Singapore's Ministry of Education has announced that secondary school students will be banned from using smartphones and smartwatches throughout the entire school day starting January 2026, extending current restrictions beyond regular lesson time to cover recess, co-curricular activities, and supplementary lessons. Under the new guidelines, students must store their phones in designated areas like lockers or keep them in their school bags. Smartwatches also fall under the ban because they enable messaging and social media access, which the ministry says can lead to distractions and reduced peer interaction. Schools may allow exceptions where necessary. Some secondary schools adopted these tighter rules after they were announced for primary schools in January 2025, and the ministry reports improved student well-being and more physical interaction during breaks at those schools. The ministry is also moving the default sleep time for school-issued personal learning devices from 11pm to 10.30pm starting January.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The skills that future graduates will most need in an age of automation -- creative thinking, critical analysis, the capacity to learn new things -- are precisely those that a growing body of research suggests may be eroded by inserting AI into the educational process, yet universities across the United States are now racing to embed the technology into every dimension of their curricula. Ohio State University announced this summer that it would integrate AI education into every undergraduate program, and the University of Florida and the University of Michigan are rolling out similar initiatives. An MIT study offers reason for caution: researchers divided subjects into three groups and had them write essays over several months using ChatGPT, Google Search, or no technology at all. The ChatGPT group produced vague, poorly reasoned work, showed the lowest levels of brain activity on EEG, and increasingly relied on cutting and pasting from other sources. The authors concluded that LLM users "consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels" over the four-month period. Justin Reich, director of MIT's Teaching Systems Lab, recently wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education that rushed educational efforts to incorporate new technology have "failed regularly, and sometimes catastrophically."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Almost two-thirds of registered U.S. voters "say that a four-year college degree isn't worth the cost," according to a new NBC News poll: Just 33% agree a four-year college degree is "worth the cost because people have a better chance to get a good job and earn more money over their lifetime," while 63% agree more with the concept that it's "not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off." In 2017, U.S. adults surveyed were virtually split on the question — 49% said a degree was worth the cost and 47% said it wasn't. When CNBC asked the same question in 2013 as part of its All American Economic Survey, 53% said a degree was worth it and 40% said it was not. The eye-popping shift over the last 12 years comes against the backdrop of several major trends shaping the job market and the education world, from exploding college tuition prices to rapid changes in the modern economy — which seems once again poised for radical transformation alongside advances in AI... Remarkably, less than half of voters with college degrees see those degrees as worth the cost: 46% now, down from 63% in 2013... The upshot is that interest in technical, vocational and two-year degree programs has soared. "The 20-point decline over the last 12 years among those who say a degree is worth it — from 53% in 2013 to 33% now — is reflected across virtually every demographic group."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An analysis of submissions to next year's International Conference on Learning Representations has found that roughly one in five peer reviews were fully generated by AI, a discovery that came after researchers including Carnegie Mellon's Graham Neubig grew suspicious of feedback on their manuscripts that seemed unusually verbose and requested non-standard statistical analyses. Neubig posted on X offering a reward for anyone who could scan the conference's submissions for AI-generated text, and Max Spero, CEO of detection tool developer Pangram Labs, responded the next day. Pangram screened all 19,490 studies and 75,800 peer reviews submitted to ICLR 2026, finding that 21% of reviews were fully AI-generated and more than half showed signs of AI use. The conference had permitted AI tools for polishing text but prohibited falsified content. Each reviewer was assigned five papers to review in two weeks on average -- a load that senior programme chair Bharath Hariharan described as "much higher than what has been done in the past."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Vous pouvez me soutenir sur la plateforme Tipeee et me suivre sur Instagram, Twitter ou Facebook....

Cliquez sur le titre pour lire la note en entier.