A Brown University economics professor has publicly criticized his institution for what he describes as a slow and lackluster response to an alleged mass artificial intelligence (AI) cheating scandal among his students earlier this year.
Roberto Serrano, in an op-ed for The Free Press, detailed how he moved his midterm and final exams online for the spring semester following a campus shooting in December. This shift led to a significant increase in enrollment, with 86 students signing up for his course, far exceeding the typical 30.
Following the online midterm, Serrano reported an average grade of 96, a substantial jump from the usual 65-80 range in previous years. He noted that 40 students achieved perfect scores, and many of the answers closely resembled responses generated by AI tools like ChatGPT.
In response, Serrano decided to make the final exam in-person and informed students that midterm scores would be voided if they did not align with expected performance levels. After this announcement, the number of students taking the final exam dropped to 59, with the average grade falling to 48.6. Notably, 22 of the 27 students who withdrew from the course and exam had previously achieved perfect scores on the midterm.
Serrano stated that he presented his findings and evidence to Brown University's Committee on the Academic Code and The Brown Daily Herald, a campus publication that had previously reported on cheating. However, he claimed that the university did not formally acknowledge his evidence until his story gained significant attention online.
"Academia is supposed to be one of our great beacons of truth," Serrano wrote. "We cannot afford to tolerate or reinforce such appallingly low moral values among many of our best young minds. What happened in my class should be a lesson to all: In our new AI era, if you do not expose and punish cheating, you will encourage it. We must all have the strength to choose otherwise."
Brown University, in a statement to Fox News Digital, maintained that it has been "consistently responsive" to Serrano's concerns. The university stated that academic leaders had been in contact with Serrano in May and provided details on how allegations could be formally adjudicated. According to the university, Serrano provided the necessary details to the Standing Committee on the Academic Code on July 8, and the committee is now proceeding with its procedures.
Serrano shared his story publicly on June 28, and reported receiving contact from the Brown University committee three days later, requesting more evidence. He wrote that after his account was published by Inside Higher Ed, the school committed to investigating his claims and the students involved.
"I am very grateful that they finally took this step. But there is no doubt in my mind that nothing would have happened if I had not decided to go public. Brown, like other schools, is struggling with how to integrate AI so that it advances rather than compromises the university’s mission," Serrano stated.
He also addressed the notion that students might use AI to alleviate pressure, asserting that the competitive environment has always existed and that the extended time on his midterm exam suggested a deliberate act of cheating rather than a last resort.
"Particularly these days, AI has dramatically reduced the difficulty of cheating, making it much easier to succumb to the temptation to do so. The only solution, then, is to impose the right incentives to influence behavior in a better direction," Serrano added.