October 8, 2025
A recent article caught my eye so I thought I would take a timeout from the tawdry topic of today’s Trumpian politics. The article appeared in the Science & Tech section of the Harvard Gazette, dated September 22, 2025. It was titled “How AI Could Radically Change Schools by 2050.” It caught my eye for two reasons. My very first column for the Springfield Republican was about artificial intelligence. The headline was “AI tornado will shake us to our foundations.” It appeared on October 1, 2023, a little over two years ago. The tornado has not only not subsided, but has gotten bigger and stronger every day. The other reason the article caught my eye was because it featured an interview with psychologist and social scientist Howard Gardner. Howard and his wife, Judy, were Soc. Rel. tutors in Quincy House (Harvard) my sophomore year, and they lived directly below us. I took Gardener’s sophomore tutorial, which, I believe, included Bonnie Raitt.
Gardner is the originator of the theory of multiple intelligences. His first book on the subject came out in 1983, and is titled “Frames of Mind.” In the article, Gardner called AI as fundamental a change to education as the world has seen in the last 1,000 years, and may render obsolete many forms of the mind he is famous for describing. The frames of mind that Gardner refers to are bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, mathematical, musical, naturalistic, and spatial. “Some of them will be done so well by large language machines and mechanisms that whether we do them as humans will be optional.” He says that AI could make most cognitive aspects of the mind optional for humans. By 2050, every child would need only a few years of schooling in the Three R’s plus a little bit of coding. Teachers would function more as coaches, and guide the students in what many call critical thinking. He acknowledges concerns that students might offload cognitive labor to AI, decreasing their critical reasoning skills.
I had the opportunity to discuss some of these issues with Professor Emeritus of Business from the University of Massachusetts’ Isenberg School, James Theroux. “JT” teaches an online class about new venture finance and how venture capitalists are investing in AI. He agrees that AI will move education from its traditional model of read, think, and write to one focusing on critical thinking. However, he finds that the term “critical thinking” gets thrown around loosely without any firm definition about what it is, and any ability to measure it. I recently asked a young person enrolled in an online MBA program what she was studying, and she mentioned critical thinking. When I asked her what that was, she did not have an answer. Regardless, Theroux shares Gardner’s concern that AI, if used improperly, could lead to the atrophying of problem-solving skills, critical thinking, and analytical thinking.
To combat the “atrophying” of its students, Deerfield Academy has blocked all sources of AI from student computers, which are school issued. Teachers take courses on how to spot AI, and are given tools to detect AI usage such as unusual typing patterns. Final essays have to be done the old-fashioned way by hand. There is still a suspicion, however, that students are figuring ways around the system. If they are caught, it could affect their status at school, and college admissibility.
The problems that AI present for educators are complex. I am only scratching the surface of what educators are dealing with every day. How do they keep students “honest” and challenged? How do they teach students to use AI as a tool, and not become tools themselves.” Theroux received his MBA from the Harvard Business School. HBS pioneered the case study method for business education. Students are required to read and analyze cases about real businesses dealing with real problems. Students don’t write their conclusions, but must be prepared to present their solutions to their fellow classmates in person, and defend their arguments. AI may be helpful in the analysis, but students are on their own in the classroom. Final exams are done in class with paper and pencil.
Educators may have to emphasize smaller classes and classroom discussion over large lectures, which today’s students tune out anyway. Students who can present and defend ideas in real time would be rewarded versus students who are good at composing ten-page papers, whose originality would always be in question. This is simplistic, I realize, and professional educators should be free to criticize. However, as Howard Gardner points out, we are headed for lion country i.e. if you know what the educational landscape is going to look like by 2050, you’re lyin’.