Two-year university study finds banning AI from classrooms leaves students worse off
A two-year university study found students banned from using ChatGPT performed worst, while formal prompt-engineering training advantages faded as everyday AI familiarity grew.
Researcher Schrepel ran a classroom experiment in 2024 (66 students) and 2025 (164 participants) comparing a no-AI group, unguided ChatGPT users, and trained students revising EU AI Act provisions. The no-AI group finished last both years, hitting 'idea exhaustion' after 10-15 minutes, while the trained group's advantage nearly vanished by 2025 as everyday chatbot familiarity rose. Schrepel now argues blanket AI bans harm outcomes and universities should rethink bans and pure literature-review theses.
- No-AI group ranked last both years despite forcing deeper group discussion.
- Trained group's advantage nearly disappeared by 2025 as everyday AI familiarity grew.
- Author abandoned his assumption that AI helps only with structured training.
- UC Berkeley Law maintains a near-total AI ban on graded work, conflicting with findings.
From the original article
3 min read at the-decoder.com
A law professor spent two years testing how an AI ban, unguided AI use, and structured training affect student performance. The group without AI finished last both years. "I was wrong," the researcher writes, who had assumed that AI without guidance would do more harm than good.
By Jonathan Kemper · the-decoder.com
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.