I believe until 2020 cheating used to be done by a rather small minority
That’s unfortunately not supported by reality, cheating is/was not only widespread it is/was actively done by the faculty. The ivies became notorious for grade curving so no one failed by the early 2000s, UNC got caught with fake classes for athletes in 2014 that they were doing since at least 2003 and saw zero repercussions because it was “African and Afro-American studies”. Ask any engineering/tech student if the jeet and Chinese imports cheat. Gaming the system has been massively prevalent since at least the early 2000s, and that’s after collegiate standards were lowered to become more “diversified”.
And before cheating might require effort and learning something, like memorizing the answers, but using AI to write your essay doesn't require any real effort or learning.
Numerous studies show the academic pump and dump cycle of materials doesn’t actually help students retain what is taught. It is however the easiest way to maximize profits by large class sizes and it doesn’t require any actual intelligence to do, which again benefits “diversification”. At this point the students using ai are basically just taking the time out of pretending to learn.
I was talking about cheating by students. Even if most were willing to cheat, it often wasn't feasible or low-effort. But with more tests being at home or online since COVID cheating got a lot more feasible and also required less effort. AI increased the feasibility somewhat, but it drastically reduced the effort, thereby making it more attractive.
Although the education system has always been terrible, it did still teach some things, or at least got students to get experience memorizing things or thinking and solving problems, and got them used to some hard work. Even inane subjects like gender studies at least required students to practice writing and making arguments to support their dumb views. Someone who chooses to take that class is only going to be cured of their dumb views if they learn how to think. Studying the subject more is probably more likely to fix them than ignorance, since they might figure out that the subject makes no sense and the "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
That’s unfortunately not supported by reality, cheating is/was not only widespread it is/was actively done by the faculty. The ivies became notorious for grade curving so no one failed by the early 2000s, UNC got caught with fake classes for athletes in 2014 that they were doing since at least 2003 and saw zero repercussions because it was “African and Afro-American studies”. Ask any engineering/tech student if the jeet and Chinese imports cheat. Gaming the system has been massively prevalent since at least the early 2000s, and that’s after collegiate standards were lowered to become more “diversified”.
Numerous studies show the academic pump and dump cycle of materials doesn’t actually help students retain what is taught. It is however the easiest way to maximize profits by large class sizes and it doesn’t require any actual intelligence to do, which again benefits “diversification”. At this point the students using ai are basically just taking the time out of pretending to learn.
I was talking about cheating by students. Even if most were willing to cheat, it often wasn't feasible or low-effort. But with more tests being at home or online since COVID cheating got a lot more feasible and also required less effort. AI increased the feasibility somewhat, but it drastically reduced the effort, thereby making it more attractive.
Although the education system has always been terrible, it did still teach some things, or at least got students to get experience memorizing things or thinking and solving problems, and got them used to some hard work. Even inane subjects like gender studies at least required students to practice writing and making arguments to support their dumb views. Someone who chooses to take that class is only going to be cured of their dumb views if they learn how to think. Studying the subject more is probably more likely to fix them than ignorance, since they might figure out that the subject makes no sense and the "experts" don't know what they're talking about.