Yours truly recently came across an article in the Dartmouth student newspaper in which a faculty member has reverted to pen-and-paper tests:
After concerns that students were using ChatGPT to complete recitation assignments in COSC 10, “Problem Solving via Object-Oriented Programming,” computer science professor Timothy Pierson moved exams in the class from online to paper formats, according to an email he sent to students enrolled in the class on Jan. 18. A student from the Class of 2025 currently taking the class estimated that a third of students in the course use the artificial intelligence tool in their work. The student spoke with The Dartmouth on the condition of anonymity, as he noted that he has violated the Academic Honor Principle by using ChatGPT to complete graded assignments...
An opinion piece appeared yesterday in Inside Higher Ed, the flavor of which you can get from the excerpt below:
In the winter of 2020, while COVID-19 was just beginning to crawl its way across the globe, there was a palpable sense in the United States that the utter catastrophe that COVID has turned out to be, with over one million dead Americans left in its wake (and counting), simply would not happen...
Today we are facing a new sort of plague, one that threatens our minds more than our bodies. ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chat bot that can write college-level essays, is going viral. The New York Times reports that the hashtag #chatgpt has surpassed well over half a billion views on TikTok. A lecturer at an Australian university found that a fifth of her students had already used ChatGPT on their exams. Scores of Stanford University students reportedly used it on their fall 2022 final exams mere weeks after its release. A critical mass, a superspreader event, is clearly forming. Yet as in the early days of COVID, most educators have yet to fully grasp the stark reality of the tsunami that is about to hit the educational system. While headlines warning about ChatGPT have populated the news cycle daily for more than a month now, most educators have yet to really feel the brunt of this viral sensation directly...
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2023/02/09/chatgpt-plague-upon-education-opinion.
For many years, yours truly taught and co-taught an undergradute course on California Policy Issues, mainly in what is now the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Students, among other assignments, wrote research papers on various topics chosen from a menu. The papers were typically about ten pages in length, sometimes more. One possible topic was Proposition 187 of 1994, the ballot proposition that sought to restrict illegal immigration into the state. Since blog readers are likely to have some familiarity with Prop 187, I asked chapGPT (the latest version) to write such an essay on that proposition and added various prompts. I reproduce the results below from about twenty minutes of work. You can decide for yourself whether panic is in order:
Prompt: Write a 5-page essay on the passage of California's Proposition 187 on immigration explaining why it passed and what happened as a result. Include appropriate references to research literature.
California's Proposition 187, also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative, was a controversial state-level ballot initiative passed in the November 1994 elections. This measure aimed to address the issue of illegal immigration in the state of California by denying certain public benefits and services to undocumented immigrants and requiring that public officials verify the immigration status of anyone seeking these services. The passage of Proposition 187 marked a significant shift in the state's immigration policy and sparked intense public debate about immigration, citizenship, and the role of government in addressing the issue.
The passage of Proposition 187 was largely driven by the growing concern about illegal immigration in the state of California in the 1990s. The state was experiencing significant demographic changes due to the large influx of immigrants from Latin America and other countries, and many residents felt overwhelmed by the growing number of undocumented immigrants living in the state. Additionally, the state was facing significant economic challenges, including high levels of unemployment and crime, and many Californians believed that illegal immigration was contributing to these problems.
In response to these concerns, a coalition of conservative activists, anti-immigration groups, and political leaders came together to support the passage of Proposition 187. They argued that the measure was necessary to protect the state's resources and preserve the quality of life for its citizens. The campaign in support of Proposition 187 was highly charged and emotional, with proponents claiming that the state was facing an "invasion" of illegal immigrants and that the measure was necessary to protect the state from this threat.
Despite opposition from a range of organizations, including immigrant rights groups, civil rights organizations, and religious leaders, Proposition 187 passed with 59% of the vote. The passage of the measure sparked intense public debate about immigration and citizenship, and many groups challenged the legality of the initiative in court.
In the years following the passage of Proposition 187, the measure faced numerous legal challenges and was eventually struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. The legal battles over Proposition 187 were long and complicated, and the measure was ultimately invalidated by the courts on the grounds that it violated the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration policy.
The passage of Proposition 187 had far-reaching consequences for California and for the nation as a whole. The measure galvanized the immigrant rights movement and led to increased political activism and civic engagement among immigrant communities. It also sparked a nationwide debate about immigration policy and the role of government in addressing the issue.
Additionally, the passage of Proposition 187 had significant economic consequences for California, including the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding for public services, as well as significant harm to the state's economy and reputation. The measure also strained relationships between the state and the federal government, as well as between California and the growing immigrant communities living in the state.
Overall, the passage of California's Proposition 187 was a significant moment in the state's immigration history and had far-reaching consequences for the state and the nation. It was driven by growing concern about illegal immigration in the state and sparked intense public debate about immigration policy and the role of government in addressing the issue. Despite the legal challenges and economic consequences, the measure remains a seminal moment in the state's immigration history and continues to be studied and debated by scholars, policymakers, and the public.
References:
Anderson, K. (1999). The Impact of California's Proposition 187 on Immigrants and their Families. Migration Policy Institute.
Hing, B. (2003). Defining America Through Immigration Policy. Temple University Press.
Tienda, M., & Mitchell, F. (1999). The Effects of Proposition 187 on the Lives of Immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(3), 521-541.
====
Prompt: Please include demographic polling data. Who voted for and against Proposition 187?
Demographic polling data on the passage of California's Proposition 187 shows that the measure received broad support from a variety of demographic groups, including older residents, conservative voters, and those with lower levels of education.
According to exit polls conducted by the Los Angeles Times, 59% of voters supported Proposition 187, while 41% opposed it. The measure received the strongest support from older voters, with 65% of those over the age of 65 voting in favor of the measure. Additionally, Proposition 187 received strong support from conservative voters, with 72% of those who identified as conservative voting in favor of the measure.
Among different racial and ethnic groups, white voters were the most likely to support Proposition 187, with 63% of white voters casting their ballots in favor of the measure. In contrast, only 30% of Latino voters supported the measure, while 70% opposed it. African American voters were also more likely to oppose Proposition 187, with only 39% voting in favor of the measure.
Education level was also a significant factor in determining how voters cast their ballots on Proposition 187. Voters with lower levels of education were more likely to support the measure, with 68% of those with a high school education or less voting in favor. In contrast, only 47% of voters with a college degree supported the measure.
In terms of geographic location, Proposition 187 received strong support from rural and suburban voters, with 62% and 61% of these voters, respectively, casting their ballots in favor of the measure. In contrast, only 44% of urban voters supported the measure.
Overall, demographic polling data on the passage of Proposition 187 shows that the measure received broad support from a variety of demographic groups, including older residents, conservative voters, and those with lower levels of education. The measure was opposed by younger voters, those with higher levels of education, and minority groups, particularly Latino voters.
References:
Los Angeles Times exit polls on California's Proposition 187 (1994). Available at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-09-mn-58915-story.html
Territh, J. H. (1997). Immigrants and Elections: Politics, Policy, and Representation in the United States and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
====
Prompt: What were the key court cases that were involved in Proposition 187?
California's Proposition 187, also known as the "Save Our State" initiative, was challenged in court soon after its passage in 1994. The following are some of the key court cases that were involved in the Proposition 187 legal battle:
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Wilson: This was the first lawsuit filed against Proposition 187, challenging its constitutionality. The case was brought by a coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the ACLU. The lawsuit argued that the measure violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying certain benefits and services to individuals based on their immigration status.
Acosta v. Ortiz: This was a class action lawsuit filed by a group of undocumented immigrants who were seeking a declaration that Proposition 187 was unconstitutional. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Armendariz v. County of Monterey: This was a lawsuit brought by a coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU, MALDEF, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The lawsuit challenged the provision in Proposition 187 that required public employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities.
Sandoval v. Desert Trail Elementary School District: This was a lawsuit brought by a group of children who were denied public education as a result of Proposition 187. The case challenged the provision in the measure that denied public education to undocumented children.
All of these cases were consolidated into one case and heard by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The court ultimately issued a preliminary injunction against the implementation of key provisions of Proposition 187, including the provision that denied public education to undocumented children, the provision that required public employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, and the provision that denied certain benefits and services to individuals based on their immigration status.
In the end, the court declared that Proposition 187 was unconstitutional, as it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution by attempting to regulate immigration, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government. The decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case.
References:
LULAC v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Acosta v. Ortiz, 979 F. Supp. 1051 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Armendariz v. County of Monterey, 988 F. Supp. 1371 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
Sandoval v. Desert Trail Elementary School District, 987 F. Supp. 1331 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
====
Prompt: Did Proposition 187 have any effect on immigration while it was being litigated?
While Proposition 187 was being litigated, its effects on immigration in California were limited. The measure was enjoined by a federal court shortly after its passage, which meant that many of its provisions, including those that would have restricted access to public services for undocumented immigrants, were never implemented. The measure was eventually declared unconstitutional by a federal court in 1999, which effectively ended its legal challenge.
Despite its limited effect on immigration during the litigation, Proposition 187 still had a significant impact on the state and its immigrant communities. The measure's passage sparked a wave of protests and political activism, and helped to galvanize the Latino community in California. This increased political engagement had a lasting impact on the state, as it helped to build a more organized and influential Latino political community in California.
The measure also had a profound impact on the state's political landscape and helped to shift the state's political orientation to the left. The controversy generated by the measure helped to spur similar efforts in other states and influenced the national debate over immigration policy.
In summary, while Proposition 187 had limited effect on immigration while it was being litigated, its impact on the state of California and its immigrant communities was still significant. The measure helped to mobilize the Latino community, shift the state's political landscape, and influence the national immigration debate.
=====
Prompt: Does the history of Proposition 187 have lessons for California's system of direct democracy?
Yes, the history of Proposition 187 has important lessons for California's system of direct democracy. Direct democracy, or the practice of allowing citizens to make laws and decisions through direct voting, is a key aspect of the political system in California. However, the passage of Proposition 187 highlights some of the challenges and limitations of direct democracy, particularly in the context of complex and controversial issues like immigration.
Some of the key lessons from the history of Proposition 187 for California's system of direct democracy include:
Limited expertise: Proposition 187 was drafted and passed through the initiative process, which allowed citizens to bypass the legislative process and directly vote on the measure. This process can have its benefits, but it also raises concerns about the lack of expertise and the potential for errors and unintended consequences in the drafting of the measure.
Potential for divisiveness: Proposition 187 was a highly controversial measure that sparked heated debate and division in the state. The measure's passage highlighted the potential for direct democracy to be used to advance divisive and inflammatory political issues, and the difficulties of finding common ground and resolving complex policy questions through direct voting.
Legal challenges: Proposition 187 was immediately challenged in court and eventually declared unconstitutional, which demonstrated the challenges of using direct democracy to create laws that may be in conflict with the Constitution and federal laws.
Political polarization: The passage of Proposition 187 contributed to a deepening of political polarization in California and the country as a whole, as the measure became a rallying point for those who advocated for stricter immigration controls and for those who opposed the measure.
In conclusion, the history of Proposition 187 highlights the challenges and limitations of direct democracy in California and serves as a reminder of the importance of considering the potential consequences of measures passed through this process. While direct democracy has its benefits, it is important to ensure that measures passed through this process are well-crafted, constitutional, and do not exacerbate political polarization or divisiveness.
====
In short, undergraduate students could produce serviceable essays using chatGPT, particularly if they have some knowledge of the topic and if they keep asking the program for more details. Note that the original request for five pages was not met, but repeated questions could achieve that length. As noted above, the essays in the actual class were typically ten pages or more. To get to that length, the student might need to undertake some outside research in order to come up with additional questions. I didn't insist on detailed footnotes in my queries to chatGPT. I will leave that experiment to someone else.
====
No comments:
Post a Comment