Archive
The Paradox of Progress: Technology, Penmanship, and the Authenticity of Writing
The relentless march of technological advancement has undeniably revolutionized education, offering students unprecedented access to information and tools. Yet, this progress has inadvertently created a paradoxical challenge: a decline in penmanship among students, even as the demand for legible handwriting resurfaces in the age of artificial intelligence. From the observation of my own students, ranging from middle school to high school, to the increasing prevalence of typing practice over handwriting in younger children, it is evident that the art of crafting letters by hand is waning. This trend, however, clashes starkly with the evolving landscape of college admissions, where institutions are increasingly emphasizing authentic, on-the-spot writing skills as a countermeasure to AI-generated content.
The digital age has fostered a culture where typing and digital communication reign supreme. Students are adept at navigating keyboards and touchscreens, but the physical act of writing with a pen or pencil seems to be falling by the wayside. This is particularly concerning given the cognitive benefits associated with handwriting, including improved memory, fine motor skills, and creative thinking. Yet, the emphasis on digital literacy in early education, exemplified by my 6th-grade niece’s focus on typing, reflects a broader societal shift towards prioritizing technological proficiency.
Ironically, as AI tools become increasingly sophisticated, institutions of higher learning are recognizing the need to reassert the value of authentic, human-generated work. The surge in AI-assisted writing has prompted many elite colleges and universities to implement new evaluation methods that prioritize spontaneous, handwritten responses. This shift is not a regression, but rather an adaptation to ensure that students possess genuine critical thinking and communication skills, qualities that remain uniquely human.
Institutions like MIT, Georgetown, and the University of California system have begun incorporating timed writing assessments, maker portfolios, and spontaneous response questions into their application processes. These methods are designed to assess a student’s ability to think critically and express themselves clearly under pressure, without the aid of pre-prepared or AI-generated content. For example, Yale University’s use of video response questions and the University of Chicago’s reliance on unexpected creative prompts during interviews push applicants to engage with material in real-time, revealing their genuine intellectual agility.
The implementation of these methods is a testament to the recognition that AI, while a powerful tool, cannot replicate the nuanced expression of human thought and creativity. The ability to articulate ideas coherently and legibly, especially under time constraints, is a crucial skill that transcends technological fluency. The emphasis on legible handwriting, in particular, speaks to a desire for authenticity and a return to the fundamentals of communication. While AI can generate text, it cannot replicate the personal touch and immediate expression conveyed through handwritten words.
This evolution in college admissions is not merely a reactionary measure against AI; it is a proactive step towards ensuring that students develop the essential skills needed to thrive in an increasingly complex world. It is a reminder that while technology can enhance learning, it should not replace the foundational skills that underpin effective communication. The ability to write legibly, think critically, and express oneself authentically are qualities that will remain invaluable, regardless of technological advancements.
As technology continues to reshape education, it is imperative that we strike a balance between digital literacy and the fundamental skills that define human communication. Colleges and universities are leading the charge in this endeavor, adapting their evaluation methods to ensure that students possess the critical thinking and writing abilities needed to succeed. The future of education lies not in choosing between technology and tradition, but in finding a harmonious integration that fosters both innovation and authenticity.
Education and Technology
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
If we look back at history for a moment, the introduction of technology in education began with the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press. Before that publishing revolution, all books were naturally handwritten and passed down, and I read that one copy of a book written that way was worth $30,000 today. The way to mass-produce these expensive books was “reading and dictation.” In other words, one person would read the contents of the book out loud in front of the classroom, and the students sitting together would write it down. This “reading” is “Lectio” in Latin, which became “Lecture” in English, and we translate it as “lecture,” but its original meaning is “reading.” Even now, if you look at the classrooms where we go to hear “lectures,” you can see that they still maintain the medieval “reading and dictation” method.
In other words, the introduction of the first technology related to education only helped to widely distribute books, but did not change the form of knowledge transmission. Of course, it was a big change that books became cheaper, making it possible for individuals to own them and learn on their own using them. However, most students still spend more time sitting in the classroom, taking notes, without asking questions, even when lectures are indistinguishable from reading aloud. The next revolutionary technology was videotape. Since recording allowed lectures to be played back across time and place, it seemed like it would bring about a revolutionary change in education, but this also only had a small impact in a few fields such as cooking and aerobics, and did not bring about any change in education overall. Although videos could convey more information efficiently than books (think of learning how to disassemble/assemble an engine by reading text), both videos and books were one-way transmission media, so they had limitations in changing the education system. The DVDs that came out later were the same, except with higher resolution.
The next technology is computer-based education, which is where we are today. Now, it is strange to not have computers in schools, but learning the knowledge/concepts embedded in computers began in the 1980s. The reason why this decades-old educational method has become mainstream these days is because it has become cheaper and easier to distribute, has become smaller and more portable, and the development of the Internet has made group collaboration possible. And because its performance has improved, it has become smarter and has begun to take on some of the role of a teacher. For example, in math, even if the problem is not multiple choice, if the answer is a+b/2, it can be graded as b/2+a or (2a+b)/2. In addition, it has become possible to know when, what, and how students studied, record it, and even report it to teachers/parents, which is the first time in history that the conflicting hopes of “cheaper and more detailed student study” can be met at the same time.
This revolution is finally changing the “reading + dictation” education format with the powerful technology that allows two-way information exchange. On the one hand, online university lectures are appearing, and on the other hand, opposition is rising that can be summarized as “Education is definitely about teachers and students meeting face to face and discussing…” At the same time, the question is being raised, “Is it right for the winner-takes-all system to reach the education sector?” The future is unpredictable, but I think that computers will now take center stage in education and change everything around them. How should our children prepare for this unprecedented world? Ironically, the most important thing is not the ability to use computers well, but motivation. This is because automated education is provided at a low unit price and is almost free, and in such an environment, how much students learn is determined by their will/curiosity/desire. In the past, there were understandable reasons for not receiving education, such as “because their family was poor,” but in the world in which today’s generation is growing up, there will be no other reason than “because they are lazy.” And what is even more important is self-control. Computers that have the ability to teach students in this way can also make students buy products and become addicted to games. In fact, all technologies used in education are technologies developed/distributed for entertainment purposes, so there is no technology that only teaches. Learning with computers always requires the ability to resist such temptations.
Expensive “Free” part 1
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
The concept of “free” or “freebie” has the power to distort reality. After all, there’s no escaping the fact that someone has to pay for something somewhere. Making something artificially free has unintended consequences—someone must cover the difference or incur a loss. In particular, if the person receiving the free benefits has more power than the one bearing the losses, this distortion becomes entrenched.
A representative example is the “free college” system. In Korea, there was once a “half-price tuition” movement, while in Brazil, they went a step further—state universities (which include most of the country’s top institutions) are legally required to provide free education. In other words, a system has been in place for decades where students can attend the best universities for free, as long as they study hard, regardless of their family’s financial circumstances.
What is the result? Children from wealthy families monopolize free college, while students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds either attend expensive private universities or give up on college altogether. In the end, the poor end up paying taxes to fund the college education of the wealthy, allowing them to maintain their social superiority.
The reason lies in the entrance exam. The University of São Paulo (Universidade de São Paulo, USP), considered the best university in South America, selects students through a highly competitive entrance exam. To pass, students must undergo rigorous preparation, which often requires attending an expensive private high school. The high school I attended was particularly well-known for sending many students to USP. As the entrance exam approached, large private institutes would visit our school, offering free review course certificates in exchange for our names. (I even sold my name to give to a friend.) These institutes would then use our names in newspaper advertisements and promotional materials as “lists of successful applicants,” creating the illusion of a high acceptance rate.
The problem was that students who couldn’t afford private high schools were often misled by these advertisements. Believing they had a real chance, they would spend large sums on “short-term intensive courses”—only to suffer significant financial loss.
From a Korean perspective, one might assume that even financially disadvantaged families would send their children to expensive private schools, struggling to secure a place at the University of São Paulo. However, in reality, such cases were rare—only my Korean friend’s family and mine did so. Most of my Brazilian friends came from financially well-off families.
Why has this flawed free college education system, which all Brazilians recognize and criticize, been maintained for decades? Because those who benefit hold power, while those who are harmed remain indifferent or have low voter turnout.
The same is true in the United States. On the surface, the American public high school system, which is almost “free,” gives the impression that every student can receive a quality education regardless of their family’s income. However, in reality, school districts manipulate local real estate prices, creating a system where only those who can afford to buy property gain access to excellent public education.
Until 2008, this was a privileged package that combined “free education” with “real estate investment profits.” High schools like New Trier, located in affluent areas, were highlighted in Savage Inequalities—a book criticizing educational inequality in the U.S.—as a prime example of privileged schooling.
About 10 years ago, District 211 in Schaumburg voted to raise property taxes to increase school operating expenses. The notices sent to residents at the time included the statement: “If your school fails to offer AP classes and other programs, the quality of your home will decline, and so will its value.” This felt more like a threat than a notice, and residents ultimately approved the tax increase.
The same pattern applies to public high schools that select students through entrance exams. Almost without exception, the list of successful applicants is dominated by students whose families have invested heavily in exam preparation. Ultimately, the conclusion is clear: in the United States, receiving a good public education largely depends on coming from a wealthy family.
This kind of distortion isn’t limited to education. At a popular singer’s concert, the real value of a seat is determined independently of the ticket price. Even if the concert is free, ticket prices skyrocket to market value through the black market. In other words, whether an event is free or paid, the final cost to the audience remains similar—it’s just the channel through which the money flows that changes.
The same applies to religious events. When Pope Benedict visited New York, free tickets to his Mass at a baseball stadium were distributed exclusively to Catholic church members in the city. However, those tickets soon appeared on the black market, selling for around $200 each.
This principle also extends to various rapidly growing free services, such as online university courses, Wikipedia, and open-source programming languages. These services have the power to distort markets, benefiting some while disadvantaging others. And the people who will be most directly affected by these shifts are our children, who are just beginning their journey into society.
A deeper analysis of this issue will be covered in Part 2.
Sabio Column 