Let’s chat about artificial intelligence—that not-so-distant cousin twice removed who’s turned up at every family function these days. AI is everywhere. It’s no longer a buzzword; it’s embedded into our daily lives, and in the next two years, it will touch every sector. The AI age isn’t just coming—it’s already here.
So, how are our most prestigious schools preparing students for this reality?
As predicted: terribly
Harvard, the “gold standard” of higher education, has decided to ban generative AI all together. Their policy prohibits its use at any stage—thinking, planning, researching, reading, or writing. This isn’t just a bad decision; it’s a strategic misstep that puts their students at a disadvantage.
Once again, academia clings to outdated models, favoring costly and increasingly irrelevant traditions like lectures and tenure, rather than adapting to a rapidly changing world. While the intent to preserve academic integrity and promote personal growth is commendable, Harvard’s approach misses the mark. They argue that using AI in research and writing robs students of the opportunity to learn those methods and undermines the emotional resilience needed for writing.
But is that really true?
The answer: we don’t know.
And here’s the rub—academia used to thrive in spaces of uncertainty, places where research and questions thrived. Now, it’s pretending to know what it doesn’t. There’s no data yet to suggest that working with AI hinders personal growth or skills acquisition. Harvard’s stance isn’t grounded in evidence; it’s driven by fear. Fear of irrelevance. Fear that AI might actually do some things better—like coaching learners, creating flashcards, or breaking down legal concepts in more accessible ways. Fear that AI might even be a better teacher.
But here’s the truth: AI isn’t here to replace teachers. It’s here to make them better. AI can handle repetitive tasks, freeing educators to focus on what they do best—mentoring, inspiring, and nurturing critical thinking that machines can’t replicate. If only our nation’s top schools understood this.
Banning AI outright is more than just misguided; it’s counterproductive. Enforcing a no-AI policy is like trying to impose a speed limit at the Indy 500. Sure, it’s well-intentioned, but it’s completely out of sync with the environment. AI tools like ChatGPT are as accessible as they are hard to detect. While academia claims it can identify AI-generated work, the reality is they can’t- so don’t fall for it!
Instead of playing police, why not guide students on how to use these tools wisely? Let’s have open conversations about ethics, responsible use, and the line between utility and over-reliance. Teaching responsible AI use is no different from teaching responsible research practices—both are critical for academic integrity and personal growth.
Harvard has a choice. It can cling to fear and fight a losing battle against technology, or it can embrace the uncertainty, leading the way in understanding how AI can enhance learning and growth. Imagine a future where students graduate not just as scholars but as pioneers who understand how to navigate and leverage AI ethically and effectively. That’s a policy worth writing.
Comentarios