Educators have been struggling over how students should or should not use artificial intelligence, but one New York University official suggests going old school—really, really old school.
In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, NYU’s vice provost for AI and technology in education, Clay Shirky, said he previously had counseled more “engaged uses” of AI where students use the technology to explore ideas and seek feedback, rather than “lazy AI use.”
But that didn’t work, as students continued using AI to write papers and skip the reading. Meanwhile, tools meant to detect AI cheating produce too many false positives to be reliable, he added.
“Now that most mental effort tied to writing is optional, we need new ways to require the work necessary for learning,” Shirky explained. “That means moving away from take-home assignments and essays and toward in-class blue book essays, oral examinations, required office hours and other assessments that call on students to demonstrate knowledge in real time.”
Such a shift would mark a return to much older practices that date back to Europe’s medieval era, when books were scarce and a university education focused on oral instruction instead of written assignments.
In medieval times, students often listened to teachers read from books, and some schools even discouraged students from writing down what they heard, Shirky said. The emphasis on writing came hundreds of years later in Europe and reached U.S. schools in the late 19th century.
“Which assignments are written and which are oral has shifted over the years,” he added. “It is shifting again, this time away from original student writing done outside class and toward something more interactive between student and professor or at least student and teaching assistant.”
That may entail device-free classrooms as some students have used AI chatbots to answer questions when called on during class.
He acknowledged logistical challenges given that some classes have hundreds of students. In addition, an emphasis on in-class performance favors some students more than others.
“Timed assessment may benefit students who are good at thinking quickly, not students who are good at thinking deeply,” Shirky said. “What we might call the medieval options are reactions to the sudden appearance of AI, an attempt to insist on students doing work, not just pantomiming it.”
To be sure, professors are also using AI, not just students. While some use it to help develop a course syllabus, others are using it to help grade essays. In some cases, that means AI is grading an AI-generated assignment.
AI use by educators has also generated backlash among students. A senior at Northeastern University even filed a formal complaint and demanded a tuition refund after discovering her professor was secretly using AI tools to generate lecture notes.
Meanwhile, students are also getting mixed messages, hearing that the use of AI in school counts as cheating but also that not being able to use AI will hurt their job prospects. At the same time, some schools have no guidelines on AI.
“Whatever happens next, students know AI is here to stay, even if that scares them,” Rachel Janfaza, founder of Gen Z-focused consulting firm Up and Up Strategies, wrote in the Washington Post on Thursday.
“They’re not asking for a one-size-fits-all approach, and they’re not all conspiring to figure out the bare minimum of work they can get away with. What they need is for adults to act like adults — and not leave it to the first wave of AI-native students to work out a technological revolution all by themselves.”
