Sometimes the best classroom technology is no technology at all

When your ability to think atrophies, well, that's arguably a whole lot worse. "Cogito, ergo sum," or — "I think, therefore I am," as RenĂ© Descartes put it.

Thinking, thus, is as elemental as breathing. Universities should create the conditions for students to learn how to do it well, and the University of Chicago has struck an important blow to that end.

Leaning on the convenience of artificial intelligence for writing assignments comes at a cognitive cost: A reduction in critical thinking, according to a 2025 study from researchers at MIT, Wellesley and the Massachusetts College of Art and Design.

A new policy for the U. of C.'s social sciences core aims to return the classroom to an analog experience in which students must generally read, write and analyze without AI's assistance.

"At UChicago, we train students to use both reason and specialized knowledge in preparation for life as a free person," the memo from Social Sciences Collegiate Division Master Jenny Trinitapoli reads. "… we first equip students to read, write, and think without dependence on AI, just as we equip students to read, write, and think beyond the bounds of conventional views or leading ideologies."

In other words, this is about challenging students to think for themselves before introducing the life-altering capabilities of artificial intelligence into the equation.

Note, this memo is explicitly not anti-AI. Trinitapoli notes that technology can be "used for good scholarly purposes in other parts of the curriculum."

It simply recognizes the proper sequence of things — think first, leverage tools after.

The same restraint applies to professors, who will not be permitted to employ AI to write syllabuses or course materials. AI use in grading is also tightly restricted.

This effort to cultivate our own minds, as Trinitapoli puts it, is noble and worthwhile, and absolutely in keeping with the university's long and hallowed reputation as an institution where rigorous instruction and deep intellectual engagement are considered table stakes.

Notably, this policy does not apply to the whole school but to a set of discussion-based social science courses. U. of C. President Paul Alivisatos has made his broader philosophy known, too, and it comes across as entirely sensible, acknowledging the powerful assistance AI can offer when, say, doing data analysis while at the same time reinforcing the need for independent thought.

"The University has a duty of care to ensure that the education offered to you is responsive to these technological developments by teaching you how to think with machines, how to think without them, and how to think about them," Alivisatos said in a June statement.

The U. of C. is not alone in reckoning with how to lasso AI in academic settings. Duke University earlier this month updated its AI guidance, reinforcing that students are expected to do their own work, unless authorized, and sharing the expectation that professors should come up with guidance on the use of AI in the classroom to be included in their syllabuses. All while firmly supporting AI literacy.

Columbia University, too, "embraces generative AI tools" while also demanding its students rely on the use of their own critical thinking skills in the pursuit of their education, meaning students are expected to do their assignments and exams without AI assistance, unless expressly permitted.

These universities are among our nation's top schools, and what they do resonates far beyond the confines of campus. We expect others will follow suit.

We applaud the University of Chicago for recognizing the fundamental importance of teaching students to think for themselves.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Chicago Tribune
(TNS)
Previously:
• Higher interest rates send a warning to everyday Americans --- Cut your debt
• Real food belongs at the base of the food pyramid
• The bookstore comeback is good news for readers
• 12/04/25: In praise of the handwritten card
• 10/16/25: From The Free Press to CBS, Bari Weiss' principles are stellar journalistic ideals
• 10/03/25: Kamala Harris should have thought more of her fellow Americans
• 09/30/25: Google's admission of censorship during COVID shows jawboning cuts both ways
• 09/09/25: Biometric privacy laws must evolve with the times
• 09/09/25: Biometric privacy laws must evolve with the times
• 08/26/25: What Justice Barrett's words on disagreement can teach us
• 08/21/25: Who's afraid of a healthy school lunch?
• 08/06/25: Joe Rogan belonged on Time's list of best podcasts
• 07/22/25: At a Coldplay concert, a kiss cam catches a cuddle and ruins lives
• 06/26/25: Want to know how a socialist mayor would govern New York City? Just ask Chicago
• 06/11/25: Hoping for a bond market crash to take down MAGA?
• 05/06/25: The Biden health saga should remind the media to tell the truth
• 05/06/25: Dems are doubling down on vulgar language. To what end?
• 02/25/25: Antisemitic fears in Windy City coalesce around a controversial puppet
• 02/05/25: Want a low-stress job with lots of time off? This state says it wants to recruit you
• 01/28/25: We are in a mental health crisis. A 'moonshot' is needed
• 11/07/24: Trump's win was a stunning repudiation of the chattering classes
• 03/21/24: Crypto's improbable comeback is cause for cheer --- and prudence
• 02/20/24: Don't write off fake meat just yet
• 11/23/23: Critical thinking is losing out to TikTok. A Thanksgiving intervention might help
• 11/23/23: Did the maker of Oreos surreptitiously cut the creme-to-cookie ratio?
• 11/15/23: David Cameron, a former British PM, makes a surprise return as Suella Braverman gets the chop. Is there a lesson here for the US?
• 10/23/23: Turns out it's bad business to jack prices just because you can
• 09/28/23: Here's why President Joe Biden should not have joined the UAW picket line
• 07/28/23: Surprise! Some good news from the IRS
• 06/07/23: Supreme Court just fired a shot at delinquent property taxes
• 05/05/23: Can't force an unprofitable grocery store to remain open
• 03/06/23: A powerful paper comes clean about its 'China virus' coverage
• 02/08/22: Facebook flops and The New York Times buys a puzzle. What's going on?