Really sucks for people with disabilities and handwriting issues.

Here's a somewhat tangential counter, which I think some of the other replies are trying to touch on ... why, exactly, continue valuing our ability to do something a computer can so easily do for us (to some extent obviously)?

In a world where something like AI can come up and change the landscape in a matter of a year or two ... how much value is left in the idea of assessing people's value through exams (and to be clear, I'm saying this as someone who's done very well in exams in the past)?

This isn't to say that knowing things is bad or making sure people meet standards is bad etc. But rather, to question whether exams are fit for purpose as means of measuring what matters in a world where what's relevant, valuable or even accurate can change pretty quickly compared to the timelines of ones life or education. Not long ago we were told that we won't have calculators with us everywhere, and now we could have calculators embedded in our ears if wanted to. Analogously, learning and examination is probably being premised on the notion that we won't be able to look things up all the time ... when, as current AI, amongst other things, suggests, that won't be true either.

An exam assessment structure naturally leans toward memorisation and being drilled in a relatively narrow band of problem solving techniques,^1^ which are, IME, often crammed prior to the exam and often forgotten quite severely pretty soon afterward. So even presuming that things that students know during the exam are valuable, it is questionable whether the measurement of value provided by the exam is actually valuable. And once the value of that information is brought into question ... you have to ask ... what are we doing here?

Which isn't to say that there's no value created in doing coursework and cramming for exams. Instead, given that a computer can now so easily augment our ability to do this assessment, you have to ask what education is for and whether it can become something better than what it is given what are supposed to be the generally lofty goals of education.

In reality, I suspect (as many others do) that the core value of the assessment system is to simply provide a filter. It's not so much what you're being assessed on as much as your ability to pass the assessment that matters, in order to filter for a base level of ability for whatever professional activity the degree will lead to. Maybe there are better ways of doing this that aren't so masked by other somewhat disingenuous goals?

Beyond that there's a raft of things the education system could emphasise more than exam based assessment. Long form problem solving and learning. Understanding things or concepts as deeply as possible and creatively exploring the problem space and its applications. Actually learn the actual scientific method in practice. Core and deep concepts, both in theory and application, rather than specific facts. Breadth over depth, in general. Actual civics and knowledge required to be a functioning member of the electorate.

All of which are hard to assess, of course, which is really the main point of pushing back against your comment ... maybe we're approaching the point where the cost-benefit equation for practicable assessment is being tipped.

1. In my experience, the best means of preparing for exams, as is universally advised, is to take previous or practice exams ... which I think tells you pretty clearly what kind of task an exam actually is ... a practiced routine in something that narrowly ranges between regurgitation and pretty short-form, practiced and shallow problem solving.

We get in trouble if we fail everyone because we made them do a novel synthesis, instead of just repeating what we told them.

Particularly for an intro course, remembering what you were told is good enough.

Millennial here, haven't had to seriously write out anything consistently in decades at this point. There's no way their handwriting can be worse than mine and still be legible lol.

It actually is artificial intelligence. What are you even arguing against man?

Machine learning is a subset of AI and neural networks are a subset of machine learning. Saying an LLM (based on neutral networks for prediction) isn't AI because you don't like it is like saying rock and roll isn't music

But then the investor wont throw wads of money at these fancy tech companies

Not during class. Most likely a proctored exam. No laptops, no phones, teacher or proctor watching.

So what you’re telling me is that written tests have, in fact, existed before?

What are you some kind of education historian?

That's just what we tell kids so they'll learn to do basic math on their own. Otherwise you'll end up with people who can't even do 13+24 without having to use a calculator.

Training how to use "AI" (LLMs demonstrably possess zero actual reasoning ability) feels like it should be a seperate pursuit from (or subset of) general education to me. In order to effectively use "AI", you need to be able to evaluate its output and reason for yourself whether it makes any sense or simply bears a statitstical resemblance to human language. Doing that requires solid critical reasoning skills, which you can only develop by engaging personally with countless unique problems over the course of years and working them out for yourself. Even prior to the rise of ChatGPT and its ilk, there was emerging research showing diminishing reasoning skills in children.

Without some means of forcing students to engage cognitively, there's little point in education. Pen and paper seems like a pretty cheap way to get that done.

I'm all for tech and using the tools available, but without a solid educational foundation (formal or not), I fear we end up a society snakeoil users in search of the blinker fluid.

AI is a tool that can indeed be of great benefit when used properly. But using it without comprehending and verifying the source material can be downright dangerous (like those lawyers citing fake cases). The point of the essay/exam is to test comprehension of the material.

Using AI at this point is like using a typewriter in a calligraphy test, or autocorrect in a spelling and grammar test.

Although asking for handwritten essays does nothing to combat use of AI. You can still generate content and then transcribe it by hand.

Your comment is full of errors, interestingly enough...

You became the smartest kid because everyone else had a stroke trying to read what you wrote.