Latest news with #UniversityofCapeTown
IOL News
a day ago
- Politics
- IOL News
UCT students make history at the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
Four UCT students at the UN Sustainable Development Forum. Image: UNPHOTO/Kiara Worth In a groundbreaking moment for youth representation in South African diplomacy, four University of Cape Town (UCT) students made history by representing their nation at the 2025 United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). Taking place from 14-24 July at the UN Headquarters in New York, this significant event showcased the voices of youth as part of South Africa's official delegation—an unprecedented development in recent years. Suitably equipped with passion and a commitment to social responsiveness, the UCT delegation comprised Nico Pampier, Seabelo Mnisi, Zou Rwexwana, and Ben Gukelberger. The students participated through the United Nations Association of South Africa – UCT Chapter (UNASA-UCT), contributing to discussions centered on advancing science- and evidence-based solutions for the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This year's forum reviewed five pivotal SDGs: SDG 3: Good health and well-being Good health and well-being SDG 5: Gender equality Gender equality SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth Decent work and economic growth SDG 14: Life below water Life below water SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals The HLPF serves as a vital platform bringing together global policymakers, academics, ministers, and civil society to assess collective progress towards achieving these ambitious goals. This inclusion of young voices reflects a growing recognition of the importance of youth engagement in addressing global challenges. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Mnisi, serving as the SDG education director, remarked on the transformative nature of the experience. 'The exposure to multilateral dialogue and international policymaking was profound,' he noted. 'Witnessing how different countries tackle development hurdles with innovative strategies has sharpened my understanding of how we can adapt such frameworks to serve South Africa's development goals.' Gukelberger, who took on the role of outreach director, emphasised the responsibility they bore in amplifying the voices of youth from the Global South. 'The most important part of my being at this forum was to echo the voices of students and youth that we work with now and in the future, at every event and interaction,' he expressed. Pampier, the executive chair, highlighted an urgent call to action for African countries. 'Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2063 are roadmaps for African countries to see young people as catalysts for change. We cannot let this be just a stocktaking experience; we must learn from both positives and challenges and take bold actions upon our return.' The forum witnessed the participation of over 250 young delegates from across the globe, indicating a promising trend towards inclusivity in international development conversations. Spearheaded by UCT's Department of Student Affairs' "Student Travel Fund," which supported the travel costs for three of the four delegates, this initiative aims to break down barriers that South African youth face in accessing international platforms. Upon their return, the UCT delegation has plans to translate their experiences into tangible impacts through student-led outreach, policy engagement, and awareness campaigns. They remain steadfast in their belief that universities play a crucial role in enhancing national development through research and evidence-based solutions. Their pioneering involvement not only sets a new precedent for youth participation in South Africa's foreign engagements but also reinforces UCT's dedication to shaping graduates who are prepared to lead in addressing global challenges.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
UCT drops use of AI detection software
In a move likely to be welcomed by students, the University of Cape Town (UCT) has announced that it will discontinue the use of AI detection tools, Image: AFP In a move likely to be welcomed by students, the University of Cape Town (UCT) has announced that it will discontinue the use of AI detection tools, such as Turnitin's AI Score, effective October 1, 2025. This decision follows the endorsement of UCT's AI in Education Framework by the Senate Teaching and Learning Committee in June 2025. According to the university, the framework prioritises ethical AI literacy, assessment integrity, and innovative curriculum design over reliance on automated surveillance tools. According to the University's Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Teaching and Learning Professor Brandon Collier-Reed, the institution will discontinue the use of AI detection tools, such as Turnitin's AI Score. He also raised concerns regarding the reliability of AI detection tools, noting that they are widely considered to be unreliable and can produce both false positives and false negatives. "An important related issue is the use of the Turnitin AI Score, which flags passages of writing in student work considered to be AI-generated," Reed said in a communique directed to students and staff. "AI detection tools are widely considered to be unreliable, and can produce both false positives and false negatives. The continued use of such scores risks compromising student trust and academic fairness. The Senate Teaching and Learning Committee has now agreed that use of the AI Score should be discontinued, and this feature in Turnitin will no longer be available at UCT from 1 October 2025". Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The university's decision comes amid global challenges with AI detection tools, which have frequently resulted in students being mistakenly accused of using AI-generated content. universities worldwide are being forced to reconsider how they monitor and assess the use of AI in student work. Collier-Reed added that the endorsement of the framework was a result of UCT moving with the times, as 'artificial intelligence technologies are becoming part of our daily lives'. 'Staff and students are using tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini in innovative and productive ways; while at other times these technologies present significant challenges, requiring us to rethink teaching pedagogies, assessment practices and the fundamentals of what a university experience should be, and what our qualifications should signify in a changing world,' he said. IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Young investors defy odds, dominate JSE investment challenge amid market turmoil
The June round of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) Investment Challenge showcased the exceptional skill and determination of South Africa's young investors. Last month's milestone of the JSE Investment Challenge showcased the exceptional talent and strategic thinking emerging across South Africa's investment community. While teams like ABS5-Pierpoint & Ho from the University of Cape Town and the Real Builders-HSB from Hoërskool Birchleigh made headlines for their impressive performances, they were among many deserving winners recognised for their achievements in a highly competitive field. Their disciplined approach and commitment to research underpinned a performance that reflects both deepening financial knowledge and the growing sophistication of young investors across the country. The ABS5-Pierpoint & Ho team from the University of Cape Town has danced their way to the top of the speculator portfolio university category, clocking a solid 11.43% growth on their investment — a feat that shines bright amid the tricky twists of local markets. Megan Mworia, a computer science and finance student, described their winning playbook with all the calm of a seasoned strategist: 'We had initially decided that we were going to create a safety net.' Lessons from the trading floor Meanwhile, Darryl Nyamayaro, a master's student in financial technology and a returning competitor, brought a refreshing dose of honesty. He admitted that despite dabbling in investing and trading globally as a hobby, navigating South Africa's market labyrinth was a different beast altogether. 'I usually don't invest locally,' he said. 'Navigating the South African markets was challenging.' Their journey wasn't plain sailing. At one point, their returns dipped to a mere 5%, causing some anxious moments that might have had them double checking their safety net for holes. Yet, their confidence prevailed. There are lessons here beyond numbers: teamwork, for one. 'Working as a team is better for getting different perspectives,' Nyamayaro said. He admitted to leaning towards riskier moves, while Mworia kept the team grounded on safer bets. It's a classic investing love story — risk and caution held in a delicate, profitable balance. For Mworia, relentless market research before and during the investment process was the game changer. Teamwork, trials and triumph Meanwhile, teamwork, trials and triumph defined the journey for another group — Hoërskool Birchleigh's Real Builders. Oratilwe Bhengu proudly captured the spirit of their team: 'Our group was made to reach great heights, be the best, and win any challenges that come our way — and we did.' Their success in the June monthly challenge was fuelled by a mix of hard work, profits, losses and, above all, strong teamwork. Bhengu gave special credit to their teacher, Giba Mahlangu: 'If it weren't for his support, we wouldn't have won.' Mahlangu is no stranger to the JSE Investment Challenge, having coached several teams to success in his previous role at Acudeo College Crystal Park (ACCP). Adding a fresh perspective, first-time investor in the JSE challenge Tebogo Moloto reflected on his steep but rewarding learning curve: 'I never thought I'd win a monthly competition in my first year of investing… Being part of an experienced group taught me how to buy shares at the right time and make a profit.' Mahlangu summed up the educational side of the experience: 'The JSE challenge shows learners how to take calculated risks without risking real money.' His mission is clear — to inspire learners across South Africa to develop financial literacy and build strong investment skills through challenges like these. June's portfolio winners Schools The Real Builders-HSB of Hoerskool Birchleigh in Gauteng won the income portfolio category, with R10,036.54 growth. Kings of the hill of Ashton International College Benoni, in Gauteng, won the equity portfolio category, with 7.58% growth. George Washington Carver-HSB of Hoerskool Birchleigh in Gauteng won the speculator portfolio category, with 7.98% growth. Masters of Lethukuthula Secondary School in Gauteng won the ETF/ETN portfolio category, with 4.33% growth. Universities ABS5-Pierpoint & Ho of the University of Cape Town won the university speculator portfolio category, with 11.43% growth from 20.61% growth last in the May challenge. UKZN-K Capital of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in KwaZulu-Natal won the university ETF/ETN portfolio category, with 3.48% growth. Smart strategies, real results: your chance to lead next The June winners have proven that careful preparation, teamwork, and a commitment to continuous research — much like the safety-net strategy employed by Megan Mworia and her team — are key to navigating the complexities of financial markets and achieving success. Their accomplishment showcases how a balanced, informed approach can turn unfamiliar challenges into opportunities, reinforcing the JSE Investment Challenge as a vital platform for developing South Africa's next generation of investment leaders. Whether you're a high school learner or university student, it's not too late to register and test your skills; the next winning team could be yours. Registration remains open until September at for schools and for universities. DM
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Turning off AI detection software is the right call for SA universities
Universities across South Africa are abandoning problematic artificial intelligence detection tools that have created a climate of suspicion. The recently announced University of Cape Town decision to disable Turnitin's AI detection feature is to be welcomed – and other universities would do well to follow suit. This move signals a growing recognition that AI detection software does more harm than good. The problems with Turnitin's AI detector extend far beyond technical glitches. The software's notorious tendency towards false positives has created an atmosphere where students live in constant fear of being wrongly accused of academic dishonesty. Unlike their American counterparts, South African students rarely pursue legal action against universities, but this should not be mistaken for acceptance of unfair treatment. A system built on flawed logic As Rebecca Davis has pointed out in Daily Maverick: detection tools fail. The fundamental issue lies in how these detection systems operate. Turnitin's AI detector doesn't identify digital fingerprints that definitively prove AI use. Instead, it searches for stylistic patterns associated with AI-generated text. The software might flag work as likely to be AI-generated simply because the student used em-dashes or terms such as 'delve into' or 'crucial' – a writing preference that has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. This approach has led to deeply troubling situations. Students report receiving accusatory emails from professors suggesting significant portions of their original work were AI-generated. One student described receiving such an email indicating that Turnitin had flagged 30% of her text as likely to be AI-generated, followed by demands for proof of originality: multiple drafts, version history from Google Docs, or reports from other AI detection services like GPTZero. The AI detection feature operates as a black box, producing reports visible only to faculty members, creating an inherently opaque system. Other academics have endorsed the use of services like Grammarly Authorship or Turnitin Clarity for students to prove their work is their own. The burden of proof has been reversed: students are guilty until proven innocent, a principle that would be considered unjust in any legal system and is pedagogically abhorrent in an educational context. The psychological impact cannot be overstated; students describe feeling anxious about every assignment, second-guessing their natural writing styles, and living under a cloud of suspicion despite having done nothing wrong. The absurdity exposed The unreliability of these systems becomes comically apparent when examined closely. The student mentioned above paid $19 to access GPTZero, another AI detection service, hoping to clear her name. The results were revealing: the programs flagged different portions of her original work as AI-generated, with only partial overlap between their accusations. Even more telling, both systems flagged the professor's own assignment questions as AI-generated, though the Turnitin software flagged Question 2 while GPTZero flagged Question 4. Did the professor use ChatGPT to write one of the questions, both, or neither? The software provides no answers. This inconsistency exposes the arbitrary nature of AI detection. If two leading systems cannot agree on what constitutes AI-generated text, and both flag the professor's own questions as suspicious, how can any institution justify using these tools to make academic integrity decisions? Gaming the system While South African universities have been fortunate to avoid the litigation that has plagued American institutions, the experiences across the Atlantic serve as a stark warning. A number of US universities have abandoned Turnitin after facing lawsuits from students falsely accused of using AI. Turnitin's terms and conditions conveniently absolve the company of responsibility for these false accusations, leaving universities to face the legal and reputational consequences alone. The contrast with Turnitin's similarity detection tool is important. While that feature has its own problems, primarily academics assuming that the percentage similarity is an indicator of the amount of plagiarism, at least it provides transparent, visible comparisons that students can review and make sense of. The AI detection feature operates as a black box, producing reports visible only to faculty members, creating an inherently opaque system. Undermining educational relationships Perhaps most damaging is how AI detection transforms the fundamental relationship between educators and students. When academics become primarily focused on catching potential cheaters, the pedagogical mission suffers. Education is inherently relational, built on trust, guidance and collaborative learning. AI detection software makes this dynamic adversarial, casting educators as judges, AI detection as the evidence and students as potential criminals. The goal should be advocacy for deep learning and meaningful engagement with coursework, not policing student behaviour through unreliable technology The lack of transparency compounds this problem. Students cannot see the AI detection reports that are being used against them, cannot understand the reasoning behind the accusations and cannot meaningfully defend themselves against algorithmic judgements. This violates basic principles of fairness and due process that should govern any academic integrity system. A path forward UCT's decision to disable Turnitin's AI detector represents more than just abandoning a problematic tool. It signals a commitment to preserving the educational relationship and maintaining trust in our universities. Other institutions following suit demonstrate that the South African higher education sector is willing to prioritise pedagogical principles over technological convenience. This doesn't mean ignoring the challenges that AI presents to academic integrity. Rather, it suggests focusing on educational approaches that help students understand appropriate AI use, develop critical thinking skills and cultivate a personal relationship with knowledge. When tools designed to protect academic integrity instead undermine student wellbeing and the trust essential to learning, they have lost their purpose. The goal should be advocacy for deep learning and meaningful engagement with coursework, not policing student behaviour through unreliable technology. Detection should give way to education, suspicion to support and surveillance to guidance. When we position students as already guilty, we shouldn't be surprised that they respond by trying to outwit our systems rather than engaging with the deeper questions about learning and integrity that AI raises. The anxiety reported by students who feel constantly watched and judged represents a failure of educational technology to serve educational goals. When tools designed to protect academic integrity instead undermine student wellbeing and the trust essential to learning, they have lost their purpose. UCT and other South African universities deserve recognition for prioritising student welfare and educational relationships over the false security of flawed detection software. Their decision sends a clear message: technology should serve education, not the other way around. As more institutions grapple with AI's impact on higher education, South Africa's approach offers a valuable model; one that chooses trust over surveillance, education over detection and relationships over algorithms. In an era of rapid technological change, this commitment to fundamental educational values provides a steady foundation for navigating uncertainty. The future of academic integrity lies not in better detection software, but in better education about integrity itself. DM Sioux McKenna is professor of higher education studies at Rhodes University. Neil Kramm is an educational technology specialist in the Centre of Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning (CHERTL) at Rhodes University. He is currently completing his PhD on AI and its influence on assessment in higher education.
The South African
6 days ago
- The South African
Why UCT has stopped policing AI-generated student work
In the global education debate on artificial intelligence (AI), the University of Cape Town (UCT) has officially adopted a university-wide framework. The roadmap – called the UCT AI in Education Framework – sets out how this tech should be integrated into teaching, learning and assessment. Central to the new policy is the decision to stop using AI detection tools, such as Turnitin's AI Score, from 1 October, citing concerns over their accuracy and fairness. According to Sukaina Walji, director of UCT's Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching, the framework is the result of months of consultation and development. 'AI detectors are simply not reliable…there are no magic solutions,' said Walji, while the University noted that these tools risk undermining student trust and fairness. 'We're focusing instead on assessing the process of learning, not just the product, and developing assessment strategies that are AI-resilient.' These include oral exams, collaborative projects, and reflective assignments where students must disclose how they've used AI. The Framework also includes practical support – such as training, workshops, online guides, and a six-week short course for educators – to help staff and students navigate AI responsibly. According to education professor Jonathan Jansen, South African universities are slow to adapt and what UCT is doing now should have been done five years ago. AI analyst Arthur Goldstuck echoed that view, while welcoming the move away from 'flawed' detection software. 'Many students will get AI to write the entire paper,' added Goldstuck. 'Detection tools should only be used as a basic screening mechanism, they're too unreliable to be conclusive.' 'The real danger is penalising students who've done nothing wrong.' Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
