In September 2022, Penn State student Brad Kraut went viral on TikTok for taking his studies seriously.
“It’s time to be an academic weapon,” Kraut said, strolling into a 700-person lecture hall. “You walk with confidence all the way down the aisle … and then you sit all the way down at the front.” The simple video, along with other similarly branded content on his page, collectively received 29.7 million likes, making “academic weapon” — a term that Urban Dictionary defines as “someone who has the determination and discipline to succeed in school” — both a staple in the Gen-Z lexicon and a viral trend.
@name_is_brad Academic weapon. #kickthesheets #academicweapon #trending ♬ original sound - KICK THE SHEETS
In late fall of 2022, an “academic weapon” of a different kind hit the market — the generative AI program ChatGPT. The writing software has developed to the point where its output can be indistinguishable from students’ work.
More than a year after the emergence of ChatGPT, high school teachers complain student apathy is at an all-time high. Despite Kraut’s attempt to make studiousness cool again, it seems ChatGPT is the winning “academic weapon.” Generative AI and large language learning models are here to stay, and they’re fundamentally changing the nature of education.
Even in our very own tri-campus, at institutions that arguably attract some of the most driven students, there has been a large increase in generative AI-related Honor Code violations. In the fall of 2023, 30% of Honor Code violations were attributed to generative AI — and these are just the students who were caught.
As students, we can attest to the pervasive nature of ChatGPT. The majority of our editorial board has used generative AI before, either as a tool to check work and summarize papers or to help generate content such as paper outlines. We see our classmates use ChatGPT in class. We are sometimes even assigned projects to research ChatGPT itself.
As administration and faculty struggle to figure out ways to address how generative AI changes education and the nature of academic dishonesty, the ethical use of ChatGPT will predominantly lie on students. With great power comes great responsibility, and we need to figure out how to use this tool appropriately without forfeiting the value of our education.
To address the threat of generative AI, we must ask: What factors compel students to cheat in the first place? If students are paying nearly $30,000 on Notre Dame and Saint Mary’s classes after aid, why would a student settle to not get their money’s worth?
So much of the appeal of attending Notre Dame is the University’s academic rigor. Notre Dame invests strongly in original undergraduate research. Our school has a wide, well-rounded liberal arts education that makes students well-versed in interdisciplinary topics. But what’s the point of our liberal arts emphasis if students scrape by in their general requirement classes with the help of ChatGPT?
Another major draw to Notre Dame is the close-knit community of students, alumni and faculty. Tailgates, while a blast, can be a major networking opportunity between students and alumni. Some students have the prerogative to attend every social event on the calendar, but performance in school is often the major trade-off.
Students simply don’t have enough time in the day to take course overloads, rub elbows with important connections and take part in meaningful extracurricular activities without majorly sacrificing their health and mental well-being — it’s why high-performing students cheat. They think they can have it all. They think that leaning into extracurriculars and networking will give them a leg up in their career after graduation, even without a perfect GPA. In fact, learning how to use ChatGPT and other such generative AI models might be valuable depending on what field a student is going into.
As a tri-campus, we emphasize our spiritual side: discernment, finding meaning and giving back to our communities. This is our community’s anchor as the world of higher education changes around the massive shockwave of generative AI.
Students must consider their uses of ChatGPT and figure out what it is doing and when it is detracting from their education. We should lead the push for creative assignments. The more we are effectively and enthusiastically engaged with what we are learning, the more we will ultimately get out of our college education.
Teachers and administrators should respond by creating assignments that actually generate meaning and facilitate learning rather than busy work that requires us to regurgitate what we’ve listened to and jotted down during lectures. Research is something AI cannot fake. Administrators should lean into this strength.
Our administrators and faculty are already trying their best to keep up with how AI is rapidly — and fundamentally — changing the nature of higher education. Only time will tell how they will respond. But until that day, keep asking yourself: Are you the academic weapon or is it the robot?
