Why Blue Books Are the Wrong Answer to AI

The Streetlight Effect in Modern Education

There's a well-known concept in social sciences called the "streetlight effect," which comes from an old joke. A man is searching for his keys under a streetlight, not because he lost them there, but because that's where the light is. His keys are actually in the dark park nearby, but looking under the light is easier.

This is exactly how it feels when educators suggest that the solution to the challenges posed by AI like ChatGPT is to return to old-school, handwritten essays in blue books. It's a search for answers in the most convenient place, not the most effective one.

The Flawed Return to Pen and Paper

For decades, educational research has shown that learning is a process, not a performance. Students can't be expected to produce perfect, on-demand answers under pressure. This understanding is precisely why many institutions moved away from high-stakes, timed exams toward more student-centered assessments.

Yet, in an astonishing reversal, blue books are making a comeback. The University of California Student Store has reportedly seen an 80% spike in sales, and some professors are praising the "authenticity" of handwritten work.

This resurgence is a direct reaction to generative AI. With surveys showing widespread cheating and professors feeling they have little recourse, reverting to pen and paper seems like a simple fix. Advocates even try to frame it as a positive step, a way to disconnect from technology and tap into the supposed cognitive benefits of writing by hand.

Why Blue Books Fail Our Students

This perspective is deeply problematic. First, it marginalizes the significant portion of students with learning disabilities who rely on technology for a level playing field. It also ramps up anxiety for the many students whose performance is functionally impaired by high-stress, time-limited exams.

More fundamentally, it's a desperate attempt to return to an outdated "transmission model" of education, where a professor's job is to simply pour knowledge into students' heads and then test for recall. This model is broken.

ChatGPT Has Changed the Rules Forever

Tools like ChatGPT have completely shattered the old model by making the production of polished text instantaneous. The link between a student's final written product and their actual understanding has been severed. No amount of handwriting can turn back the clock on this reality.

Is it exhausting to find a new way forward? Absolutely. Is there a better way? You bet. But to find the real keys to saving higher education, we have to be courageous enough to step into the darkness, away from the deceptive glow of the streetlight.

Finding Our Keys in the Dark: A New Path Forward

Here are some first steps we can take into that darkness.

First, we must rethink writing itself. Since the final product is no longer a reliable measure of authenticity, we should instead focus on grading the process of thinking. As the National Commission on Writing noted long ago, students must wrestle with facts and rework concepts into their own language to truly learn. Writing is the tangible evidence of that thinking.

Second, faculty must embrace their role as guides. Thinking is hard, often unpleasant work, especially when tackling complex issues. Our job is not to be gatekeepers of knowledge but to lead students through a cognitive apprenticeship where they learn how to think critically for themselves.

This doesn't require shunning AI. When used correctly, AI can be a powerful conversation partner, helping students brainstorm, clarify arguments, and understand complex readings. The goal should be to teach students how to use these tools to think and write better.

Let's Stop Looking Under the Lamppost

We don’t need more blue books or vigilant proctors. The keys to the future of higher education aren't waiting for us under the false light of tradition. They’re out there in the dark, waiting for us to be brave enough to look for them.