Is it because they don’t give a shit? Or are the stakes too high and they don’t trust their own abilities? Do they have the time to even try between their work shifts?

Likely a mix of all these factors and more. I think the author fails to critically examine how much skill is necessary for the average person and sets a bar of mastery for which many of her students are clearly uninterested in clearing.

While I don't say this as a criticism of the author, it is worth pointing out that she's also failed to adapt to the new technologies. She talks about how teachers will need to adapt to the new tools but ultimately places the blame on the students rather than reconsidering who her audience is. I'm guessing these are not individuals who are honestly pursuing a career in writing as those individuals would likely be much more engaged on the subject and willing to grow their skills (unless it's purely a means to an end- the acquisition of any degree). Using a tool which obscures stylistic choices may be "good enough" for these individuals and being able to accommodate the use of this tool effectively would necessarily require a shift in teaching style which gets them asking questions of the output. She recognizes this, but rather than questioning her teaching style it's written off as a failure of the student's ability to withstand the 'temporary discomfort of not knowing'.

There's a part of me that thinks some of the blame should go to outdated pedagogical methods. Designing learning experiences and testing modalities is hard and most higher education for educators doesn't provide enough emphasis to meet the challenges of the modern classroom.

I'm not an educator, but the best teachers and professors I've had came up with ways to check for understanding, not just retention.

In the case of ChatGPT, maybe we have to admit writing papers is not as effective a teaching tool as we've given it credit for?

In the weightlifting analogy maybe it means understanding the reason one goes to the weight room. If it is to lose weight, for example, there are other ways. If it is to be able to lift heavy things maybe go lift some heavy things. If you don't care about any of those things then you bring a forklift.

Now, in defense of teachers like the one mentioned in the article, the entrenched administration and bureaucratic systems are likely the largest barriers to this sort of innovation.

i assure you that i do not give a shit about writing a memo discussing the ethics of the Challeneger disaster. It's an assignment just to write something.
I don't care, my teacher doesnt care, the world doesn't care. It's a grade.

This is 95% of writing assignments in my experience.

Or is it because kids are dumb?

I think you might be onto something. A research paper or thesis, when boiled down, is just a product. How the product is made is difficult to determine, and there's an inherent incentive to make it the best product by any and all means. But if it were instead a process that was facilitated and had to be done in-person, that can be controlled more tightly

The lesson was that students shouldn't take the easy way and use AI. I'm sure this was communicated to some degree, not that it needed to be.

In cursive.

i guess it depends on the subject matter, but in my college courses i remember writing many timed in class essays (for midterms, exams, etc).

However I studied mostly humanities, (english, history, philosophy etc) in university so that might be why, but with the rise of LLM I find it strange this has not become more common given the situation?

I realize the article is about PhD students so this isn't exactly on point, but still.

That'd be stupid

We didn't. Students cheat on their homework and do poorly on tests and beg and whine for ways to make up the grade with other cheatable assignments.

Source: taught math in universities for 6 years