AI is finding its way rapidly into classrooms and in homework, but some experts don’t seem convinced this is a good idea.
One such expert is the prominent British historian Niall Ferguson, who has voiced a striking and thought-provoking proposal regarding the integration of AI into higher education. Ferguson says that people have just essentially reached acceptance that all students will cheat and all work will be AI generated. This sentiment, he argues, necessitates a radical shift in approach to preserve traditional learning.
To counter this, Ferguson believes we need to create “quarantine space” where conventional educational methods can be upheld and all electronic devices are strictly prohibited. He suggests a fitting name for this dedicated learning environment: “the cloister.”
Within this “cloister,” a clear distinction would be made for all academic activities. Ferguson states, “We should assume that all study outside the cloister will be done with the use of AI. Inside the cloister, we should allocate time to: A. reading printed books; B. discussing texts and problem sets; C. writing essays and problem sets with a pen and paper.” Furthermore, he advocates for rigorous evaluation: “We should do assessment via oral and written examinations under strict invigilated conditions. And time in the cloister should be defined and monitored, and it should be around seven hours a day.” This proposition fundamentally reorients the learning day, flipping the typical allocation of time. “So we flip the normal allocation of time and expect students to spend way more time in the cloister—the classroom, the library, the cloister—than outside.” This shift, he suggests, will require careful consideration in admissions: “I think we will need to adapt our admissions procedures to take account of these powerful forces so that we are going to have to target and recruit students capable of living in the cloister.”
Ferguson’s vision of a “cloister” presents a direct challenge to the seemingly inevitable march of AI into every facet of education. His concerns resonate with a growing unease about the potential erosion of critical thinking, original thought, and traditional academic rigor in an age where AI can instantly generate essays and solve complex problems. By advocating for a dedicated, tech-free zone, he emphasizes the invaluable role of deep engagement with texts, face-to-face discussion, and manual inscription in fostering genuine understanding and intellectual discipline.
The implications of such a model are vast. It suggests a future where universities might offer distinct learning tracks: one embracing AI integration and another, perhaps more exclusive, dedicated to a traditional, analog approach. This could lead to a re-evaluation of what constitutes true learning and academic integrity. As AI continues to evolve, the debate over its role in education, and the preservation of foundational intellectual skills, will only intensify. Ferguson’s “cloister” offers a provocative, albeit potentially challenging, framework for that conversation.