Is the Traditional Essay Dead? Rethinking Assessment

The cursor blinks at me from a blank document, and for the first time in my college career, I wonder if anyone will believe I wrote what comes next. Last semester in my composition class at Portland State, Professor Chen returned our argumentative essays with her usual detailed comments, but she added a new line at the bottom of mine: "This feels like your voice, thank goodness." I should have felt relieved. Instead, I felt uneasy that she needed to confirm it at all.

That moment crystallized a question now hanging over every writing assignment I receive: if artificial intelligence can generate competent essays in seconds, does the traditional essay still serve its purpose as an assessment tool, or has technology forced us to reconsider how we measure student learning and thinking?

I wrote my first five-paragraph essay in eighth grade about why recycling matters, complete with an introduction hook about polar bears and three supporting paragraphs that said essentially the same thing in different words. By high school, I had mastered the formula so well that I could predict my grade before my teacher finished reading. When I arrived at college two years ago, I assumed essays would become more sophisticated, and they did in content, but the underlying structure remained familiar. The traditional essay has dominated academic assessment for decades because it seemingly demonstrates critical thinking, research skills, and writing ability all at once. Professors assign essays expecting students to wrestle with ideas, synthesize sources, and articulate original arguments. The essay was supposed to be cheat-proof because it required your brain, your effort, your voice.

That assumption collapsed the week ChatGPT became a household name during my freshman year. My roommate Jake, an engineering major who openly despises writing, finished his history paper in twenty minutes by feeding the prompt into the interface and lightly editing the output. He earned a B-plus. I had spent six hours on mine and earned a B. The unfairness stung, but what bothered me more was that his shortcut worked so easily. I started noticing how many of my peers mentioned using AI for brainstorming, outlining, or "getting unstuck," which often meant generating paragraphs they would polish later. Some students saw no ethical problem with this approach. They argued they were still learning since they edited the output and made it their own. I disagreed but understood their logic. If the goal is producing a polished final product, why does the process matter?

This shift has pushed some professors to abandon traditional essays altogether in favor of assessments that artificial intelligence cannot easily replicate. My sociology professor this semester requires in-class writing, which means no access to outside tools and no time to polish beyond basic revision. My environmental science instructor assigns oral presentations where we must answer spontaneous questions demonstrating we actually understand our research. A friend in the business school mentioned her professor now assigns reflective essays about group projects, asking students to analyze their own collaboration process rather than produce generic arguments about leadership theory. These alternatives share one feature: they prioritize demonstrating authentic understanding over producing a certain type of document. The traditional essay is not dead, but its role as the default assessment is clearly dying, replaced by formats harder to outsource to algorithms.

Yet I wonder if we are losing something valuable by retreating from essay writing. My best friend Emma argues that even if students use AI assistance, they still benefit from wrestling with complex texts and articulating positions, even imperfectly. She points out that in most careers, people collaborate with tools and other people to produce writing, so maybe college should teach us how to use these tools responsibly rather than pretend they do not exist. Her perspective challenges my initial reaction that any AI use constitutes cheating. Perhaps the traditional essay is not dead but transforming into something that acknowledges our new reality. Maybe future assessments will ask students to submit both an AI-generated draft and their own revised version, with a reflection explaining their choices. That approach would teach critical evaluation of automated output rather than simply banning it.

Sitting in the library last week, I drafted this essay by hand first, then typed it myself, resisting the urge to ask any interface for help when I got stuck on transitions. I made this choice partly because the assignment matters to me and partly because I wanted to prove to myself that I still could. The traditional essay might survive, but only if it evolves beyond measuring whether students can produce a certain format and starts assessing whether they can think critically about ideas that matter. Professors will need to design prompts that require personal experience, local knowledge, or genuine analysis that a generic language model cannot replicate. Students like me will need to decide what kind of thinking we want to develop, regardless of what earns the easier grade. The essay is not dead, but its purpose must become clearer, or it will fade into irrelevance, another academic ritual we perform without understanding why.

Did you like this example?

243

10