13 ms·

This seems somewhat sensible to me - the genie _is_ out of the bottle, and students absolutely will use AI agents to finish assignments without learning a thing

This seems somewhat sensible to me - the genie _is_ out of the bottle, and students absolutely will use AI agents to finish assignments without learning a thing, but there is some value to showing how agents can be used as teaching tools and what healthy use _can_ look like

llbbdd 4mo ago
Agreed. I don't know how they plan to enforce this but this is way better than some other articles that have come up indicating educational bans on AI use, in-person proctoring, verbal assessments, pen and paper exams etc. This is the first attempt at an approach I've seen that doesn't seek to isolate education from reality; students that are effective at integrating AI into their work and actually understand what they're doing are going to get jobs, which is ultimately the goal of school.
JohnMakin 4mo ago
They're only cheating themselves in a world that increasingly cares about knowledge (market trend of seniors being preferable hires to fresh out of school juniors) and not the piece of paper that "proved" you had such knowledge.
- bigstrat2003 4mo ago
  I agree with you that they are cheating themselves. Unfortunately, a bunch of 18-22 year olds also don't tend to have the maturity to realize that fact. I imagine that the university is trying to nudge them to do the courses in a way that helps themselves because they know otherwise the students won't be wise enough to do that.
  - johnfn 4mo ago
    These students are making a tradeoff between an abstract notion of "cheating themselves" and a very concrete notion of "having a worse GPA". The second one translates obviously and directly to job prospects.
    - sam29681749 4mo ago
      they should learn as much as they can + cheat for optimal results
    - bigstrat2003 4mo ago
      Not really. If they got admitted to Stanford to begin with, they are smart enough to succeed if they put in the work. So what they are actually trading off against is "I don't want to do the work", which is far less defensible than your reading of the situation.
      - johnfn 4mo ago
        You are conflating some abstract notion of "succeed"ing (what does that even mean, how can I measure it to two decimal places?) with a very concrete notion of "do this simple thing or get a worse GPA".
    - ninkendo 4mo ago
      > The second one translates obviously and directly to job prospects. I was never asked for my GPA when I first went into the industry. I never put it on my resume and it never even came up. After a decade or so of interviewing candidates, many of whom were recent graduates, I don’t recall any that put their GPA on their resume, and I obviously never cared about it either. Maybe the recruiters did, I dunno. I’m a data point of one, and I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s clear and obvious at all that GPA translates to job prospects. At least not in tech.
asdff 4mo ago
Same issue as with cliffnotes. Easy way out means the easy way will be taken. Unless, you actually design a decent assignment or exam. In person essays or exams, heavily weighted, you are simply screwed if you didn't study the old fashioned way. A couple of my more serious classes were like this: no homework, no projects, entire grade based on 3 exams. That put the fear of whatever diety you subscribe to into you like nothing else to study hard and not fall behind. One bad exam you can't really come back from. Better luck next year when you retake it. Or, you dig in like hell.
- MengerSponge 4mo ago
  The insidious thing here is that students can think they're studying and practicing by chatting with an AI "tutor", which shifts them into a passive observation role that's no better than watching YouTube videos. It turns out that it's much less memorable if you're too "clear and helpful", so nothing helpful sticks for students. A good teacher (tutor, educator, pick a word) challenges students and makes them the right amount of uncomfortable.
  - asdff 4mo ago
    These resources often suck for the college major level anyhow. Youtube and such is all dumbed down usually. Or if it isn't dumbed down, you risk studying beyond the scope of the lecture. Every class I took, the professor would say something like "anything in lecture could end up on the exam." And indeed, every exam was comprised of something that came from the slides, and nothing that didn't come from the slides. Even if there was an assigned textbook, there would be so much skipped over, either subtopics or entire chapters. Emphasis can vary by lecturer for the same class as well. The class might fall behind or run ahead of whatever is outlined on the syllabus; that is more an aspirational goal than a solid plan of what to expect. The best tutor, as always, is your TA or professor, during office hours that you already pay for in tuition. No one takes advantage though, well the students who were getting As already do just to validate their understanding. The students who really ought to go never go.
    - MengerSponge 4mo ago

llbbdd 4mo ago

Agreed. I don't know how they plan to enforce this but this is way better than some other articles that have come up indicating educational bans on AI use, in-person proctoring, verbal assessments, pen and paper exams etc. This is the first attempt at an approach I've seen that doesn't seek to isolate education from reality; students that are effective at integrating AI into their work and actually understand what they're doing are going to get jobs, which is ultimately the goal of school.

JohnMakin 4mo ago

They're only cheating themselves in a world that increasingly cares about knowledge (market trend of seniors being preferable hires to fresh out of school juniors) and not the piece of paper that "proved" you had such knowledge.

bigstrat2003 4mo ago
I agree with you that they are cheating themselves. Unfortunately, a bunch of 18-22 year olds also don't tend to have the maturity to realize that fact. I imagine that the university is trying to nudge them to do the courses in a way that helps themselves because they know otherwise the students won't be wise enough to do that.
- johnfn 4mo ago
  These students are making a tradeoff between an abstract notion of "cheating themselves" and a very concrete notion of "having a worse GPA". The second one translates obviously and directly to job prospects.
  - sam29681749 4mo ago
    they should learn as much as they can + cheat for optimal results
  - bigstrat2003 4mo ago
    Not really. If they got admitted to Stanford to begin with, they are smart enough to succeed if they put in the work. So what they are actually trading off against is "I don't want to do the work", which is far less defensible than your reading of the situation.
    - johnfn 4mo ago
      You are conflating some abstract notion of "succeed"ing (what does that even mean, how can I measure it to two decimal places?) with a very concrete notion of "do this simple thing or get a worse GPA".
  - ninkendo 4mo ago
    > The second one translates obviously and directly to job prospects. I was never asked for my GPA when I first went into the industry. I never put it on my resume and it never even came up. After a decade or so of interviewing candidates, many of whom were recent graduates, I don’t recall any that put their GPA on their resume, and I obviously never cared about it either. Maybe the recruiters did, I dunno. I’m a data point of one, and I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s clear and obvious at all that GPA translates to job prospects. At least not in tech.

asdff 4mo ago

Same issue as with cliffnotes. Easy way out means the easy way will be taken. Unless, you actually design a decent assignment or exam. In person essays or exams, heavily weighted, you are simply screwed if you didn't study the old fashioned way. A couple of my more serious classes were like this: no homework, no projects, entire grade based on 3 exams. That put the fear of whatever diety you subscribe to into you like nothing else to study hard and not fall behind. One bad exam you can't really come back from. Better luck next year when you retake it. Or, you dig in like hell.

MengerSponge 4mo ago
The insidious thing here is that students can think they're studying and practicing by chatting with an AI "tutor", which shifts them into a passive observation role that's no better than watching YouTube videos. It turns out that it's much less memorable if you're too "clear and helpful", so nothing helpful sticks for students. A good teacher (tutor, educator, pick a word) challenges students and makes them the right amount of uncomfortable.
- asdff 4mo ago
  These resources often suck for the college major level anyhow. Youtube and such is all dumbed down usually. Or if it isn't dumbed down, you risk studying beyond the scope of the lecture. Every class I took, the professor would say something like "anything in lecture could end up on the exam." And indeed, every exam was comprised of something that came from the slides, and nothing that didn't come from the slides. Even if there was an assigned textbook, there would be so much skipped over, either subtopics or entire chapters. Emphasis can vary by lecturer for the same class as well. The class might fall behind or run ahead of whatever is outlined on the syllabus; that is more an aspirational goal than a solid plan of what to expect. The best tutor, as always, is your TA or professor, during office hours that you already pay for in tuition. No one takes advantage though, well the students who were getting As already do just to validate their understanding. The students who really ought to go never go.
  - MengerSponge 4mo ago