We have spotted quite a few students using generative AI in their essays this summer and applied standard academic misconduct proceedings, though in most cases the work was so bad they would've failed anyway.
Today I learned of one whose use was sufficiently extensive that they will fail their degree.
I am wondering if this is *the first time a student has failed a whole degree for using AI*? Would love to hear about other cases. If you want to tell me in confidence, my Session ID is in my Bio
@awaterma
You have made a lot of assumptions there!!
We don't give credit for rote knowledge. Our marking criteria only mention understanding of the material taught, argumentation, structure, writing and referencing.
The tells are (1) not drawing on the material taught but other sources, (2) making up sources, (3) coherence over 1000s of words etc. (4) and a writing style of a level higher than the student produces in other work.
We always have an oral to check before imposing a fail mark.
@awaterma
And for what it is worth, I am far from 'freaking out' - we have discussed at length and are happy with the idea of using AI generated text as a basis, so long as it is then edited in such a way that it meets our academic standards.
This student failed because they cut and pasted it rather than used it as a source in an appropriate way.
From the context of this thread it ultimately sounds like the students are taking the output as-is with no attempt to engage with the source material. A generated piece of writing should be penalized, regardless of if by a writing service or an AI. The point of education is to take in knowledge so you may benefit from it and not to just let machines/hired writers do everything.
I am puzzled ... who said rote learning was of any value at all in any sane educational system?
As to how do we know? Well, we know within the standards of proof required by our processes for detecting academic misconduct.
You might ask: how do we 'really know' anyone convicted of a crime was guilty? Balance of probabilities? Beyond reasonable doubt? These are the relevant concepts to be applying, depending upon the legal or procedural context.
@tomstoneham @awaterma
I don't use rote learning in my job at all now that you mention it. Academia readied me for how to take critical texts to the theory of what I am to apply as an engineer and how to make sense of the fundamentals to the systems that I use.
I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what is the effect of adding new pieces to a system without looking up the fundamentals again.
@DukeCarge @tomstoneham @awaterma yes! Plus, there's no real value to rote learning anymore anyway. I tell my junior mentees not to bother to intentionally memorize any fact. If you use it often enough to be worth memorizing, your brain is going to do it anyway without trying. What matters is the how and why. Learn those and you can put together any idea.
That's why the discussion of accuracy of "AI detectors" is silly. "Questioned student doesn't understand at level of essay" is very reliable.
Tom Stoneham
Andrew Waterman
Alex Froio
Chuck
