The Atlantic’s Doom-and-Gloom Coverage of AI in Education
Can this once-prestigious magazine still command our trust?
The Atlantic’s recent foray into the impacts of AI on education is infuriating. With sensational headlines and unbalanced viewpoints, the editors seem more interested in stirring panic than fostering a genuine discussion. Every discerning reader — and believe me, you ought to be one — should approach such narratives with heightened skepticism, demanding better.
Let’s consider a December 6th essay for The Atlantic by writer Stephen Marche, provocatively titled The College Essay is Dead. However, this sensationalism doesn’t align with the more measured tone of the piece itself, in which Marche states, “The essay, particularly the undergraduate essay, has been at the center of humanistic pedagogy for generations. It is the way we teach children to research, think, and write. That entire tradition is on the brink of a ground-up disruption.”
Marche is correct here, even as his most recent classroom experience was in 2007, before the release of the first iPhone. Nonetheless, to give credit where it’s due, he doesn’t boldly declare that the “college essay is dead.” Instead, he hints at the disruptive potential of AI in pedagogy — a perspective not entirely novel. It’s plausible that the striking title was an editorial choice by The Atlantic to capture readers’ attention, a tactic I have previously covered.
I’m far more concerned about Daniel Herman’s article, which appeared three days later, titled The End of High-School English. According to his brief author bio on the site, he is a current high-school teacher, a faculty associate at Bard College’s Institute for Writing and Thinking, and author of Zen and the White Whale: A Buddhist Rendering of Moby-Dick. These are impressive and relevant credentials, rendering his blunders all the more unfortunate.
“If you’re looking for historical analogues, this would be like the printing press, the steam drill, and the light bulb having a baby, and that baby having access to the entire corpus of human knowledge and understanding,” Herman writes. “My life — and the lives of thousands of other teachers and professors, tutors and administrators — is about to drastically change.” This gives new meaning to hyperbolic reaction, mere days after OpenAI had just released a demo of ChatGPT on November 30.
In his essay, Herman emphasizes that writing serves as “a vital tool for efficient and effective communication” — a perspective I share. However, Herman’s overt fatalism regarding today’s seemingly disengaged and underperforming students implies that the advent of generative AI will usher in a cultural apocalypse perpetuated by an army of young philistines. He underscores this viewpoint, noting, “The majority of students do not regard writing as a skill worth cultivating — much as I, immersed in my coffee and book, re-reading Moby Dick, find no value in mastering, say, video editing.”
While I lament Herman’s somber and melancholic viewpoint, which appears to be deeply influenced by his unfortunate personal teaching experiences, I find myself more critical of The Atlantic’s choice to highlight such a perspective, thereby framing Herman as a standard-bearer of reason and truth. The Atlantic selected this essay for their “One Story to Read Today,” a newsletter whose editors “endeavor to showcase a notable read from their collection each day.”
Imagine my astonishment when, just yesterday, I came across a subsequent piece by Herman in The Atlantic, titled, High-School English Needed a Make-Over Before ChatGPT. In this article, he praises the ways generative AI has prompted him to reconsider his teaching methods. Instead of assigning lengthy take-home essays, he plans to run his classroom “like a book club.” He elaborates, “We’ll delve into texts and then engage in discussions, embracing the harmony and disparities that arise from diverse interpretations.” Stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that approach something effective humanities educators have championed for ages, centuries even, millennia? This isn’t news, much less newsworthy, certainly not in a magazine with the luster of The Atlantic once held.
Herman attempts to position himself on a moral and pedagogical pedestal when he asserts, “teachers like me are at the forefront of understanding the current implications of our roles. This past year has been characterized by stress, fear, and a pervasive feeling of helplessness, leading to shared concerns with peers about the future trajectory of our profession.” Although I do not wish to be unduly critical of Herman, a colleague in the realm of independent school teaching, he does — perhaps unintentionally — undermine pragmatic educators who have always advocated for composure, rational discourse, and hopefulness in the face of potentially disruptive forces like AI.
As a teacher and education writer myself, I am familiar with criticism. In the days following ChatGPT’s release, I wrote an article for Edutopia, titled Grappling with AI Technologies in the Classroom, where I signed off with, “As we have always done, teachers must navigate with students how to make effective and ethical use of this new technology. It’s way too early to know how to do this or what this entails, though one thing is for certain — if we do nothing but lament how AI spells doom for education, we lose a sacred chance to help guide students into a brave new world.”
I don’t claim to possess the only, best, or loudest voice when it comes to assessing how teachers could or should adopt AI into the classroom. I admire a May Edutopia article by Mariana Pineda, titled, How to Cultivate Productive Failure When Using Edtech and AI Tools: “If used well, edtech and AI tools can be a great support for educators. One of the greatest benefits of AI is how personalized it can be. Students have the opportunity to advance at their own pace and review content they find challenging.”
Likewise, in a recent Time article, The Creative Ways Teachers Are Using ChatGPT in the Classroom, my friend and colleague Peter Paccone delves helpfully into how he plans to use ChatGPT to expediate content coverage. Thanks to my connection with him, I am also about to advise Class Companion, a site that leverages AI to offer real-time feedback to students.
Meanwhile, as the new academic year commences, I am not abandoning formal, academic writing. Students will utilize proctoring software such as Digiexam or the traditional pen and paper method to draft and refine essays. Once I gauge their proficiency, I’ll progressively allocate more extended at-home assignments. It’s a safe bet that many educators share this approach.
It boggles my mind how The Atlantic, a publication once held in high esteem for its rigorous editorial standards, could elevate Daniel Herman as the quintessential voice on the evolving educational landscape shaped by AI. It’s not about targeting Herman, who, like other educators, is entitled to their views. But by spotlighting his perspective and endorsing it as the guiding light for others, The Atlantic verges on myopia. There’s a rich tapestry of nuanced opinions in the academic realm; why fixate on one so limited in scope? One expects — and deserves — better from The Atlantic.
Authors’ Note: For the sake of transparency, it should be noted that from 2013 to 2015, I contributed as a freelancer to The Atlantic. My submissions to the magazine ceased when I perceived a shift in its editorial focus, emphasizing sensationalism over balanced analysis and informed discussion.
