ChatGPT makes it easier to cheat, but cheating in that way was always an option, as long as you had enough money to pay someone else to do it for you. So in that sense, all that ChatGPT does is expose the flaws in the system by making this form of cheating available to everybody. I have to wonder why only now this is considered a serious problem that undermines education, but it was mostly ignored when the option was only available to the rich kids.
I think this can only solved by having a clear separation between learning and obtaining the credentials that certify that you possess the knowledge that it is expected of you to do some job. Universities should be centers of learning and students should be writing their essays because they recognize the value that doing so provides to them, not just because they need a certificate issued by the university to apply to the jobs that they desire. The certificate part should come from elsewhere, probably through means that make cheating much harder, such as exams and individual interviews. This would also open the door to other avenues of learning that may be more suited for some people, ie. self-taught people may have more success learning from a book or an online resource than from sitting through several hours of lectures every day.
>I have to wonder why only now this is considered a serious problem that undermines education, but it was mostly ignored when the option was only available to the rich kids.
I think you've answered your own question: it's a matter of scale. Systems can tolerate a certain proportion of bad actors but there is an inevitable tipping point where the number of bad actors grows to a point where the system becomes unstable.
But I 100% agree that university credentials are only a very rough proxy for competence. I also agree that internal motivation is better than external motivation.
Your suggestion is seen in other professions like medicine or capital "E" Engineering, where there are boards/exams and continuing education to certify competence in the form of licensure. This comes with its own problems, though, like how the licensing boards can become a cabal to protect their own self interests (see the complaints about the AMA limiting doctor licensure in an effort to maintain higher pay for physicians). It also gives more leverage to the individual, which many industry lobbyists would probably be against.
Yes, there were always rich kids that were able to cheat, using college just for the status and credentialism, and there still are. What Chomsky is interested in, and what we should be interested in, is how we get rich kids like J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Oppenheimer didn't need to become educated in and world class at physics, be he did it anyway, and it's probably the lack of need which increased his interest and ability.
I think your separation idea is interesting. At first blush, it seems a good move to keep examination as far away from education as possible, as they're very different things.
I think this can only solved by having a clear separation between learning and obtaining the credentials that certify that you possess the knowledge that it is expected of you to do some job. Universities should be centers of learning and students should be writing their essays because they recognize the value that doing so provides to them, not just because they need a certificate issued by the university to apply to the jobs that they desire. The certificate part should come from elsewhere, probably through means that make cheating much harder, such as exams and individual interviews. This would also open the door to other avenues of learning that may be more suited for some people, ie. self-taught people may have more success learning from a book or an online resource than from sitting through several hours of lectures every day.