Introducing The Ubyssey's Editorial Board
Last year, we introduced a pilot editorial board that endorsed candidates in the 2026 AMS elections. Since then, we've expanded the board's membership and scope. The editorial board is now a permanent fixture of the Opinion section.
Up to nine Ubyssey journalists sit on the editorial board, which meets weekly to deliberate about issues important to our community. You won't just see stories about our student union: we plan to write editorials about everything that matters at UBC.
Our inaugural editorial board includes opinion editor Quyen Schroeder, deputy opinion editor Maneli Moghbeli, deputy sports editor Sofia Campanholo, technology columnist Leah Grossman, post-secondary reporter Oliver Matisz, and politics columnist Maya Tommasi.
— Quyen Schroeder, opinion editor and senior systems developer
Universities are institutions of learning. They should be on the forefront of innovation — not ignoring difficult conversations or eschewing novel technologies. So it makes sense that more and more courses are introducing assignments that require students to use AI.
After all, AI is being rapidly incorporated into the workforce and has demonstrated real usefulness in domains like software development. Universities should prepare students for what comes after their degrees.
Yet, poorly designed AI assignments can come at the expense of students' education. Having a philosophical argument with a chatbot can't replace a debate with a classmate. Practice problems curated by an instructor to develop specific skills are more valuable than a prompt to enter into a chatbot. When AI is implemented in a classroom without proper consideration of how it may be beneficial, students don't receive the value of an authentic and intentional education — one that helps foster independent problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.
In a study conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, students were given access to GPT-4 for solving problems. They performed better on the problems, but performed worse on an exam taken without AI. This study found that the use of AI on traditional assignments did not necessarily translate into improved learning.
Assignments deliberately designed to be completed with AI may be more effective; we aren't arguing that AI is inherently bad in education. But even when assignments are focused around AI, instructors should consider their benefits as compared to conventional assignments.
University is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to challenge students and encourage them to grow and learn. We don't think that students can do so when AI assignments are included without intention.
This is especially problematic in introductory courses where the fundamentals of a field are taught, like logical reasoning in a philosophy course or elementary mechanics in a physics course. Students need to understand these foundational concepts because they're necessary to understand more complex topics. Achieving this understanding requires students to work through difficult concepts themselves; AI won't accomplish that. If anything, students who regularly use AI to complete assignments may become reliant on it.
Once students move on to advanced courses and those preliminary concepts are trivial, using AI on assignments can be less detrimental — perhaps even desirable. It makes sense to use a tool that can help you do something, once you already know how to do it yourself, if it allows you to focus on more complex concepts.
Education already uses a lot of tools that increase efficiency. We use calculators in math to avoid doing copious amounts of basic arithmetic. We use word processors with spell-checkers and the ability to edit existing text, instead of writing by hand or using a typewriter.
These tools faced resistance in the past, but their place in education has since become solidified. Few students have not used a calculator in a math class or have written an essay without a word processor.
So why should we be more careful when using AI? Because right now, AI assignments are used indiscriminately across disciplines. They aren't always being tied to fields or tasks where the technology has demonstrated usefulness.
Calculators are only used to do math because that's where they have applications. AI shouldn't be used in every discipline simply because it is here to stay. That is like requiring a student to write an essay on a calculator simply because calculators aren't going away.
The solution is to be intentional when deciding whether or not to include AI assignments or material in a course.
Faculty should consider why AI is helpful in an aspect of their course. AI is not inherently harmful for learning — but its usage should serve a clear educational purpose. There must be a pedagogical justification — one stronger than, "well, you need to learn how to use it eventually."
Another reason professors may allow or require the use of AI is out of a hope that, by opening the door to it, students will be less likely to use it in prohibited ways.
Introducing AI to prevent its unauthorized use assumes that early exposure will produce responsible use later — and that isn't necessarily the case. The current uses of AI don't seem to significantly improve academic performance and may even be detrimental. So pre-emptively requiring AI could very well lead to worse learning for those students that otherwise would not have used it.
The discussion of AI's increasing integration into our academic and professional lives is still very open-ended. The world is changing constantly, and new tools have their place. But right now, there is no clear-cut guideline on where it should and shouldn't be used.
AI may have a place in the classroom. AI literacy may be important for students' futures. But instructors should consider the purposes AI serves when assigning its use. If there is a valid purpose, excellent! Otherwise? Perhaps it's better to stick to traditional assignments.
But what we know for certain is that it shouldn't replace human thinking and the foundational components of our learning.
