"Since we can no longer grade and assess in traditional ways, can we finally conclude that grades are meaningless? Can we finally get rid of grading and sorting and instead focus on actual learning? Can we seize this powerful, pivotal AI moment—perhaps the most disruptive force to higher education since the internet—and use it to serve the public good? Can we focus on motivating students to learn and care for each other and the other inhabitants of our planet?"
exactly! Part of my next post is a bit about the how old that system of completion and compliance is...and even if we take away AI, we're dealing with a system that was structured by the tech-bros' emphasis on productivity from the early 20th (e.g. Carnegie)...
The line about students being asked to prove they did the thing, rather than that the thing changed them, feels central. AI makes the old bargain visible: if an assignment only measures completion, students will optimize for completion. The harder question is what evidence would show that the work actually left a trace in the learner.
Hi Lance, I wrote some similar thoughts early last year in this piece: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2025/2/an-ai-driven-optimism-for-transforming-higher-education-its-not-what-you-think
I LOVE this:
"Since we can no longer grade and assess in traditional ways, can we finally conclude that grades are meaningless? Can we finally get rid of grading and sorting and instead focus on actual learning? Can we seize this powerful, pivotal AI moment—perhaps the most disruptive force to higher education since the internet—and use it to serve the public good? Can we focus on motivating students to learn and care for each other and the other inhabitants of our planet?"
Thank you Lance! I love your work :-)
The phrase "militant apathy" keeps sticking with me.
AI may be accelerating the conversation, but the deeper issue feels older than AI itself.
When systems become optimized for completion, compliance can start looking like engagement.
The challenge is finding ways to make genuine thinking visible again.
exactly! Part of my next post is a bit about the how old that system of completion and compliance is...and even if we take away AI, we're dealing with a system that was structured by the tech-bros' emphasis on productivity from the early 20th (e.g. Carnegie)...
That distinction feels important.
AI often gets framed as the cause, when it may be acting more like a stress test.
If a system already rewards completion over understanding, AI simply makes that optimization easier and more visible.
The deeper question becomes:
What are we actually trying to cultivate?
If the goal is curiosity, judgment, and understanding, then those qualities need to become visible and valued within the system itself.
The line about students being asked to prove they did the thing, rather than that the thing changed them, feels central. AI makes the old bargain visible: if an assignment only measures completion, students will optimize for completion. The harder question is what evidence would show that the work actually left a trace in the learner.