(356) Students Using AI to Apply for Scholarships and College Admissions
Plus, want to buy an essay mill? Plus, Charles Sturt University seeks integrity officer.
Issue 356
Subscribe below to join 4,620 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.
Students Using AI to Apply for Scholarships, College Admissions
The Hechinger Report, a non-profit news outlet for which I have written a few times, had a story out at the end of March about — surprise, surprise — students using AI to write essays for scholarships and college admissions.
The story has some goofs, but also a few pieces worth passing along.
It begins with Will Geiger, who, the story tells us, has reviewed:
about 10,000 college application essays over the course of a years-long career in college admissions and scholarships
After ChatGPT became a thing, Geiger started to notice that the essays were familiar, formulaic, and “sterile.” He ran about 1,000 scholarship application essays through the AI detector GPTZero:
and determined that about 42 percent of them had likely been composed with the help of generative AI.
Obligatory note — no one should use GPTZero. That aside, I am surprised it was only 42%.
This is also interesting:
A 2024 survey of college applicants found that about 50 percent had used AI for brainstorming essays, 47 percent had used it to create an outline, and about 20 percent had used it to generate first drafts.
Since it’s a survey, I’d double those numbers. But whether you do or not, that is pervasive use. And I am sure every single one of these students stopped at brainstorming, or a first draft.
There’s also this:
Not all scholarship providers or colleges have policies on exactly how AI can or cannot be used in prospective student essays. For example, Common App forbids the use of generative AI but doesn’t check individual essays unless someone files a report of suspected fraud. Jackson Sternberg, a spokesperson for Common App, declined to share how many reports of fraud they get each year or how they handle their investigations.
Wait, the Common App forbids the use of AI in a college application?
But, but — I was told that we were supposed to be teaching students to write with AI, to be AI literate, whatever that means. I was told that AI was inevitable and that, if we did not embrace it, we are falling behind. Turns out, that in addition to not being able to use AI on many job applications, you can’t even use it in college applications. Imagine that.
But also, come on, Common App. If you’re going to say in public that you’re not checking essays, your policy is pointless. It’s illegal to speed here, but no one ever checks. Nice. And having done this for a few years now, I generally believe that if you decline to share information, you don’t have any. I mean, this is a joke. An absolute farce. If you have a policy against using AI, there is no reasonable justification for not checking. We respect what we inspect, a friend of mine used to say.
Also:
Because detection software isn’t always accurate, Geiger said, Scholarships360 doesn’t base scholarship decisions on whether essays were flagged as being generated by AI. But, he said, many of the students whose essays were flagged weren’t awarded a given scholarship because “if your writing is being mistaken for AI,” whether you used the technology or not, for a scholarship or admissions essay, “it’s probably going to be missing the mark.”
The takeaway is, I guess, unsurprising — that students are defaulting to AI to write for them, reducing their chances of getting the things they want. I guess it’s a good reminder. Or warning.
At the same time, the story goes off the rails in parts. For example, it reports:
Tools like GPTZero aren’t reliable 100 percent of the time. The Markup, a news outlet focused on technology, reported on a study that found writing by non-native-English speakers is far more likely to get flagged as being AI-generated than writing by native English speakers. And several other studies have found that the accuracy rates of such tools vary widely.
It is true that GPTZero is not “reliable 100 percent of the time.” It’s pretty bad. But using GPTZero as a stand-in for all tools like it, is lazy. And misleading.
And that story from The Markup was complete garbage (see Issue 233). But Hechinger repeats it, as if it’s credible. Same thing with that study — simply not credible (see Issue 216). But Hechinger applies not a drop of skeptical thinking. Or research. Copy and repeat. That’s disappointing.
Finally, there is this, which makes me want to scream:
Some companies offer services to help students use AI to improve their work, rather than to cheat — such as getting help writing an outline, using proper grammar or making points effectively. Generative AI can proofread an essay, and can even tell a student whether their teacher is likely to flag it as AI-assisted.
Tell me where the line is between helping students improve their work and cheating. I’ll wait.
And golly — generative AI “can even tell a student whether their teacher is likely to flag it as AI-assisted.” Let me scratch my head while I consider under what circumstances that may be useful. I have not taken any drugs, but let me take a drug test to see whether I am likely to be flagged anyway, said no rational human ever.
Sometimes, I actually wonder whether people think about the things they write.
Anyway, students are using AI to get things with as little effort as possible. Shocker, I know.
Want to Buy an Essay Mill?
Whenever possible, I identify my sources. I think it’s good practice, consistent with integrity, and important for trust.
In fact, I recently revoked the subscription of someone who was regularly pasting content from The Cheat Sheet on their LinkedIn page without mentioning where they got it — like they’d just come across these interesting papers and articles. I know it’s not always possible to include attribution, but I hate that. Obviously.
Accordingly, I found this item on the LinkedIn feed of Thomas Lancaster — the “academic integrity advocate” who inexplicably decided to join up with Chegg (see Issue 298). I say inexplicable because I did ask him if he wanted to explain. He has not.
In any case, that’s the chain of custody, not the item; and the item is interesting. Lancaster found an essay mill for sale.
The ad says the 10-year-old essay writing company, based in Czechia, has an annual profit of $162,000 with a profit margin of 62%. The ad also says the “essay writing platform delivering high-quality academic and text writing services” has “a loyal customer base.”
The ad does not say how much the business is going for, although I do wish I could buy it. I’d love every second of it.
But $162,000 annual profit. Cheating pays.
Here is another cheating company for sale. This one is a “chat-bot AI essay writer” and is, according to the listing:
mobile chatbot apps based on GPT with subscription business-model and $4,000/mo income from old subscriptions.
$4,000 a month — ChatGPT essay writing. Cheating pays.
Charles Sturt University (AUS) Seeks Associate Director Academic Integrity
Charles Sturt University, a public university in Australia, has posted a job vacancy for an Associate Director Academic Integrity.
From the listing:
This newly created role will empower you to cultivate and champion a strong culture of academic integrity across the university. Reporting to the Director, Academic Quality, Standards and Integrity, you will lead the Academic Integrity Unit, managing the strategic oversight and operational excellence in academic misconduct processes.
This is a unique opportunity to enhance the University's culture of academic integrity through leadership of the Academic Integrity Unit. The role will see you shape policy and practice, educate and develop others, and lead a unit committed to fair and consistent application of academic standards.
Wow — a Director, Academic Quality, Standards and Integrity. I am impressed. And jealous.
Also, good for the leadership at Charles Sturt. Investing in integrity by making it someone’s job — still impressed. Seriously, well done.
If you know of a job opening in assessment security, academic integrity, or a related area, send it over. I am happy to share it here.