The last six or so weeks have been hectic to say the least. A family vacation to Canada (Banff is terrific in July!) was a much needed reset before life became chaotic again. August brought my kids back to school and their sports routines. For me, it meant prepping courses, learning a new LMS, updating materials, and juggling committee work. Yet, despite all of this craziness, I have to admit, I still love all aspects of this crazy life.  

This week, (Tuesday, 8/26 to be specific) marks 1,000 days since ChatGPT was released to the masses. A lot has changed in the world since then. I now find myself turning to Chat GPT far more than I use Google these days. ChatGPT has even become a kind of virtual sounding board for ideas I want to explore. Last week, it was universal basic income. I think my wife is happy I do that rather than bore her.

Generative AI has moved through the educational landscape much like crabgrass spreading across a summer lawn. Today it’s everywhere.  We see that most students are using generative AI in some capacity at the college level. While some do use it to write their papers, I am encouraged to see that many students use it to help them study and take notes. 

The big question for academia is what to do with this novel technology. Do we embrace it? Do we fear it? Do we ignore it? Whatever our response should be, it’s become clear that the response has been lagging.

I now have colleagues using Blue Books again (remember those?). Just a few years ago, those were becoming relics of the past. In the classroom, I’ve heard students vent about faculty who require them to handwrite essays in class (as opposed to typing them). A way to circumvent the use of AI.

There’s no standardized framework that’s universally accepted to guide students on how to use generative AI for assignments. For example, is it okay to feed my response to ChatGPT and ask it to “clean it up” for grammar and clarity? To the students’ defense, how would that be any different than a student going to the campus writing center 10 years ago, and asking one of the student workers to edit their paper for the same things?

At many institutions, AI policies are up to the sole discretion of the instructor. Meaning that a student may have to abide by multiple policies. In one class, a professor may welcome the use of AI. For example, assigning students to work with it, prompt it, and critique the results. In another class, generative AI might as well be Lord Voldemort (the name that shouldn’t be said) in the eyes of the instructor.

With this rush among professors who require a lot of writing to investigate whether student writing is authentic or generated by AI.  There are also questions about the accuracy of AI detectors. In a recent story, a PhD student was accused of using generative AI to write his dissertation. A claim that he flatly denies.

So, where do we go?  Higher Ed (and education in general) is at an inflection point of sorts, a fork in the road. The question: which road do we go down? The road that embraces AI, or the road that shuns its use.

Here are a few points worth pondering:

1. Do we owe it to our students to prepare them for the workforce? AI is increasingly embedded in the tools they will use in nearly every profession. To pretend otherwise is to leave them unprepared.
2. A consistent framework is overdue. Leaving AI policy to the discretion of each professor creates confusion and inequity. Students deserve clear, fair, and realistic guidelines.
3. We should model the responsible use of AI. It is difficult to defend accusing students of cheating with AI while faculty casually use auto-complete in emails or grammar checkers in Word.

The truth is, AI is not something we can switch off. Higher education is already at a fork in the road. We can choose to guide students in using it wisely, or let silence and inconsistency guide them instead.”