Classroom AI Threat Simulator & Syllabus Policy Builder

Interactive cognitive friction & policy trade-off model based on Charles Mitchell’s Bucknell University seminar

WSJ Opinion: "AI’s Classroom Threat Goes Beyond Cheating"
Policy Parameters
90%
0% = Laptops & phones allowed; 100% = Mitchell's "No tech, period" rule.
10%
0% = Absolute AI ban; 100% = Full autonomous drafting & problem solving.
75%
Incoming cognitive synthesis and long-form reading resilience.
Assignment Modality
Mechanism: Charles Mitchell co-teaches at Bucknell and observes that digital offloading erodes the cognitive struggle needed to synthesize complex ideas, independently of whether plagiarism detection flags it.
Semester Cognitive Simulation Bucknell Strict Baseline
Retention Score
88
Long-term memory %
Critical Thinking
92
Independent synthesis
Cheating Risk
4%
Plagiarism probability
Atrophy Index
8
Executive degradation
Pedagogical Verdict High cognitive retention with minimal cheating risk; trade-off is slower drafting velocity.
14-Week Semester Retention vs. Atrophy Trajectory
Retention
Atrophy

Classroom AI Threat Simulator & Syllabus Policy Builder

Canonical Baseline: Retention: 88 | Critical Thinking: 92 | Cheating Risk: 4% | Cognitive Atrophy: 8

Framework ground: Charles Mitchell (Bucknell University / WSJ) argues technology bans preserve the cognitive friction required for authentic student self-governance and deep comprehension.

Generated Syllabus Clause


      
Enjoy this tool? Build your own with Super