I teach math-heavy economics courses. I found that grading homeworks for completeness and pairing the homework due date with an in-class quiz on the problem set material (taken in class the day the problem set is due, after the set is turned in) has reduced the incentive for students to use LLMs to complete the homework. Exam questions closely mirror what's on the homework, and exam grades correlate with students who make legitimate attempts on their homework. I can sus out legit attempts typically by handwriting. No erasing and fast writing means it was copied.

For grade weights, I weight the homework the lowest of any grading category, with in-class quizzes next, and exams scores the highest.

> The university insists that homework can't be optional, but it lost its meaning.

The problem is not LLMs, but your university. In my undergrad, almost all the math courses had no required HW. They'd assign it, but you wouldn't turn it in. You'd come to office hours for help on the HW, or ask in class (they'd often dedicate the first 10-15 minutes of each lecture to Q&A).

It was awesome for people like me. No time wasted on neatly presented HWs. I'd do it quickly, verify the answers, and study for the exams.

The flip side was there were many exams (you don't want your grade catered if you do poorly in one exam). A course like calculus could have 4-5 "midterms", and then the final. Often, they'd drop your lowest midterm score so you're allowed one bad day.

I think a possible solution is to make homework carry no grade weight, and simply mark it as complete or incomplete, like a presence check.

Homework still provide valuable practice for students who are truly committed to learning. An automated system could provide an initial assessment and feedback. However, students can request human feedback paired with an in-person meeting. Such requests would require a mandatory explanation of what feedback they want or what the issue is. Professors and TAs will therefore only read and answer such requests themselves and will not waste time on AI output. At the same time, the system will still support students who are genuinely interested in learning.

Students who use AI to do their homework are not interested in such feedback anyway, and they will also avoid in-person meetings because it will naturally reveal that they are unprepared and did not do the homework themselves, which is humiliating.

To make this system work, we should present the in-person meetings as collaborative 'working sessions' or group office hours. Encouraging students to sign up in pairs or small groups also reduces individual anxiety.

The main channels for grading remain exams and oral presentations.

It's crazy that we went from "we found a significant number of students used AI in our course and gave them a 0" to "yeah they all use it we can't stop it". Basically just accepting widespread cheating, normalizing and accepting the complete abandonment of the first lesson in ethics we are taught and held to in academia.

I know this is absolutely impossible because colleges and universities have headed in completely the opposite direction, but the solution: Literally just expel them. Just like they did when people cheated when I was in college. Don't make it a small punishment so that they turn it into a risk/reward assessment. Colleges are overpopulated anyway; just trim the fat of students who shouldn't be there. Do a follow up oral exam interview about their project and if they can't explain what someone like me spent 30+ hours building and can speak about for 4 hours if asked, then expel them. They can make your coffee at the nearby Starbucks, who cares.

If you don't do this then understand that you are telling your students not using AI that they will need to begin cheating like the others to be able to keep up with the changes. OP mentioned they massively increased the scope of their assignments, which means OP is forcing their students to use AI now.

I'm taking a year-long sabbatical to study a language at university right now and they're changing their assignment processes to curtail AI use. We have two versions of written assignments - the first to be written by hand in class with just a Swedish-Swedish word book available, and the second version to be typed at home implementing the professor's corrections from v1.

At least in this course students seem to be taking their strict 'no AI' policy quite seriously. Then again this is also the kind of course you do when you want to actually learn the material. It provides a qualification for further higher education in Swedish, so if we don't legitimately learn the stuff there's just no point as we won't manage in future courses.

This is the way it's always been, sadly. Before AI submissions I had to regularly look for where my materials were posted on sites like Course Hero. Students copy-pasted from Wiki, articles, blogs, etc without attribution. Before that, they were buying or finding solutions books and copying out of there, or hiring people to do their homework/write papers/sit exams for them.

The primary difference now is that the both costs of cheating and ability to verify cheating on the instructor side have decreased dramatically, in tandem. There's also been a kind of mass effect, a cultural change in the attitude of students, where the sheer prevalence of cheating among their peers has made them less likely to feel fear, shame, or guilt over cheating. Students in the past who were caught were likely to confess immediately. Students now are increasingly belligerent and more likely to deny cheating, not just because they believe the professor can't 100% prove it, but also because they believe being caught out for cheating when most of their peers are getting away with it is unfair.

This is because we shield children too much from reality. If they had a fire under their ass that made them realize if they don't study well, they will forever be locked into flipping burgers or being homeless, most of them would move their assess.

Don't do anything productive for the society but still get to live a decent life on benefits, job security etc combined with addictive social media have ruined most kids will to study.

And the schools are even worse. When I was in school, teachers encouraged learning things; whether for school or outside, with teacher or self help. Everything was fair game and supported. Debate was normal.

Nowadays the teachers in schools are like a cult. Kids are tuned to reject anything from outside; anything that contradicts teacher is a no go zone. Anything that's "too advanced" compared to what teacher is doing is forbidden. Kids are scared of learning by themselves because the teachers punish it. What do you think these kids will do when they grow up?

The non-coursework based exam can also probably be gamed in the end.

Students could just use the AI to teach/tutor the material to them instead, but the institutions are clutching the pearls too tightly.

As was sort of offhandedly mentioned in the article, all pre-LLM research into what results in students actually learning the material (as a distinct thing from passing the class) has landed pretty solidly on the side of frequent, low-stakes exams having better outcomes than rare high-stakes exams. The best students learn the material regardless of how you evaluate them; some weaker students will benefit from more frequent nudges to keep up rather than trying to cram at the end, some students simply won't realize they're falling behind without regular feedback, and some students successfully cram at the end and pass the class without retaining much of the material. The final group often expresses a preference for the one-exam-at-the-end model despite being disserved by it if the goal is to learn and not merely pass.

I had that a variation of that experience. This was mostly in the pre-AI days. Homework assignments were mandatory but only counted towards exam admission not the final grade. Much better for motivation.

"Don't optimize for chaff." is being chaff a permanent state of a child or person?

I think I understand what you mean though, and I kind of agree. I just don't like the use of the word chaff, like something you would discard permanently.

I'm pretty sure I was "chaff" at some point (maybe multiple) in my life growing up.

Funny to see this comment, that's exactly how studying math in Cologne was. On the very first day one of our profs said:

"This is math, you can find all solutions to the course problems in old material since I've been teaching here for 20 years, but know this you're cheating yourself and at the end of the semester you're taking a three hour test on pen and paper so good luck"

I see zero reason why AI should impact teaching. You can grade exercises as information to the students as to how well they're doing, but simply have an exam at the end of the course. Needlessly to say like 60-70% flunked through Analysis I and Linear Algebra. But they're adults and they're there voluntarily, so why is this an issue

They pay as much tuition as the wheat and the schools want them to keep paying said tuition.