I bet we'd have better lawyers if they did teach them how to manage paralegals to do the grunt work. I really wouldn't hold the legal profession up as "this is how to do it".

And doctors do not "have nurses" in the way that you've said; they're entirely different professions. I'll allow that it's just a poor example of the point you're trying to make.

> That a tool is common in the real world is not an excuse to let students outsource the work that is the heart of learning.

This is, I think, the point: the work is not the heart of the thing. A blacksmith using a power hammer is not less of a blacksmith; the heart of being a blacksmith is not being able to hit a piece of metal really hard. As we are finding out with coding; writing code is not the heart of software development. The grunt work that an AI can do is not the heart of the learning that needs to happen. Guiding an AI to write software is similar to a blacksmith using a power hammer.

I spent the day using an AI to write documents. They're good documents. We need them. I was able to get way more done by using the AI to write them. I don't think this is bad. And if it's not bad for me, why should it be bad for a student?

Paralegals are also a totally different profession than lawyers. The relationship is very similar to that of doctors and nurses. They each deal with different aspects of the client "care" chain and work directly together at various meet points in that chain. And as seasoned nurses watch over new doctors, seasoned paralegals often watch over new lawyers.

>And if it's not bad for me, why should it be bad for a student?

See, this is exactly the kind of logical fail you get when you don't exercise your critical thinking skill.