aceEmerging evidence
More
AI has made it ‘close to impossible’ to assess university coursework, regulator says
- Evidence type
- Interviews or qualitative study
- Sample
- n = 300
- Sources
- 1 sourceJournalism
- Published
- 2 min read
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2468cite or check it
Universities should go back to traditional exams and in-person presentations to grade students after lecturers complained that AI has made it “close to impossible” to assess coursework, according to an investigation by England’s higher education regulator. The Office for Students (OfS) said the credibility of degrees from England’s universities was under threat from the prolific use of AI in essays, dissertations and “open book” exams, with students reporting that their peers boasted of using AI undetected by st…
The problem
In interviews with more than 300 students and staff at 127 English universities and colleges, staff said AI use made coursework assessment "close to impossible" in some areas, and students said AI-assisted work earned similar grades to work done without it.
In brief
England's Office for Students (OfS) says AI has made it "close to impossible" to assess some university coursework. After an investigation with the charity Advance HE, it urged universities to return to traditional exams and in-person presentations.
The regulator says the credibility of English degrees is under threat from heavy AI use in essays, dissertations and open-book exams. It warned that institutions failing to design valid and reliable measures of student knowledge and skills could breach their registration conditions and face sanctions.
Many institutions have already changed how they assess students, with more in-person exams and vivas. The Department for Education said it expects the OfS to enforce standards and make its framework explicit on AI, and Universities UK said more work remains.
Main points
- The OfS and Advance HE interviewed more than 300 students and staff at 127 universities and colleges this year about AI policies and use in teaching and assessment.
- Students said peers completed assessments with AI "sometimes in just a few minutes" and got similar grades to those who did not use it.
- Some students described peers unable to recall basic details of an assessment they had just submitted.
- Academics reported many submissions that looked the same, cited the same literature and were written in the same style.
- The OfS warned that failing to design valid and reliable assessment could breach registration conditions and lead to sanctions.
- Redesigns already in use include in-person written exams, vivas, critiquing or editing AI output, and process-based assessments.
- Josh Fleming, the OfS director of strategy and delivery, called AI use a "generational risk" and asked for far greater use of AI-free assessment.
The full story
The report draws on interviews with more than 300 students and staff across 127 institutions. One academic said coursework is now "overwhelmingly written in part, or exclusively, with the help of AI", and another said some assessments may be unfit for purpose.
Students described peers admitting to writing whole essays with ChatGPT, not being caught and receiving good grades, then repeating the approach in later assessments. Academics also reported batches of near-identical submissions.
The regulator's response combines pressure and guidance. It wants far greater use of AI-free assessment and warns of sanctions, while pointing to institutions that now use vivas, in-person exams and process-based assessment. Universities UK, which represents 147 institutions, said some assessments now integrate AI in a controlled way.
Talk it overFour questions for a class, a team or the dinner table
Who carries this cost, and what would have to change to prevent it?
The problem In interviews with more than 300 students and staff at 127 English universities and colleges, staff said AI use made coursework assessment "close to impossible" in some areas, and students said AI-assisted work earned similar grades to work done without it.
How do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?
The evidence This rests on interviews or another qualitative study with a sample of 300, from The Guardian.
What does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?
The record’s own caveat The findings come from interviews with students and staff and their reported views, rather than from measured rates of AI use or grading outcomes.
Have you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?
The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.
Sources
1 on file- The Guardiantheguardian.com
The debate