This article is based on the following premise, which I want to challenge: "Universities should assess independent competence (what a student can recall, reason through and explain without delegating the task) separately from AI-assisted performance." Almost everything a person does today is to some (usually large) extent delegated. We use motors to transport ourselves, books and articles and pen and paper to remember, calculators and computers to reason, and manufacturing plants to make. In many fields, and especially management related fields, accomplishing things through delegation is the core task. So the effort to assess what we can do independently isn't just futile, it's fundamentally misguided. The real issue is the way we pit the assessment of people with a lot of ability to delegate (i.e., the rich) against those with much more limited capacity to delegate (i.e., the poor). (The Washingtom post is usually paywalled, but it's letting me read this article, but here's the archive version, just in case).
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
