The article published in ARA last Friday about a UPF dean's circular complaining about students' absence from university garnered an impressive number of comments, which, taken together, probably already state the bulk of what I will expound on next. I cannot help but react because a lifetime of work at the university compels me to, even more so knowing and appreciating the Faculty of the dean who complained, and considering how many times we professors have spoken.
As many comments already highlight, little can be expected from an educational system that has systematically opted for lowering standards, facilitating more pass rates, and opening easier pathways to achieve the most desired degrees, etc. Everything, except empowering the teaching staff who do their job. This is a context that must be taken into account. To top it all off, we have the catastrophic university coexistence law, which has legally disempowered the teaching staff in their most basic areas: passing and failing. The defenselessness is particularly radical regarding cheating in exams. We have become (it must be recognized that we already were) the most tolerant extreme in Europe regarding the eradication of punitive measures for those who cheat in exams.
That said, let's also be self-critical. The first self-criticism is that the LOSU itself has eliminated study as the central object of the University. It must have seemed an outdated concept, when it is absolutely central. If the University is to grant degrees and study is not consecrated as the foundation of learning, then carte blanche is given to obtain degrees by any means without the necessary brake of failing those who do not achieve the content and skills that are taught. Very likely, all –or almost all– of us have ended up adapting to this reduction in rigor and ambition and are co-responsible for the loss of standards compared to so many other university and educational systems where one learns more and is better trained, always with more effort –that is, study–. There is no alternative to study.
The second self-criticism is that a good part of the teaching staff resists change, as happens in any other profession. This explains the success of the early retirement calls that have occurred from time to time. Generations change, methods change, and the means of knowledge transmission change, and not everyone adapts. Competition forces you to get your act together and update yourself, but often the only protection left for teachers in the face of a lack of legal protection is job security, in this case early retirements under the best possible conditions.
The third self-criticism is that the last major technological change –artificial intelligence (AI)– has completely baffled many teachers. It really makes us obsolete if we want to keep doing what we were doing. Instead, it offers wonderful opportunities to improve teaching and learning. Often, teachers only see that copying has become easier when they should see that the level of depth that can be achieved is higher, and that the text coming out of AI can be contrasted with its reasoned defense, facilitating the decision of whether or not to consider the subject learned. Certainly, transforming AI from a tool for copying or a tool for doing effortless work into a tool for doing better work, better presentations, better reasoning –essentially, learning to reason–, better case solutions, and, above all, better study, is demanding for teachers and students. We will have to –it is necessary– redefine the calculation of study time, teaching time, and evaluation time. The famous ECTS (European Credit Transfer System), of 25 hours of effort per ECTS, must be redesigned in their content to adjust them to the new efforts that must be made to achieve the same learning.
And opportunities! There are also opportunities, but without effort they will not exist. AI offers enormous opportunities, but as is already being seen and evaluated, the greatest danger is the destruction of qualified jobs. We must exploit the possibilities of AI more and better to remain in the segment of those who will survive and prosper.
Attendance in classrooms is the result of a cost/benefit calculation where each party must know how to make the most of their rights and duties. There is no doubt that, under equal circumstances, every teacher who knows how to capture students' attention is successful. This is still true even when using outdated teaching technologies: verbal expression and Socratic dialogue. It can be even more so with AI. A teacher capable of being more attractive, stimulating, and provocative in their discourse and interaction with students than the content of a social network will be successful. Very successful. The counterpart is that those who fail to capture students' attention must reflect on how to approach their teaching.
