AI in the Classroom A Campus Divided

Two years after Hillsdale College empowered its instructors to set their own classroom rules for artificial intelligence, the campus has become a fascinating case study in academic adaptation. While some professors outright ban AI tools like ChatGPT, others are making them a mandatory part of the curriculum, creating a diverse landscape of policies department by department.

Professors discuss use of AI. Courtesy | Unsplash

A College's Core Philosophy on AI

The overarching policy from the college remains focused on student growth. College President Larry Arnn emphasizes that students must do their own work to achieve the larger goal of becoming "excellent people, friends, citizens, husbands, wives, thinkers, worshippers."

"They must suffer, as we all must. It is a joyous suffering. We must not let AI take that away. AI cannot be human, but we must be," Arnn stated.

This principle led the provost's office to encourage professors to establish clear AI guidelines in their syllabi rather than imposing a single, campus-wide mandate. Provost Christopher VanOrman confirmed this faculty-driven approach remains in place, a move appreciated by faculty like Associate Professor of Philosophy Blake McAllister, who values the trust it places in instructors to manage their own classrooms.

The Humanities: A Cautious and Nuanced Approach

Within the humanities, there is significant skepticism. The English department, under Chair and Professor of English Justin Jackson, adopted a zero-tolerance policy. The consensus was that using an LLM to write a literary analysis paper fundamentally harms a student's education. "It’s really that simple," Jackson said. "We couldn’t find any reason except by way of exceptions... But we decided the exceptions do not make the rules."

Similarly, the history department, led by Chairman Korey Maas, has a no-tolerance policy for using LLMs in brainstorming, writing, or editing. Maas acknowledges, however, that this policy may need to evolve as AI becomes more integrated into basic tools like search engines.

Philosophy, however, offers a more middle ground. Professor McAllister allows students to use AI as a preliminary tool, similar to consulting a secondary source, with the crucial caveat that it must lead to an "internalized understanding of the material." To ensure this, he reserves the right to orally quiz any student on their paper's arguments.

Professor of Philosophy Ian Church advises students to treat AI like a "quasi-omnipotent roommate who will occasionally lie to them." Brainstorming is fine, but asking it to write the paper is not. Church is even exploring creating a custom LLM trained on core philosophical texts to serve as a specialized resource for students.

The Social Sciences: Embracing AI as an Essential Skill

In stark contrast, some social science classes are making AI proficiency a near-mandatory skill. Associate Professor of Economics Charles Steele's syllabus notes that "learning to use and control AI will be an essential part of your intellectual growth."

While AI is encouraged, foundational knowledge remains paramount. Instructor in Accounting Deanna Mackie still requires students to analyze data manually first. "Students need a solid grasp of the accounting concepts to be able to recognize if the results from AI are accurate and complete," she explained.

The economics department's "Practical Data Seminar" actively requires AI. Lecturer Eric Ragan explained that AI is used as a tool to help students learn programming and coding more efficiently. Instead of spending hours on Google searching for solutions to coding errors, students can use ChatGPT to identify mistakes quickly, allowing them to focus on more complex aspects of programming.

"Spending 20 minutes searching Google to answer a coding problem isn’t making you better at coding," Ragan said. "Maybe it builds some perseverance, but you’re not actually learning or improving your coding skills."

To prevent cheating, students must log their AI conversations. Professor Steele believes a zero-tolerance policy is unenforceable and counterproductive, advocating instead for Aristotle's concept of a "golden mean" and practical wisdom.

The Hard Sciences: Building a Foundation Before Automation

The hard sciences are taking a foundational approach. Assistant Professor of Computer Science Oliver Serang bans LLMs in his introductory coding class, insisting students must learn the basics on their own. "I want people to be able to do it if they’re scratching it in sand with a stick," he said. In advanced work, however, he sees AI as a useful tool for efficiency and as an advanced search engine.

For Assistant Professor of Physics Michael Tripepi, AI presents a familiar challenge. He equates it to existing issues with online solution manuals, reinforcing the need for students to truly understand concepts rather than just find answers.

AI's Place in a Modern Liberal Arts Education

Ultimately, many professors don't see AI as a threat to the core mission of a liberal arts education. Professor Church argues that LLMs threaten models of education based on rote memorization, not those centered on critical thinking, character formation, and creativity. "I think AI can actually usher in a new era for the liberal arts by supporting those deeper, more meaningful parts of our education," he remarked.

The consensus is that the conversation must shift toward cultivating the virtuous use of these powerful tools. As Professor Steele concluded, Hillsdale has an opportunity to be a leader in this new frontier.

"We are now a national, if not international leader, in education," Steele said. "We ought to be pioneering the way to figure out how to use this properly."