game of grades that don't measure anything meaningful.
After graduating, I've was asked about my grades exactly twice in my life -- once when I applied to a master's program, and at one job interview (the company had a policy of asking about GPA for anyone who graduated less than 10 years ago).
I'm pro-education but anti-school, and all this nonsense makes me this way even more.
take-home, closed-book type
What an oxymoron. I agree with the others here that AI isn't the problem.
My favorite exams (as a ugrad for classics, and in grad school to advance to candidacy in CS) were in person, hand written, open book.
We had lots of time, and a fair idea of the range of questions. It rewards actuality mastering the material vs memorizing it.
For the CS exam some people brought more books than they could physically carry, I don’t think it helped them much.
The final exam was not take-home, which is where the massive discrepancy showed up.
I do agree that the idea of giving take-home exams and expecting students not to cheat has long since passed its prime. There may have been a time when it was reasonable to expect most students to behave honestly, but that does not hold at all in today’s climate. Especially post-COVID, for whatever combination of reasons, students just don’t seem to care at all about anything other than min-maxing their effort to grade ratio.
Which leads to a lot of outcomes like this one where students start using ChatGPT early, think it will continue forever, and then get completely crushed when they encounter the first assignment where they can’t cheat.
I've had such exams. It was the honor system. The idea is that a typical exam is too short to evaluate the student's knowledge and a belief that fast students shouldn't have an advantage.
How long is too short? Each exam in my BSc Applied Physics final (1977, Exeter Uni.) was three hours and we had similar exams in each of the preceding years to weed out those who weren't keeping up. I'm pretty sure that having more time would not have helped the weaker students get through the Quantum Mechanics exam.
In addition I had to defend the report (120 pages of typescript and charts) of my final year project to my supervisor and another senior academic. And it was clear that they had actually read it.
All those exams were open note; anything in your own hand or a copy of a lecture handout was permitted. Again the weaker students would not have been helped by more time because they hadn't understood that you have to have enough familiarity with your notes to be able find the right information. Some brought in 50 litre rucksacks stuffed with ring binders and the noise of them furiously leafing through was enough for the invigilators to warn them to make less noise or risk being ejected.
In Norway it is typical that an exam of similar standard allows five hours.
I sat one exam at uni (in person, invigilated) for History and Philosophy of Science, which had no time-limit. You could take as long as you needed, whether that was one hour, five hours or all day.
Pretty much everyone still took three hours. But you felt so much calmer, knowing you weren't racing against the clock.
3 hours for us as well. When you start doing graduate level work, a problem could easily last over an hour. And many people will have false starts before they figure it out.
It's not a problem with homework assignments as they have multiple days to finish.
So the professor has to decide between poor data with high variance, or good data with lower variance.
> I'm pretty sure that having more time would not have helped the weaker students get through the Quantum Mechanics exam.
Funny you mention that. When I did my (undergrad) QM II exam, I likely got the highest score, and I'm sure my score was below 40%.
There just wasn't enough time.
All of my exams were three hours as well. I don’t think there’s a single instance where more time would have helped me. If I didn’t immediately know the answer to a question, I’d just move on, then revisit. When you don’t know the material/answer, more time won’t help. But you do have to know how to take a test and manage your time.
I really don't see how it would cost too much to pay TAs some more proctor hours.
A lot of challenging problems are not solved in one go. You work on it, don't get too far, and then you get more ideas later at night while cooking dinner.
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure people cheated even in my day. But this is the spirit - they're trying to give problems as challenging as they would for homework - and a lot of those classes have very challenging homework problems.
There's a way. But if your professor is confident AI won't help you too much then it's a very hard test
Fast students are smarter. Why avoid grading on that?
EDIT: Rate limited so: "smarter" here means how well the student will perform in a career in their chosen field. Fast + accurate is the ideal.
> Fast students are smarter.
Assuming this is true (others have already addressed a few of the many reasons it might not be), wouldn't that imply that practically all existing tests are already flawed? If you want to grade on time, every exam should be graded with a formula taking both the time and the correctness into account. A binary "fast enough" vs "not fast enough" is about as useful as a pass/fail class grade.
The exams that felt like the fairest reflections of my own knowledge were proctored in-person, closed book, and time unlimited. Of course, being time unlimited works better for quantitative/engineering exams. I haven't put much thought into more qualitative/liberal arts type exams.
In my experience, it was common to test speed - my favorite was solving 100 arithmetic problems in, I think it was 3 minutes? Perhaps shorter. The point was that it was basically impossible to solve them all, so it evaluated both your speed and your self-assessment: if you move too quickly, you'll make errors. If you spend too much time second-guessing yourself, you won't get enough problems finished.
It always struck me as an ingenious way to get a feel for a new group of students, since it's quick to administer and equally quick to grade, while revealing quite a lot of information.
Certainly we hold speed to some regard, since a lot of academic accommodations involve granting extra time. If we aren't testing on speed, then surely we should give that to anyone that asks?
> Fast students are smarter.
Dubious assertion.
> "smarter" here means how well the student will perform in a career in their chosen field. Fast + accurate is the ideal.
Still dubious.
Also, I don't know where you work, but in most of my jobs, career growth is not limited by speed with which you do the work. It's one factor among, say, 10. Most of the people who got ahead were not the fastest.
They're not trying to gauge who is the fastest. Or even the smartest. Just those who have the skills. In the real world, you'll rarely (as in, never) have to solve those same problems with the same speed you will in the exam.
In a lot (all?) of the jobs I worked, taking a day to solve a Medium level Leetcode problem was quite OK.
Are they? Or do they just have superior recall? Or maybe lack test-taking anxiety? Or write or type quicker or...?
Lots of reasons a slow student can be just as smart or smarter than a fast one.
Those are all proxies for "is smarter". They have better memories, perform better under pressure, etc. Universities are meant to prepare students for the real world where these things matter.
Define “smarter” —- already a vague and overloaded term.
And then consider whether the point of the class is to test smarts, or something else.
I’d expect that’s not the intent of most undergraduate degrees.
Arguably someone who is faster is more likely to just be recalling memorized things faster, while someone who's slower may have a deeper understanding but needs time to actually think it through.
Memorization is already hacking the rules of the game that's supposed to be gauging understanding. An ideal test is resistant to rote memorization as well as outright cheating.
Care to explain?
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?
We're not talking about ambulances though?
The craziest part is that a game theory expert can't see the problem here!
I can't say what the reality looks like today, but when I was in college 25 years ago (Harvey Mudd), closed-book take-home exams were pretty common (often with a specific time limit: maybe 3/5/8 hours), and I would have been shocked and aghast at the thought of anyone cheating. We took our Honor Code deeply seriously. (I've given my own students take-home open-book exams with "no outside resources" rules regularly in the past, but I've pretty much concluded that isn't viable anymore. But then, we don't have a formal Honor Code here.)
One particularly striking example was a timed, closed-book math exam where the exam paper just listed four problem numbers from the book. We were expected to open the book, copy down those problems without looking at anything else, and then put the book away. Honestly, that one felt like just asking for trouble and now that I'm a professor myself I think that the prof was unreasonably lazy, but it certainly captured the spirit of the thing. (Technically, that wasn't a Harvey Mudd professor but rather a professor at the adjacent graduate university. Maybe that had something to do with it.)
The other day some sucker told me, "don't throw that trash over there it's littering" and I told that sucker "there's no way anyone could enforce it" lol.
Some people get up in their jimmies about this but if they don't want me doing something they should make it impossible to do it
</bait>
When you're a student in a competitive program at a top university, graded on a curve, and you know your fellow classmates are cheating with AI, you have little choice but to do the same. Especially when jobs for new grads are harder to come by and there's more pressure to also go above and beyond with internships and side projects during your time in school. There's no way to compete without cheating.
After retiring at 65 from a university teaching and research science career (all pre-AI), I went back to teaching, but this time teaching high school science, mostly AP STEM courses at an A-ranked public high school. The cheating/AI problem is now a crisis greater than COVID. My experience: very few students in advanced and AP classes do not cheat — largely for the reasons given above — and it takes enormous resourcefulness on the teacher's part to design coursework and examinations in which cheating through AI is not an issue. Many teachers I know have all but given up — the cost and effort required to circumvent cheating are simply too great given the already sky-high demands on teachers' time and energy. And school administrations are little help, due to thoughtless and enthusiastic reliance on software at every level. In some ways they are part of the problem. I don't know what the situation is in schools outside the US. But here it had become an arms race.
[Edit: typos]
Personally I believe AI has made exams and high stakes testing unworkable. Even before AI I would argue teaching to the test made high stakes testing unworkable. How grades are assigned IMO will be more like how employees are evaluated in the workplace: some metrics, some oral exams, some peer feedback, but mostly on what they produced.
Yes, oral exams, content created in plain sight, project-based activities, all of these can provide a true appraisal of student understanding. But these approaches, although highly rewarding for both student and teacher, are extremely time-consuming. They also run counter to the priorities of the district, which are forever and always: student achievement on standardized tests accomplished with minimal teaching personnel. The only ones benefiting here are the corporations providing and grading the tests. To a large extent it is a sham. More importantly, IRL science is not a multiple choice test. As you state above, whether you work in industry or academia, your value is what you can produce (usually by plain hard work), what problems you can solve, your imagination, creativity, what you can create yourself or with a group. But from what I've seen thus far: AI has little place in education.
My daughter just finished her Grade 11 finals in Canada. They were done on locked down school Chromebooks, which should be enough to prevent cheating by all but the most dedicated.
> you have little choice
I personally disagree with that very hard. Deontology begins at home.
Yep. You always have a choice. If cheating is wrong, it does not become acceptable just because everyone else is doing it.
Agreed, but it feels like a Pyrrhic victory to not cheat, then get lower scores than the cheaters.
Are those exams a contest? Like, they will only take the best N percentiles? Because if not, you’re competing only against yourself and should ignore others’ grades
It's an incredibly privileged Pov to say it isn't a contest. These kids entire futures are impacted by these scores.
Well, not once the scores become meaningless because everyone assumes they cheated.
Ivy League kids tend to not be facing some extreme economic precarity. In fact a decent number of them likely have enough family wealth to not need to work a day in their lives. The others are unlikely to face too much trouble over a few Bs at Brown.
Yes they are, that's what 'graded on a curve' means. It's common in the US to give students a percentile or Z-score or T-score rather than the raw score for the examination. This was a source of massive frustration to me when I first encountered because I had no way of self-reviewing my exam performance to guess which questions I might have gotten wrong.
I did not go to an Ivy League but many of my classes at an alright school were graded on a curve and so C was average, B/D was one standard deviation above/below, and A/F was two.
if they are graded on a curve then they are competing against each other.
> Are those exams a contest?
Yes
> graded on a curve, and you know your fellow classmates are cheating with AI, you have little choice but to do the same
You always have a choice. The right move, in this case, is to raise a stink to administration, donors and politicians. Hell, use AI to do it. Schools refusing to punish teaching is a problem that’s leaking into business and politics.
This is bullshit and basically this kind of justification is part of the moral and ethical rot of most institutions in the US now. You do have a choice, you just want to pretend you don't to get away with it. Besides, no one outside of a few stuffy finance/quant shops ever even asked what my GPA was in college, they don't care.
Schools should forbid grading on a curve. MIT does, for example. Standards should be absolute.
The Lance Armstrong defense
As bill burr said - "our roided up guy beat your roided up guy".
In his generation, only cheating cyclists could stay in teams. He was the one who created the situation, but in fact, cyclists had two choices - stop being cyclist or cheat.
You yourself are on drugs if you think Lance Armstrong "created the situation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#D...
Note the quantity that actually got caught and with enough evidence. Lance won it 6 times without getting caught.
Looking at it systematically there's no way all of the top finishers were not taking drugs (how else could they compete with the world's best who were? The advantage isn't small.) And it had clearly been going on for many years before Armstrong entered the event for the first time.
I really don't care for Armstrong's yellow banded hypocrisy but blaming him for the "cheat or don't bother competing" reality lets rather a lot of people off the hook with a convenient scapegoat.
But I'm sure that's all in the past and it's not like that now. Just as was said when Armstrong won 6 times while correctly stating he was the most tested athlete on the planet.
Wrapping it up and tying all that to Armstrong, as has been done, stinks. He was clearly a bit player in that extensive fraud. Six titles with no meaningful positive drug test as the most tested athlete on the planet.
If Armstrong still absolutely makes you want to vomit, that's fine.
https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/2503086-Lan...
While I am in no way a supporter of AI cheating, or whatever we want to call it, I can tell you from experience that there is nothing more tedious or soul destroying than invigilating a written multi-hour exam. It put me off teaching in higher education.
IMHO to solve many problems we should go with Ivan Illich's ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschooling_Society and make education about education, not testing and certification.
> make education about education, not testing and certification
We tried this. The whole grades-are-racist nonsense movement (in part a reaction to NCLB).
It doesn’t work. Learning requires confronting difficulty and evaluation, even if you’re learning alone. If you want to see what attempting to learn without tests looks like, see people who think they’ve taught themselves a topic by chatting with AI. Nine times out of ten they think they know something but can’t solve actual problems on their own.
I have learned a lot about computer programming from reading books and from more experienced programmers. This is what Illich was talking about - give people an allowance and let them spend it as they will, for example on books and mentors, or indeed on classic universities.
> The whole grades-are-racist nonsense.
Wow, swerve off topic. I never mentioned anything like that and I do not want to.
> have learned a lot about computer programming from reading books and from more experienced programmers
I like learning from textbooks and others. I would say self testing myself is the difference between reading nonfiction and trying to learn something.
> never mentioned anything like that and I do not want to
It’s the rhetoric that was used to push back against examination in California and New York. Explicitly. The rhetoric was new, but it was essentially Illich’s ideas.
The result was kids in wealthy districts with tutors or with educated parents who valued learning for its own purpose (and had the time and skill to convey that to their kids) did well while those in poorer districts got left behind because absent measurement you have no accountability.
How is invigilation "soul destroying"? You just walk or stand around as students write exams. Grading exams is tedious, but invigilating them is a neutral experience.
> Grading exams is tedious, but invigilating them is a neutral experience.
I don't mind grading exams (though I think grading is somewhat futile - see my link elsewhere). Sometimes an examinee will come up with a new idea, but we don't need formal examinations to check that kind of thing out. And you can do it in a comfortable chair, while listening to Miles Davis, unlike invigilation.
I remember getting to college just being stunned at how many people weren’t there to learn. I wasn’t a perfect student, but I was there to become smarter.
> In the AI era...
Back in my day, you could also just Google the problems and find the solutions. What mitigated cheating at UVA was the honor code and each professor's faith and trust in our integrity. That culture was enough to not cheat.
Imo, the fix should be to work on culture. Cheating should always be a tempting choice, so that the student may challenge their integrity, which is a muscle that can atrophy.
> What mitigated cheating at UVA was the honor code and each professor's faith and trust in our integrity. That culture was enough to not cheat.
The decline of actual consequences for cheating has played a big role.
When I was in college, people who got caught cheating found themselves in a world of trouble. Repeat offenders faced severe consequences like failing courses, which could delay their graduation date if it was a critical-path course. This has a real dollar amount attached to it because you start working later.
Now it seems universities avoid addressing cheating problems at all costs. The professor in this article complains about how hard it was to draw attention to the cheating problem, with no response within his own department.
Students know this. As cheating gains critical mass and you see that nothing bad is happening to the cheaters, you start feeling like you're at risk of falling behind if you aren't cheating. The cheaters are getting higher grades (100% for many in this case) and they get to go out partying while you're still working through the material. You're really screwed if grades are distributed on a curve.
So temptation spreads. Anecdotally, I've seen a few young people lie to themselves and think that they're just going to use ChatGPT to check their answers and learn from it, but they don't realize how superficial it is to have ChatGPT fix your problem and then skim the correct answer. They put less effort into checking their work because they know they have a button to push to check it for them. When they get put into a situation where they can't rely on that button, it all falls apart
> When I was in college, people who got caught cheating found themselves in a world of trouble. Repeat offenders faced severe consequences like failing courses, which could delay their graduation date
We had a very real threat of rustication. People still cheated. I think culture does play a big role. Of course, there need to be consequences too.
At UVA many years ago, one of my roommates was one of the unfortunate 20 or so annually expelled -- the only outcome of being convicted of breaking the "no cheating, stealing, or lying" honor code. It didn't take repeat offenses, expulsion was a first offense consequence.
Interestingly, it seems like you weren't joking about the decline:
> Finally in the spring of 2022, a sanction reform referendum succeeded with more than 80% of the vote, changing the penalty for an Honor violation from expulsion to a two semester suspension. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_system_at_the_University...
and there's also the Ivy League grade inflation...
https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/11/harvard-admits-that-grad...
That’s a different debate, and imo, the lack of a severe curve makes it safer for students to resist temptations to cheat. Severe curves ratchet up structural pressures for students to cheat, due to a prisoners’ dilemma effect in a zero-sum competitive environment. When there is a severe curve and students are able to cheat, acting with integrity becomes a failing strategy.
I agree with the sentiment, however I think the erosion of the honor system is inevitable given the rising cost of college. Somewhere in the last 20 years college became a luxury good, and with it a natural sense of entitlement from their customers.
Couple that with increased awareness that classroom instruction (delivered by tenured research facility who seem annoyed at the idea of teaching) often has little relevance to workplace skills, I think kids have correctly surmised that the smart thing to do is say fuck the code and focus on checking boxes.
> Imo, the fix should be to work on culture.
We can’t even agree on what’s wrong with it. We aren’t going to be able to fix it.
"Fixing" the culture includes a much much broader context than just what an individual professor preaches about to a set of students. It includes the entire intergenerational contract, earning the trust of students as well, getting their buy-in. There's a lot of cynicism and distrust against it all and a lot of disengagement because they just don't buy into it anymore with sincerity. It's not simply about scolding them a bit more and telling them that actually cheating is bad, mkay.
One place to start is to question seriously who actually needs a university degree and why, how this credentialism has been stealing years of productivity from young people. Though at least the deal was that in exchange you could expect some middle class job, even if gated behind a totally unrelated bachelor degree. But then this deal also got soured.
The culture comes from the role of the institution and the degree. The fact is that the primary role of the degree is as a gatekeeper to high paying job opportunities, regardless of what anyone idealistically thinks it should be.
This creates some problems. Let's say that you go to university and major in X to get a job in Y. So you assume that the companies are requiring you to get the degree to prove that you are competent in X which is necessary to do job Y. But when you get to university you realize that most of your classes required to get a degree in X actually have nothing to do with X. Furthermore you also notice that students who just cram for the test and have no functional knowledge of X are still getting As and graduating.
Then you get a summer internship in a job doing Y. You notice that learning to do job Y really has nothing to do with what you learned about X in school. You notice that your mangers an the company who are really good at job Y (and all majored in X) have basically forgotten everything they know about X and know much less about it than you, but are excellent at job Y. You finish your internship and now know that you are perfectly capable of doing job Y. But, of course you can't get job Y yet because you don't have your degree in X. You have to go back to school and learn more about X before anyone will hire you even though you already know more about X than the people who do job Y and who you can see really don't need knowledge in X to do the job.
So you are being forced to get a degree in X to get job Y, but job Y doesn't really require knowledge of X. And on top of that, a degree in X doesn't even really mean you have any functional knowledge of X! Everybody just learns Y on the job anyway!
So now you have an exam in X, so you decide fuck it, why would I spend time on this? This whole system is retarded, I'm just going to use ChatGPT.
This was basically my experience in college. I never cheated, both because it was harder before LLMs and because I didn't really need to study much to get As, but I find it hard to fault people who do. I really struggle to see how integrity plays into this system. The system itself has no integrity, so having integrity inside it almost seems like being a sucker. If you want to change the culture to promote integrity, the education and the degree have to mean something besides an arbitrary bureaucratic gatekeeping device.
Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life. The honor system is idyllic and requires idyllic circumstances: people who pursue education for no reason other than curiosity or self improvement. If you want the honor system back then you need to offer more stable safety nets. It's not "kids these days", it's the natural result of the systems adults have made.
> Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life.
Yes it was. This was the pitch for as long as Google has existed. The only relevant change from the early days of Google is that now you also need to go to a T20 school and GPA inflation has gone completely insane.
Even in the old times, including at medieval universities, most students weren't simply hobbyist curious gentlemen who studied it for idyllic leasure reasons, but people studied things to then get various jobs, teaching, administrative and clerical or legal work, etc.
> Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life.
Assuming the person you're talking to is still alive, this isn't true.
> The honor system is idyllic and requires idyllic circumstances: people who pursue education for no reason other than curiosity or self improvement.
This isn't true either; if your student body consists of only those people, you don't need any system at all. There is no point in even notionally punishing students who don't want anything from you.
I'm still alive, and college wasn't really sold primarily as a financial investment when I attended in the 1970s.
The world is getting more competitive. Integrity goes out the window when cheating in a test can mean meaningful better life outcomes and when you believe everyone else will be too.
The thing about the community of trust—of which all stewards—is that camaraderie, respect, identifying with the community, and integrity will keep the majority of students from cheating. And if that isn’t enough, the “single sanction” was historically a sufficient danger to raise the stakes immensely.
However, some students will cheat, and for that reason, I am very much against curves. If you learn the material and demonstrate that you have, you should get the A. But it’s more work for professors to calibrate their curriculums, and there seems to be no real accountability for the inverse of learning objectives—teaching objectives—so curves are likely here to stay.
These articles consistently fail to acknowledge students were cheating in large numbers prior to these AI tools being available.
It was certainly not difficult to cheat at a "closed book" take home exam before.
I would argue the barrier to cheating has become lower just by virtue of how easy it is to do it now. You open an app and type your question. Rue if different from Brit where you had to basically have either a skill in cheating to find and adapt the right resources or you would have to have money to pay someone to do it for you. AI as the great equaliser I suppose.
In Serrano's class and other introductory classes like it, cheating has been widespread before AI and after. The truth is that the social stigma around cheating has gone away (perhaps this is only a post-remote-schooling phenomena) so cheating is trivial. All you have to do is go text a friend in the class (most people will have many friends in any large intro class they're taking).
Source: am student @ Brown
I think this is an important point.
A time when a take-home, closed-book test, relying on the honesty and integrity of the students, was viable seems completely unrealistic now. I assume there were always some who cheated, but I can imagine that it was sufficiently socially unacceptable that many didn't.
That seems like a very different world.
Different magnitude of cheating altogether
Hmm I think one part every commenter is missing is that students have grown way more mercenary and cynical over the last 20 years. I was shocked in grad school that:
a) I got bullied into sharing my math homework so people could copy it, just like high school and college... but this was math grad school!
b) In 2011 I TAed a 4000-level course where the instructor left the solutions to the homework online (he wrote the book). I estimate 95% of students copied the solutions. It was only 5% of the grade and they paid for it on the exams. Still. Kind of stunning to see at U Waterloo - it was a continuous optimization course and most of them wanted to work in finance, yikes.
We're talking about Brown students here.
Im going to guess that it is a safe bet that the 50 cheaters are all legacy enrollments.
1/2 of the graduating class is there for the education, the other half is there because the parents are keeping up the network.
I would not agree with this from my own experience. The truth is the culture, at least at Brown in the 2020s, has little stigma around cheating in big classes. Unclear how different this is in the past, but a friend and I often joke that the student body is very good at reward hacking. If there's a reward, people will find a way to get it! That's across grades (people will cheat), housing (a huge % people will competitively apply for specialty housing or accommodations to beat the lottery), and a whole lot of other things. I don't think this is correlated with legacy, athletics, ect. but an artifact of the current culture unfortunately.
Not quite true. As a student who had many friends in Serrano's class in question among others at Brown, I'm be quite doubtful that AI has led to an increase in this particular class. The truth is that (at least post-covid) cheating is very widespread on take-home exams. If you are taking an introductory class such as Serrano's, you will have many friends in the class and cheating is so widely accepted that there is little to no stigma to doing it and so many people do. The primary limiting factor on whether a student cheats is not access or ease but desire.
It's a sad state of affairs.
I was in a class where around 12% of the class got caught directly copying a journal assignment. I'm sure more went undetected. AI has made it easier, but it's in the same magnitude.
Edit: typo
The whole discussion consistently fails to acknowledge that, in a day where we have a Supreme Court Justice who cannot define "woman", education devolves into anarchy.
Surf the chaos, bro.
Damn that's crazy. Guess the take home test is dead now.
I never understood this behavior from undergrads though, you're paying so much for an education and then you just skip the education part? Why bother?
Because for many a college degree is a pure formality to land a job.
My first job out of college, I worked with veterans at the company who all got in with a HS diploma. Now you realistically need a masters degree to be competitive, for no other reason than that where I live (Norway) most applicants have a 5-year masters degree. It is basically academic inflation.
Here we have a tongue-in-cheek word "Mastersyken" which translates to "Master's illness/disease", a word for the phenomena that too many people are pursuing a master's degree for the sake of the diploma alone, trying to become more attractive in the search for a job, but with the side effect that suddenly "everyone" has a master's degree, and in the end everyone is stuck at the same place as before, but with extra student loans.
The worst part is when you start working, and indeed discover that this is a job you could have done just fine straight out of HS.
A master's in CS can teach you interesting and very useful things, like how OS kernels, distributed systems, networks, and microprocessors work. A master's in EE will teach you things like signal processing and analog circuit design as well. Knowing these things helps you to design, build, and evaluate systems that are reliable and efficient.
A master's in science helps you understand how the physical world works and how to reason quantitatively as well as qualitatively. A master's in humanities gives you knowledge and understanding of human culture, such as literature and the arts, and history - subjects that can be deeply enriching and can provide insights that transcend disciplines. A master's in social science will teach you about how humans behave in groups and how they interact with their environment, and about statistical analysis.
Writing a master's thesis will also teach you a lot and make you a better writer - if you actually write it yourself and don't rely on AI.
Any of these degrees will certainly qualify you to be a more interesting, knowledgeable, and insightful barista or Uber driver.
Don't assume that TrackerFF is doing the kind of job that requires higher education.
It's also dangerous to assume that higher education is for everyone. (Although I agree the opportunity needs to be there for anyone who wants to try it.) Some people just want to get on with their life after high school. (I raise my children assuming that they will go to college, and if they want to seek an alternate way through life, I will support it.)
(Serious answer in spite of the punch line at the end of my parent post which perhaps addresses your first point.) I think it's good for people to be educated, and to have the opportunity when they want it, but it can be self-defeating to force people to be there who don't want to be.
There should be no reason you have to jump to a master’s for that. A bachelor’s in CS or EE would be a joke if it didn’t (doesn’t) cover those things. Arguably, even the current 4 year bachelor’s is a waste compared to a focused 2 year program: looking at my college’s requirements, many classes are wasted. Business majors taking a physical science with lab component, entry level English classes being taught by a TA that doesn’t speak English natively, etc.
I guess it depends on the program, but at my university an undergrad EE major, even though it had more units than any other major, didn't get to the best and most interesting stuff (perhaps because engineering majors also had to learn about things other than engineering, which seems like a pretty good idea.) Personally I wish more CS grads (including many people I worked with) had a better understanding of compilers, programming languages, databases, operating systems, distributed systems, networks, and computer architecture, as well as applications programming and interaction design. It's hard to get all of that while working at a single job, but readily achievable at a university, and an extra year of coursework really helps.
Business majors should take physical science courses with a lab component! How else are they going to learn anything about reality?
But there is no excuse for bad teaching, anywhere (especially given how insanely competitive faculty positions are - even crummy adjunct and lecturer positions.)
Unfortunately research universities prioritize fundraising > research > teaching. And sometimes grad students are selected to teach based on financial need or departmental requirements rather than interest or ability.
The grad school inflation in Europe is incredible. People with five degrees who have never worked a real job in their life, looking for work at 35.
>you're paying so much for an education and then you just skip the education part? Why bother?
Because you are viewing the motivation of college wrong for most people. For most people, the purpose of college is to get piece of paper that will open up higher salary opportunities. Ergo, they are just doing whatever required to get said piece of paper with least amount of effort.
Until degrees, in particular, degrees from well-regarded universities stop being that method, this behavior will continue.
> For most people, the purpose of college is to get piece of paper that will open up higher salary opportunities
More true at an Ivy than anywhere else.
> This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools).
If this guy thinks AI is motivating his previously guiless student body to start cheating on these tests, rather than simply changing the way they are cheating, he's been sniffing too many of his own farts.
Sadly this is true. Another take is that if you don’t use AI but everybody outperforms you on exams using AI at some point you’re forced into it as well.
Until degrees, in particular, degrees from well-regarded universities stop being that method, this behavior will continue.
This is already starting to happen, at least for software engineering positions. There have been plenty of stories of candidates with degrees from prestigious institutions failing to answer the simplest of questions correctly. FizzBuzz is a famous example, but there are many others.
That motivation isn't necessarily inherent in the attendees though. That has been formed by corporations increasingly placing pressure on universities to be their personal training grounds, without any actual investment. Corporations don't want to train anymore. They want universities and other companies to do their training for them.
It's why we're seeing the death of the liberal arts majors. It's sad, because usually the smartest and most creative people I've worked with in the field of engineering and software have been liberal arts majors. But corporations don't want intelligent people. They want people who have been molded to whatever the soup du jour is.
> That [motivation] has been formed by corporations increasingly placing pressure on universities to be their personal training grounds, without any actual investment. Corporations don't want to train anymore. They want universities and other companies to do their training for them.
I don't think so.
The problem rather is that corporations very often want some very different knowledge of employees than what universities teach to the students.
If what the universities teach was very important for the job, applicants who have not invested serious effort into getting a deep understanding of the topics of the courses would nearly all fail in the job interviews.
The problem rather is that for many jobs the knowledge that you could have gotten from the university typically does not matter, and thus investing minimal effort into the courses does not get you rejected in a job interview.
If only they could communicate with each other and explain their reasoning.
Corporation A "Hi University, here is what we hire highly paid people to do, and what we need to improve as a company."
University B, "Hi Corp A, here is our educational mandate to create well-rounded, highly educated people, we can probably fit your needs into the curriculum in the last couple of semesters, let's work together to make sure you have good employees and we have people who aren't struggling to pay back loans because they have an engineering degree but can't make more than 50K at a dead end job."
I basically do agree with you. The only problem that I see with your suggestion is that companies often don't know what they actually, really want from their employees.
But in practice the typical situation is that it is perfectly easy to graduate from University B without being well rounded and highly educated, and also you can skate by without actually learning any of the job relevant stuff in the last 2 semesters either.
I'm surprised Corporation A doesn't say "FU, we're just going to hire HS grads with high SAT scores and train them ourselves," but for whatever reason they typically don't.
Apparently some students aren't actually interested in learning and view the diploma as a meal ticket rather than a meaningful credential. Or perhaps the university is just seen as a networking opportunity.
If students don't want to be there in the first place and/or don't see any value in learning, it is unsurprising that they'd take the easy way out. Or maybe they cheated their way into Brown and are just continuing.
But I was always interested in learning, and understood that cheating was a method of learning avoidance. Why waste the amazing learning resources - faculty, teaching assistants, courses, labs, libraries, studios, rehearsal spaces, interesting speakers, arts and culture events, computing facilities, maker spaces, etc. - that are available at a place like Brown?
* I am in the state of not knowing about something
* This is brought to my attention by an exam question
* I have an oracle in the form of a textbook, an LLM, the internet, or all of the above
Which action is skipping the education: looking up the answer, or not looking up the answer?
Not understanding the answer.
Take home tests were always rife with cheating, although it's probably worse now.
Teachers really need to stop doing it, it's so destructive to create a metric that tracks how well you can cheat and lie, and basically forces you to cheat and lie (because everyone else is) if you want to get a job.
Because it's an important aid to getting to a high-paying job in the US, not just a means to learn.
One need only look at the resume filtering process, a once manual bias that has now been codified into algorithmic bias with AI. A degree from a good school boosts your chances immensely, and other facets such as coursework don't matter much.
If you have ever seen someone filter applicant resumes, you will understand instantly. There are too many, you have to filter them somehow and the allure is irresistible.
If any hiring managers are reading this: make your directions super specific, or require a cover letter.
> then you just skip the education part? Why bother?
You've never put anything off in your life or taken the easy short term route? Come on this is not difficult to understand. You aren't different either.
i mean, even if you are truly there for learning, doesn't it make sense in a low risk setting to try and boost your grade? it's different if you're cheating on your homework or other learning, but there isn't much learning left to do on the exam, that's for the grade
They’ve been taught that not having the piece of paper will keep them from having even a menial job,
so you have a huge population of people bullshitting their way through to the piece of paper.
When it costs a lot of money, the failure itself costs a lot of money. And you cant afford it. Because failure means you paid a lot of money for nothing.
An expensive education comes with higher temptation to cheat.
let people use as much ai as possible. encourage it. and as an educator, you have to learn to leverage it oneself or not (depending on the subject). and be better at using it than students if it does make one 'better'.
if ai doesn't help, then it won't help. if it does help, then you should use it. the metric is your output of whatever is being tested. writing an essay well and clearly understanding the material. solving a pset. whatever.
if you give access all the time for that, and then you test on a hard problem that could be done with or without ai, then it's fair. e.g. "clearly explain these four sentences of Y." obviously ai researching loosely and blathering isn't useful. won't be high signal / dense and correct and worthy of an 'a'. but someone who can harness ai and someone who knows the material well in the end will be rewarded the same by society. what you are testing is correctness and information density in a response. so you have to start now in accepting the reality that those who use ai to get there should be rewarded just the same as those who don't.
the burden is on educators to be as good as they can with ai if it is relevant or not if it is not relevant (and schools to fund them and ai companies to fund them if they have excess capital and are humanitarian).
and note the hard part even for us engineers at tech companies is in the correctness. it is very hard. but the sooner we start teaching how to do things correctly with ai, the more prepared the next generations will be.
I'm from Hungary and the majority of the exams here are oral one-on-one interviews (depends on the course of course but still). I've never ever had take home exams and or even quiz like tests were very uncommon.
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.
I’m no longer in college still, The day I longer have to worry about putting a meal on my table, I’ll treat college as this fantasy “thirst for knowledge” thing as some of the commenters here suggest. Till then, it’s just a meal ticket.
It seems that the Oxbridge model is really going to be the only workable one here in the future. Small groups of about 8 total, lead by a proctor, meeting regularly. The social pressures to not cheat in such small groups keep it honest.
The obvious problem with that is it is terribly expensive. You need Masters or Doctoral level people for long periods alone with students and you need to trust that these proctors won't be some form of -ist towards the students and also that their grades will be fair.
It is by design not something that scales.
But it seems that is where the path lies at this point.
Essentially, the aristocracy gets education again and the plebs get to fight/cheat it out amongst each other and paying to do nothing in the end.
Damn it
"Take home closed book" exam is asking for mass cheating. It was probably happening way before AI too. AI is just an excuse now.
A similar thing happened in a first-year CS class at Purdue this year: https://thecheatsheet.substack.com/p/432-cheating-at-purdue-....
I was nodding along until that part:
> Turkstra said he’ll still use the AI detection tool going forward.
That's crazy! AI detection tools are notably unreliable, and even if they had only 1% false positive rate (I am sure it's actually much higher) that'd still be multiple innocent people failing the class for no reason.
Imagine enrolling in the class, and the professor says: "oh, and btw I am going to randomly pick three students and accuse them of cheating". Would you want to stay in this class
I think the future is going to be proctored exams on paper or on locked-down devices. If there will be projects, they should be accompanied by secondary evidence, like interviews about them.
"take home, closed book"
This is a trap. I understand they've done this in the past, but profs are paranoid now.
I don't believe he's 100% correct on each incident of fraud and he's going to ruin students [academic] lives because of it.
lol okay. Why else do you, after acing a midterm, then not even come to the final once it's been announced that you can't use your previous cheating method?
They did it to themselves. They probably even enrolled in the class because they thought they could cheat.
Nobody would hire a chess coach and then use Stockfish to cheat on the problems. Whatever the students are paying for here, it certainly isn't an education.
Of course not. Education is free on the internet. University provides motivation and credentials. The motivation part is important because most people can't stick to such rigorous education for so long without some external force. Universities need to enforce rules against cheating as part of the motivation service they're providing.
AI has drastically reduced the cost and concealment for cheating, even in offline exams.
A single person can easily do that using glasses with a micro-camera & rice-sized earbuds, and almost impossible to be caught.
Not really, bluetooth/wifi detectors are absolutely a thing, and emissions from camera in glasses are easily detectable by the right equipment.
This equipment is not very common today, but if the smart glasses become popular, then universities (or proctoring centers) will get it.
And if they don't become common, then some fraction of cheating is acceptable, as long it's not too high. After all, one could do micro-camera + earbuds even before AI, with human conspirator.
We don’t allow calculators in elementary school when we teach and test students for multiplication and division. We don’t allow for dictionary when we test for vocabulary.
Instead of denouncing them, the professors should expel every single one of these students. These people cannot be allowed into the economy. (And don’t “what about” me about dishonestly already existing in the economy. I know it does. But it’s like littering—you’re not justified in adding another piece even if the ground is already dirty.)
One of the hardest and best exams I had to do in university was my behavioural finance midterm exam: the format was that I had to sit down with the professor and have a five minute discussion on a topic of my choosing. It was surprisingly tough, and the process of verbalising what you know about a topic doesn't give you much room to hide.
Accurate and high-quality exams are a solved problem. The issue is that universities aren't necessarily judged on teaching quality and opt for examination methods that scale well.
> He has conclusive evidence that at least 50 students cheated on the March midterm exam, making it the biggest known scandal at Brown and in the entire Ivy League
I'd like a citation for this being the "biggest known scandal" in the "entire Ivy League". Frequently such situations are kept somewhat quiet, for a variety of reasons. But fifty students is not a large number in courses that can enroll hundreds or up to a thousand students.
Ivy League classes usually aren't as large as their state school counterparts. At most you might get around a hundred students in a large lecture course; this is rare by design.
You can crunch the numbers on this to verify for yourself – most of these have a population of 6000 undergrads or so. 1/6 of all of the undergraduates need to take a single course for your "up to a thousand" to be true.
I agree that a citation would be nice, but the number of students is indeed large for Ivy League courses (as per the article, in this econ course, he had 86 students for a class that usually only has 30).
Harvard's larger courses enroll over 500 students. These are also introductory courses where you're most likely to see large cheating instances.
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.
Juxtapose the mass fraud on exams with the greater difficulty of finding a job after graduation.
Assessment should probably a mix of all of the various forms: handwritten blue book, verbal, multiple choice, and AI assisted essay. It really depends on what is being asssesed.
"This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools). “It’s a very nice kind of exam, because as you’re giving students practically unlimited time to complete it, it lets you make it harder than normal, to see how far they can go.”
...
"But it also hurts him that the one time in 34 years that he decided to offer a take-home exam, for highly justified reasons, the response was wide-scale fraud."
-----------------
Not to in any way defend or condone academic misconduct, the fact that this was his teaching-career-first take-home exam is probably relevant. Take home exams can be fiendish. I remember having one in grad school where we were given a very insufficient 36 hours to complete it, and many people just didn't sleep. That was from a prof who knew what he was doing. This guy may have accidentally made his exam absolutely sadistic.
Couple this with the fact that students often have other exams they need to be studying for in the same time window. The pressure can be immense. The temptation to use AI to help is going to be hard for many to resist unless the penalties are severe and strictly enforced.
AI cheating is probably going to be a problem going forward in all situations, but open-book, take-home tests are going to bring it out more strongly than other test formats.
It was closed-book. Take-home, closed-book seems like an oxymoron anyway.
A lot of the cheating students would have concluded that other students are going to cheat and get a much better result, so they might as well do the same.
The fault lies squarely with the professor.
I'm saddened and concerned by these allegations of a deficit of integrity.
I was very fortunate to attend Brown University for grad school, and consider it a great place.
Why would many people who were also fortunate to attend there not honor that opportunity?
Administration needs to eschew "technology" and demand analog solutions: hand written exams in proctored rooms, no devices out in the classroom, no take home work, etc.
Ensuring integrity definitely requires in person proctored exam centers. It does not require hand written exams.
Hand written exams are either very labor intensive to grade or are confined to multiple choice, so either inflationary to cost of education or inauthentic / inaccurate representation of most knowledge and skills.
The best answer, which enables authentic meaningful high integrity assessment that is also unit cost efficient is to have testing center facilities with institution supplied devices and well trained proctors.
This way instructors can assess students in ways that are relevant and authentic to the subject matter while ensuring the assessments are accurate, consistent, fair and actually reflect the students abilities.
Seems like these youths are doing exactly what their future employers will expect them to.
I've been trying to figure out how to avoid AI fraud in my classes, like many others. While not perfect, I've written down my thoughts and attempts in the hope it might help someone else:
https://web.hedc.shizuoka.ac.jp/msg-from-center/creating-mea...
Edit: Didn't realize the original URL was paywalled. Sorry. This newer URL is open. Apologies.
Nice way to paywall a comment on HN.
Is it paywalled? I honestly didn't realize that. Sorry. I'll edit the comment and change to an open URL and paste the two main ideas here:
FORCED SKILL-BUILDING GOALS
Where my original purpose of giving homework assignments was to help students build their skills through active engagement, I can no longer trust that all my students will have done it by hand. But I still want my students to feel the need to improve their skills. So, I start by considering which skills I think are most important for that class (writing, for example) and build a forced need for my students to improve that skill. For example, in my writing-focused classes, I now give students in-class hand-written exams. I let them know about the essay-based tests (mid-term and final) on the first day of class and encourage them to practice their writing each week, in-class and at home, thus giving them a very clear reason to practice — to get a good grade. Additionally, I take away the need to get a “good grade” on written homework by giving them full points if the homework is turned in on time, regardless of contents or mistakes. Thus, with the need to practice their writing skills for exams and no need to worry about making a good grade on homework assignments, students are encouraged to try the homework themselves — they cannot fail and they can only benefit by doing it themselves. In fact, using an LLM to complete an assignment will likely hurt them as other students who improved their skills will do better on the exams.
Homework once again can be used as a tool for them to improve their abilities through engagement, not just a pointless activity that an LLM can do to help them “get a good grade”.
FORCED LLM FRICTION
Another method I have found for encouraging students to complete assignments on their own is to purposely create friction to using an LLM. I try to plan assignments that it would be MORE work to use an LLM than to simply do it themselves. Humans being what we are, we often will choose the path of least resistance, especially if a grade is on the line!
For example, in one of my classes, I have students write a short story for homework (of about 250 words) about a picture I show them in class. Spelling and grammar mistakes are OK, they are guaranteed to get full marks if they turn it in on time, but the story has to be written BY HAND. To use an LLM, a student would first have to write a lengthy prompt describing the picture in detail and explain the type of output they need (a lot of work), and then they would still have to rewrite the entire story by hand (forcing them to focus on reading, spelling, and handwriting anyway). Thus, by introducing forced friction to using an LLM, especially where there is no danger (no friction) of getting a bad score because of mistakes, encourages students to take the easier path — just do it themselves.
The same idea also applies to shorter listening assignments. As long as the homework receives full marks for turning it in on time (low friction against the fear of poor ability) and the exams including a listening element (clear purpose for trying), the hassle of downloading the audio, sending it to an AI to transcribe it, then upload pictures of the homework questions just isn’t worth it. It’s just easier and more beneficial for students to do it themselves.
For homework: if you make homework results not count towards the final grade, then there's no reason to use an LLM - the point then just becomes to have practice problems and feedback on how well you are doing.
This is what my university (EPFL) was doing ~40 years ago. And yes, some students didn't bother with the homework, and mostly paid the price at the final exam...
> “…if we want to preserve the future of higher education”
He understands the stakes here. If a university degree becomes useless, then what?
The problem isn't AI, it's that you gave a take-home exam expected no one to cheat.
AI enables a completely different level of cheating than any prior method. It’s more accessible, better at cheating, faster
For real. Sneaking peeks at the textbook is "good" cheating, in that you're still doing a form of learning. Having LLM write your paper is just a waste of everyone's time.
Yawn. When a university starts expelling students for cheating, I’ll pay attention. I suspect donors, politicians and employers will, too.
He is fighting a losing battle. That's why nobody in the administration cared. Academic integrity already doesn't exist anymore. As Nassim Taleb would say; there are plenty of highly educated idiots with PhDs.
Even the idea that MIT is somehow better than some other universities is itself a fiction. People are conflating financial success with academic ability. The former is mostly the result of social connections which are formed within the academic institutions and have very little to do with actual capabilities.
Universities should just sell degrees for a high price without requiring the students to attend. If they're rich enough, their skills aren't going to matter anyway; they'll succeed in their careers regardless so the university will still look good. 'Academic integrity' will be intact. Especially true for business, economic degrees or other humanities.
> He thinks the time has come for an in-depth debate so the technology does not signal the end of higher education
I hope it does.
This may be a hot take, but:
The problem is that kids, even (or especially?) in the elite schools, are treating college as a box to tick. At the Ivies, for many students, it's nothing more than the requisite means to get their ticket punched so they can become/remain part of the elite class. This has been the conventional wisdom for half a century.
Now, this paragraph doesn't apply to an economics class like his, which is actually a useful degree, but many students will never use what they learn in college in a professional capacity, so it barely even matters if some (maybe even most?) students cheat because outside of the useful degrees, it's mainly a sorting hat to determine who works at Starbucks to pay back student loans, while rolling their eyes because of their 'valuable degree,' and who works there unironically, to pay their bills.
What needs to happen though is that students at all levels need to either believe that they need to learn what they're choosing to take courses in, or even better, actually innately want to learn it to satisfy their own interest. Either will do. If you have neither intention toward the material, of course you'll cheat your way through it. No student who actually wants to learn would waste their time and money taking a class only to not learn, and cheat their way through it.
Time for hand written essays again. That way, at least if they do use AI, they will have had to process some of the content a bit more.
All these over-complicated "solutions" are incredibly funny. At my uni in Germany education worked in a very straight forward way. There is no graded homework (you're in a university not an elementary school), at the end of the semester there's a three hour exam, on pen and paper (our CS profs deducted a point per syntax error btw so mind your parentheses) and if you don't do any homework or don't show up that's on you because you're an adult, but good luck making it through the test.
Of course 70% or so usually crashed out in particular in Calculus and I suspect given that US education is paid for daycare that's exactly the thing that can't happen which is why they're never fixing it
As of now chatgpt subsidies its consumer subscription-I wonder if cheating on exams will be still promiment once students are forced to pay $30 a month
Since students are notorious for being cheap
$30/month is likely a rounding error in the budget of students at the schools mentioned in the article.
Students may be notorious for being cheap (rightfully so, given the financial situation they are placed in) although when a single textbook cost $200 and you need 3 different ones every term, a $30/m subscription that effectively is a magic textbook that writes for you is worth its weight in gold.
In comparison to textbooks or tuition even a $1000 a month could be palatable
Yes
Still cheaper then being jobless or without the bachelor
> This year, the economist decided that both the midterm and the final exams for his course would be of the take-home, closed-book type (there is a certain tradition of this at Ivy League schools).
These news articles are just tiresome at this point. Obviously folks cheated previously, obviously it's easier now, obviously the answer has been to not have take homes all along.
the professor has all the power in the classroom. If you don't want cheating, define better conditions for the exam. You allowed a take-home exam which means students are able to use any and all resources.
> You allowed a take-home exam which means students are able to use any and all resources.
It was a closed-book exam. The professor shouldn’t have to hold students’ hands for them to act with integrity, they are all adults.
In this particular class, the professor made the final exam in-person, and didn’t count the take-home midterm because the score distribution wasn’t consistent between the two exams. I think that’s a reasonable approach, but it’s kind of sad that it was necessary
When the highest offices of the land are packed to the gills with liars and grifters and anyone with a brain can observe there’s no downside to such behavior, "just be honest" rings rather hollow
Maybe I have too optimistic a mindset, but “just be honest” in academia isn’t about being a rule-follower, it’s about not short-changing yourself by coasting though on autopilot instead of learning to think and solve problems for yourself.
Whether that really matters if your goal is to climb the social ladder and have power and influence, I don’t know.
Replace "climb the social ladder and have power and influence" with "be able to afford a home, have kids, and go on vacation occasionally."
It's become very difficult to have even a middle class lifestyle without a college degree. Obviously a huge percentage of people there don't want to be.
This comment irked me. Yes others do it.
I've noticed more and more that people lie to me and I call them out immediately (aggressively, as if they've just spat in my face) and they just don't care.
Does "my word is my bond" not have meaning any more?
Not really. I'm not responsible for how others behave; I'm responsible for how I behave. I don't like the rampant immoral behavior in society any more than you, but I still hold myself to a higher standard of behavior and others should too.
The thought of a closed book take home exam really made me laugh. They also mentioned Princeton hasn’t had professors in the room for exams since the 1890s… They just have a code of honor and rely on other students to report cheaters??
Ivy league is such a scam, in so many different ways.
how is expecting integrity a scam?
They're going to have change everything so use of an AI assistant doesn't matter because once they graduate they're just going to continue using it anyway.
If it's a math for finance course then some kind of model building for the midterm and being marked on the quality of the model or something. If AI becomes so good that it always chooses the best fitting model and requires no numerical optimization then they will have to change the courses to be more like UChicago where it's primarily undergrad directed research but AI assisted.
Why teach kids how to read, they can just take a picture of whatever text they want and have AI say it aloud.
The challenge I think is that students then struggle because they used AI throughout the semester and didn't actually learn. The proper response would be to be strict and fail students that don't perform to a satisfactory level, but this messes with the funding incentives.
You can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. Maybe a student's sincerity should play a larger role in the admission process, maybe with a sharp expense curve such that students judged to be more sincere have to pay less tuition. It is an inherently subjective evaluation though.
Edit: I completely misread your comment. Asking students to build a model is not a finance class anymore.
It's a welfare economics theory course that requires many frameworks with measures where you are maximizing some graphical representation. It also requires assumptions to work and can be visualized in a model where you can see what happens when one of the assumptions doesn't hold.
For example the old and new Berkeley model to study rent control effect on market prices
I should've been clearer, I meant AI model. If you're referring to financial models, then yeah, that can be a reasonable direction.
This is a dumb take. It's like not teaching kids 1 + 1 because a calculator can do it for them.
It's the old game that he's trying to preserve. It's time to move on to the new game. When the landscape shifts beneath you, its very low probability that the existing structures on the landscape are a good fit for the new landscape, and the structures on the new landscape must be rethought from first principles.
He did move to a new game, which is what confirmed they'd been cheating.
Pretty funny - cheating so bad that even a blind man can see it.