Basically it comes to this: a sufficiently large proportion of a student's grade must come from work impossible to generate with AI, e.g. in-person testing.
Unfortunately, 18-year-olds generally can't be trusted to go a whole semester without succumbing to the siren call of easy GenAI A's. So even if you tell them that the final will be in-person, some significant chunk of them will still ChatGPT their way through and bomb the final.
Therefore, professors will probably have to have more frequent in-person tests so that students get immediate feedback that they're gonna fail if they don't actually learn it.
Literally this. The education system is lazy and tests people only every 30 days, with a test or midterm. This is the system's fault. Quiz every day. Catch where people are struggling, early. The quiz can be on their phones and let you know when they switch apps. Just have them close their laptops, take out their phones, scan QR codes from the screen in front, or pasted on a wall, and then 5 min quiz on their phones. That's what I did.
>Unfortunately, 18-year-olds generally can't be trusted to go a whole semester without succumbing to the siren call of easy GenAI A's. So even if you tell them that the final will be in-person, some significant chunk of them will still ChatGPT their way through and bomb the final.
I really think we need these policies to be developed by the opposite of misanthropists.
I wonder if culture has gone wrong where children or students simply cannot be failed anymore. Or sometimes even given less than perfect grades...
Maybe we should go back to times where failing students was seen more so fault of the student than the system. At least when majority of students pass and there is no proven fault by faculty.
So they bomb their test. And? Isn't that the entire point of an exam? If you fail, you fail and presumably have to re-learn the contents.