UK's College Meltdown

The UK higher education sector is teetering on the edge of a financial precipice, with a record number of institutions now operating at a loss. A recent analysis by The Telegraph found that 61 of 143 universities – roughly 43 percent of the sector – reported deficits in the 2023-24 academic year, marking the highest number ever recorded.

This fiscal freefall has provoked urgent calls from policy experts and university leaders for the UK government to reconsider its longstanding refusal to bail out struggling institutions. Critics warn that continued inaction could result in the collapse of one or more universities, with dire consequences for regional economies, local employment, and the UK’s global reputation in higher education.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), described the current path as “100 percent not sustainable.” He pointed out that many institutions have now run deficits for multiple consecutive years and noted that the situation has only deteriorated further since the reporting period, as inflation continues to erode tuition fee values and new taxes such as the National Insurance hike place added burdens on institutional budgets.

Among the most vulnerable are smaller, specialized universities such as Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln, which reported a staggering 19 percent deficit relative to income. Five institutions – Bishop Grosseteste, Cranfield University, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), and the University of Reading – have reported losses for six consecutive years.

While some institutions are attempting to manage the crisis through internal restructuring and tapping into financial reserves, the scale of the challenge appears overwhelming. In 2023-24, UK universities laid off a record 10,223 staff across 108 institutions, with £210 million paid out in severance—nearly double the previous year. Notable cuts included Oxford University Press (656 staff) and the University of Central Lancashire (264 staff).

The underlying causes of the crisis are complex but familiar: flatlined domestic tuition fees, sharp declines in international student numbers, and research funding that consistently fails to cover costs. While the government has announced plans to index tuition fees to inflation beginning next year—a first since 2017—Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has made it clear that universities should not count on taxpayer-funded bailouts.

That stance has drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Helen Hayes, Labour MP and chair of the Education Select Committee, warned that institutional bankruptcies would jeopardize not only education but also the social and economic fabric of entire communities. “Universities are often anchor institutions,” she said, “and their collapse could devastate local economies and diminish the UK’s international standing.”

Meanwhile, Universities UK CEO Vivienne Stern emphasized the broader impact of the crisis. “Falling per-student funding, visa changes, and the failure of research grants to cover costs are creating huge pressures across the UK. Our universities are a national asset, contributing over a quarter of a trillion pounds to the economy annually. We need them firing on all cylinders.”

Despite hopes that a Labour government might bring a more sympathetic approach, some university leaders are increasingly disillusioned. Nick Hillman noted that recent Labour proposals have echoed those of the previous Conservative administration, including restrictions on student visas. “There’s an even greater sense of demoralization,” he said. “It feels like the flames are getting closer.”

With staff morale at a historic low and financial pressures mounting, many institutions are making hard choices. Some, like Bishop Grosseteste and Coventry University, are investing in long-term restructuring despite short-term losses. Others, like the University of Reading and SRUC, are leaning on reserves and making strategic investments, hoping to weather the storm without compromising on quality.

But time may be running out. Without a comprehensive and sustainable funding solution from the government, the UK higher education sector could be heading for a reckoning that transforms its landscape for decades to come.

Will policymakers step in before institutions begin to fall—or will market forces be allowed to determine the future of British higher education?

Trump Administration Cancels $37 Million Fine Levied Against Grand Canyon U For Deceiving Students (David Halperin)

The Donald J. Trump administration, which claims its DOGE-driven reshaping of the federal government is aimed at cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, quietly cancelled a $37 million fine that the Department of Education, under the Biden administration, imposed in 2023 on Grand Canyon University. The fine was levied after Department investigators documented extensive findings that GCU, which takes billions in taxpayer dollars, systematically deceived students about the costs of their educations.

Grand Canyon announced the cancellation of the fine on its website on Friday.

Grand Canyon had appealed the fine to a review panel inside the Department. Republic Report contacted Grand Canyon spokesperson Bob Romantic last Wednesday inquiring about the status of the appeal; he messaged me that he would get back in touch Thursday to respond, but he didn’t respond to my follow-up message that day. The Department of Education did not reply to my request last week for comment on the appeal.

In its announcement Friday, Grand Canyon stated that the Department, by means of “a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal order issued by ED’s Office of Hearings and Appeals” acted to “dismiss[ ] the case with no findings, fines, liabilities or penalties of any kind.”

Grand Canyon, which bills itself as a Christian school, had waged a public campaign claiming it was attacked by the Biden administration on the basis of politics and religious persecution.

In reality, the $37 million fine, indeed unusually large for the Department, was pegged to the gravity and scope of the abuses, as well as the size of the institution and the taxpayer funds it receives: Phoenix-based Grand Canyon, which in 2022-23 enrolled more than 100,000 students in-person and online, gets the largest amount of federal student aid of any college or university in the country. GCU received $862 million from taxpayers for Department of Education federal student grants and loans in 2022-23 out of $1.3 billion in revenue, and received additional federal funding for student aid from the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

In a 34-page letter addressed to Grand Canyon president Brian Mueller in October 2023, the Department described in detail the deceptive conduct found by its investigators.


The Department concluded that Grand Canyon “lied to more than 7,500 former and current students about the cost of its doctoral programs over several years. GCU falsely advertised a lower cost than what 98% of students ended up paying to complete certain doctoral programs.”


The probe found that going back to 2017, GCU violated the prohibition in federal law against making “substantial misrepresentations” by failing to tell students enough about the cost of the school’s doctoral programs and stating on the school website and in other materials that the programs cost between $40,000 and $49,000. GCU’s own data, according to the Department, shows that less than 2 percent of graduates completed their students within the cost range that GCU advertised. Most students needed to enroll in and pay for “continuation courses” to complete the dissertation requirement in these doctoral programs. The school’s data also showed that 78 percent of doctoral program graduates had to pay between $10,000 and $12,000 more than GCU had advertised.

According to the Department, Grand Canyon “did not contest [the Department’s] determination that 98% of students enrolled in certain doctoral programs had to pay more than GCU’s advertised cost.”

Yet the Department under new Trump education secretary Linda McMahon has now let Grand Canyon off the hook.

GCU President Mueller said in a statement Friday, “The facts clearly support our contention that we were wrongly accused of misleading our Doctoral students and we appreciate the recognition that those accusations were without merit.”

Educator Mueller, who makes $661,000 as president of non-profit Grand Canyon University, and then another $2 million a year as CEO of the school’s for-profit servicing arm Grand Canyon Education, held a scare rally on the GCU campus in 2023 after his school was fined. There, he warned his audience, “There is a group of people in Washington DC who has the intention to harm us.” He also advanced the baseless and incendiary claim, subsequently echoed by conservative influencers, that Grand Canyon was targeted because it presents itself as a Christian school.

But the evidence developed by the Department’s investigation that GCU deceived doctoral students was echoed by many of those affected: The Department said last year that it had received more than 750 complaints by doctoral students against GCU since 2020.

As in the first Trump administration, people connected to for-profit colleges now have influence over higher education decisions at the Department. For example, Trump’s nominee for Under Secretary of Education, Nicholas Kent, currently a senior adviser at the Department, once was a senior staff member at the for-profit college lobbying group CECU. Prior to that, Kent was an executive at Education Affiliates, a Baltimore-based for-profit college operation that faced civil and criminal investigation and actions by the Justice Department for deceptive practices.

Another federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission, also has taken action against Grand Canyon, suing the school, for-profit arm Grand Canyon Education, and Mueller in Arizona federal court in December 2023 over the same deceptive claims to doctoral students about the costs and course requirements of programs — and claims about the school’s nonprofit status. The FTC also alleged that Grand Canyon engaged in deceptive and abusive telemarketing.

Grand Canyon has twice moved to throw out the FTC lawsuit, and the judge has dismissed some aspects of it, including removing GCU as a defendant, but the case is still pending, bogged down in disputes over discovery. (Mueller’s personal attorneys in the case include former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement and Steven Gombos.)

Grand Canyon said on Friday that the FTC lawsuit continues “despite the fact the lawsuit essentially raises the same manufactured nonprofit and doctoral disclosure claims that have been refuted, rejected and dismissed.”

The Trump administration has cancelled numerous law enforcement investigations against entities that have shown fealty to or ideological kinship with President Trump, and has fired the two Democratic commissioners on the FTC. But the FTC case against GCU, at least for now, is proceeding.

While some in the career college industry donated big to Trump, federal records show only one political contribution by Brian Mueller in the last federal cycle: $1000 in 2023 to Mike Pence for President.

Part of Grand Canyon’s righteous anger toward the Department of Education during Biden’s term focused on the Department’s refusal to recognize Grand Canyon as a non-profit school for purposes of Department rules, even though, after Grand Canyon converted its school from for-profit to non-profit, the IRS granted the school that status for tax purposes. But the ties between supposed non-profit Grand Canyon University and for-profit Grand Canyon Education were so blatant — GCU sends most of its revenue to publicly-traded GCE, and Brian Mueller is the head of both operations — that GCU’s non-profit status was rejected not by Biden education secretary Miguel Cardona, but by his predecessor, deeply Christian and deeply for-profit college-loving Betsy DeVos. (Last November, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision upholding the Department’s denial of non-profit status to GCU and remanded to the Department to revisit the decision under a different legal standard.)

Even if the Trump administration has cancelled the Biden education department’s effort to protect America’s students from Grand Canyon’s deceptive and predatory practices, Grand Canyon’s legal troubles are not over. Beyond the FTC case, in June 2024, students filed a class action lawsuit against Grand Canyon Education, alleging that the company “orchestrated a deceitful racketeering scheme by misleading prospective students about the true cost of doctoral degrees at Grand Canyon University….” On May 6, a federal judge in Arizona rejected all but one of the arguments raised by GCE in a motion to dismiss, meaning the case will move forward on most of the students’ claims.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]  

Degrees of Discontent: Credentialism, Inflation, and the Global Education Crisis

In an era defined by rapid technological change, globalization, and economic precarity, the promise of higher education as a reliable path to social mobility is being questioned around the world. At the heart of this reckoning are two interrelated forces: credentialism and credential inflation. Together, they have helped fuel a crisis of discontent that spans continents, demographics, and generations.

The Age of Credentialism

Credentialism refers to the increasing reliance on educational qualifications—often formal degrees or certificates—as a measure of skill, value, and worth in the labor market. What was once a gateway to opportunity has, for many, become a gatekeeper.

In countries as diverse as the United States, Nigeria, South Korea, and Brazil, employers increasingly demand college degrees for jobs that previously required only a high school diploma or no formal education at all. These “degree requirements” often serve more as filters than as real indicators of competence. In the U.S., for example, nearly two-thirds of new jobs require a college degree, yet only around 38% of the adult population holds one. This creates a built-in exclusionary mechanism that hits working-class, first-generation, and minority populations hardest.

Credential Inflation: The Diminishing Value of Degrees

As more people earn degrees in hopes of improving their employment prospects, the relative value of those credentials declines—a phenomenon known as credential inflation. Where a bachelor’s degree once opened doors to managerial or professional roles, it now often leads to underemployment or precarious gig work. In response, students seek advanced degrees, fueling a “credential arms race” with diminishing returns.

In India and China, massive expansions of higher education have led to millions of graduates chasing a finite number of white-collar jobs. In places like Egypt, university graduates have higher unemployment rates than those with only a secondary education. In South Korea, a hyper-competitive education culture pushes students through years of tutoring and testing, only to graduate into a job market with limited high-status roles.

Tragedy in Tunisia: The Human Cost of Unemployment

Few stories illustrate the devastating impact of credentialism and mass youth unemployment more than that of Mohammed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian university graduate whose life and death sparked a revolution.

Unable to find formal employment, Bouazizi resorted to selling fruit and vegetables illegally in the town of Sidi Bouzid. In December 2010, after police confiscated his produce for lacking a permit, he set himself on fire in front of a local government building in a final act of desperation.

Bouazizi succumbed to his injuries weeks later, but not before igniting a firestorm of protests across Tunisia. His self-immolation became the catalyst for mass demonstrations against economic injustice, corruption, and authoritarianism—culminating in the Tunisian Revolution and inspiring uprisings throughout the Arab world.

At his funeral, an estimated 5,000 mourners marched, chanting: “Farewell, Mohammed, we will avenge you.” Bouazizi’s uncle said, “Mohammed gave his life to draw attention to his condition and that of his brothers.”

His act was not just a protest against police abuse, but a powerful indictment of a system that had produced thousands of educated but unemployed young people, whose degrees had become symbols of broken promises.

Global Discontent and Backlash

This dynamic of broken promises and rising discontent is global. In China, the “lying flat” movement reflects a rejection of endless striving in a system that offers diminishing returns on educational achievement. In South Korea, the “N-po” generation has opted out of traditional life goals, seeing little reward for their academic sacrifices.

In the U.S., distrust in higher education is mounting, with many questioning whether the cost of a degree is worth it. At the same time, a growing number of companies are dropping degree requirements altogether in favor of skills-based hiring.

Yet these moves often come too late for millions already trapped in a debt-fueled system, forced to chase credentials just to qualify for basic employment.

The Future of Work, the Future of Education

As automation and AI disrupt industries, the link between formal education and stable employment continues to fray. Policymakers call for "lifelong learning" and “upskilling,” but these strategies often place the burden back on workers without addressing the deeper failures of economic and educational systems.

To move forward, we must consider:

• Decoupling jobs from unnecessary credential requirements

• Investing in vocational and technical education with real career pathways

• Recognizing nontraditional forms of knowledge and skill

• Reframing education as a public good, not a consumer transaction

Reclaiming the Meaning of Education

Mohammed Bouazizi's story is a tragic reminder that the crisis of credentialism is not theoretical—it’s lived, felt, and fought over in the streets. Around the world, millions of young people feel abandoned by systems that promised opportunity but delivered anxiety, debt, and instability.

Unless global societies reimagine the relationship between education, work, and human dignity, the "degrees of discontent" will only continue to deepen. And as Bouazizi’s legacy shows, discontent—when ignored—can become revolutionary.

---

Sources and References

• BBC News. “Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi dies.” January 5, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12120228

• Pew Research Center. “Public Trust in Higher Education is Eroding.” August 2023.

• Brown, Phillip. The Global Auction: The Broken Promises of Education, Jobs, and Incomes. Oxford University Press, 2011.

• Marginson, Simon. “The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education: Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems.” Higher Education, 2016.

• The World Bank. “Education and the Labor Market.”

• The Guardian. “Lying Flat: China's Youth Protest Culture Grows.” June 2021.

• Korea Herald. “'N-po Generation' Gives Up on Marriage, Children, and More.” October 2022.

The Higher Education Racket

 "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and turns into a racket." Eric Hoffer

American higher education, once a ladder to opportunity, has become a vast machine of wealth extraction. Debt burdens students for decades. Professors and campus workers are trapped in precarious jobs. Entire communities are pushed out by campus expansions. And a select few elite universities sit atop fortunes that rival hedge funds—all while claiming tax-exempt status and public goodwill.

This is the higher education racket: a sector that has turned away from its public mission and now operates with the logic of capital accumulation, enabled by deregulation, political influence, and privatization.

---

From Movement to Market: Postwar Expansion and Privatization

The 1944 G.I. Bill launched a golden age of public higher education, providing veterans access to tuition-free college and transforming American society. Enrollment surged, inequality shrank, and community colleges became lifelines for working-class students. Colleges were seen as civic institutions, essential to democratic life.

That vision began to erode in the 1980s, as neoliberal policymakers slashed state funding, forcing institutions to raise tuition, court corporate donors, and cut labor costs. By 2020, public universities received less than half the state funding (per student) they did in 1980, adjusted for inflation (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

---

Trump Administration: Deregulating the Racket

Under Donald Trump, the Department of Education, led by billionaire Betsy DeVos, launched an all-out campaign to roll back protections for students and favor the worst actors in higher ed:

• Gutted Borrower Defense rules, making it harder for defrauded students to cancel loans.

• Eliminated the Gainful Employment rule, allowing for-profit colleges to peddle useless degrees.

• Weakened accreditors' oversight, enabling bad schools to access federal aid with little accountability.

• Backed anti-union efforts, including trying to strip grad students at private universities of their employee status.

This deregulatory spree enriched predatory schools, student loan servicers, and debt collectors—while stripping students and workers of protections.

---

The Academic Underclass

While university presidents earn seven-figure salaries, and campuses build luxury dorms and biotech labs, the people doing the teaching are increasingly disposable. More than 70% of college faculty now work off the tenure track, many as adjuncts earning below minimum wage on a per-course basis (AAUP).

Campus workers—grad students, maintenance staff, food service employees—are organizing for better wages and benefits, but often face union-busting tactics. From Columbia to the University of California, administrators stall negotiations and outsource labor to avoid union contracts (The Guardian, 2022).

---

Universities as Urban Developers

Historian Davarian Baldwin has documented how universities function as engines of gentrification in cities like New Haven, Chicago, and Philadelphia. In In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower, Baldwin argues that universities have become "shadow governments", gobbling up real estate, policing their neighborhoods, and reshaping urban economies—all without democratic accountability.

These “anchor institutions” claim to uplift communities, but their expansion often displaces low-income Black and brown residents, raises housing costs, and erodes the local tax base—since universities are typically exempt from property taxes.

“Higher education is not just about learning anymore. It’s about real estate, policing, health care, and urban planning—all under the control of tax-exempt institutions.” —Davarian Baldwin

---

Endowment Empires

Nowhere is the inequality of U.S. higher education more glaring than in university endowments. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton each have endowments exceeding $30 billion, managed like hedge funds with investments in private equity, real estate, and offshore accounts (NACUBO 2023 Endowment Study).

Despite their wealth:

• These universities often provide limited financial aid to working-class students.

• They pay no federal taxes on endowment income under $500,000 per student.

• They resist efforts to contribute to municipal budgets, even as they consume city resources.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many elite institutions furloughed workers and froze wages—despite posting strong investment returns and sitting on endowments worth more than the GDP of some nations.

Critics argue that these funds should be tapped for student debt relief, housing support, or public education reinvestment—not hoarded like private wealth.

---

The Price of the Racket

The numbers are staggering:

• $1.7 trillion in student debt

• Tens of thousands of adjuncts living in poverty

• Campus police forces more militarized than local law enforcement

• Communities displaced by campus-led gentrification

• Universities with endowments larger than some countries' national budgets

The higher education racket isn’t just an economic problem. It’s a betrayal of public trust.

---

Reclaiming the Public Good

If higher education is to serve the people—not private interests—structural reforms are necessary:

• Cancel student debt and offer tuition-free public college

• Mandate living wages and fair contracts for all campus workers

• Tax large endowments and require community reinvestment

• Reinstate regulations to hold predatory institutions accountable

Higher education once expanded opportunity. It can again—but only if we dismantle the racket.

---

Sources:

• Baldwin, Davarian L. In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower (Bold Type Books, 2021)

• AAUP – Contingent Faculty Data

• NACUBO – 2023 Endowment Study

• The Guardian – University Union-Busting

• NPR – DeVos Deregulation

• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – State Funding Cuts

• College Board – Trends in Tuition

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025

Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]

AGENCY:

Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.

Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation's provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.


Dated: May 13, 2025.

Brian Fu,

Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.


[FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)

Trump vs academia as of May 14 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

 

A Warning to Colorado State University: Proceed with Caution on Ambow’s HybriU Platform

Colorado State University (CSU), a respected public institution with a strong reputation in research and innovation, is reportedly considering a contract with Ambow Education Holding Ltd. to implement its “HybriU” platform, a hybrid learning technology promising to blend in-person and online education. On the surface, such a partnership might appear to align with CSU’s goals of expanding digital learning and staying competitive in the evolving higher education landscape. But a deeper look reveals serious concerns that warrant public scrutiny and administrative caution.

Ambow’s Controversial Background

Ambow Education, though now marketing itself as a U.S.-based edtech company, has deep and lingering connections to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Founded in China and once listed on the New York Stock Exchange before being delisted in 2014 due to accounting irregularities and shareholder lawsuits, Ambow has struggled to shake off its past. Despite reincorporating in the Cayman Islands and operating out of a U.S. office, Ambow continues to raise red flags for investors and watchdogs alike.

According to public filings and investigative reports, key members of Ambow’s leadership maintain ties to Chinese state-affiliated organizations. Moreover, questions have emerged around data security, educational quality, and transparency in the firm’s current operations—especially through its HybriU platform.

Potential Risks to CSU and Its Stakeholders

1. National Security and Data Privacy: Given Ambow’s ties to China and the ongoing concerns about intellectual property theft and surveillance, CSU may be exposing sensitive institutional and student data to foreign actors. Universities are high-value targets for cyber-espionage, particularly those with defense-related research contracts. Even the perception of a compromised platform could damage CSU’s credibility and funding.

2. Regulatory and Reputational Risk: The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies have heightened scrutiny of foreign influence in American higher education, especially from China. Entering into a formal relationship with a company like Ambow could place CSU in the crosshairs of federal investigators, jeopardizing federal grants and inviting political backlash.

3. Academic Integrity and Pedagogical Standards: The HybriU platform has yet to demonstrate proven results at scale in U.S. higher education. Partnering with a firm that has not established a strong record of academic excellence or technological reliability could compromise the learning experience for CSU students, particularly in a time when online education still faces skepticism.

4. Precedents and Red Flags: Other universities and investors have backed away from Ambow in the past. Its prior delisting, financial opacity, and ownership structure should be viewed as warning signs. If CSU moves forward with this partnership, it may find itself entangled in legal or financial complications that were avoidable with proper due diligence.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Higher Education Inquirer urges CSU’s Board of Governors, faculty leadership, and the broader CSU community to fully vet Ambow before committing to any partnership. This includes:

• Demanding full disclosure of Ambow’s ownership, governance, and data-handling practices.

• Consulting with cybersecurity experts and federal authorities about the risks of foreign influence.

• Engaging students, faculty, and IT professionals in a transparent evaluation process.

• Exploring domestic, more secure edtech alternatives that align with CSU’s values and strategic vision.

Conclusion

At a time when public trust in higher education is under strain and geopolitical tensions continue to rise, it is imperative for public institutions like Colorado State University to make decisions that are not only cost-effective but ethically and strategically sound. Partnering with a company like Ambow, without thorough investigation and community input, could pose unacceptable risks.

The CSU community—and the taxpayers of Colorado—deserve better than a gamble on a platform with questionable affiliations. We urge CSU to reconsider.

The Watchdogs of Higher Education: Journalists Covering the College Meltdown

In an era of propaganda, PR masquerading as reporting, and shrinking newsroom budgets, a small cohort of journalists continues to ask the difficult questions about U.S. higher education. These writers are the watchdogs, skeptics, and truth-tellers who probe the system's contradictions—exposing corruption, inequality, and the commodification of learning.

While many mainstream outlets have reduced their education desks or opted for click-friendly content, these journalists persist in a more thankless task: investigating the deeper structures that shape college access, affordability, and legitimacy. Their work is essential in this Digital Dark Age, where universities are marketed like tech products and student debt chains millions to futures they did not choose.

---

Current Watchdogs

• Josh Moody (Inside Higher Ed)
  Steady and detail-oriented, Moody explores enrollment cliffs, closures, and the survival of regional public colleges.

• Natalie Schwartz (Higher Ed Dive)
  A sharp analyst of the robocollege sector, Schwartz highlights OPM contracts, predatory recruitment, and accountability gaps.

• Michael Vasquez (The Chronicle)
  Known for hard-hitting investigations into for-profit schemes and enrollment deceptions.

• Stephanie Saul (The New York Times)
  Tackles elite admissions, racial bias, and the mechanisms of legacy advantage.

• Chris Quintana (USA Today)
  Examines the hidden costs of student debt, accreditation breakdowns, and federal oversight failure.

• Derek Newton (Forbes)
  Unflinching in his critiques of online education scams, weak accreditation, and credential inflation.

• David Halperin (Republic Report)
  Legal-minded and relentless, Halperin holds the Department of Education and the for-profit lobby to account.

• Jon Marcus (Hechinger Report / NPR / The Atlantic)
  A veteran storyteller who humanizes systemic crises—affordability, public disinvestment, and policy drift.

• Rick Seltzer (Chronicle of Higher Education)
  A seasoned reporter, Seltzer has focused on the intersection of state and federal policy, accreditation issues, and the financialization of higher education. His investigative pieces often highlight how policy shifts impact institutions serving the most vulnerable students, particularly in the community college sector. Seltzer’s ability to distill complex policy changes into accessible reporting has made him an essential voice in higher ed journalism.

---

Those Who’ve Left the Beat (But Not Forgotten)

• Eric Kelderman (formerly The Chronicle of Higher Education)
  Kelderman offered deeply researched policy analysis and was one of the few who bridged the world of federal education policy and on-the-ground campus effects. His departure leaves a vacuum in longform institutional memory.

• Katherine Mangan (formerly The Chronicle)
  Known for profiling marginalized students and faculty, Mangan brought empathy and nuance to her reporting. Her stories exposed how abstract policies hit real people—and her absence is deeply felt.

• Jesse Singal (formerly The Chronicle / NY Mag)
  Though now better known for controversial takes in broader cultural debates, Singal once wrote incisively about the psychology of higher ed policy and the unproven assumptions behind new academic models.

• Paul Fain (formerly Inside Higher Ed)
  A go-to source for OPMs and workforce ed, Fain had a unique grasp of the tension between labor markets and academic missions. He now writes the The Job newsletter for Work Shift, with a narrower focus.

• Kelly Field (formerly The Chronicle / freelance)
  Field’s reporting on federal financial aid and for-profit lobbying was some of the most thorough in the industry. Her exit reflects a broader trend: that deeply informed journalists are often priced or pushed out.

• Goldie Blumenstyk (semi-retired, The Chronicle)
  A longtime chronicler of innovation narratives and public-private partnerships, Blumenstyk now writes occasionally but is no longer on the frontlines. Her absence from regular coverage marks the end of an era.

---

Why This Matters

Many of these journalists left not because they lost interest—but because media economics, editorial shifts, or burnout drove them out. The result? Fewer people holding institutions accountable. Fewer watchdogs sniffing out robocollege fraud. Fewer investigations into how DEI is dismantled under political pressure. Less public understanding of how tens of millions became student loan serfs.

In their absence, we see the rise of sponsored content, consultant-driven “thought leadership,” and university propaganda dressed as reporting.

At The Higher Education Inquirer, we believe journalism is not just about reporting the news—it’s about building public memory and resisting amnesia. That’s what these current and former reporters have done. And that’s why we honor both those still in the trenches and those who left with their integrity intact.

If this is truly the Digital Dark Age, then we owe everything to those who kept the lights on—even if only for a while.

Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks (House Select Committee on China)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) are calling on Duke University President Vincent Price to end the Duke Kunshan University (DKU) in China. Through its partnership with Chinese entities, DKU enabled the CCP to access sensitive U.S. technology, including Department of Defense-funded research into advanced camera systems—now used to surveil Tiananmen Square and track millions of people across China. The university has also allowed American students to be exploited in CCP propaganda and showcases imagery of DKU students participating in military-style training on its website. This partnership raises serious concerns about research security, academic freedom, technology transfer, and the manipulation of U.S. students for authoritarian purposes. In their letter, Moolenaar and Walberg write: “DKU, established in 2018 in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), now enrolls over 3,000 students across undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs and specializes in high-technology fields with direct military applications, including data science, artificial intelligence, and materials science. As part of these programs, many DKU students spend time at Duke University, gaining access to federally funded U.S. research. Given the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) well-documented efforts to exploit academic openness, this partnership creates a direct pipeline between U.S. innovation and China’s military-industrial complex…" “…Students were coached to recite “I love China” in Mandarin on camera, while others were repeatedly pressed to “sa[y] what they wanted [students] to say” about Chinese climate policies. Students described feeling “used” as part of a “traveling circus” that was “paraded in front of local press”—their faces later appearing on state media. This was not education but exploitation: a calculated component of Xi Jinping’s “50,000 Initiative” with “no genuine cultural exchange.” Your university’s partnership with Wuhan University directly facilitated the use of these American students as pawns for CCP propaganda." Additional Background: DKU was established as a joint institute between Duke and Wuhan University in 2018.  Wuhan University conducts research in at least five designated defense research areas, trains People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cyber warfare specialists, and plays a central role in China’s Beidou satellite system, which supports missile guidance and military intelligence operations. In February, Duke student Jacqueline Cole wrote an article for the North Carolina news site The Assembly detailing how she and her fellow students were used for CCP propaganda purposes during a DKU-sponsored trip to China. Finally, in a report released in September of 2024, titled “CCP on the Quad,” the House Select Committee on China and the House Education and Workforce Committee listed 21 American universities that have STEM focused joint institutes with Chinese universities. The report identified concerns about Defense Department funded research furthering the PRC's national security goals in areas including high-performance explosives, drone operation networks, nuclear and high-energy physics, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and hypersonics. So far, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California -Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Oakland University are universities named in the report that have ended their joint institutes.

The Epic, Must-Read Coverage in New York Magazine (Derek Newton)

The Epic, Must-Read Coverage in New York Magazine

May 15

READ IN APP

Issue 364

Subscribe below to join 4,663 (+6) other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.

The Cheat Sheet is free. Although, patronage through paid subscriptions is what makes this newsletter possible. Individual subscriptions start at $8 a month ($80 annual), and institutional or corporate subscriptions are $250 a year. You can also support The Cheat Sheet by giving through Patreon.

Upgrade to paid

---

New York Magazine Goes All-In, And It’s Glorious

Venerable New York Magazine ran an epic piece (paywall) on cheating and cheating with AI recently. It’s a thing of beauty. I could have written it. I should have. But honestly, I could not have done much better.

The headline is brutal and blunt:

Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College

To which I say — no kidding.

The piece wanders around, in a good way. But I’m going to try to put things in a more collected order and share only the best and most important parts. If I can. Whether I succeed or not, I highly encourage you to go over and read it.

Lee and Cheating Everything

The story starts with Chungin “Roy” Lee, the former student at Columbia who was kicked out for selling cheating hacks and then started a company to sell cheating hacks. His story is pretty well known at this point, but if you want to review it, we touched on it in Issue 354.

What I learned in this story is that, at Columbia, Lee:

by his own admission, proceeded to use generative artificial intelligence to cheat on nearly every assignment. As a computer-science major, he depended on AI for his introductory programming classes: “I’d just dump the prompt into ChatGPT and hand in whatever it spat out.” By his rough math, AI wrote 80 percent of every essay he turned in.

And:

“Most assignments in college are not relevant,” [Lee] told me. “They’re hackable by AI, and I just had no interest in doing them.” While other new students fretted over the university’s rigorous core curriculum, described by the school as “intellectually expansive” and “personally transformative,” Lee used AI to breeze through with minimal effort.

The article says Lee’s admissions essay for Columbia was AI too.

So, for all the people who were up in arms that Columbia would sanction a student for building a cheating app, maybe there’s more to it than just that. Maybe Lee built a cheating app because he’s a cheater. And, as such, has no place in an environment based on learning. That said, it’s embarrassing that Columbia did not notice a student in such open mockery of their mission. Seriously, embarrassing.

Continuing from the story:

Lee said he doesn’t know a single student at the school who isn’t using AI to cheat. To be clear, Lee doesn’t think this is a bad thing. “I think we are years — or months, probably — away from a world where nobody thinks using AI for homework is considered cheating,” he said.

Also embarrassing for Columbia. But seriously, Lee has no idea what he is talking about. Consider this:

Lee explained to me that by showing the world AI could be used to cheat during a remote job interview, he had pushed the tech industry to evolve the same way AI was forcing higher education to evolve. “Every technological innovation has caused humanity to sit back and think about what work is actually useful,” he said. “There might have been people complaining about machinery replacing blacksmiths in, like, the 1600s or 1800s, but now it’s just accepted that it’s useless to learn how to blacksmith.”

I already regret writing this — but maybe if Lee had done a little more reading, done any writing at all, he could make a stronger argument. His argument here is that of a precocious eighth grader.

OpenAI/ChatGPT and Students

Anyway, here are sections and quotes from the article about students using ChatGPT to cheat. I hope you have a strong stomach.

As a brief aside, having written about this topic for years now, I cannot tell you how hard it is to get students to talk about this. What follows is the highest quality journalism. I am impressed and jealous.

From the story:

“College is just how well I can use ChatGPT at this point,” a student in Utah recently captioned a video of herself copy-and-pasting a chapter from her Genocide and Mass Atrocity textbook into ChatGPT.

More:

Sarah, a freshman at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, said she first used ChatGPT to cheat during the spring semester of her final year of high school.

And:

After getting acquainted with the chatbot, Sarah used it for all her classes: Indigenous studies, law, English, and a “hippie farming class” called Green Industries. “My grades were amazing,” she said. “It changed my life.” Sarah continued to use AI when she started college this past fall. Why wouldn’t she? Rarely did she sit in class and not see other students’ laptops open to ChatGPT. Toward the end of the semester, she began to think she might be dependent on the website. She already considered herself addicted to TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Reddit, where she writes under the username maybeimnotsmart. “I spend so much time on TikTok,” she said. “Hours and hours, until my eyes start hurting, which makes it hard to plan and do my schoolwork. With ChatGPT, I can write an essay in two hours that normally takes 12.”

This really is where we are. These students are not outliers.

Worse, being as clear here as I know how to be — 95% of colleges do not care. At least not enough to do anything about it. They are, in my view, perfectly comfortable with their students faking it, laughing their way through the process, because fixing it is hard. It’s easier to look cool and “embrace” AI than to acknowledge the obvious and existential truth.

But let’s keep going:

now, as one student put it, “the ceiling has been blown off.” Who could resist a tool that makes every assignment easier with seemingly no consequences?

Please mentally underline the “no consequences” part. These are not bad people, the students using ChatGPT and other AI products to cheat. They are making an obvious choice — easy and no penalty versus actual, serious work. So long as this continues to be the equation, cheating will be as common as breathing. Only idiots and masochists will resist.

Had enough? No? Here:

Wendy, a freshman finance major at one of the city’s top universities, told me that she is against using AI. Or, she clarified, “I’m against copy-and-pasting. I’m against cheating and plagiarism. All of that. It’s against the student handbook.” Then she described, step-by-step, how on a recent Friday at 8 a.m., she called up an AI platform to help her write a four-to-five-page essay due two hours later.

Of course. When you ask students if they condone cheating, most say no. Most also say they do not cheat. Then, when you ask about what they do specifically, it’s textbook cheating. As I remember reading in Cheating in College, when you ask students to explain this disconnect, they often say, “Well, when I did it, it was not cheating.” Wendy is a good example.

In any case, this next section is long, and I regret sharing all of it. I really want people to read the article. But this, like so much of it, is worth reading. Even if you read it here.

More on Wendy:

Whenever Wendy uses AI to write an essay (which is to say, whenever she writes an essay), she follows three steps. Step one: “I say, ‘I’m a first-year college student. I’m taking this English class.’” Otherwise, Wendy said, “it will give you a very advanced, very complicated writing style, and you don’t want that.” Step two: Wendy provides some background on the class she’s taking before copy-and-pasting her professor’s instructions into the chatbot. Step three: “Then I ask, ‘According to the prompt, can you please provide me an outline or an organization to give me a structure so that I can follow and write my essay?’ It then gives me an outline, introduction, topic sentences, paragraph one, paragraph two, paragraph three.” Sometimes, Wendy asks for a bullet list of ideas to support or refute a given argument: “I have difficulty with organization, and this makes it really easy for me to follow.”

Once the chatbot had outlined Wendy’s essay, providing her with a list of topic sentences and bullet points of ideas, all she had to do was fill it in. Wendy delivered a tidy five-page paper at an acceptably tardy 10:17 a.m. When I asked her how she did on the assignment, she said she got a good grade. “I really like writing,” she said, sounding strangely nostalgic for her high-school English class — the last time she wrote an essay unassisted. “Honestly,” she continued, “I think there is beauty in trying to plan your essay. You learn a lot. You have to think, Oh, what can I write in this paragraph? Or What should my thesis be? ” But she’d rather get good grades. “An essay with ChatGPT, it’s like it just gives you straight up what you have to follow. You just don’t really have to think that much.”

I asked Wendy if I could read the paper she turned in, and when I opened the document, I was surprised to see the topic: critical pedagogy, the philosophy of education pioneered by Paulo Freire. The philosophy examines the influence of social and political forces on learning and classroom dynamics. Her opening line: “To what extent is schooling hindering students’ cognitive ability to think critically?” Later, I asked Wendy if she recognized the irony in using AI to write not just a paper on critical pedagogy but one that argues learning is what “makes us truly human.” She wasn’t sure what to make of the question. “I use AI a lot. Like, every day,” she said. “And I do believe it could take away that critical-thinking part. But it’s just — now that we rely on it, we can’t really imagine living without it.”

Unfortunately, we’ve read this before. Many times. Use of generative AI to outsource the effort of learning is rampant.

Want more? There’s also Daniel, a computer science student at the University of Florida:

AI has made Daniel more curious; he likes that whenever he has a question, he can quickly access a thorough answer. But when he uses AI for homework, he often wonders, If I took the time to learn that, instead of just finding it out, would I have learned a lot more? At school, he asks ChatGPT to make sure his essays are polished and grammatically correct, to write the first few paragraphs of his essays when he’s short on time, to handle the grunt work in his coding classes, to cut basically all cuttable corners. Sometimes, he knows his use of AI is a clear violation of student conduct, but most of the time it feels like he’s in a gray area. “I don’t think anyone calls seeing a tutor cheating, right? But what happens when a tutor starts writing lines of your paper for you?” he said.

When a tutor starts writing your paper for you, if you turn that paper in for credit you receive, that’s cheating. This is not complicated. People who sell cheating services and the people who buy them want to make it seem complicated. It’s not.

And the Teachers

Like the coverage of students, the article’s work with teachers is top-rate. And what they have to say is not one inch less important. For example:

Brian Patrick Green, a tech-ethics scholar at Santa Clara University, immediately stopped assigning essays after he tried ChatGPT for the first time. Less than three months later, teaching a course called Ethics and Artificial Intelligence, he figured a low-stakes reading reflection would be safe — surely no one would dare use ChatGPT to write something personal. But one of his students turned in a reflection with robotic language and awkward phrasing that Green knew was AI-generated. A philosophy professor across the country at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock caught students in her Ethics and Technology class using AI to respond to the prompt “Briefly introduce yourself and say what you’re hoping to get out of this class.”

Students are cheating — using AI to outsource their expected learning labor — in a class called Ethics and Artificial Intelligence. And in an Ethics and Technology class. At what point does reality’s absurdity outpace our ability to even understand it?

Also, as I’ve been barking about for some time now, low-stakes assignments are probably more likely to be cheated than high-stakes ones (see Issue 64). I don’t really get why professional educators don’t get this.

But returning to the topic:

After spending the better part of the past two years grading AI-generated papers, Troy Jollimore, a poet, philosopher, and Cal State Chico ethics professor, has concerns. “Massive numbers of students are going to emerge from university with degrees, and into the workforce, who are essentially illiterate,”

To read about Jollimore’s outstanding essay, see Issue 346.

And, of course, there’s more. Like the large section above, I regret copying so much of it, but it’s essential reading:

Many teachers now seem to be in a state of despair. In the fall, Sam Williams was a teaching assistant for a writing-intensive class on music and social change at the University of Iowa that, officially, didn’t allow students to use AI at all. Williams enjoyed reading and grading the class’s first assignment: a personal essay that asked the students to write about their own music tastes. Then, on the second assignment, an essay on the New Orleans jazz era (1890 to 1920), many of his students’ writing styles changed drastically. Worse were the ridiculous factual errors. Multiple essays contained entire paragraphs on Elvis Presley (born in 1935). “I literally told my class, ‘Hey, don’t use AI. But if you’re going to cheat, you have to cheat in a way that’s intelligent. You can’t just copy exactly what it spits out,’” Williams said.

Williams knew most of the students in this general-education class were not destined to be writers, but he thought the work of getting from a blank page to a few semi-coherent pages was, above all else, a lesson in effort. In that sense, most of his students utterly failed. “They’re using AI because it’s a simple solution and it’s an easy way for them not to put in time writing essays. And I get it, because I hated writing essays when I was in school,” Williams said. “But now, whenever they encounter a little bit of difficulty, instead of fighting their way through that and growing from it, they retreat to something that makes it a lot easier for them.”

By November, Williams estimated that at least half of his students were using AI to write their papers. Attempts at accountability were pointless. Williams had no faith in AI detectors, and the professor teaching the class instructed him not to fail individual papers, even the clearly AI-smoothed ones. “Every time I brought it up with the professor, I got the sense he was underestimating the power of ChatGPT, and the departmental stance was, ‘Well, it’s a slippery slope, and we can’t really prove they’re using AI,’” Williams said. “I was told to grade based on what the essay would’ve gotten if it were a ‘true attempt at a paper.’ So I was grading people on their ability to use ChatGPT.”

The “true attempt at a paper” policy ruined Williams’s grading scale. If he gave a solid paper that was obviously written with AI a B, what should he give a paper written by someone who actually wrote their own paper but submitted, in his words, “a barely literate essay”? The confusion was enough to sour Williams on education as a whole. By the end of the semester, he was so disillusioned that he decided to drop out of graduate school altogether. “We’re in a new generation, a new time, and I just don’t think that’s what I want to do,” he said.

To be clear, the school is ignoring the obvious use of AI by students to avoid the work of learning — in violation of stated policies — and awarding grades, credit, and degrees anyway. Nearly universally, we are meeting lack of effort with lack of effort.

More from Jollimore:

He worries about the long-term consequences of passively allowing 18-year-olds to decide whether to actively engage with their assignments.

I worry about that too. I really want to use the past tense there — worried about. I think the age of active worry about this is over. Students are deciding what work they think is relevant or important — which I’d wager is next to none of it — and using AI to shrug off everything else. And again, the collective response of educators seems to be — who cares? Or, in some cases, to quit.

More on professors:

Some professors have resorted to deploying so-called Trojan horses, sticking strange phrases, in small white text, in between the paragraphs of an essay prompt. (The idea is that this would theoretically prompt ChatGPT to insert a non sequitur into the essay.) Students at Santa Clara recently found the word broccoli hidden in a professor’s assignment. Last fall, a professor at the University of Oklahoma sneaked the phrases “mention Finland” and “mention Dua Lipa” in his. A student discovered his trap and warned her classmates about it on TikTok. “It does work sometimes,” said Jollimore, the Cal State Chico professor. “I’ve used ‘How would Aristotle answer this?’ when we hadn’t read Aristotle. But I’ve also used absurd ones and they didn’t notice that there was this crazy thing in their paper, meaning these are people who not only didn’t write the paper but also didn’t read their own paper before submitting it.”

You can catch students using ChatGPT, if you want to. There are ways to do it, ways to limit it. And I wish the reporter had asked these teachers what happened to the students who were discovered. But I am sure I know the answer.

I guess also, I apologize. Some educators are engaged in the fight to protect and preserve the value of learning things. I feel that it’s far too few and that, more often than not, they are alone in this. It’s depressing.

Odds and Ends

In addition to its excellent narrative about how bad things actually are in a GPT-corrupted education system, the article has a few other bits worth sharing.

This, is pretty great:

Before OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022, cheating had already reached a sort of zenith. At the time, many college students had finished high school remotely, largely unsupervised, and with access to tools like Chegg and Course Hero. These companies advertised themselves as vast online libraries of textbooks and course materials but, in reality, were cheating multi-tools. For $15.95 a month, Chegg promised answers to homework questions in as little as 30 minutes, 24/7, from the 150,000 experts with advanced degrees it employed, mostly in India. When ChatGPT launched, students were primed for a tool that was faster, more capable.

Mentioning Chegg and Course Hero by name is strong work. Cheating multi-tools is precisely what they are.

I thought this was interesting too:

Students talk about professors who are rumored to have certain thresholds (25 percent, say) above which an essay might be flagged as an honor-code violation. But I couldn’t find a single professor — at large state schools or small private schools, elite or otherwise — who admitted to enforcing such a policy. Most seemed resigned to the belief that AI detectors don’t work. It’s true that different AI detectors have vastly different success rates, and there is a lot of conflicting data. While some claim to have less than a one percent false-positive rate, studies have shown they trigger more false positives for essays written by neurodivergent students and students who speak English as a second language.

I have a few things to say about this.

Students talk to one another. Remember a few paragraphs up where a student found the Trojan horse and posted it on social media? When teachers make efforts to stop cheating, to try catching disallowed use of AI, word gets around. Some students will try harder to get away with it. Others won’t try to cheat, figuring the risk isn’t worth it. Simply trying to stop it, in other words, will stop at least some of it.

I think the idea that most teachers think AI detectors don’t work is true. It’s not just teachers. Entire schools believe this. It’s an epic failure of messaging, an astonishing triumph of the misinformed. Truth is, as reported above, detectors do vary. Some are great. Some are junk. But the good ones work. Most people continue to not believe it.

And I’ll point out once again that the “studies have shown” thing is complete nonsense. As far as I have seen, exactly two studies have shown this, and both are deeply flawed. The one most often cited has made-up citations and research that is highly suspicious, which I pointed out in 2023 (see Issue 216). Frankly, I’ve not seen any good evidence to support this idea. As journalism goes, that’s a big miss in this story. It’s little wonder teachers think AI detectors don’t work.

On the subject of junk AI detectors, there’s also this:

I fed Wendy’s essay through a free AI detector, ZeroGPT, and it came back as 11.74 AI-generated, which seemed low given that AI, at the very least, had generated her central arguments. I then fed a chunk of text from the Book of Genesis into ZeroGPT and it came back as 93.33 percent AI-generated.

This is a failure to understand how AI detection works. But also ZeroGPT does not work. Again, it’s no wonder that teachers think AI detection does not work.

Continuing:

It’s not just the students: Multiple AI platforms now offer tools to leave AI-generated feedback on students’ essays. Which raises the possibility that AIs are now evaluating AI-generated papers, reducing the entire academic exercise to a conversation between two robots — or maybe even just one.

I don’t have nearly the bandwidth to get into this. But — sure. I have no doubt.

Finally, I am not sure if I missed this at the time, but this is important too:

In January 2023, just two months after OpenAI launched ChatGPT, a survey of 1,000 college students found that nearly 90 percent of them had used the chatbot to help with homework assignments. In its first year of existence, ChatGPT’s total monthly visits steadily increased month-over-month until June, when schools let out for the summer. (That wasn’t an anomaly: Traffic dipped again over the summer in 2024.) Professors and teaching assistants increasingly found themselves staring at essays filled with clunky, robotic phrasing that, though grammatically flawless, didn’t sound quite like a college student — or even a human. Two and a half years later, students at large state schools, the Ivies, liberal-arts schools in New England, universities abroad, professional schools, and community colleges are relying on AI to ease their way through every facet of their education.

As I have said before, OpenAI is not your friend (see Issue 308). It’s a cheating engine. It can be used well, and ethically. But so can steroids. So could OxyContin. It’s possible to be handed the answers to every test you’ll ever take and not use them. But it is delusional to think any significant number of people don’t.

All wrapped up, this is a show-stopper of an article and I am very happy for the visibility it brings. I wish I could feel that it will make a difference.

Upgrade to paid