Writing Task 2 Practice 1

Your professor is teaching an introductory course on the future of work and has posted the following question in the online discussion forum. Write a post of at least 100 words in response to the professor's question.

In your response, you should:

• express and support your opinion
• make a contribution to the discussion

Professor's PostDr. Elena Vargas

Hello Class. Our readings this week introduced the concept of generative AI (like ChatGPT and similar language models) and its impact on various industries. This technology has raised a major debate in academia: Should universities fully embrace AI tools, teaching students how to use them to brainstorm and draft work, or should these tools be strictly limited and treated as a form of academic dishonesty? Proponents argue that banning AI is unrealistic and harms students by failing to prepare them for a workforce where these tools are essential. Opponents argue that allowing AI bypasses the critical thinking and writing process that is fundamental to college-level learning. In your opinion, should the use of generative AI tools in college coursework be encouraged as a necessary skill, or restricted to preserve educational integrity?

Student Responses

Mark: I think we have to encourage it. Banning AI is like banning calculators in a math class—it just won't work, and it sets us up for failure after graduation. The real world doesn't pay people to write drafts from scratch; it pays them to edit, refine, and strategically use tools to be efficient. Our professors should redesign assignments to require us to use AI, but then demand critical thinking by asking us to analyze and critique the AI's output, thus teaching us responsible use.

Laura: I disagree with Mark. The main purpose of a college education is not just efficiency; it's the development of original thought. When you use AI to "brainstorm" or draft, you skip the mental struggle of wrestling with ideas, which is where deep learning happens. If we allow it, we’ll produce graduates who are proficient at prompting a machine but unable to form an argument without one. This fundamentally devalues the degree and the academic process.