[fifilura]

There is one argument against this though that is somehow brewing in my brain.

The end goal is to internalize the subject so that you can extrapolate your own insights.

"This happened in WWII so if these conditions starts to appear it risks to happen again". Just to take history as an example. All other subjects have similar examples.

And to reach that kind of insight you need to start filling the brain with information. That may be called memorization. The memorization is just one path of the road towards the black belt. If you skip it you will be lost.

[tgv]

Yes, but ... what this shows is that testing for "memorization" isn't good enough. We all know people who have learned information and can give answers with confidence, even though they are just winging it, to put it politely. ChatGPT could be considered their equal on such tasks. So schools need to test that students are capable of working with the acquired information in a way that befits the level of the course, just like they need to find a way to lose their addication to the lazy "write an essay" assignment. If not, education will lose its status.

[fifilura]

The question is if we should expect these test to test on the black belt level or at a lower level belt?

(i am not native English speaking so i don't know what addication means, I couldn't quite understand that sentence)

[tgv]

Sorry, that was a typo for addiction indeed. They should test at the level they claim to certify. So, an MSc. should not get questions that can be answered by rote, but it might be appropriate for a first-year student, when the topic is entirely new. And teachers should read essays for depth and understanding, instead of counting the words and skimming a few paragraphs. That'll draw complaints from the people that think every end goal and test of a course should be perfectly described and objective, but to them I say: move your pretty, empty heads elsewhere if you can't see you're parroting someone's failed attempt to operationalize a remote ideal.

[throwaway8689]

Seems to be a typo for Addiction

[palata]

There is a whole question about how useful it is to test students. In my experience, some will understand and learn the material (which is the goal) and successfully pass the test, while others will just learn how to pass the tests.

Now it would be wonderful if we could just motivate students to understand and learn the material, without putting so much pressure by testing them all the time.

[ekianjo]

> This happened in WWII so if these conditions starts to appear it risks to happen again". Just to take history as an example. All other subjects have similar examples

History is a particular bad case to drive such example since there are thousands of factors that are always different and we have very poor data beyond a few centuries so theres that. With History you are much more likely to end up with confirmation bias than actual understanding.

[ihatepython]

> "This happened in WWII so if these conditions starts to appear it risks to happen again".

There is a reason why history repeats. This kind of learning never happens in human society.

We currently have similar warning signs to WWII, but nobody cares. We are currently at the stage where if you express an opinion that does not agree with the approved narrative, you get downvoted/cancelled. But nobody cares.

[beebeepka]

I care, and suffer, all the time. It feels like I am doing the right thing but maybe the masses know better. There's safety in keeping your head down

[shaunsingh0207]

Part of the history exam is just that, internalizing the subject.

The part that ap fails to deliver on is the written portion, where it asks you to extrapolate your own insights. If chatgpt can solve the problem that should require human insight, is the prompt really testing students properly?