In relation to Chegg, I wonder if GPT was the straw that broke the camels back rather than the sole cause. I can't help but think behind the scenes problems and the hysteria with AI coupled with this caused the outcome.
Engaging article, as ever, but I think the premise is based on a significant and unhelpful misinterpretation of the situation with Chegg. In the news story linked in this article the CEO says no more than: "We now believe it's [student interest in ChatGPT is] having an impact on our new customer growth rate."... And the stock disproportionally tanked by 45%, as it always does on some irrational hype.
The scale of the stock decrease of 45% does not imply any actual scale of students dropping the service, or students actively and avidly embracing AI in their daily lives. So the statement: "The speed and depth of Chegg's decline suggests that students are quick to adapt to and adopt new solutions like ChatGPT." does not follow... The speed of Chegg's decline suggests that tech stock markets are volatile and sensitive to hype - and not much more.
I think it is great to be excited about new tech, but it is desperately unhelpful to misattribute and misrepresent the situation. How can we make rational decisions when our preliminary conclusions do not follow from reality.
Here's what I'm trying to unpick in my brain next, how will AI tutor led courses be assessed to prove knowledge gained, skills learnt to hiring teams? (I'm thinking vocational degrees).
Say for example that in the medium to long term, Education follows the market and students start choosing AI tutor led undergraduate degrees.
So a student chooses to learn about subject X and takes an AI tutor led course over an traditional, "chalk and talk" undergraduate course.
Say they acquire knowledge and practice from an AI tutor led course which is parity to the undergraduate course.
Is it likely they want to get job Y (in some more vocational degrees) from their learning.
How will they prove knowledge and application of subject Y to the hiring team? Will AI tutor led courses have to lean into assessment through practice? Or will have undergraduate degrees have updated their teaching practice to cope with the change, and still offer degrees? Or will AI tutor led degrees be "certifiable"?
So many assumptions and thoughts I know, but just wanted to share what I'm thinking.
Many corporates already provide relevant skills based assessments given huge university graduate employability gaps ( their is ranking) . The lower university ranked given quality of degrees reputation in terms of employability the more comprehensive pre employability skills assessments.
In relation to Chegg, I wonder if GPT was the straw that broke the camels back rather than the sole cause. I can't help but think behind the scenes problems and the hysteria with AI coupled with this caused the outcome.
Skills based pre employability assessments based on university graduate employability rankings could be further refined
Engaging article, as ever, but I think the premise is based on a significant and unhelpful misinterpretation of the situation with Chegg. In the news story linked in this article the CEO says no more than: "We now believe it's [student interest in ChatGPT is] having an impact on our new customer growth rate."... And the stock disproportionally tanked by 45%, as it always does on some irrational hype.
The scale of the stock decrease of 45% does not imply any actual scale of students dropping the service, or students actively and avidly embracing AI in their daily lives. So the statement: "The speed and depth of Chegg's decline suggests that students are quick to adapt to and adopt new solutions like ChatGPT." does not follow... The speed of Chegg's decline suggests that tech stock markets are volatile and sensitive to hype - and not much more.
I think it is great to be excited about new tech, but it is desperately unhelpful to misattribute and misrepresent the situation. How can we make rational decisions when our preliminary conclusions do not follow from reality.
Another excellent read, thank you very much!
Here's what I'm trying to unpick in my brain next, how will AI tutor led courses be assessed to prove knowledge gained, skills learnt to hiring teams? (I'm thinking vocational degrees).
Say for example that in the medium to long term, Education follows the market and students start choosing AI tutor led undergraduate degrees.
So a student chooses to learn about subject X and takes an AI tutor led course over an traditional, "chalk and talk" undergraduate course.
Say they acquire knowledge and practice from an AI tutor led course which is parity to the undergraduate course.
Is it likely they want to get job Y (in some more vocational degrees) from their learning.
How will they prove knowledge and application of subject Y to the hiring team? Will AI tutor led courses have to lean into assessment through practice? Or will have undergraduate degrees have updated their teaching practice to cope with the change, and still offer degrees? Or will AI tutor led degrees be "certifiable"?
So many assumptions and thoughts I know, but just wanted to share what I'm thinking.
Many corporates already provide relevant skills based assessments given huge university graduate employability gaps ( their is ranking) . The lower university ranked given quality of degrees reputation in terms of employability the more comprehensive pre employability skills assessments.