On Wednesday, professors across the 7Cs participated in a debate at Claremont McKenna College’s Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum on the role of AI in higher education at the Claremont Colleges.
The debate “Does AI Enhance or Hinder the Claremont Colleges’ Learning Environment?” tackled whether AI strengthens students’ learning experiences or obstructs their educational development. The six debaters were split into two teams: one arguing for AI’s advantages in classroom settings and the other arguing against it.
Moderated by Stephen Zhou, assistant professor of psychological science at CMC, the event included opening statements, rebuttals and an audience Q&A.
Professors chose which side to argue prior to the event. The debaters advocating for AI’s advantages were Tom Le, associate professor of politics at Pomona College; C. Mónica Capra, professor of economic sciences at Claremont Graduate University; and Sarah Marzen, associate professor of physics at the Department of Natural Sciences.
On the other side of the debate was Avaneesh Narla, assistant professor of integrated sciences at CMC; Yuval Avnur, professor of philosophy at Scripps College; and Joseph Osborn, associate professor of computer science at Pomona.
In an interview with TSL prior to the debate, Le said he thought the debate would be fun as it posed an interesting twist to the standard discussions about AI.
“What’s nice about [the topic] is it’s about AI in relation to the 7C specifically, so the generic arguments about pros and cons of AI apply, but not fully,” Le said. “We have to really think about how it fits into our context.”
The debate opened with a live survey asking the audience to share their opinions on AI; 43 attendees voted that the technology enhances learning, while 98 voted against that statement. After the debate, the same question was posed again, with 29 attendees voting in favor and 83 voting against.
The pro-AI team argued that AI can benefit learning when used right. Capra cited its ability to eliminate practical barriers to learning, leaving curiosity and intrinsic motivation as the only constraints. When tailored to the specific subject being taught, Capra argued, AI can complement learning. Marzen agreed, saying AI produced a lesson plan her students liked after she gave the model specific guidelines.
Le said that because AI is developing so rapidly, its role in the future of education remains uncertain, but professors can shape how students use it. He added that, as a set of liberal arts colleges, the 7Cs must actively grapple with the challenges of using AI rather than treat the consortium as separate from such technological advances.
“It will be the most consequential technology in your life,” Le said. “I’d rather have it be a 5C student [determining] how we think about technology and ethics rather than some kid at Harvard or Caltech, or some hedge fund kid.”
The anti-AI team addressed concerns about the technology’s potential to facilitate weaker student-faculty relationships and deter proactive learning. Avnur outlined how AI undermines students’ writing processes and, in its ability to immediately generate essays, hinders critical thinking.
Narla said AI discourages students from taking risks and learning from their mistakes, and is also creating immense uncertainty in the job market. According to Osborn, AI additionally prevents students from connecting with peers, TAs and instructors.
“They [students] miss the whole point of being here,” he said. “Not a four-year college, but here, on Earth, in this one life.”
Narla presented a paradox behind AI’s creation and its implementation in the classroom: the technology wasn’t developed to improve learning, but rather to increase the financial gains of the companies offering the software. He noted that companies offer students free subscriptions during finals to attract them to their products.
“We’re allowing a middleman to worm his way in the way of us and the world around us and sell it back to us on a subscription,” Osborn said.
During the rebuttal period, Le noted that the issues discussed during the debate were actually structural, not technological. He said a student claiming AI work as their own shows a lack of integrity and community norms, and that avoiding AI won’t address those root causes.
“AI can make it worse, but these are political issues,” he said.
Marzen said giving AI companies feedback on these concerns could shape the software colleges can adopt, given that the AI industry will only keep developing.
Le agreed and said having open conversations about the technology’s vast ramifications is crucial.
“We can never remove AI from the lives of our students,” Le said. “It’s really about using the debate format … to get the community together in a new environment to talk about AI.”
Facebook Comments