Move over, grade inflation. If A’s were the hot topic at Harvard last year—still drawing passionate letters to this magazine—the fiercest conversations this academic year are destined to be about AI.
Already, AI has dominated the talk about teaching and learning this semester, and not just because of the doomsaying drumbeat outside the gates. In early statements, President Alan M. Garber and Danoff dean of the College David Deming positioned themselves as artificial intelligence optimists, encouraging students to embrace AI and use it, in Deming’s words, to “deepen learning” (p. 17). Both argue, in effect, that the right approach to a new technology isn’t to bury your head the sand, but to navigate the possibilities and sort out the boundaries. But the skeptics are loud; nearly two-thirds of the faculty in the Crimson’s annual survey cited AI as a negative force in classroom. Op-eds, and campus, warn that elite colleges are abandoning the liberal arts. The subject is roiling universities everywhere—most notably at Dartmouth, where the administration recently launched of the provost’s use of AI in public writing. (The furor began when the student newspaper ran his work through an AI detector.)
At Harvard, AI is upending how undergraduates think about their future, but not always in expected ways. Yes, there has been a marked drop in computer science concentrators. But the philosophy department—the chefs’ chef of the humanities—is not only thriving but growing. It doesn’t hurt that there’s a sudden, AI-driven job market for people with a grounding in ethics. Still, as Schuyler Velasco’s story shows (p. 38), the department has also exploited a campus-wide appetite for deep thoughts and heavy themes. Courses that seem exciting (about sex, happiness, hip hop!), that apply profound questions to real-life situations, turn out to be the gateway drug to Kant. And the students who fall in love with philosophy don’t want to outsource their work to machines. The hard work of thinking is the draw.
Other stories in this issue touch on how to inspire people to do hard things: the doctors and medical students who coach patients into healthy behaviors (p. 26); the decorated athlete Juliet Thompson Hochman ’89, who motivates contenders in grueling sports (p. 54). As the College readies its promised advisory guidelines on AI, the coaching model seems apt. Last year, through its grading policies, the College took a public stand on the value of an academic challenge. How strongly will Harvard make the case now for the sometimes- painful-but-gratifying process of writing, rewriting, and wrestling with ideas?
