Students are using artificial intelligence to assist them in their coursework — there’s no doubt about that. In a recent survey from the Digital Education Council, it was revealed that 86% of university students use AI in their studies. From collecting information, summarizing readings, answering problem sets, to even writing papers, AI tools seem to have become the cheat code to being a high achieving student while doing the least amount of work possible. In Penn’s “work hard play hard” culture, cutting down time on work is essential so we can pursue our other interests like networking and building social capital.
Institutions are scrambling to decide the role that AI should play in education and how to reduce blatant cheating without running the risk of accusing innocent students of misusing AI. AI detectors are not reliable, and with increasing use, programs are getting better and better at disguising themselves.
But I offer a different solution than detectors and guidelines: an AI tapering program — a ChatGPT “75 hard.” I’m a proud survivor and beneficiary of this program: engaging and intellectually stimulating teaching, without using AI as a crutch.
When examining why Penn students may be using AI, I can think of numerous, honestly alluring, reasons. Club meetings and social commitments take up so much time, so making schoolwork less time-consuming feels crucial. Especially when we’re supposed to be simultaneously prioritizing our mental health (which also requires time that could take away from that 45-page reading, dang it).
But Penn students are brilliant. Of course we can handle the insane work weeks (hello common app activity section). While rest and efficiency are definitely attractive reasons, I believe AI usage can be most directly correlated to if a student cares about a course or not.
You might think students are cheating because Penn’s classes are difficult, but this isn't the case. A recent study found that students are “more likely to cheat in classes that employ traditional assessments like grades, tests and memorizing facts versus classes that focus on the mastery of a subject, or true understanding of the material.” Students are cheating in easy classes.
At Penn, where so many students came to be intellectually stimulated, challenged, and impassioned, we want to care about our courses. And when class material requires little engagement and superficial responses to do well, we decide that our time is not worth actually doing the work. The dream dies. ChatGPT, nice to see you again.
Students are using AI to do work for mundane classes with simple work. I’m far from blaming professors for students' AI reliance; however, I reject the notion that teaching (and student learning) can’t be improved. We’re all learning how to do education better, right? If that means adjusting our teaching to curb student’s intellectual complacency, I think it’s worth it.
In the case of STEM courses, AI usage is less about teaching quality. A good professor might help students to understand material better, but there is typically one correct answer. You either solve the problem or don’t. Get it correct and get a good grade, or get it wrong and miss out on the A. But, in humanities, where nuance and original thought must matter, it’s a bigger issue. If an AI tool, which is trained to merely repeat the information that already exists, can write a paper that satisfies our Ivy League professors (world-class experts in their respective fields), then it’s the curriculum that must change.
In classes that actually force me to engage with the material, AI usage would never suffice. We’re high achieving students and naturally want to do our professors justice. If the standards for succeeding are raised to ensure we’re actually engaging, we will adapt. Using AI in class will become pointless. Not because it’s not allowed, but because it won’t work.
I’m not suggesting professors must become unreasonably harsh or bury us in work, but perhaps they need to push us harder, force us to come to conclusions that AI can’t comprehend, and ask questions AI can’t answer. We need more assignments and professors that reward originality and genuine engagement instead of quick completion and regurgitation of the same nonsense Ivy League students are already good at.
Students don’t want to read 30 pages and respond with a discussion post no one will read. We want to be challenged with questions that make us think instead of just proving we did the reading. We need more class wide discussions; arguments, even.
Yes, I’m thinking the same thing: Sounds great, but how? I’m not sure but good thing we’re surrounded by some of the best professors in the entire world. We can figure it out together.
I’ve taken two courses at Penn with the same professor. Neither topic he taught is particularly of interest to me, but because of him, and the quality of work he expects, I would take a class with him every semester if I could. I leave each class feeling genuinely challenged. Using AI would be sacrilegious to the thinking he demands. The crazy part is: I prefer that difficulty to a lighter class. Imagine that, raving about a professor that requires the most out of me.
While I could tell students they must stop using AI if they wish to actually learn, we’ve heard it before, and obviously it’s not working. Curricula and professors can adapt not to punish AI use, but to outpace it. If ChatGPT can write a paper and still earn a good grade, the bar is too low.
Students don’t need to be threatened or punished; they need to be inspired. We must give students questions they actually want to answer and assignments that demand presence. If we want to keep students from outsourcing their thoughts, we have to give them something worth showing up for. Raise the standards and Penn students will rise alongside them.
PIPER SLINKA-PETKA is a College first year studying health and societies from West Virginia. Her email address is pipersp@sas.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
