For many institutions, the start of the fall semester is upon us. I hope your semester has started off well, filled with energy and enthusiasm for the possibilities found in a new academic year with a new group of first-year students. Speaking of the start of something new, in this week’s issue, I look at the University of Chicago’s plans to ban all technology in social-sciences core courses. I then close on three Sparks about accreditation, nursing, and the cost of college.

Will Banning Technology Return Us to Learning?

From U. of Chicago Bans Tech, AI in Social Sciences Core Courses | The Chronicle of Higher Education

The University of Chicago’s undergraduate social-sciences division has implemented a technology ban across the division’s core courses.

Our Thoughts

When I initially saw the headline for this article, I will admit that I had a mixed reaction. Technology bans often do not produce the results the creators hoped for while sometimes simultaneously putting the burden of being the “technology police” on the instructor. However, I also recognize that technology, especially AI, has increasingly created an environment that is not always conducive to productive learning. I’ve written before about the need for desirable difficulties as an important step on the path to learning, and AI is often used as a substitute for this. So, with that in mind, I tried to approach this article and the University of Chicago’s plans with an open mind until I got to this sentence: “In addition to students using LLMs to complete their take-home coursework, Jakes said it’s become clear that some are also using them to contribute to in-person class discussions.”

For me, at least, that was my turning point when I decided that the University of Chicago’s experiment was worth a try. Most of my arguments about AI and learning have been based around the concept of AI producing the artifact that we’ve long used as the proxy for learning—the essay, the presentation, the final project. However, what Jakes is describing goes a step beyond that. When students are simply parroting the AI during a class discussion, they have essentially become “meat proxies” and the hope of any growth through discussion is lost. The entire point of these seminars is students reading and struggling through a text together. Learning through questioning and discussion to discover the “right” answers (right being relative to the students and faculty in the room). It’s one of the oldest forms of teaching, and if faculty can’t count on students to think for themselves now, there’s little hope of developing critical thinking skills later. It’s also hard to redesign discussion to be AI proof as one might for a more traditional assignment. If closing laptops may be one of the few options actually available to correct this.

Now, some may say that the University of Chicago should have seen this coming since they provide free access to Claude to students, faculty, and staff. Some coverage may even go so far as to call it ironic that one of its divisions has banned access to the tool that the University made available just this summer. However, I read it a bit differently. Instead, I see faculty governance and pedagogical decision making catching up to institutional IT procurement. On a number of campuses, this might never happen. This is the technology decision being made with faculty as opposed to them, with faculty asking what this should mean inside specific courses and in specific pedagogical settings. And because the faculty have decided to implement this practice in a required sequence of courses, they’ll be able to compare their experiences from prior years.

An additional positive note about this plan—it’s a two-way street. Faculty teaching these courses cannot use generative AI, especially for grading, unless they assess its use carefully and disclose it to the students. By putting faculty and students on equal footing, these courses have an opportunity to see what parts of the traditional seminar experience are worth preserving and consider where technology can enhance the experience for both students and faculty in the future. One thing that seems to be missing from the coverage of this is UChicago’s plans for approved technological accommodations. I’m sure UChicago has this covered, but it’s something to keep in mind for institutions considering a similar move. It’s always best to cover that before a student who needs it has to ask. I wish UChicago’s undergraduate social-sciences division the best of luck with this experiment, and I eagerly look forward to reading about their experiences later this year.

Sparks

• 3 Things to Know About ED’s Accreditation Proposal (Inside Higher Ed) - The Trump administration has proposed changes to the accreditation system. Being accredited is how institutions access federal financial aid, so it’s important to pay attention to proposed changes to understand how they might impact our sector.
• Top-level nurses can’t finish their degrees because of a severe shortage of mentors (The Hechinger Report) - As our need for healthcare grows, nurse practitioners struggle to find site supervisors so they can finish their clinical rotations. I was a little surprised upon reading this, especially as I thought “this is something we could fix.”
• A Radically Simple Plan to Fix Higher Education (Washington Monthly) - Kevin Carey proposes a solution to address college affordability. While I’m not sure I agree with his proposal, it does give you something to think about.