Email from college or professor

[Anonymous]

I teach writing-based grad courses where student need to learn specific structures for writing. Auto-generating content will keep them from learning these skills.

And Grammarly is advertising its new generative-AI capabilities, not just checking sentence-level typos and grammar anymore.

https://www.grammarly.com/ai

AMC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

Do you think Grammarly is cheating? My DS uses it. She has dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. It doesn’t write the work for her. It basically tells her when she has made a grammatical or spelling error. I find it akin to a proof reader. She does not use Chat GPT to write work (although many of her friends do) because she finds the writing horrible.

I’m just interested in if Grammarly is considered cheating and why.

Firstly, as someone who teaches, I would never want someone with genuine learning disabilities to be deprived of necessary tools that help them succeed. If a student in my class with documentation has Grammarly (or things like it) as a learning accommodation, then I'm not going to push back. But if it's not being used for that reason, I'd love to help everyone get away from it if I could. Here's why.

Grammarly is different from the grammar-check and spellcheck functions built into things like Google Docs: its rewriting functions are far more robust. I don't want to grade Grammarly's cooked-up (or even just new and improved) version of a paper or essay: I want to grade my students' own work, flaws and all, so that my students can improve their own abilities to think and write for themselves. Telling them what _Grammarly_ can improve is utterly useless.

So yes, fine, use spellcheck to eliminate the basic typos. But don't substitute spellcheck for careful reading. And don't turn in massively corrected, totally polished grammar that didn't come from you, because then I can't tell that you need help learning how to write, and I'll never be able to assist you in improving. Objectively, that ultimately wastes your time, your effort, and your tuition money.

And for all the folks who say that grammar isn't important, there were quite a few comments on the errors in the post that started this thread in the first place. Words matter in many situations, to many people. And AI isn't the answer to not knowing how to express yourself clearly and accurately.

You are clearly not a college professor. We are talking about college, not middle school. Of course middle schoolers, even early high schoolers, should not be using Grammarly to learn actual grammar (though it's actual quite a useful learning tool). No college professor at a decent college in America considers it their job to teach college students grammar. By then, they are teaching them how build strong arguments, etc. Getting AI to fix basic spelling and grammatical errors to help that professor see through the stupid mistakes to the meat of the paper, especially when you have two other papers and a mid-term in the same week is, I promise you, perfectly acceptable to college professors at decent and elite universities.

PP to whom you are replying here. Actually, I am a college professor, and a department chair. And I do consider it my job both to expect largely correct grammar coming directly from my students (not coming from AI) and to require students to attempt to filter out their own mistakes. Productive self-evaluation is part of being a professional, and even just part of being a functioning adult.

My students running their writing through generative AI tools prevents me from understanding not only their objective skills and their general abilities, but also their thought processes. It is not in fact acceptable to me, but even if it were, it would be a lazy way for me to pretend that my students do not need to improve and that I do not, in fact, need to help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

Do you think Grammarly is cheating? My DS uses it. She has dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. It doesn’t write the work for her. It basically tells her when she has made a grammatical or spelling error. I find it akin to a proof reader. She does not use Chat GPT to write work (although many of her friends do) because she finds the writing horrible.

I’m just interested in if Grammarly is considered cheating and why.

Firstly, as someone who teaches, I would never want someone with genuine learning disabilities to be deprived of necessary tools that help them succeed. If a student in my class with documentation has Grammarly (or things like it) as a learning accommodation, then I'm not going to push back. But if it's not being used for that reason, I'd love to help everyone get away from it if I could. Here's why.

Grammarly is different from the grammar-check and spellcheck functions built into things like Google Docs: its rewriting functions are far more robust. I don't want to grade Grammarly's cooked-up (or even just new and improved) version of a paper or essay: I want to grade my students' own work, flaws and all, so that my students can improve their own abilities to think and write for themselves. Telling them what _Grammarly_ can improve is utterly useless.

So yes, fine, use spellcheck to eliminate the basic typos. But don't substitute spellcheck for careful reading. And don't turn in massively corrected, totally polished grammar that didn't come from you, because then I can't tell that you need help learning how to write, and I'll never be able to assist you in improving. Objectively, that ultimately wastes your time, your effort, and your tuition money.

And for all the folks who say that grammar isn't important, there were quite a few comments on the errors in the post that started this thread in the first place. Words matter in many situations, to many people. And AI isn't the answer to not knowing how to express yourself clearly and accurately.

You are clearly not a college professor. We are talking about college, not middle school. Of course middle schoolers, even early high schoolers, should not be using Grammarly to learn actual grammar (though it's actual quite a useful learning tool). No college professor at a decent college in America considers it their job to teach college students grammar. By then, they are teaching them how build strong arguments, etc. Getting AI to fix basic spelling and grammatical errors to help that professor see through the stupid mistakes to the meat of the paper, especially when you have two other papers and a mid-term in the same week is, I promise you, perfectly acceptable to college professors at decent and elite universities.

PP to whom you are replying here. Actually, I am a college professor, and a department chair. And I do consider it my job both to expect largely correct grammar coming directly from my students (not coming from AI) and to require students to attempt to filter out their own mistakes. Productive self-evaluation is part of being a professional, and even just part of being a functioning adult.

My students running their writing through generative AI tools prevents me from understanding not only their objective skills and their general abilities, but also their thought processes. It is not in fact acceptable to me, but even if it were, it would be a lazy way for me to pretend that my students do not need to improve and that I do not, in fact, need to help them.

I am generally curious how you will react when your boss (or maybe your boss' boss) issues the edict that every and all class now needs to incorporate generative AI into your courses.

Don't say that edict won't happen...I will repeat again, don't say that edict won't happen...the only question is will it happen next year (probably not)...in five years (50%+ chance)...in 7 years (nearly 100% certainty).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to keep up with the grading for the last three weeks so that you will all know where you stand in the course as far as your points. What has amazed me is the number of grammatical errors, and the amount of misspelled words in your homework assignments. I am appalled at how carelessly the class, as a whole, [/b]have written words that are misspelled and those of you who are jumping into the assignments without reading the ebook or watching the [b]video's provided.
You are in college now! It is unacceptable to hand in work with misspelled words, grammatical errors, and sentences that do not make sense. [/b]Reread your work prior to hitting that submit button. Do not think that because this is an on line course that proper academic English is not a requirement. I have been very lenient on these errors, but no more after this week. I will expect you to read the ebook[b] and watch the videos prior to submitting an assignment. I also expect, from now to the end of this class, no misspelled words in any of your work.

I mean, if you're going to to send out something like this, maybe be sure it's free of grammatical errors and the like including improper subject-verb agreement and improper usage of commas and apostrophes. Maybe also write with a little more word economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to keep up with the grading for the last three weeks so that you will all know where you stand in the course as far as your points. What has amazed me is the number of grammatical errors, and the amount of misspelled words in your homework assignments. I am appalled at how carelessly the class, as a whole, [/b]have written words that are misspelled and those of you who are jumping into the assignments without reading the ebook or watching the [b]video's provided.
You are in college now! It is unacceptable to hand in work with misspelled words, grammatical errors, and sentences that do not make sense. [/b]Reread your work prior to hitting that submit button. Do not think that because this is an on line course that proper academic English is not a requirement. I have been very lenient on these errors, but no more after this week. I will expect you to read the ebook[b] and watch the videos prior to submitting an assignment. I also expect, from now to the end of this class, no misspelled words in any of your work.

I mean, if you're going to to send out something like this, maybe be sure it's free of grammatical errors and the like including improper subject-verb agreement and improper usage of commas and apostrophes. Maybe also write with a little more word economy.

Why don’t you engage with the substance of what the OP is saying, instead of jumping on with some cheap shots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

Do you think Grammarly is cheating? My DS uses it. She has dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. It doesn’t write the work for her. It basically tells her when she has made a grammatical or spelling error. I find it akin to a proof reader. She does not use Chat GPT to write work (although many of her friends do) because she finds the writing horrible.

I’m just interested in if Grammarly is considered cheating and why.

Firstly, as someone who teaches, I would never want someone with genuine learning disabilities to be deprived of necessary tools that help them succeed. If a student in my class with documentation has Grammarly (or things like it) as a learning accommodation, then I'm not going to push back. But if it's not being used for that reason, I'd love to help everyone get away from it if I could. Here's why.

Grammarly is different from the grammar-check and spellcheck functions built into things like Google Docs: its rewriting functions are far more robust. I don't want to grade Grammarly's cooked-up (or even just new and improved) version of a paper or essay: I want to grade my students' own work, flaws and all, so that my students can improve their own abilities to think and write for themselves. Telling them what _Grammarly_ can improve is utterly useless.

So yes, fine, use spellcheck to eliminate the basic typos. But don't substitute spellcheck for careful reading. And don't turn in massively corrected, totally polished grammar that didn't come from you, because then I can't tell that you need help learning how to write, and I'll never be able to assist you in improving. Objectively, that ultimately wastes your time, your effort, and your tuition money.

And for all the folks who say that grammar isn't important, there were quite a few comments on the errors in the post that started this thread in the first place. Words matter in many situations, to many people. And AI isn't the answer to not knowing how to express yourself clearly and accurately.

You are clearly not a college professor. We are talking about college, not middle school. Of course middle schoolers, even early high schoolers, should not be using Grammarly to learn actual grammar (though it's actual quite a useful learning tool). No college professor at a decent college in America considers it their job to teach college students grammar. By then, they are teaching them how build strong arguments, etc. Getting AI to fix basic spelling and grammatical errors to help that professor see through the stupid mistakes to the meat of the paper, especially when you have two other papers and a mid-term in the same week is, I promise you, perfectly acceptable to college professors at decent and elite universities.

PP to whom you are replying here. Actually, I am a college professor, and a department chair. And I do consider it my job both to expect largely correct grammar coming directly from my students (not coming from AI) and to require students to attempt to filter out their own mistakes. Productive self-evaluation is part of being a professional, and even just part of being a functioning adult.

My students running their writing through generative AI tools prevents me from understanding not only their objective skills and their general abilities, but also their thought processes. It is not in fact acceptable to me, but even if it were, it would be a lazy way for me to pretend that my students do not need to improve and that I do not, in fact, need to help them.

I am generally curious how you will react when your boss (or maybe your boss' boss) issues the edict that every and all class now needs to incorporate generative AI into your courses.

Don't say that edict won't happen...I will repeat again, don't say that edict won't happen...the only question is will it happen next year (probably not)...in five years (50%+ chance)...in 7 years (nearly 100% certainty).

The issue is not the existence of generative AI: the issue is what it can teach students vs. what it can actually prevent them from learning, and that will remain a moving target as the technology evolves. At this exact moment in higher education we are seeing far more homework-level abuse of AI than anything else, as students experiment with assignment shortcuts and faculty experiment with brand-new ways of cultivating pre-professional productivity that are not yet fully formed.

The consumer-facing versions of today's AI tools are not robust enough (yet) to produce professional academic writing that people actually want and need to read, especially since the tools we currently have are not trained on the materials we actually research and study. Once they are, that is where the questions will come, likely starting in the technical and professional disciplines.

And as far as AI requirements go, the first step will be that we faculty will be required to have AI policies in our syllabi and enforce them fairly and transparently. I see that coming in a year or two. But required to teach with it? That will be discipline- and subject-dependent, and everyone impacted by higher education (including but not limited to students, parents and guardians, and employers) should want colleges and universities to make choices in that regard that will produce the best return on investment. Some of that will depend on what the tools look like down the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

Do you think Grammarly is cheating? My DS uses it. She has dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. It doesn’t write the work for her. It basically tells her when she has made a grammatical or spelling error. I find it akin to a proof reader. She does not use Chat GPT to write work (although many of her friends do) because she finds the writing horrible.

I’m just interested in if Grammarly is considered cheating and why.

Firstly, as someone who teaches, I would never want someone with genuine learning disabilities to be deprived of necessary tools that help them succeed. If a student in my class with documentation has Grammarly (or things like it) as a learning accommodation, then I'm not going to push back. But if it's not being used for that reason, I'd love to help everyone get away from it if I could. Here's why.

Grammarly is different from the grammar-check and spellcheck functions built into things like Google Docs: its rewriting functions are far more robust. I don't want to grade Grammarly's cooked-up (or even just new and improved) version of a paper or essay: I want to grade my students' own work, flaws and all, so that my students can improve their own abilities to think and write for themselves. Telling them what _Grammarly_ can improve is utterly useless.

So yes, fine, use spellcheck to eliminate the basic typos. But don't substitute spellcheck for careful reading. And don't turn in massively corrected, totally polished grammar that didn't come from you, because then I can't tell that you need help learning how to write, and I'll never be able to assist you in improving. Objectively, that ultimately wastes your time, your effort, and your tuition money.

And for all the folks who say that grammar isn't important, there were quite a few comments on the errors in the post that started this thread in the first place. Words matter in many situations, to many people. And AI isn't the answer to not knowing how to express yourself clearly and accurately.

You are clearly not a college professor. We are talking about college, not middle school. Of course middle schoolers, even early high schoolers, should not be using Grammarly to learn actual grammar (though it's actual quite a useful learning tool). No college professor at a decent college in America considers it their job to teach college students grammar. By then, they are teaching them how build strong arguments, etc. Getting AI to fix basic spelling and grammatical errors to help that professor see through the stupid mistakes to the meat of the paper, especially when you have two other papers and a mid-term in the same week is, I promise you, perfectly acceptable to college professors at decent and elite universities.

PP to whom you are replying here. Actually, I am a college professor, and a department chair. And I do consider it my job both to expect largely correct grammar coming directly from my students (not coming from AI) and to require students to attempt to filter out their own mistakes. Productive self-evaluation is part of being a professional, and even just part of being a functioning adult.

My students running their writing through generative AI tools prevents me from understanding not only their objective skills and their general abilities, but also their thought processes. It is not in fact acceptable to me, but even if it were, it would be a lazy way for me to pretend that my students do not need to improve and that I do not, in fact, need to help them.

Agreed. I taught a writing course at a top 25 professional school for many years. I finally did a “grammar tip of the day” because while I expected a certain level of grammatical excellence, the reality was that it didn’t exist. I found it shocking and disturbing. This was before AI!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

Do you think Grammarly is cheating? My DS uses it. She has dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. It doesn’t write the work for her. It basically tells her when she has made a grammatical or spelling error. I find it akin to a proof reader. She does not use Chat GPT to write work (although many of her friends do) because she finds the writing horrible.

I’m just interested in if Grammarly is considered cheating and why.

Firstly, as someone who teaches, I would never want someone with genuine learning disabilities to be deprived of necessary tools that help them succeed. If a student in my class with documentation has Grammarly (or things like it) as a learning accommodation, then I'm not going to push back. But if it's not being used for that reason, I'd love to help everyone get away from it if I could. Here's why.

Grammarly is different from the grammar-check and spellcheck functions built into things like Google Docs: its rewriting functions are far more robust. I don't want to grade Grammarly's cooked-up (or even just new and improved) version of a paper or essay: I want to grade my students' own work, flaws and all, so that my students can improve their own abilities to think and write for themselves. Telling them what _Grammarly_ can improve is utterly useless.

So yes, fine, use spellcheck to eliminate the basic typos. But don't substitute spellcheck for careful reading. And don't turn in massively corrected, totally polished grammar that didn't come from you, because then I can't tell that you need help learning how to write, and I'll never be able to assist you in improving. Objectively, that ultimately wastes your time, your effort, and your tuition money.

And for all the folks who say that grammar isn't important, there were quite a few comments on the errors in the post that started this thread in the first place. Words matter in many situations, to many people. And AI isn't the answer to not knowing how to express yourself clearly and accurately.

You are clearly not a college professor. We are talking about college, not middle school. Of course middle schoolers, even early high schoolers, should not be using Grammarly to learn actual grammar (though it's actual quite a useful learning tool). No college professor at a decent college in America considers it their job to teach college students grammar. By then, they are teaching them how build strong arguments, etc. Getting AI to fix basic spelling and grammatical errors to help that professor see through the stupid mistakes to the meat of the paper, especially when you have two other papers and a mid-term in the same week is, I promise you, perfectly acceptable to college professors at decent and elite universities.

PP to whom you are replying here. Actually, I am a college professor, and a department chair. And I do consider it my job both to expect largely correct grammar coming directly from my students (not coming from AI) and to require students to attempt to filter out their own mistakes. Productive self-evaluation is part of being a professional, and even just part of being a functioning adult.

My students running their writing through generative AI tools prevents me from understanding not only their objective skills and their general abilities, but also their thought processes. It is not in fact acceptable to me, but even if it were, it would be a lazy way for me to pretend that my students do not need to improve and that I do not, in fact, need to help them.

I am generally curious how you will react when your boss (or maybe your boss' boss) issues the edict that every and all class now needs to incorporate generative AI into your courses.

Don't say that edict won't happen...I will repeat again, don't say that edict won't happen...the only question is will it happen next year (probably not)...in five years (50%+ chance)...in 7 years (nearly 100% certainty).

The issue is not the existence of generative AI: the issue is what it can teach students vs. what it can actually prevent them from learning, and that will remain a moving target as the technology evolves. At this exact moment in higher education we are seeing far more homework-level abuse of AI than anything else, as students experiment with assignment shortcuts and faculty experiment with brand-new ways of cultivating pre-professional productivity that are not yet fully formed.

The consumer-facing versions of today's AI tools are not robust enough (yet) to produce professional academic writing that people actually want and need to read, especially since the tools we currently have are not trained on the materials we actually research and study. Once they are, that is where the questions will come, likely starting in the technical and professional disciplines.

And as far as AI requirements go, the first step will be that we faculty will be required to have AI policies in our syllabi and enforce them fairly and transparently. I see that coming in a year or two. But required to teach with it? That will be discipline- and subject-dependent, and everyone impacted by higher education (including but not limited to students, parents and guardians, and employers) should want colleges and universities to make choices in that regard that will produce the best return on investment. Some of that will depend on what the tools look like down the line.

I seriously doubt you are correct. I believe nearly 100% of all disciplines/subjects will be required to incorporate it in some fashion. Each course/discipline will have a unique way of incorporation.

As an example, do you have the discretion to tell your students they must turn in hand-written papers? This is an honest question. I liken generative AI to using a computer vs. hand writing. If in fact you could force your students to turn in hand written 10 page papers, then I would agree your university will give you the flexibility to prohibit it forever. However, if your university has a policy that you must allow your students to use a computer (or you cannot prohibit your students from using a computer, so they are free to hand write it if they so wish)...well Generative AI will be the same.

You can use the calculator for STEM classes as an equal analogy.

[Anonymous]

The real issue is they don't teach grammar and spelling in schools anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

Do you think Grammarly is cheating? My DS uses it. She has dyslexia, dysgraphia and ADHD. It doesn’t write the work for her. It basically tells her when she has made a grammatical or spelling error. I find it akin to a proof reader. She does not use Chat GPT to write work (although many of her friends do) because she finds the writing horrible.

I’m just interested in if Grammarly is considered cheating and why.

Firstly, as someone who teaches, I would never want someone with genuine learning disabilities to be deprived of necessary tools that help them succeed. If a student in my class with documentation has Grammarly (or things like it) as a learning accommodation, then I'm not going to push back. But if it's not being used for that reason, I'd love to help everyone get away from it if I could. Here's why.

Grammarly is different from the grammar-check and spellcheck functions built into things like Google Docs: its rewriting functions are far more robust. I don't want to grade Grammarly's cooked-up (or even just new and improved) version of a paper or essay: I want to grade my students' own work, flaws and all, so that my students can improve their own abilities to think and write for themselves. Telling them what _Grammarly_ can improve is utterly useless.

So yes, fine, use spellcheck to eliminate the basic typos. But don't substitute spellcheck for careful reading. And don't turn in massively corrected, totally polished grammar that didn't come from you, because then I can't tell that you need help learning how to write, and I'll never be able to assist you in improving. Objectively, that ultimately wastes your time, your effort, and your tuition money.

And for all the folks who say that grammar isn't important, there were quite a few comments on the errors in the post that started this thread in the first place. Words matter in many situations, to many people. And AI isn't the answer to not knowing how to express yourself clearly and accurately.

You are clearly not a college professor. We are talking about college, not middle school. Of course middle schoolers, even early high schoolers, should not be using Grammarly to learn actual grammar (though it's actual quite a useful learning tool). No college professor at a decent college in America considers it their job to teach college students grammar. By then, they are teaching them how build strong arguments, etc. Getting AI to fix basic spelling and grammatical errors to help that professor see through the stupid mistakes to the meat of the paper, especially when you have two other papers and a mid-term in the same week is, I promise you, perfectly acceptable to college professors at decent and elite universities.

PP to whom you are replying here. Actually, I am a college professor, and a department chair. And I do consider it my job both to expect largely correct grammar coming directly from my students (not coming from AI) and to require students to attempt to filter out their own mistakes. Productive self-evaluation is part of being a professional, and even just part of being a functioning adult.

My students running their writing through generative AI tools prevents me from understanding not only their objective skills and their general abilities, but also their thought processes. It is not in fact acceptable to me, but even if it were, it would be a lazy way for me to pretend that my students do not need to improve and that I do not, in fact, need to help them.

I am generally curious how you will react when your boss (or maybe your boss' boss) issues the edict that every and all class now needs to incorporate generative AI into your courses.

Don't say that edict won't happen...I will repeat again, don't say that edict won't happen...the only question is will it happen next year (probably not)...in five years (50%+ chance)...in 7 years (nearly 100% certainty).

The issue is not the existence of generative AI: the issue is what it can teach students vs. what it can actually prevent them from learning, and that will remain a moving target as the technology evolves. At this exact moment in higher education we are seeing far more homework-level abuse of AI than anything else, as students experiment with assignment shortcuts and faculty experiment with brand-new ways of cultivating pre-professional productivity that are not yet fully formed.

The consumer-facing versions of today's AI tools are not robust enough (yet) to produce professional academic writing that people actually want and need to read, especially since the tools we currently have are not trained on the materials we actually research and study. Once they are, that is where the questions will come, likely starting in the technical and professional disciplines.

And as far as AI requirements go, the first step will be that we faculty will be required to have AI policies in our syllabi and enforce them fairly and transparently. I see that coming in a year or two. But required to teach with it? That will be discipline- and subject-dependent, and everyone impacted by higher education (including but not limited to students, parents and guardians, and employers) should want colleges and universities to make choices in that regard that will produce the best return on investment. Some of that will depend on what the tools look like down the line.

I seriously doubt you are correct. I believe nearly 100% of all disciplines/subjects will be required to incorporate it in some fashion. Each course/discipline will have a unique way of incorporation.

As an example, do you have the discretion to tell your students they must turn in hand-written papers? This is an honest question. I liken generative AI to using a computer vs. hand writing. If in fact you could force your students to turn in hand written 10 page papers, then I would agree your university will give you the flexibility to prohibit it forever. However, if your university has a policy that you must allow your students to use a computer (or you cannot prohibit your students from using a computer, so they are free to hand write it if they so wish)...well Generative AI will be the same.

You can use the calculator for STEM classes as an equal analogy.

Same PP again: yes, we can require work of all kinds to be submitted in whatever format we believe is best for the assignment and the students. We are also allowed to develop and enforce our own rules for the use of technology in the classroom. (But there is also the appropriate regulation, of course, that any students who have documented disability needs must be permitted to use any technology included in their accommodations.)

I do not see much traction in a handwritten research paper prepared outside the classroom. But a handwritten exam inside of it? Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Curious how you accessed this? Did you kid send it to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

You do realize that everyone needs to adapt to generative AI, yes? My kid is at a top school and 1/2 his classes REQUIRE use of ChatGPT and 1/2 are old school professors. My kid assures me that probably by next year 100% of classes will use chatGPT in some fashion because the working world demands it.

There was an article in the WSJ today that nearly every MBA program is now incorporating chatGPT into their curricula. Basically, they are telling students to use chatGPT to write "boiler plate" parts of a business plan and then student reviews and edits, and take original ideas and feed it into chatGPT and let it help fill in the blanks and make the thoughts punchier more concise.

Name it.

+1. Mine at a T10 and does not use AI. At least not for writing based classes.

My kid is at Wharton. AI is essential for 1/2 the classes.

AI is a flash in the pan. I'm in the business world. It's already fizzling out.

The problem with generativeAi is nothing it produces sounds genuine and sometimes it hallucinates.

Besides, I want AI to take care of tasks like dishes and laundry so I can write more. I don't want it to write so that I have more time to do dishes and laundry. That's the fundamental flaw in the value prop and why it's ultimately going to be abandoned in the corporate world.

I'm in a big corporate -- 50 billion in global revenues -- and already see this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to keep up with the grading for the last three weeks so that you will all know where you stand in the course as far as your points. What has amazed me is the number of grammatical errors, and the amount of misspelled words in your homework assignments. I am appalled at how carelessly the class, as a whole, [/b]have written words that are misspelled and those of you who are jumping into the assignments without reading the ebook or watching the [b]video's provided.
You are in college now! It is unacceptable to hand in work with misspelled words, grammatical errors, and sentences that do not make sense. [/b]Reread your work prior to hitting that submit button. Do not think that because this is an on line course that proper academic English is not a requirement. I have been very lenient on these errors, but no more after this week. I will expect you to read the ebook[b] and watch the videos prior to submitting an assignment. I also expect, from now to the end of this class, no misspelled words in any of your work.

I mean, if you're going to to send out something like this, maybe be sure it's free of grammatical errors and the like including improper subject-verb agreement and improper usage of commas and apostrophes. Maybe also write with a little more word economy.

Why don’t you engage with the substance of what the OP is saying, instead of jumping on with some cheap shots?

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't a cheap shot. If OP wrote that, OP is a terrible, sloppy writer who has no business complaining about mistakes by others. If I were going to take a cheap shot, I'd observe that OP is also really whiny and insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to go back to the days of these complaints. Many of my students are having grammarly essentially write their work, and they don't even realize it because they think that using grammarly is just a "help," and, therefore, not even question whether this is their writing. They all sound like generic scholarly essays that are full of hot air because they don't really read the assignments well enough either! I've had to contact so many, freak them out with AI plagiarism talk and get them to roll it back. Almost grateful to see misspellings because they are an indication that the work is authentic.

As for content, I make it clear from the beginning that points are earned by utilizing info from the readings. It's in the prompt and the rubric. So, no need to chide there.

I think with today's students, this email will just antagonize them, sadly. And some will catch that possessive/plural error.

You do realize that everyone needs to adapt to generative AI, yes? My kid is at a top school and 1/2 his classes REQUIRE use of ChatGPT and 1/2 are old school professors. My kid assures me that probably by next year 100% of classes will use chatGPT in some fashion because the working world demands it.

There was an article in the WSJ today that nearly every MBA program is now incorporating chatGPT into their curricula. Basically, they are telling students to use chatGPT to write "boiler plate" parts of a business plan and then student reviews and edits, and take original ideas and feed it into chatGPT and let it help fill in the blanks and make the thoughts punchier more concise.

Name it.

+1. Mine at a T10 and does not use AI. At least not for writing based classes.

My kid is at Wharton. AI is essential for 1/2 the classes.

AI is a flash in the pan. I'm in the business world. It's already fizzling out.

The problem with generativeAi is nothing it produces sounds genuine and sometimes it hallucinates.

Besides, I want AI to take care of tasks like dishes and laundry so I can write more. I don't want it to write so that I have more time to do dishes and laundry. That's the fundamental flaw in the value prop and why it's ultimately going to be abandoned in the corporate world.

I'm in a big corporate -- 50 billion in global revenues -- and already see this.

Dude, you are completely making up your post. Here is the Point72 chairman from yesterday on AI:

The Point72 founder told CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin on “Squawk Box” that his financial firm has found ways for even the early AI models to save the company money.

“I’ll give you one little anecdote. My CTO comes to me and says I can save the firm $25 million by using these LLMs to improve our efficiency,” Cohen said, referencing his chief technology officer and the large language models like ChatGPT.

You don't even understand what Generative AI can do. Here is another tidbit regarding Tyler Perry and opening his film ventures in Atlanta:

Over the past four years, Tyler Perry had been planning an $800 million expansion of his studio in Atlanta, which would have added 12 soundstages to the 330-acre property. Now, however, those ambitions are on hold — thanks to the rapid developments he’s seeing in the realm of artificial intelligence, including OpenAI’s text-to-video model Sora, which debuted Feb. 15 and stunned observers with its cinematic video outputs.

“Being told that it can do all of these things is one thing, but actually seeing the capabilities, it was mind-blowing,” he said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday, noting that his productions might not have to travel to locations or build sets with the assistance of the technology.

Generative AI is writing code, putting graphic designers out of work, putting advertising copyrighters out of work, etc.

Seems like you are soon to be put out of work yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is they don't teach grammar and spelling in schools anymore.

My kid was “taught” to write from standardized “templates.”

I expected that to end in middle or high school, but it did not. Perhaps public schools do it to ensure “fair” (ie objective ) grading. But it did not teach her to use the English language with any beauty or personal style.

I wonder if that is one way that private schools are superior?