Purdue University approves new AI requirement for all undergrads(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Purdue University approves new AI requirement for all undergrads
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2025/12/13/purdue-university-approves-new-ai-requirement-for-all-undergrads/
62 comments
I like this take. It seems like it would be useful to require professors to sit in on the class too. It'd be interesting to hear lots of different perspectives, ideas, concerns, etc., rather than a lecture format to half-awake students about something they arguably know more about than the instructor.
Heads up: forbes.com/sites/xyz are ppl and groups who pay for the domain, but aren't edited or promoted by forbes itself. Almost always conservative interest groups posing as journalists.
Additional information about Forbes' downward trajectory: https://larslofgren.com/forbes-marketplace/
Yes this has conservative psy-op written all over it /s
Nietzel's whole shtick is "college reform" i.e. dismantling and financialization. See his book "Coming to Grips with Higher Education." Mixing non-agitprop into the feed is part of agitprop.
Maybe not this in particular. But the general idea is that this is reputation laundering. Yournot reading something up to forbes' (percieved historical) standards. Your reading something some rando paid to get on forbes
This is going to be like when all the schools were pushing big data because that was going to be the next big thing.
After more than a trillion dollars spent, LLMs can replace: (a) a new secretary with one week of experience (b) a junior programmer who just learned that they can install programs on a desktop computer, and (c) James Patterson.
That's the bright future that Purdue is preparing its students for.
Yes, AIs will be a huge thing...eventually...but LLMs are not AI, and they never will be.
After more than a trillion dollars spent, LLMs can replace: (a) a new secretary with one week of experience (b) a junior programmer who just learned that they can install programs on a desktop computer, and (c) James Patterson.
That's the bright future that Purdue is preparing its students for.
Yes, AIs will be a huge thing...eventually...but LLMs are not AI, and they never will be.
I hope Anthropic is saving all my interactions with Claude so they can replace me when I'm gone.
Then future generations who like old school systems hacking will be able to pair program with Justine AI.
Then future generations who like old school systems hacking will be able to pair program with Justine AI.
What if Anthropic offered a platform for such sharing while you were still around, with a percentage of the collected API fees going to you?
“License your chat history” - most of us wouldn’t have any takers, but someone like you might.
(And I say this as someone who is really not a fan of how LLMs are being presented to the world at large)
“License your chat history” - most of us wouldn’t have any takers, but someone like you might.
(And I say this as someone who is really not a fan of how LLMs are being presented to the world at large)
It'd probably be such a small amount of money that it'd cost me more to cash the cheque. Lawyers are the only people who get rich over that kind of thing. Don't share any information with the robot that you don't feel comfortable with them using to make their service better. If you want to be fully in control of your interactions with AI then use llamafile which is 100% local. That's the healthy thing to do. Everything else is just rent-seeking and the fact that so many people are doing it is threatening much more important goals than money like transcendence.
This is a much lighter take than mine which is that our behaviors being input into this system will eventually be used to subjugate and control future generations. I like it
This has nothing to do with whether the technology is valuable or not, it’s about cramming superficial treatment of trendy topics into academic degree rewuirements, which whatever one thinks of AI should be frowned upon.
It's definitely something that won't age well. Kids are going to grow up with many AI friends by the time they get to college.
If that's the case it sounds like universities will need to hire an army of psychologists to undo the damage that will have been done to those kids. Treating LLMs as a friend is profoundly unhealthy and will not end well.
How to Speedrun devaluing the credentials your institution exists to award.
Well that's a public embarrassment...
That was my thought, it feels like something a career college or high school would do. Are CS students going to have to take a “how to talk to chat gpt course”? That’s probably less condescending than making an arts student or someone else that doesn’t need to have anything to do with LLMs have to sit through it.
I though Purdue was a good school, these kind of gimmicks are usually the province of low-tier universities trying to get attention.
I though Purdue was a good school, these kind of gimmicks are usually the province of low-tier universities trying to get attention.
Optimistically, the idea could be to push prerequisites to an always-on, ever-available resource. Depending on the major, skills could include organizing papers into outlines, using Excel, or building a computer.
Professors can tailor lectures to narrower topics or advanced, current, or more specialized subjects. There may be less need to have a series of beginning or introductory courses--it's assumed learners will avail themselves.
Pessimistically, AI literacy contributes to further erosion of critical thinking, lazy auto-grading, and inability to construct book-length arguments.
Professors can tailor lectures to narrower topics or advanced, current, or more specialized subjects. There may be less need to have a series of beginning or introductory courses--it's assumed learners will avail themselves.
Pessimistically, AI literacy contributes to further erosion of critical thinking, lazy auto-grading, and inability to construct book-length arguments.
> Optimistically, the idea could be to push prerequisites to an always-on, ever-available resource.
Ever-available… until ClosedAI decides that you did something wrong and bans your account.
Ever-available… until ClosedAI decides that you did something wrong and bans your account.
> “how to talk to chat gpt course”?
it's not unrealistic to be selecting for people with strong language skills and the ability to break tasks into discrete components and assemble them into a process. or the skill of being able to define what they do not know.
a lot of what makes a person good with an llm makes them also good at general problem solving.
it's not unrealistic to be selecting for people with strong language skills and the ability to break tasks into discrete components and assemble them into a process. or the skill of being able to define what they do not know.
a lot of what makes a person good with an llm makes them also good at general problem solving.
It is easy to forget though that the vast majority of people have no idea what is being talked about on this forum.
What percentage of students who graduated in 2025 have no idea what machine learning is?
Forget Attention Is All You Need and transformers. What percentage can't define machine learning? What percentage have no idea what the question even means? A highly non-trivial percentage.
ChatGPT prompting 101 would obviously be stupid but there is more than enough material to do a fantastic AI 101 class.
What percentage of students who graduated in 2025 have no idea what machine learning is?
Forget Attention Is All You Need and transformers. What percentage can't define machine learning? What percentage have no idea what the question even means? A highly non-trivial percentage.
ChatGPT prompting 101 would obviously be stupid but there is more than enough material to do a fantastic AI 101 class.
An AI 101 class taught the way I would want to see it taught would be only a little bit about AI, but far more about philosophy, evolutionary history, and ethics.
You need exposure to philosophical ideas because you need words to be able to think about and describe the similarities and differences between computed language output and a lived experience. You need evolutionary biology to understand that AI is not going to catch up to a billion years of evolutionary progress in the next 6 months. You need ethics because AI is an invitation to ruin yourself through cheating, bullshitting your responsibilities, and generally failing to consider that improving yourself takes work.
But none of that actually requires using AI, which is what makes me suspicious that I would not see eye to eye with Purdue.
What I suspect they're thinking is "every employer wants to hire AI-human centaur employees, so we better make sure are students are the best AI-human hybrids they can be because otherwise there will be no employers who would want them"
You need exposure to philosophical ideas because you need words to be able to think about and describe the similarities and differences between computed language output and a lived experience. You need evolutionary biology to understand that AI is not going to catch up to a billion years of evolutionary progress in the next 6 months. You need ethics because AI is an invitation to ruin yourself through cheating, bullshitting your responsibilities, and generally failing to consider that improving yourself takes work.
But none of that actually requires using AI, which is what makes me suspicious that I would not see eye to eye with Purdue.
What I suspect they're thinking is "every employer wants to hire AI-human centaur employees, so we better make sure are students are the best AI-human hybrids they can be because otherwise there will be no employers who would want them"
The announcement is here:
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/2025/Q4/purdue-unveils-compr...
Where the actual news is:
> To this end, the trustees have delegated authority to the provost, working with deans of all academic colleges, to develop and to review and update continuously, discipline-specific criteria and proficiency standards for a new campuswide “artificial intelligence working competency” graduation requirement for all Purdue main campus students, starting with new beginners in fall 2026.
So the Purdue trustees have "delegated authority" to people at the University to make a new graduation requirement for 2026.
Who knows what will be in the final.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/2025/Q4/purdue-unveils-compr...
Where the actual news is:
> To this end, the trustees have delegated authority to the provost, working with deans of all academic colleges, to develop and to review and update continuously, discipline-specific criteria and proficiency standards for a new campuswide “artificial intelligence working competency” graduation requirement for all Purdue main campus students, starting with new beginners in fall 2026.
So the Purdue trustees have "delegated authority" to people at the University to make a new graduation requirement for 2026.
Who knows what will be in the final.
Delegated to the provost and deans. Who else would you expect to hold accountable for developing a graduate attribute?
I guess they would already have had that authority?
I think it would be the ongoing job of the dean's or at least someone to be setting graduation requirements? Why would the trustees have to explicitly delegate it?
I think it would be the ongoing job of the dean's or at least someone to be setting graduation requirements? Why would the trustees have to explicitly delegate it?
I think this was more of a press release than an edict. The Purdue announcement says, "Built on recently launched AI majors, minors and certificates across colleges, and following the establishment of a working group last summer, with additional careful deliberation and advice from the University Senate through its Undergraduate Curriculum Council..."
Realistically universities will have to ban the usage of computers for exams and homeworks.
For the same reason that elementary schools don't allow calculators in math exams.
You first need to understand how to do the thing yourself.
For the same reason that elementary schools don't allow calculators in math exams.
You first need to understand how to do the thing yourself.
realistically you can't ban computers for home work as you dont control the environment. and as for banning them for exams that may work for most of the humanities math chemistry and physic, but good luck trying to teach a computer science degree without computers, or graphic design, or any of a number of of programs that are reliant on them if you want student to be competent with standard tools of their trad which are on computers. audio engineering computer video editing computers
What exactly is an “AI working competency”? How to have a conversation with a chatbot? How to ask a chatbot a question that you confirm with a Google search and then confirm that with a trusted online reference and confirm that with a book you check out of the library three weeks later?
Perhaps the world is going the direction of relying on an AI to do half the things we use our own brains for today. But to me that sounds like a sad and worse future.
I’m just rambling here. But at the moment I fail to see how current LLMs help people truly learn things.
Perhaps the world is going the direction of relying on an AI to do half the things we use our own brains for today. But to me that sounds like a sad and worse future.
I’m just rambling here. But at the moment I fail to see how current LLMs help people truly learn things.
How about the understanding that the machine isn't sentient, but is just a machine that strings together words... Maybe obvious to you and me, but not to college students, especially American ones.
If they were to set down what the curriculum needed to meet such a requirement would be today, by the time the students who matriculate in August graduate, it will be so out of date to be effectively worthless.
This is not remotely the kind of thing that a school should be making a requirement at this time. The technology is changing way too fast to even be sure that basic fundamental skills related to it will remain relevant for as many as 4-5 years.
This is not remotely the kind of thing that a school should be making a requirement at this time. The technology is changing way too fast to even be sure that basic fundamental skills related to it will remain relevant for as many as 4-5 years.
I was on the academic board of engineering mechanics for Purdue almost a decade ago.
Purdue not necessarily uniquely but specific to their charter does a really good job at workforce development focus in their engineering. They are very highly focused on staffing and training and less so on the science and research part - though that exists as well.
This tracks what I would expect an in line with what I think it should be best practice
Purdue not necessarily uniquely but specific to their charter does a really good job at workforce development focus in their engineering. They are very highly focused on staffing and training and less so on the science and research part - though that exists as well.
This tracks what I would expect an in line with what I think it should be best practice
> The reach and pace of AI’s impact to society, including many dimensions of higher education, means that we at Purdue must lean in and lean forward and do so across different functions at the university
Not really, you're the one accelerating "reach and pace" based on hype, and you'd naively expect more educated approach at institutions that educate.
Not really, you're the one accelerating "reach and pace" based on hype, and you'd naively expect more educated approach at institutions that educate.
From my long-ago uni courses, current-day AI could have helped with the non-major courses: English and History, doing the first draft or even the final drafts of papers, etc. As a science major, I'm not sure what the point of relying on an AI is as it would leave you empty when considering further education or the tests they require. And as far as a foreign language goes, one needs to at least read the stuff without relying on Google Translate (assuming they have such a requirement anymore).
But I like to think that actually learning the history was important and it certainly was a diversion from math/chemistry/physics. I liked Shakespeare, so reading the plays was also worthwhile and discussing them in class was fun. Yeah, I was bored to tears in medieval history, so AI could have helped there.
But I like to think that actually learning the history was important and it certainly was a diversion from math/chemistry/physics. I liked Shakespeare, so reading the plays was also worthwhile and discussing them in class was fun. Yeah, I was bored to tears in medieval history, so AI could have helped there.
It'll get you an academic integrity investigation if you get caught using it to write either a first draft or a final draft of a paper, and especially for an English class where the whole point is for you to learn how to write.
If you're going to try to fake being able to write, better to try to dupe any other professor than a professor of English. (source: raised by English majors)
If you're going to try to fake being able to write, better to try to dupe any other professor than a professor of English. (source: raised by English majors)
Hope so. But if you can’t use it here, where CAN you use the thing??
That ain't my prob'm. I simply don't use it. I have no use for it, because I aspire to be a leader and AI can only help you follow.
Aaand of course I did a comma splice -_-
>As a science major, I'm not sure what the point of relying on an AI is as it would leave you empty
Why do you think it wouldn't do the same for other fields? The purpose of writing essays in school is never to have the finished product; it's to learn and analyze the topic of the essay and/or to go through the process of writing and editing it.
Why do you think it wouldn't do the same for other fields? The purpose of writing essays in school is never to have the finished product; it's to learn and analyze the topic of the essay and/or to go through the process of writing and editing it.
[deleted]
Seems mostly knee-jerk reactionary more than anything. I'm sure this is to justify hiring even more administrators.
"it has equipped faculty and staff with additional AI resources like Microsoft 365 Copilot."
When I heard that today, it sounded like self-serving partnership, and, frankly, incompetence.
When I heard that today, it sounded like self-serving partnership, and, frankly, incompetence.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/2025/Q4/purdue-unveils-compr...
"all as informed by evolving workforce and employer needs"
“At the same time, it’s absolutely imperative that a requirement like this is well informed by continual input from industry partners and employers more broadly."
Purdue is engaging in the oldest profession in the world. And the students pay for this BS.
"all as informed by evolving workforce and employer needs"
“At the same time, it’s absolutely imperative that a requirement like this is well informed by continual input from industry partners and employers more broadly."
Purdue is engaging in the oldest profession in the world. And the students pay for this BS.
I don’t really get the dismissive comments here. Universities have had gen ed requirements for years, one of which is usually something to do with computers. AI seems to be a technology that will be increasingly relevant…so a basic gen ed requirement seems logical.
> AI seems to be a technology that will be increasingly relevant
That's why you don't understand the dismissive comments. The reality is that the technology sucks for actually doing anything useful. Mandating that kids work with a poor tool just because it's trendy right now is the height of foolishness.
That's why you don't understand the dismissive comments. The reality is that the technology sucks for actually doing anything useful. Mandating that kids work with a poor tool just because it's trendy right now is the height of foolishness.
God, so many edgy experts in here. Teaching kids that the "technology sucks" (i.e. what are its limitations, for one thing there's no "understanding", only a simulation of it) is also useful.
Yeah, yeah, for you who knows better than everything, you already know what they're going to teach from this press release, you already know it all, that's why you have no use for AI.
With little apology for breaking the HN civility rules. "They did it first."
Yeah, yeah, for you who knows better than everything, you already know what they're going to teach from this press release, you already know it all, that's why you have no use for AI.
With little apology for breaking the HN civility rules. "They did it first."
Yeah, sorry, but I really don’t have the patience for these kinds of comments anymore. The technology is obviously useful in many scenarios, even if it’s overhyped. College essays, for example, are an area that needs to be entirely rethought because of LLMs.
These are the same people who would pooh-pooh teaching Excel and basic coding skills to non-STEM majors or have CS students take ethics or GenEd classes.
AI/ML isn't going to completely shift the world, but understanding how to do basic prompt engineering, validate against hallucinations, and know what the difference between ChatGPT and GPT-4o is valuable for people who do not have a software background.
Gaining any kind of knowledge is a net win.
AI/ML isn't going to completely shift the world, but understanding how to do basic prompt engineering, validate against hallucinations, and know what the difference between ChatGPT and GPT-4o is valuable for people who do not have a software background.
Gaining any kind of knowledge is a net win.
"basic prompt engineering" - Since when has writing English language sentences become nothing less than "engineering" ?
It's more about knowing the tricks to get llms to give you the output you want.
However, there's no reason to think any trick would be relevant even in a year. As llms get better, why wouldn't we just have them auto rewrite prompts using appropriate prompt engineering tricks?
However, there's no reason to think any trick would be relevant even in a year. As llms get better, why wouldn't we just have them auto rewrite prompts using appropriate prompt engineering tricks?
Yeah, I'm still bitter I had to pass a literacy exam to get my BA and that was 28 years ago.
And I just know this is going to turn into a (pearl-clutching) AI Ethics course...
And I just know this is going to turn into a (pearl-clutching) AI Ethics course...
Upfront computer literacy may have never been convincing enough; AI could be the ubiquitous and timely leverage to open the way for general machine thinking.
Part of this is very reasonable; AI is upending how students learn (or cheat), so adding a requirement to teach how to do it in a way that improves learning rather than just enhances cheating makes sense. The problem with the broad, top-down approach is it looks like what happens in Corporate America where there's a CEO edict that "we need a ____ strategy," and every department pivots projects to include that, whether or not it makes sense.