arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2408.11841

Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants

Beatriz Borges·Negar Foroutan·Deniz Bayazit·Anna Sotnikova·Syrielle Montariol·Tanya Nazaretzky·Mohammadreza Banaei·Alireza Sakhaeirad·Philippe Servant·Seyed Parsa Neshaei·Jibril Frej·Angelika Romanou·Gail Weiss·Sepideh Mamooler·Zeming Chen·Simin Fan·Silin Gao·Mete Ismayilzada·Debjit Paul·Alexandre Schöpfer·Andrej Janchevski·Anja Tiede·Clarence Linden·Emanuele Troiani·Francesco Salvi·Freya Behrens·Giacomo Orsi·Giovanni Piccioli·Hadrien Sevel·Louis Coulon·Manuela Pineros-Rodriguez·Marin Bonnassies·Pierre Hellich·Puck van Gerwen·Sankalp Gambhir·Solal Pirelli·Thomas Blanchard·Timothée Callens·Toni Abi Aoun·Yannick Calvino Alonso·Yuri Cho·Alberto Chiappa·Antonio Sclocchi·Étienne Bruno·Florian Hofhammer·Gabriel Pescia·Geovani Rizk·Leello Dadi·Lucas Stoffl·Manoel Horta Ribeiro·Matthieu Bovel·Yueyang Pan·Aleksandra Radenovic·Alexandre Alahi·Alexander Mathis·Anne-Florence Bitbol·Boi Faltings·Cécile Hébert·Devis Tuia·François Maréchal·George Candea·Giuseppe Carleo·Jean-Cédric Chappelier·Nicolas Flammarion·Jean-Marie Fürbringer·Jean-Philippe Pellet·Karl Aberer·Lenka Zdeborová·Marcel Salathé·Martin Jaggi·Martin Rajman·Mathias Payer·Matthieu Wyart·Michael Gastpar·Michele Ceriotti·Ola Svensson·Olivier Lévêque·Paolo Ienne·Rachid Guerraoui·Robert West·Sanidhya Kashyap·Valerio Piazza·Viesturs Simanis·Viktor Kuncak·Volkan Cevher·Philippe Schwaller·Sacha Friedli·Patrick Jermann·Tanja Käser·Antoine Bosselut
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by student use of generative AI. We investigate the potential scale of this vulnerability by measuring the degree to which AI assistants can complete assessment questions in standard university-level STEM courses. Specifically, we compile a novel dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at EPFL and evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adequately answer these questions. We use eight prompting strategies to produce responses and find that GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. When grouping courses in our dataset by degree program, these systems already pass non-project assessments of large numbers of core courses in various degree programs, posing risks to higher education accreditation that will be amplified as these models improve. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Beatriz Borges, Negar Foroutan, Deniz Bayazit, Anna Sotnikova, Syrielle Montariol, Tanya Nazaretzky, Mohammadreza Banaei, Alireza Sakhaeirad, Philippe Servant, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Jibril Frej, Angelika Romanou, Gail Weiss, Sepideh Mamooler, Zeming Chen, Simin Fan, Silin Gao, Mete Ismayilzada, Debjit Paul, Alexandre Schöpfer, Andrej Janchevski, Anja Tiede, Clarence Linden, Emanuele Troiani, Francesco Salvi, Freya Behrens, Giacomo Orsi, Giovanni Piccioli, Hadrien Sevel, Louis Coulon, Manuela Pineros-Rodriguez, Marin Bonnassies, Pierre Hellich, Puck van Gerwen, Sankalp Gambhir, Solal Pirelli, Thomas Blanchard, Timothée Callens, Toni Abi Aoun, Yannick Calvino Alonso, Yuri Cho, Alberto Chiappa, Antonio Sclocchi, Étienne Bruno, Florian Hofhammer, Gabriel Pescia, Geovani Rizk, Leello Dadi, Lucas Stoffl, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Matthieu Bovel, Yueyang Pan, Aleksandra Radenovic, Alexandre Alahi, Alexander Mathis, Anne-Florence Bitbol, Boi Faltings, Cécile Hébert, Devis Tuia, François Maréchal, George Candea, Giuseppe Carleo, Jean-Cédric Chappelier, Nicolas Flammarion, Jean-Marie Fürbringer, Jean-Philippe Pellet, Karl Aberer, Lenka Zdeborová, Marcel Salathé, Martin Jaggi, Martin Rajman, Mathias Payer, Matthieu Wyart, Michael Gastpar, Michele Ceriotti, Ola Svensson, Olivier Lévêque, Paolo Ienne, Rachid Guerraoui, Robert West, Sanidhya Kashyap, Valerio Piazza, Viesturs Simanis, Viktor Kuncak, Volkan Cevher, Philippe Schwaller, Sacha Friedli, Patrick Jermann, Tanja Käser, Antoine Bosselut. 2024-08-07. Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414955121

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗