Could ChatGPT get an engineering degree? Evaluating higher education vulnerability to AI assistants

AI assistants, such as ChatGPT, are being increasingly used by students 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 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses. Specifically, we compile a dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (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 the nonproject 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2024-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414955121
Citations
22
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.65

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Could ChatGPT get an engineering degree? Evaluating higher education vulnerability to AI assistants

Jibril Frej, Tanja Käser, Deniz Bayazit, Zeming Chen et al.
22 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
2.65
article

Could ChatGPT get an engineering degree? Evaluating higher education vulnerability to AI assistants

Jibril Frej, Tanja Käser, Deniz Bayazit, Zeming Chen, Simin Fan, Philippe Schwaller, Negar Foroutan, Debjit Paul, Mete Ismayilzada, Sacha Friedli, Gail Garfinkel Weiss, Patrick Jermann, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Syrielle Montariol, Tanya Nazaretsky, Antoine Bosselut, Alireza Sakhaeirad, Beatriz Borges, Silin Gao, Mohammadreza Banaei, Anna Sotnikova, Angelika Romanou, Sepideh Mamooler, Philippe Servant
article en
22 citations

Abstract

AI assistants, such as ChatGPT, are being increasingly used by students 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 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses. Specifically, we compile a dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (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 the nonproject 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.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 121(49)
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
National Science Foundation, Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Sony, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Innosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für Innovationsförderung, Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
2.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.