I went to uni to learn. What I discovered about my generation has made me angry and terrified

The Sydney Morning Herald logo

Advertisement

June 27, 2026 — 5:00am<br>SaveYou have reached your maximum number of saved items.<br>Remove items from your saved list to add more.

Share

AAA

University mid-year exams are here, but most of my fellow students of 2026 can be reassured that their futures will not be on the line from a few hours spent in an open hall like the Royal Exhibition Building. Many subjects don’t have exams at all or have “take-home exams”. For students who do have to sit exams, many more will have already secured most of the grades from their bedrooms without having sat a single in-person test.<br>Completing work at home isn’t inherently a problem. What alarms me is the flagrant, unregulated way that I’m seeing my generation of uni students use artificial intelligence to do the work for them. Students aren’t using AI to think better; they’re using it to avoid thinking at all. Universities say they are discouraging this kind of behaviour, while structuring student assessments in ways that promote it. It’s no wonder academics like Kylie Moore-Gilbert and Marvin Starominski-Uehara are questioning the value of a degree.

Universities are where we students should be developing our values and views through reading, listening and conversation.Simon Schluter I’m no technophobe who believes that ChatGPT is the devil incarnate and that we should all write exams with ballpoint pens. In fact, I’m a dyslexic, first-year arts student who spent the end of year 12 asking ChatGPT for sample exam questions and model answers, which is a useful and legitimate study tool. But I’m frustrated at the unfair way AI is being used.<br>Every week, I attend tutorials. My experience: the tutor asks a question, kids consult ChatGPT to provide a script for answers; the things we allegedly come to university to hone. Meanwhile, the tutor looks around bleakly at a sea of blank faces behind laptops.

Advertisement

Privately, students discuss which parts of their essays ChatGPT wrote for them, or how it, or Grammarly, or some other AI “proofread” their work and “made it sound more academic”. (In case you aren’t a ChatGPT user and aren’t aware, this means ChatGPT takes your essay, completely changes it – “keeping your sentiment,” of course — and spits you out a “polished, HD-level, final version”.)<br>It’s not just us arts students. In the University of Melbourne subjects Biomolecules and Cells, or Fundamentals of Chemistry, for example, 40 per cent of students’ grades are comprised of out-of-class assessment. By which I mean an online worksheet completed from bed. That might have been fine six years ago in the grip of COVID-19. But today, when ChatGPT can complete any calculation or short answer question in an instant, and students in tutorials gloat about their “easy 100 per cent. No study,” (and, yes, this is a quote) and “I just chucked it all into Chat,” I feel like we might have a problem.

Students at the University of Melbourne.Simon SchluterWhen AI has secured you top marks for your take-home work, you don’t need to do much on your exam to get a pass. And even in your exam, AI can do the work for you. When a cohort is told that their biology end-of-year exam allows a double-sided cheat sheet, I’ll give you a clue what the immediate response is: “Chat-GPT, here’s my entire bio syllabus and the past exams … could you summarise the whole thing for me, highlighting important information?”<br>And I don’t want to single out Melbourne Uni. A Monash University law student told me of his recent video assignment for, ironically, Contracts Law: “Yeah, just Chattersed the whole thing, mate. The f--- would they know; it’s a video.”

Advertisement

Related Article

Opinion<br>University<br>I’m an academic, but I’ve told my stepdaughter to think twice about going to university<br>Kylie Moore-GilbertPolitical scientist and writer

Universities are where we students should be developing our values and views through reading, listening and conversation. So, what happens when generated summaries replace listening, reading culture withers, and conversation lapses into silent video watching?<br>Any of us would be concerned to discover our doctor didn’t watch lectures in medical school but instead used Claude AI software to summarise already AI-generated transcripts. Yet this is exactly what students – at UTAS, Monash, Uni Melb, USYD, UNSW, and UQ, to name a few – have privately admitted to doing, either to me in person when I researched this article, or on Reddit threads. Monash University even promotes the use of AI in this way with an instruction manual. We would be just as worried that universities are graduating schoolteachers who never learned what they are to teach. Is the next generation of teachers going to pride themselves most of all for the AI prompts they pass on to their students?<br>With their lack of enforcement regarding AI use, universities all but...