The best exam essay I read this year was an angry – and refreshingly human – one – The Irish Times

✕ Headline / Body Mismatch: The headline emphasizes a personal, emotional reaction ('angry – and refreshingly human') and positions it as the 'best exam essay,' which frames the article around sentiment rather than substance. The body is more about AI's impact on education and historical assessment methods, making the headline slightly misleading in tone and focus.

"The best exam essay I read this year was an angry – and refreshingly human – one"

✕ Loaded Adjectives: The article uses emotionally charged language to describe AI and its proponents, such as 'obscenity' in reference to Zuckerberg’s AI spending, which introduces a moral judgment rather than neutral reporting.

"the obscenity of Meta (originally Facebook) boss Mark Zuckerberg’s promised $145 billion spend on AI this year"

✕ Loaded Language: The phrase 'ha ha' following Zuckerberg's quote about being unethical is used to amplify mockery, adding a derisive tone that undermines objectivity.

"You can be unethical and still be legal ... that’s the way I live my life ha ha …"

✕ Editorializing: The author inserts personal judgment by calling AI-generated answers 'fatuous' and contrasting them with 'flair and flourish,' positioning their own values as superior without engaging counterarguments.

"a reminder of the fatuousness of assuming that linking thinking and writing is some sort of inefficiency"

✕ Fear Appeal: The article frames AI as a threat to intellectual development and human cognition, using language like 'brain connectivity systematically scaled down' to provoke concern without sufficient explanation of the study’s limitations.

"Preliminary findings from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s media lab last year comparing those who completed an essay using generative AI with those who did not suggested 'brain connectivity systematically scaled down'"

✕ Single-Source Reporting: Much of the narrative rests on the personal recollections and opinions of the author and Michael Laffan, with limited inclusion of broader academic or student perspectives on AI in education.

"I felt nostalgic making my way to the UCD examination hall at the RDS in Ballsbridge this month"

✕ Source Asymmetry: The article includes direct quotes and named criticism of Zuckerberg, but no voices defending AI integration in education or offering balanced technological optimism.

"the obscenity of Meta (originally Facebook) boss Mark Zuckerberg’s promised $145 billion spend on AI this year"

✓ Proper Attribution: The article properly attributes historical recollections to UCD lecturer Michael Laffan and cites the American Historical Association and MIT Media Lab, lending credibility to some claims.

"Laffan recalls a case in UCD decades ago, when grades were awarded using the Greek alphabet"

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: The piece draws on historical records, academic sources, and institutional reports (MIT, AHA), indicating some depth in sourcing despite the personal framing.

"Last year, the American Historical Association noted that 'the rapid adoption of AI tools suggests that it has never been more important to appreciate the complexity of our shared past and what it means to be human'"

✕ Framing by Emphasis: The article emphasizes a nostalgic, humanistic critique of AI in education, foregrounding the value of 'anger' and 'flourish' in essays while downplaying potential benefits or systemic pressures driving AI adoption.

"One of the most impressive exam answers I read this year was an angry one; the student disputed the very basis of the question at length"

✕ Moral Framing: The story is framed as a moral defense of human intellect against dehumanizing technology, casting AI as corrosive and Zuckerberg as ethically suspect, which simplifies a complex issue.

"the corrosiveness of social media"

✕ Narrative Framing: The piece follows a clear narrative arc: past (golden age of education) → present (threat from AI) → implied future (loss of human cognition), shaping facts to fit a predetermined decline story.

"Flair and flourish are the antitheses of generative AI"

✓ Contextualisation: The article provides rich historical context on UCD’s exam system, the shift to continuous assessment, and past debates, helping readers understand the evolution of academic evaluation.

"Until the 1970s, only the end-of-year examinations in history counted for the final grade, meaning essays were excluded"

✕ Missing Historical Context: While UCD history is detailed, there is little context on how other universities globally are adapting to AI, limiting the systemic understanding of the issue.

✕ Decontextualised Statistics: The MIT study is cited as showing 'brain connectivity systematically scaled down' but without detail on sample size, methodology, or peer review status, making the claim suggestive rather than conclusive.

"Preliminary findings from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s media lab last year comparing those who completed an essay using generative AI with those who did not suggested 'brain connectivity systematically scaled down'"