AI no substitute for human judgement? Even on your 99th exam script?
Humans’ epistemic arrogance belies the fact that subject knowledge is always incomplete and cognitive bandwidth is strictly finite, says Prince Sarpong
Published on
March 12, 2026
Last updated
March 12, 2026
Source: EyeEm Mobile GmbH/iStock
The discourse surrounding artificial intelligence in higher education has settled into an entirely predictable binary. On one side, proponents herald a new era of efficiency; on the other, sceptics fiercely defend academic integrity and the “human touch”.
Both sides raise valid points, but if we are to have a truly holistic debate about the future of academia, we must put all the cards on the table. Currently, a crucial consideration is missing from the conversation: the biological limit of the human evaluator.
Human cognitive bandwidth is a strictly finite resource. When an academic sits down to manually parse and provide feedback on 100 postgraduate exam scripts – in my subject of finance, tracking cascading numerical errors and verifying theoretical integrations – they are engaging in an act of severe cognitive endurance.
Educational psychology has long understood this through cognitive load theory. Working memory can only hold and manipulate a limited number of novel elements simultaneously. When the brain is forced to process this heavy cognitive load repeatedly, it inevitably hits a threshold of exhaustion.