Student Demands Tuition Refund After Catching Professor Using ChatGPT (fortune.com) 33
A Northeastern University student demanded her tuition money back after discovering her business professor was secretly using AI to create course materials. Ella Stapleton, who graduated this year, grew suspicious when she noticed telltale signs of AI generation in her professor's lecture notes, including a stray ChatGPT citation in the bibliography, recurring typos matching machine outputs, and images showing figures with extra limbs.
"He's telling us not to use it, and then he's using it himself," Stapleton told the New York Times. After filing a formal complaint with Northeastern's business school, Stapleton requested a tuition refund of about $8,000 for the course. The university ultimately rejected her claim. Professor Rick Arrowood acknowledged using ChatGPT, Perplexity AI, and presentation generator Gamma. "In hindsight, I wish I would have looked at it more closely," he said.
"He's telling us not to use it, and then he's using it himself," Stapleton told the New York Times. After filing a formal complaint with Northeastern's business school, Stapleton requested a tuition refund of about $8,000 for the course. The university ultimately rejected her claim. Professor Rick Arrowood acknowledged using ChatGPT, Perplexity AI, and presentation generator Gamma. "In hindsight, I wish I would have looked at it more closely," he said.
Not quite justified demand (Score:4, Interesting)
People aren't paying four figures for a "course" that can easily be generated with a free chat-gpt account.
No, they are paying for courses from an accredited institution that supposedly has been reviewed and vetted by the college. Using AI in developing teaching materials doesn't invalidate all the information taught in the class. The student will still receive a grade and credit hours for the class, and those credits can be transferred to other colleges that reciprocate credits from the accreditation agency.
If she really thinks she has a case, then she should complain to the accreditation agency, not the college. The accreditation agency might give her a more unbiased ruling as they have no financial motivation to protect.
Re:Not quite justified demand (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that the professor obviously didn't check the provided output very thoroughly if it contained typos and pictures containing AI artifacts.
Which would go against precisely the point you have made. She didn't get what she paid for.
I don't think anyone who knows anything about AI thinks it's a bad idea to use it to hasten the creation of course material, however the end product should reflect the competence, care and thoroughness one would expect from any professor. If it doesn't, the the professor didn't do his or her job.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that the professor obviously didn't check the provided output very thoroughly if it contained typos and pictures containing AI artifacts.
AI images almost invariably contain artifacts. That's just a fact of life right now. The question that should be asked is whether the artifacts meaningfully diminish the point that the image is trying to get across. If so, then yeah, that's a problem. If the professor was just using it for an illustration and the artifacts just look ugly, then no, that's not a problem. The professor is paid to teach business, not art.
Bogus citations are a somewhat bigger concern. At that point, the professor is actual
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the student is paying for a piece of paper over learning, then the ultimate point of college is an abject failure.
The students are there to learn, apply the knowledge through testing and validation by a seasoned learned individual, and then move on with their knowledge into the real world. If a learned individual is not learned, then they have bamboozled everyone into believing something they are not. Which means that the learned, and the college ar
Re: (Score:1)
It has been nothing but a piece of paper for 50 years now. There are very few fields that makes sence in any more. Medical, legal and engineering, and legal is debatable.
Re: Not quite justified demand (Score:2)
The teacher may still be knowledgeable, but too lazy to check the output of the AI/LLM, which is indefensible.
Unfortunately, laziness is very common, and the promises of AI/LLMs make it too tempting for many. There are a lot of stories on slashdot about it, such as the recent one about lawyers. This is about people not doing their job, thinking the AI can do it all for them.
So, the teacher made a major mistake. What's the remedy ? They can stop using AI. Or they can start checking its output.
The other quest
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the course material you're paying for. It's the very expensive babysitting!
Northeastern? (Score:1)
Bitch, you didn't get into Northwestern. You got the shitty knockoff.
Nice precedent (Score:2)
Now I'll be sued by my clients once they find out I've been vibe codeing for months. In all seriousness, if the content is not any worse than any other course material - who cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Realizing you could have vibe-coded your education?... priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'll be sued by my clients once they find out I've been vibe codeing for months. In all seriousness, if the content is not any worse than any other course material - who cares.
Professor uses ChatGPT to write the teaching materials.
Student responds using ChatGPT to write essays and find answers.
The FUCK is the point here again? Are we still talking about humans learning? Or actually teaching? You’re really questioning how this couldn’t get far worse? What, are we going to rely on ChatGPT to hire people too? Because that would be rich.
(ChatGPT) ”You are not even remotely qualified for this position. I do not know how you even graduated with your relevant deg
No, no, no! (Score:2)
The purpose of a teacher is to help the student understand the topic of the course. How this is done is almost irrelevant. That the professor used AI is definitely irrelevant.
Did the little princess assume the professor made all the materials? The books, for example?
Come on, people, move along. There's nothing to see here other than a student who clearly doesn't understand anything.
Re: No, no, no! (Score:2)
cheating your way through college with AI (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting an LLM do the heavy lifting for your coursework is terribly tempting for a student, but ultimately a disastrous choice. We humans learn by doing and by repetition. The entire point of getting an education, especially for undergrads, is to acquire a firm foundation of theory and practice for your chosen field. The ability to reason and think for yourself is not something you can simply will away with a few LLM prompts.
A professor, or any educator, doesn't need to practice the material. They can beg, borrow, or steal the lesson plan and course work and present it to the students and still be an effective educator. Most undergrad classes are taught with material that is purchased from publishers, and not developed by the professor themselves. And honestly, I don't really trust professors that write their own text books and force their students to buy them.
And if you have ever taught a class, you'll find that the school will give you the lesson plan and often won't like it if you deviate from it significantly. You're given some or all of the material up front, depending on what state your predecessor left things in.
Re: (Score:1)
Professors should create high-quality teaching material and teach their students well. I don't care what tools they use. They can copy from textbooks, reuse material from other professors or use a LLM - or even do it all by themselves.
My professor in theoretical physics did his classes by memory - deriving all the math live on chalk-board. Didn't give a single handout ever. Impressive and I learnt a lot that way. My materials science professor used a textbook, talked and explained that book with a few excou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You still need to know how to do basic math on your own even in a world with calculators. We don't need humanity to devolve into mental incompetents because AI can do everything for them.
Re: (Score:2)
"And honestly, I don't really trust professors that write their own text books and force their students to buy them."
Well, one of my most enjoyable and successful course in Physics at Uni was given by a prof who was writing a book on statistical mechanics. Every week he handed out copies of some of the new material he had written and we learned from that. I recall at the start of the course he said "I don't recommend a good book for this course because I have not written it yet".
That is what I want, to lear
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of education these days has devolved into "memorising the answers to exam questions"...
Re: (Score:2)
Letting an LLM do the heavy lifting for your coursework is terribly tempting for a student, but ultimately a disastrous choice. We humans learn by doing and by repetition. The entire point of getting an education, especially for undergrads, is to acquire a firm foundation of theory and practice for your chosen field. The ability to reason and think for yourself is not something you can simply will away with a few LLM prompts.
You bring some valid points. But let’s look closer at the secondary education in particular.
The entire point of those providing an education, is profit. They are a business. Which is why we’re still forced to ask what the hell Early American History has to do with a CS degree. That repetition you speak of does actually have value. When you’re actually doing valued work with it. A lot of college work, isn’t valued by anyone. The first two years of for-profit bullshit courses th
AI got rid of schools. (Score:2)
You have a point. (Score:2)
However, I wouldn't trust AI to replace schools. Tutoring and help for advanced students perhaps, but not the other stuff. Let's not forget: a key part of education also is the social aspect.
I'm a prof, and I used ChatGPT. Why wouldn't I??? (Score:3)
I am a professor, and I am literally just now creating a new course. Of course I am using ChatGPT. "Hey, ChatGPT, I want to cover X, Y and Z. Suggest a couple of examples." Sure, I may well adapt what it suggests, but this is still a lot faster than starting from scratch.
Back in the ark ages, I created my slides by writing with markers on transparencies (anyone remember those days). Should I still do that, instead of using LibreOffice Impress? Why would you not use a modern tool?
Setting a test != taking a test (Score:3)
In other news my wife uses a calculator to prepare exams for students but the students aren't allowed to use a calculator to sit the test. How unfair!
I think the student should be kicked out of college for not knowing the difference between setting materials and being assessed on materials. They are clearly too dumb to be awarded any degree.
Re: (Score:3)
In other news my wife uses a calculator to prepare exams for students but the students aren't allowed to use a calculator to sit the test. How unfair!
I think the student should be kicked out of college for not knowing the difference between setting materials and being assessed on materials. They are clearly too dumb to be awarded any degree.
Assuming the professor actually knows the material and is just taking a shortcut, that's *probably* fine, at least to a point.
It is important to understand that the purpose of the student being there is to learn from someone who understands the subject, and that the reason they don't let students use ChatGPT is because they want to know what the students understand, not what ChatGPT understands.
On the flip side, the students are there to learn from the professor, not to learn from ChatGPT, so taken too far,
Re: Setting a test != taking a test (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, but unfortunately off topic. You're putting in question the professor's capability, and taking a guess on *how* not *if* ChatGPT was used. My wife uses ChatGPT to set exam questions as well, but she checks them for sanity and then adjusts the numbers to reflect the complexity of what was produced. The simple existence of AI style wording means nothing and you can draw no conclusions as to the quality or accuracy of the material.
Ultimately what you're doing is questioning whether the professor is