Why isn't both a valid option, can't one be at a university to both learn and get a degree+GPA showing they did well at doing so? In any case, why does a student selecting that they are there to learn negate the responsibility of the university to provide the best curricula for students to do so with?

The assumption you are making is that students consistently using llms is required by the best curriculum. That’s a big assumption. There may be value educationally in forcing students to learn how to do things on their own that an llm could do for them. And in that case, it’s the student failing their education if they circumvent it with an llm, not the institution’s.

At times there is value in that kind of approach, especially when the learning is specifically about those kinds of lower layers instead of higher concepts. As such, it's not that certain tools should be used in every assignment or never ever used, just whether they should be used commonly.

For most continued learning it's better if the university uses calculators, compilers, prepared learning materials, and other things that do stuff on behalf of the students instead of setting the bar permanently to "the student should want to engage everything at a base level or they must not be here to learn". It allows much more advanced learning to be done in the long run.

> For most continued learning it's better if the university uses calculators, compilers, prepared learning materials, and other things that do stuff on behalf of the students instead of setting the bar permanently to "the student should want to engage everything at a base level or they must not be here to learn".

IMHO, the example of using calculators in a learning environment is a great topic to explore.

Using calculators in a university setting is entirely reasonable as it is expected students have already mastered the math calculators automate. Formulae calculators are also included as, again, the expectation is a student capable of defining them have an understanding of what they are and when to use them.

Now, contrast the above with using calculators in elementary school, where basic math is an entirely new concept and the subject being taught. Here, the expectation is students learn how to perform the operations themselves through varied exercises, questions to the instructor, and practice.

> It allows much more advanced learning to be done in the long run.

Only if the fundamentals have already been established. Which leads back to my original question:

  Am I here to learn or to get a passing grade?

While I agree with nearly everything you say here, 90% of college isn't about sticking to the fundamentals like how elementary students didn't use calculators at first. This leads to the disagreement this discussion is related to the statement "Am I here to learn or to get a passing grade?". We both agree students need to be there to learn to get anything useful out of the university, what we're disagreeing on is how they best do that for the majority of university level content.

Universities do not provide knowledge, this is a romanticization of an ideal. They are about getting a passing grade and a certificate so that you can enter the workforce. The idea that you go to college to get an education is just a polite fiction to appease students and their parents

> Universities do not provide knowledge, this is a romanticization[sic] of an ideal. They are about getting a passing grade and a certificate so that you can enter the workforce. The idea that you go to college to get an education is just a polite fiction to appease students and their parents

University is like a supermarket.

For some, they go there with a loose idea of what they want only to find ingredients not previously considered, often ending up with a better dining experience because of it.

For others, it is aisle after aisle of crap "Uber Eats" can deliver already made and without the hassle of having to cook it.

To each their own.

For almost everyone in the world, the answer is the latter.