A Battle of Pencils Against Algorithms: Our In-Class Essays

As you’ve probably noticed, in-class essays have become more and more common in our English classes over the last two years. Their frequency directly correlates to the rise in artificial intelligence, posing a challenge for teachers in ensuring that all student work is original. In-class essays, often written by hand in an examination booklet, seem to be the solution to this. They are completed entirely in one fifty-five minute class period with just a book, a pencil, a prompt, and any ideas the student can think of as the clock ticks. Without a computer, the work is surely their own and doesn’t use AI, but is it really encouraging better writing and critical thinking? In trying to prevent AI use, are we sacrificing a process that leads to more authentic and creative ideas?

To be fair, in-class essays do allow for certain benefits. Not only do they prevent the use of AI to generate ideas, but they also encourage quick thinking under pressure, which is an undeniably valuable skill. Whether that be an interview, presentation, an AP free response question, or even an everyday conversation, people’s thoughts and ideas are expected to be organized, logical, and communicate ideas within a short amount of time, which in-class essays enforce. Additionally, they allow for teachers to have a direct understanding of a student’s writing ability, as they know the work is entirely the student’s without extra assistance. This way, teachers can best provide feedback based on a student’s actual work and thinking. 

On the other hand, the time pressures of in-class essays can limit a student’s ability to experiment with ideas and develop more thoughtful writing. With only fifty-five minutes, students are forced to begin writing ideas without fully understanding what they want to convey. This often discourages pushing thoughts to be more complex or exploratory, or for students to go for a deeper interpretation of a text. A student may begin writing a familiar argument just to realize the next day that they could’ve included a more interesting or unconventional interpretation. Time and revision would allow these risks to develop. At some point, it feels like students are beginning to look more at the clock than the prompt itself. Ironically, in-class essays are forcing students to sound more robotic, sticking to what they know works and not pushing ideas further under the pressure of a ticking clock. They instead favor “safe” arguments, with structures that can be used over and over again. In an attempt to battle against the algorithmic formula of AI, in-class essays might be encouraging just that. 

But regardless, we have to remember that the purpose of school is to learn. While take-home essays certainly allow for more reflection on the process, the temptation of AI use can destroy opportunities to grow as a writer. In-class essays don’t allow for some of the most important aspects of learning like revision, but they do make sure the work is entirely your own. Although, in the end, both essays will receive the feedback of teachers; if AI is used on a take-home essay, feedback may not reflect a student’s actual writing, limiting the opportunity for growth as a writer.

On the hill, where an honor code is central to our academic culture, the rise of AI almost feels like an identity crisis. The effects of AI go beyond just in-class essays. The end of year English essay, once an opportunity to develop an original argument and refine ideas over a week, has been replaced with an exam that is impossible to use AI on. While it does combat AI, it also teaches students to prioritize efficiency over experimentation in a place that is made to learn, as well as completion over meaningful reflection and creativity as one races against the clock. Additionally, there have been fewer take-home tests in all subjects in general, and the whole idea of homework has been compromised by AI’s ability to solve complex problems in seconds. Through the battle of pencils and keyboards, if we’re starting to sound more like robots as we try to defeat them…maybe the larger question is not how we prove our work is our own but what we value most in human thinking.