A few years back, one could not have imagined a professor’s stipulation for in-class essay writing being met with demands for in-class grading. Now, it seems less far off.
When ChatGPT entered schools in 2022, it ranked high on the list of concerns and remains there. Many schools, particularly colleges, take a “balanced” position on the technology, encouraging familiarity with it while prohibiting any application that might constitute cheating. Policies regulate student use of artificial intelligence for writing, summaries of books unread, and other assignment workarounds. Professors then institute course-specific rules, while students, of course, generally protest restrictions.
Here, professors’ own use of AI becomes tricky. They try to apply the same conditions to their roles, but the lines are blurrier. They end up using ChatGPT to generate presentations, write code, or give feedback on papers. Yet the more students recognize the voice of ChatGPT in place of a professor’s, the more dissatisfaction they express. A recent New York Times article profiles the tension, with one student even unsuccessfully requesting tuition reimbursement. It adds a layer to the AI-classroom conversation. Namely, is there any sense in placing the same demands on professors?
To students and teachers alike, there is a tangible difference between the two groups’ uses of artificial intelligence: Each side sees the merit in its use of the tool more than in the other’s. Forced in-class grading will never be the reality — that much is obvious. But it returns the conversation to why students are so upset about professors’ AI use in the first place.
Their primary complaints revolve around either hypocrisy or relationship. Certainly, the student-teacher relationship is diminished through AI-generated comments and class materials. The purpose of work, the reciprocal effort that goes into it, how the minds engage one another — all things lost to chat prompts.
But with “school” as we once knew it already a dying form, relationship woes come late. In-class laptop use has dissolved the respect of listening to a lecture, and lost proprieties of dress leave poor class etiquette all the more glaring. Ideologies replaced actual lesson plans long ago.
How schools cater to students’ virtual needs contributes, too. COVID-era policies of remote class attendance and cushioned academic requirements have stunted long-term learning. In turn, students are so immersed and so attached to the AI issue that hypocrisy from professors feels intolerable.
HARVARD PRESIDENT EYES REVIVING ‘PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP’ WITH TRUMP
Behind all this, students are living the negative effects of AI reliance. They know of the memory reduction, constant shortcutting, and loss of critical thinking that accompany it, and they dread those influences on the task of teaching. The deeper signal, though, is that students can recognize the duty of the professor — even if they can’t quite live up to receiving it. Students are convinced that AI-sourced teaching just won’t work because they see something inherent in the human role. In one sense, teaching requires a much better understanding of humanity than does learning.
Varying methods of AI use put that at risk. For now, the question remains one of efficiency and fairness. But it’s not so much a measure of equity that justifies students’ criticisms, as much as the objective demands of the role. This tension, between teacher and student, might have a part in revitalizing university education.