Universities were already in a tricky spot. They went from elite institutions offering intellectual edification to the upper crust of society to broad institutions promising job opportunities to everyone (yes, many shades of grey here, but I'm talking directionally).

University diplomas have long stopped being entry tickets to the upper middle class, but most people still go to university for the job opportunities (at least ostensibly).

When AI obviates the work that a diploma used to reward, the meaning of diplomas will be further watered down.

For universities to keep their standing, I wouldn't be surprised to see more hand-written in-person exams or exams that look more like a thesis defence, where the written deliverable is just the starting point, not the thing being graded.

It's pretty clear that homework can no longer be a particularly large portion of a student's grade.

This is fine, since 50% is considered a failure, and 60% isn't really a pass either.

If we assume that students using AI to cheat will get 100% on their homework and never get caught (not a given), and we assume that they will get somewhere between 30% and 50% on a test where they don't have access to AI (since they're presumably not learning the material, if they're using AI in a way that helps them learn the problem is a bit moot), then homework can be up to 20% of a students grade without giving cheaters passing grades.

There's another problem, where it's frustrating and unfulfilling for professors and TAs to spend time and effort creating and grading homework that they feel the students aren't spending time on, and having to flunk them at the end of the class anyway. I have sympathy for that, but there is real benefit to the students who aren't cheating, who get the benefit of the practice the homework gives, are motivated to complete it by the points they get, and get the feedback of the grade (and hopefully some details on what they got wrong) to guide their study.

It's actually not impossible. Just give closed-book tests.

The true problem is that academia has been a bit rotten even before AI came around, even though AI makes it worse. But universities have always been in the game of maximizing graduate students because that maximizes profit, more or less.

For instance, when I was in school, there was a strong push to reduce the length of the PhD program to 3 years instead of 4. It was explicitly stated that the objective was to graduate more PhD students.

In general, universities have become highly commercial whose goal is similar to that of a mass-produced clothing factory. Unfortunately, when that includes putting as minimal work into molding students into independent thinkers, and when it includes taking shortcuts for mass-production, it also means that AI will mess everything up.

My high school kid reports that repeatedly on Chem tests a kid has his phone hidden under a calculator case and slides it out to AI the question, copies down then answer and shows it to the friends around him. And their marks are very high, higher than my kid who studies quite hard. I've said this will bite them in the future, but maybe if they get into uni ahead of my kid then I guess, maybe not.

Well there is a solution.. and that is to have ai itself to evaluate the intellectual quality of the papers and their uniqueness and then ask the students sufficient question to verify that they understand the topic and their own vision.

What difference does it make how they acquired the knowledge if the understand it and have a grasp of their ideology...

Impossible?

Homework maybe.

But what about a simple, open book test without a cellphone?

Reciting facts easily obtained from a cellphone is not really "knowledge", it's memory. Professors may need to move beyond this in their testing.

The real test of "knowledge" is can you identify what information is required and then use/apply it to achieve some goal or purpose.

In other words it's a problem when poor students have the same advantage as rich students. The goal of education is to teach or to extract money and decide social hierarchies?