Skipping Bloom Is Dorian Gray in Academic Drag
At a recent leader conference, an instructor bragged that AI lets students “jump the first two bands of Bloom” and skip group dynamics to “get more done.” The room didn’t nod; it shifted. What’s marketed as efficiency is the quiet deletion of maintenance—the slow, social work that makes leadership possible.
The Cost of Frictionless
Task without maintenance is choreography without rehearsal—crisp at 9 a.m., brittle by afternoon. Vision isn’t a laminated list; it’s negotiated norms, clarified roles, earned trust, and disagreements you can survive.
What this trains students to accept
→ Polished outputs over interrogated ideas
→ Pace over provenance (who/what/why of sources)
→ Solo speed over shared judgment
→ The “Illusion of Progress,” a state that can’t withstand hard questioning
Same Tool, Different Posture
AI isn’t the villain; posture is.
Novice setting: AI short-circuited learning. Students accepted the plausible because it was clean and fast.
Clinical/expert setting: AI scaffolded learning. Faculty argued with the output, added evidence, and improved the rubric.
Lesson: With novices, friction is the curriculum. With experts, friction is the craft.
The Labor Backdrop
This isn’t a classroom quibble. Automation and AI restructuring are thinning routine roles and raising the premium on defensible judgment. If education outsources the struggle that builds judgment, we’ll graduate people fluent on the surface and fragile where it counts.
The Decision You Can’t Outsource (for instructors & program leads)
Design ships culture; syllabi set defaults. If you don’t set them, the tool will.
Choose one
→ Treat AI as a shortcut (expect brittle outcomes), or
→ Treat AI as a scaffold (build judgment on purpose)
Copy/paste “Argue-With-It” Protocol (edit to fit your course)
Before adoption: List 3 ways the AI could be wrong; name the assumptions.
Evidence pass: Cite at least 2 non-AI sources; note limits and counter-examples.
Role rotation: facilitator, skeptic, synthesizer, recorder (switch weekly).
Decision log: claim · evidence · trade-offs · who pays the cost · revisit date.
Group grade split: 60% product, 40% friction (process quality).
Copy/paste Rubric Add-On (visible on every assignment)
Interrogation quality (sources, gaps, alternatives) — 10 pts
Disagreement hygiene (how dissent was surfaced/resolved) — 10 pts
Decision transparency (trade-offs, limits, revisit trigger) — 10 pts
Tool use (what AI did, what humans did, why that split) — 10 pts
This week (3 moves)
Put the Argue-With-It protocol in your LMS and make it mandatory.
Reweight your rubrics so friction≥ 40% of the grade.
Start a one-page Decisions Log for team work: claim, evidence, limits, trade-off, revisit date.
Summary
→ Frictionless pedagogy confuses polish with progress; leadership requires maintenance (group dynamics) and friction (creative processing).
→ Same tool, different posture: shortcut for novices vs scaffold for experts.
→ The labor market is selecting for defensible judgment; teach the friction/struggle that builds it—on purpose.
Published on SubStack