No! You’re saying students cheat?

You don’t say. This is a story about a professor who discovered his students will use AI to cheat.

Serrano decided that his spring 2026 section of the quite difficult ECON 1170 would allow take-home exams for both the midterm and the final. Suddenly, the course received an influx of students. El País has the story:

The course… typically attracts few students, but very good ones. [Serrano] has never had more than 30 students enrolled at a time, and on some occasions he had only eight. This semester, probably because of the new evaluation system, 86 students signed up for the class. The results of the midterm exam, which was administered on March 5, were extraordinary, with an average score of 96 out of 100. Forty students scored a perfect 100.

This was indeed extraordinary, because as Serrano told Inside Higher Ed, “Historically the average grade in the midterm of this course has ranged between 65 and 80 [percent], and this exam was harder than the exams I wrote in the past, because… take-home is an opportunity to challenge the class a little bit more, given that you’re giving the students unlimited time.”

I figured this out back during the pandemic, when by necessity I had to offer exams online. Scores shot up! I knew immediately what was going on, but I didn’t punish the students — I couldn’t blame them for taking advantage of the system. This professor decided to test his students.

A suspicious Serrano decided that he would make the final exam in-person; he would see if students did similarly well on it. He emailed his class, telling them, “I am not declaring [the midterm] void for now. I am going to give the class a chance to prove me wrong. That is, if the distribution of the final exam is roughly similar to the distribution of the midterm, I will count the midterm. Otherwise, which is of course what I expect to happen, I will declare the midterm void and reweigh the final accordingly.”

Eighteen students suddenly dropped the course, while nine others didn’t even attend the final exam. Of those 27 students, El País noted, “22 had scored a perfect 100 in the midterm exam.”

Among those who took the test, the average score plunged—from 96 all the way down to 48.

He should have known that the scores on the final were not going to come close to the scores on the midterm. I knew in my classes that grades were going to drop when I stopped offering online exams. I wouldn’t have offered a phony deal like that to my students.

My classes were a bit different, though. It sounds like Serrano’s econ exams consisted of a lot of essay questions which could be flooded with AI slop; my exams are much more quantitative, with questions that are answered by numbers, which you’d think would be even more susceptible to AI cheating, but where I catch students who fail to grasp the process to solve the problem. You gotta know how to ask the AI how to solve the problem to get a good answer!

But still, exam scores were notably elevated during the pandemic, so once I could rely on instruction to return to normal, I made all exams to be in-class. However, I still offer weekly online quizzes. Quiz scores are significantly elevated, but constitute less than 10% of the final grade, and I don’t have a problem with that — I tell the students to cheat freely, to collaborate with their fellow students and work through the quizzes together. That’s been a benefit, because it forces students to think through the problems in a kind of practice exercise, and if they are working together they are teaching each other.

I’ve got one more year of teaching ahead of me. I plan on sticking to this same procedure in the next two semesters.

When MBAs decide they’re qualified to run higher ed…

In my years of teaching, I have occasionally had students with conservative views, and that’s fine. They’re a minority, but tolerance is one of the default principles of liberal arts education, so they get to express their position, everyone else shares their ideas, we all learn.

The problem isn’t conservatism, it’s authoritarianism. We are living in a country with a rising authoritarian minority that wants to shut everyone else down, and that is a problem. And that’s why Ohio is a problem — authoritarians want to dictate the content of a college education.

Ohio universities’ new centers to combat “liberal bias” aren’t popular with students, so a Republican leader wants to require attendance.

Bringing in America’s 250th anniversary, the Republican supermajority in Ohio’s legislature wants to expand civics education at colleges and universities. That hasn’t been getting the warmest of welcomes on campuses.

This puckered prune of a beancounter doesn’t like free speech

So this Republican, Jerry Cirino, has passed a new law.

S.B. 1 focuses on what Cirino calls “free speech,” banning public universities in Ohio from Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives, having “bias” in the classroom and limiting how “controversial topics” can and can’t be taught. “Controversial” under Ohio law includes “belief policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”

I appreciate how the report mentions that Cirino is a “free speech” advocate, and the next word is “banning”. It goes on to say that he opposes “controversial” ideas, in which he gets to categorize what ideas are to be policed. “Climate policies”? Climate change is real and has serious consequences (witness the heat wave we’re experiencing now), but Cirino wants to control discussion of what to do about it.

“electoral politics, foreign policy”…do Ohio universities lack political science and history departments?

I know Republicans hate DEI, but Ohio is a diverse state, and universities tend to hire from an international pool of academic candidates.

Ohioans can’t even discuss immigration policy? Are we just supposed to accept a conservative white man’s opinions without recourse to evidence, or the consequences, or the literature?

The primary consumers of college education are 18-22 year olds. Lord forbid that marriage and abortion be a topic of interest and concern among that group.

Jerry Cirino is a retired medical device company executive. Don’t assume that he therefore has experience in medicine or engineering, though — he has a BS in business and an MBA, and has completely foregone the kind of breadth of knowledge a typical liberal arts graduate gets, and instead has been narrowly focused on making money.

Yet he thinks he has the qualifications to overhaul higher education in Ohio? Jesus. This really is the age when incompetence rules.

I hate it when Republicans do this; I might hate it more when Democrats do it

Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania has decided what kids in his state need to learn. It’s cursive handwriting.

Letting our kids be kids also means getting back to the basics. That’s why, earlier this year, | signed into law a bipartisan bill that requires cursive handwriting to be taught in Pennsylvania schools.
It may seem strange, but cursive handwriting is a fundamental skill that all of our kids should learn. They may not get why now, but that’s how they’ll sign their very first check — or maybe even someday, a bill that gets to the Governor’s desk (trust me, you’ll want good penmanship for that).

Nope. It’s not an essential skill anymore. You can sign a check with a barely legible scrawl…it’s still accepted. The President of the US can sign bills with a peculiar string of pointy squiggles that is completely illegible…it still works, unfortunately. When I have to sign a series of papers, it starts out OK, but I use a kind of sloppy block printing, and by the time I’m done the “yers” in my last name has eroded down into a kind of uneven flood plain. That’s a really stupid reason to force kids to write in cursive.

Also, Shapiro has a law degree, not an education degree. He is not qualified to tell people what educational initiatives are “fundamental”. Leave that to educators.

It reminds me of my early disaffection with Bill Gates. He was doing all this philanthropy, and one of his pet projects was reforming US education…by taking it out of the hands of teachers and promoting charter schools. Like Bill Gates, Shapiro is meddling in subjects in which he has no authority and is going to end up doing more harm to education.

Sympathy for Samantha Fulnecky

The Algorithm keeps throwing articles and videos about this bad essay that was written by OU student Samantha Fulnecky. I can understand that — there is so much content being generated over the terrible writing by this student, because the internet is full of educated people who in many cases have professional expertise in evaluating writing. I’m going to be teaching a class in writing scientific papers this Spring, so I’m familiar with the work. Here’s an example:

If you didn’t watch it, that’s OK, you can find hundreds of similar examples on the internet. And that’s the problem!

I’ve read hundreds and hundreds of student papers, and some of them have been atrocious and earned zeroes. But I would never drag a student publicly, I would never shame a student’s lack of rigor or talent or ability on the internet. We have strict rules about that — I would get dragged into the division chair’s office, and get a few phone calls from the university’s lawyers, and face disciplinary action if I did that, no matter how badly the essay I was mocking was written.

However, in this case, Samantha Fulnecky exposed herself — she gave her awful essay to Turning Point USA, and they cruelly posted it online with full attribution, and invited the brutal savaging she is getting. I cringe a little bit deep inside every time I see these dissections of her paper, because normally a teacher would do that in confidence, one on one, with the goal of helping the student learn and get better, not to rip her apart in a public display.

I experienced this myself. The first essay I wrote in graduate school was for a physiology class, and I apparently expressed a view on the role of synapse structure that the professor did not like, so he spent an entire class hour going over it line by line and telling the entire class how stupid and wrong I was. It was not a good learning experience, except that I did learn that this one professor was an asshole.

Now, even worse, the entire internet is shredding Fulnecky’s paper, and probably millions of people are wallowing in schadenfreude over this one student’s disgraceful inability to make a coherent argument. What has Samantha Fulnecky learned? Probably only that she has to be more careful about letting people see how she expresses herself.

I also suspect that I’m seeing so much criticism of Fulnecky’s paper because she made herself fair game for the dammed up resentment so many of us have for the bad papers we have to routinely read in detail. Finally, we get to explode at this garbage we have to carefully evaluate, rather than being professional and courteous!

A little wisdom from Chief Joseph of the Nez Percés

Heinmot Tooyalaket

He was a smart guy and gave the only good argument against education I’ve ever heard.

In a short time a group of commissioners arrived to begin organization of a new Indian agency in the valley. One of them mentioned the advantages of schools for Joseph’s people. Joseph replied that the Nez Percés did not want the white man’s schools.
“Why do you not want schools?” the commissioner asked.
“They will teach us to have churches,” Joseph answered.
“Do you not want churches?”
“No, we do not want churches.”
“Why do you not want churches?”
“They will teach us to quarrel about God,” Joseph said. “We do not want to learn that. We may quarrel with men sometimes about things on this earth, but we never quarrel about God. We do not want to learn that.”

I can respect that, but I think it would be better understood as an argument against dogma. Do not impose your unwarrantedly confident dogma on me!

All you have to do is go on YouTube and look at a few atheist channels, and it’s infuriating: most of them are dealing with the idiocy of religious certainty, explaining that the apologists have no evidence for their god, over and over, with occasional intrusions by thick-skulled dickwits who make stupid and extravagant claims while disregarding what atheists actually say. I wouldn’t want to attend a school led by William Lane Craig or John Lennox or Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas either.

Keep education secular.

Fire Greg Abbott for pushing right wing ideologies instead of education

Imagine if universities tried to purge conservatives from our faculty. There’d be well-deserved protests from within the university as well as from without. We have strictly enforced policies for our hiring committees to prevent that from happening: our HR instructs us in the rules before every interview. You don’t get to ask candidates about politics, religion, or family matters…you interview exclusively on their qualifications to teach and do research.

This is not the policy when your administration is authoritarian and far right, and Texan.

Gov. Greg Abbott admitted in an X post on Sunday that Texas is purging professors with “leftist ideologies” — and people are not happy.

Abbott’s directive fits into a pattern of faculty changes and government interference on campuses across the state, including the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, and Texas State University.

“Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation,” Abbott wrote in his post. “We must end indoctrination and return to education fundamentals at all levels of education.”

They must end indoctrination by purging the universities of people who oppose your ideological indoctrination. That’s blatant. No ideology but our ideology.

He’s a fucking fascist.

Encouraging news for Oklahoma

Ryan Walters, the superintendent of education who was trying to force Christianity on students — introducing PragerU trash into the curriculum, requiring Bibles (the Trump Bible, actually), etc. — resigned a short while ago. I assumed it was because he had been made a more lucrative offer by a conservative Christian organization, but it may have been a deeper problem than I thought.

Walters is being investigated by the state ethics commission! He had been abusing teacher licenses and firing people he didn’t like, among other fiscal irregularities. He had given high-paying positions to his friends, instead. Some of his actions are already being revoked.

Starting with the cases regarding teacher licenses. The board voted to dismiss several cases for revocations of teachers like Regan Killackey, the Edmond teacher who went somewhat viral last year after an Instagram post from five years prior came to light that showed his kid in a Trump mask and Killackey with a pirate sword, they were at a Halloween store around the holiday time.

The board also voted to dismiss the case of the teacher license revocation for Alison Scot, who also became a target under Walters when she commented on someone’s social media post regarding the assassination attempt of President Trump.

Also cool: the Oklahoma education website, which once promised all this crap about Bibles and PragerU, is already being revised, and his weird religious programming is already beginning to disappear.

As Sam Seder mentions above, this suggests that the Oklahoma citizenry aren’t as far gone as we feared — they’ve been quietly fighting back all along, and we’re starting to see the bad policies of the Walters era being rolled back. Maybe they’re getting tired of being the 50th worst education state in the country.

You’re gonna give us what we want, or else

Trump is a gangster. Now he’s committing extortion against American universities.

President Donald Trump’s war on academia continued this week with letters pressuring the leaders of top universities across the United States to sign his “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” for priority access to federal funding and other “positive benefits.”

The New York Times reported that “letters were sent on Wednesday to the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.”

The letters “urging campus leaders to pledge support for President Trump’s political agenda to help ensure access to federal research funds” were signed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and two key White House officials, according to the Times.

The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is basically a demand to dictate who is allowed to be employed by and attend our universities — it’s an anti-DEI set of demands that claims to enhance diversity while effectively abolishing it. It demands that the university “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” so it’s trying to artificially pump up bogus conservatism, at a time when conservatism has dived off the cliff into outright lunacy.

My university hasn’t been victimized by the extortionist, yet. I would hope that they would refuse to accept the compact, if they were sent this wicked letter. Most universities are fighting back and refusing to sign on.

Except Texas.

Leaders of the Texas system were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be a part of the compact and its “potential funding advantages,” according to a statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the Board of Regents. “Today we welcome the new opportunity presented to us and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it,” Eltife said.

What a cowardly, chicken-shit place Texas must be.

The future looks bleak

Chopping it all down

I had a nightmarish realization last night — that American education was worse than I thought, and it was all going in the wrong direction, which will have dire consequences for the next generation. I’ve been listening to the right-wing’s plans for our schools, and they are ugly. For one thing, they hate education and want to simply shut it down; they’ve put Linda McMahon in charge of the Department of Education, which is scheduled for elimination, and she is a horrible, hateful dimwit. Science is mostly gone. They think math is what you do to fill out your tax forms. History is being put in the hands of PragerU, a fake ‘college’ run by a bigot who has no background in education or history. Museums are being policed to make sure they say nothing unpleasant about America. Their vision of good schools stops at putting Bibles and the ten commandments in every classroom.

This is how they will maintain power, by making sure every child is fitted with blinkers from birth onwards.

It made me think about how I would support good educational policy.

Math. No, math is not about filling out a form, or learning about spreadsheets. Math is the great enabler of ideas. Students should learn that math is beautiful and fun, and is also a foundation for sound reasoning and logic — I know that in my case, learning basic principles of algebra and geometry, and quantitative reasoning in the sciences, opened up my brain and led to a flowering of interest in all kinds of scientific subjects.

Every grade school curriculum should culminate in an introductory understanding of calculus. Maybe that shouldn’t be a requirement for graduation — I’m well aware that a lot of students are terrified of mathematics — but we should at least aspire to improve on that. We do have, in our better schools, the idea of college-tracks, a series of classes that students should plan on take if they want to go to university. Unfortunately, my experience in recent years has been that even if they fail algebra, students think they are prepared for science at the college level. They’re not.

History and Civics. History is not about smooth upward trajectories to the perfection that is America today. History is about stuttering forwards and backwards through errors and tragedies to overcome terrible human failures. One of my high school history classes started with how the “founding fathers” done fucked up, compromising on basic human rights to get a short term victory, that led to the catastrophe of the Civil War. More of that please. Maybe one of the lessons of history is the ability to look back and see where we went wrong, so that maybe we realize that even “Great Men” are fallible and biased.

You won’t get that with the PragerU approach to history — they even whitewashed Christopher Columbus, one of the greatest monsters of our history.

Literature. Do right-wingers even read? I don’t think so.

I think our education has been hobbled by the Western Canon, which contains what modern minds would consider real klunkers. I know, they’re well-regarded for reasons, and if we studied them harder, maybe students would warm to them, but we have limited time and we need to get them enthused about learning. For instance, Darwin’s Origin is a gorgeous piece of Victorian literature…but I wouldn’t inflict it on students. Contemporary literature removes that roadblock of historical conventions, and is going to be more engaging on subjects of modern interest. There are few 19th century texts that have anything relevant to say about the current gay or black experience.

Turn the teachers loose to discuss books they are passionate about. If a teacher has a passion for Silas Marner, go for it. The key, though, is engagement, and there are ways to do that that don’t involved dogma.

Language. This would enrage the MAGAts, but we should be teaching Spanish from kindergarten on. I had grade school Spanish myself, and it didn’t take — we memorized a few rote phrases, but learned nothing about the structure of the language, how to assemble a sentence, how to engage in a conversation beyond learning how to ask where the library is. We learned the parts of speech in our English class, but nothing of the kind in Spanish. The goal should be that every kid be able to have a simple conversation on the playground in Spanish by the time they get to middle school.

We should be beyond our self-centered focus on just one language, English. We live in a hemisphere where most people speak Spanish (OK, also Portuguese), and where growing communities in the US are Hispanic, we should be obligated to be at least bilingual. I think I was short-changed by a system that treated an entire language spoken by our neighbors as negligible.

Science. I’m going to go against my own background on this one, but a little less focus on science in grade school is OK. I generally feel like I have to start at the beginning for my college biology classes, because their understanding is mostly superficial; what they did learn seems to have leaked in through their eyes and ears and then dribbled out their noses. That sounds harsh on the students, but what I do see that is encouraging is that they come in eager and ready to learn.

This is partly my bias, because the science classes I took in high school were mostly boring, empty noise that didn’t teach anything particularly fundamental. The one exception was my high school chemistry class, where the teacher ignored the expected curriculum and taught remedial math: estimation, quantitative measurement, logarithms, all that juicy stuff which actually proved useful throughout my career. Thanks, Mr Thompson!

The right-wing perspective on education is all about compelling kids to memorize a set of facts, a simplistic pattern, that doesn’t involve thinking at all. If we let them get away with it, we’re crippling the next generation. Don’t let them.

A week or so ago, I was at the local coffeeshop and overheard a conversation. A very earnest, serious conservative was talking to a young woman about parents’ rights — how the law must not interfere with parents’ ability to instruct their children about religion and politics, that parents have a right and a duty to pass on their values to their children, and it shouldn’t matter how weird and wrong they might be.

It was infuriating to listen to, but I didn’t speak up, I didn’t bother the pair, I just got more and more aggravated to the point where I just left the coffee shop rather than make a scene. All that was running through my head was a simple question:

What about the children’s rights?

Shouldn’t every child have the right to good information, a good educational framework, an opportunity to learn about other perspectives? Every thing I see about conservative education is a denial of ideas outside a narrow ideological focus, leading to a situation now where un-American ideas (where the conservative starts with a very limited version of what is American) are on the verge of being criminalized. And one of the ways they accomplish that is by treating children as property who can be rightfully indoctrinated with whatever stupidity their parents hold sacred.

Don’t waste your time on this graph, or this essay, or Patrick Dodd

Here’s a provocative essay: AI is driving down the price of knowledge – universities have to rethink what they offer. The title alone irritated me: it proposes that AI is a competing source of “knowledge” against universities. AI doesn’t generate new knowledge! It can only shuffle, without understanding, the words that have been used to describe knowledge. It’s a serious mistake to conflate what a large language model does with what researchers at a university do — throughout the essay, the professor (an instructor at a business school, no surprise) treats “knowledge” as a fungible product that should be assessed in terms of supply and demand.

For a long time, universities worked off a simple idea: knowledge was scarce. You paid for tuition, showed up to lectures, completed assignments and eventually earned a credential.

That process did two things: it gave you access to knowledge that was hard to find elsewhere, and it signalled to employers you had invested time and effort to master that knowledge.

The model worked because the supply curve for high-quality information sat far to the left, meaning knowledge was scarce and the price – tuition and wage premiums – stayed high.

This is a common error — even our universities market themselves as providers of certificates, rather than knowledge — so I guess I can’t blame the author. He’s just perpetuating a flawed capitalistic perspective on learning. But digging further into the essay, I find abominations. Like this graph, which he claims illustrates “why tuition premiums and graduate wage advantages are now under pressure.”

Supply shift from scarcity to abundance in the knowledge market

Hot tip for whenever someone shows you a graph: first, figure out what the axes are.

The Y axis is labeled “Price (tuition/wage premium)”. No units, but OK, I can sort of decipher it. We’re paying a sum of money for college tuition, and after we graduate, we might expect that will translate to a wage increase, so this might represent something like a percent increase in base pay for college graduates over what non-college graduates might get. Fine, I could see doing some kind of statistical analysis of that. But it’s not going to produce a simple number!

For instance, in my cohort of students entering undergraduate education in the 1970s, we all paid roughly the same tuition. Afterwards, though, some of us were English majors, some of us were biologists, and some of us were electrical engineers…and there’s a vast difference in the subsequent earnings of those students. This graph is saying that when knowledge, that is, educated workers, are rare, then an education leads to a premium in wages. I can see that, but I think “price” is going to be far more complicated than is shown.

The X axis though…that’s made up. How do you measure “knowledge accessibility”? What are the units? How is it measured? I’ll have to return to that in a moment.

So there are lines drawn on the graph. One is going down, that’s “demand,” and obviously, going down is bad. The value, or price, of knowledge is declining, a claim that I’m not seeing justified here. Why is it going down? Because the supply is going up, which should be good, since it is going up, but knowledge is some kind of commodity that is being stockpiled, but is being called scarce anyway. Curiously, on this graph, the Price of knowledge is going up as “accessibility” increases, while demand goes down.

I’m not an economist, so the more I puzzle over this graph the more confused I get.

There is also a red dashed line here labeled Supply (AI abundance). Which further confuses me. So supply is scarce if produced by non-AI sources, but abundance if pumped out by an AI?

I was so lost that my next thought was that maybe I should look at the raw data and see how these values were calculated. Hey, look! At the bottom of the graph there was a link to “Get the data,” always a good thing when you are trying to figure out how the interpretations were generated.

Here’s the data. Try not to be overwhelmed.

Seriously, dude? None of that is real data. Those are just the parameters the guy invented to make one line go up and another go down.

I stopped there. That is not an essay worth spending much time on. So maybe AI is not generating knowledge and isn’t the cause of a declining appreciation of the value of knowledge?