When the College founded the Davis AI Institute in 2021, it became the first liberal arts college in the country to establish a cross-disciplinary AI institute. Despite this early adoption, policy surrounding the technology remains inconsistent across departments and faculty, leaving students confused about how and when they should interact with it.
What is clear, though, is the rate at which students continue to integrate AI into their study habits. A recent report published by researchers at MIT warned that students are relying increasingly on AI for coursework, leading to lower exam scores, reduced collaboration between students and faculty, and a weakened sense of community learning.
Beyond highlighting negative impacts of AI use like “cognitive surrender” and an “illusion of learning,” the report urged institutions to actively respond to these changes in student habits rather than ignore them. Most importantly, the researchers argued against blanket bans on the technology.
David Watts, director of Davis Institute, agreed that attempting to isolate higher education from AI creates dangerous blind spots in students’ learning capacities. “So, you’re going to create an AI-free bubble and then put the students out into the AI world?” he asked. “Because it’s there. It’s not leaving.”
A Colby student, who requested anonymity, echoed that concern, warning that resistance from universities to implement AI into their curriculum puts graduates at a disadvantage in the job market. “If we’re completely restricted by professors from using AI,” the student said, “I feel like we’re going to be unprepared when we enter the real world.”
To bridge this divide, Watts points to the concept of “backward design” explained in the MIT report — a framework where faculty focus first on what they want students to get out of their course and then decide how AI will intersect with those goals.
In his own course, Watts has done exactly that. Rather than banning AI, he uses backward design to create a hybrid assessment model. Students in his class are not prohibited from using AI on take-home assignments, but their comprehension is tested the next day with an in-class quiz on their process. That quiz score then acts as a multiplier against the take-home grade, distinguishing true understanding from passive learning.
Adapting to the ever-changing AI landscape requires actively experimenting. It could look like instructors abandoning teaching techniques that have worked in the past, but do not work in the new age of AI. This pivot might feel uncomfortable to some, especially those who have been teaching content a certain way for decades. Yet instructors like Watts argue it is necessary: “class content might look different, assessments might look different,” he said, “because learning looks different now.”
This institutional shift will soon take physical shape with the new Davis Institute currently undergoing construction near Dana dining hall. By bringing students and faculty together across disciplines, the College is embracing the challenges of an AI world with excitement and curiosity. Evolving how instructors teach will prove that the liberal arts can adapt to emerging technology without surrendering their commitment to critical thinking.
~ Sadie Gardner `28
Be First to Comment