The Rise of Campus Mandates in Response to AI Cheating
Australian universities are witnessing a significant shift back to physical classrooms and supervised assessments as administrators grapple with the pervasive challenge of artificial intelligence (AI) misuse in academic work. What began as a post-pandemic experiment with flexible online learning has evolved into a full-scale return to campus mandates, driven primarily by the need to safeguard academic integrity against sophisticated AI tools like ChatGPT and its successors. These policies require students to attend in-person lectures, participate in oral examinations known as vivas, and complete pen-and-paper tests under supervision, marking a departure from the hybrid models that dominated recent years.
This transition comes at a time when reports indicate that up to 83 percent of students at institutions like Curtin University use AI for studies, with 40 percent admitting to cheating on assessments. The move is not without controversy, as it imposes new logistical and financial strains on both students and institutions, highlighting the complex balance between maintaining educational standards and accommodating modern student needs.
Understanding the Scale of AI Cheating in Australian Higher Education
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed how students approach assignments, with surveys revealing alarming levels of unauthorized use. At Central Queensland University, educational neuroscience expert Professor Ken Purnell notes that while claims of a cheating epidemic may be overstated, longitudinal data from Turnitin shows a stable but persistent minority of submissions dominated by AI-generated content. A Curtin University survey underscores the issue: 83 percent of respondents use AI tools, but 40 percent do so inappropriately on assessments.
International students, who form a substantial portion of enrollments and contribute billions to university revenues, are often highlighted in discussions. Stories emerge of individuals completing nearly 100 percent of coursework via AI with minimal repercussions, paying upwards of AUD 100,000 for degrees. This has led to concerns over degree devaluation, with experts warning that unchecked misuse erodes the credibility of Australian qualifications globally.
Traditional plagiarism rates have not skyrocketed, but AI introduces new challenges: content that mimics human writing perfectly, bypassing older detection methods. Universities report spikes in misconduct referrals, such as the Australian Catholic University's (ACU) nearly 6,000 cases in 2024, 90 percent AI-related, though many were later dismissed due to tool inaccuracies.
The Pitfalls of AI Detection Software and Why Universities Abandoned It
Initial responses involved deploying AI detection tools like Turnitin's AI writing indicator, activated globally in April 2023. However, by early 2026, 36 of Australia's 38 public universities had disabled or heavily caveated these tools. Institutions including the Australian National University (ANU), University of Queensland (UQ), Macquarie University, Curtin University, Charles Sturt University (CSU), ACU, Swinburne University, University of Tasmania, La Trobe University, Griffith University, Victoria University, and University of South Australia (UniSA) led the reversal.
Reasons abound: high false positive rates, bias against non-native English speakers (disproportionately affecting international students), and legal risks from wrongful accusations. ACU's experience exemplifies this—students endured months-long investigations, career delays, and result holds after Turnitin flagged up to 84 percent AI usage erroneously. The tool was scrapped in March 2025 amid staff shortages and ethical concerns. ACU's deputy vice-chancellor acknowledged substantial overstatements in referrals.
TEQSA, Australia's higher education regulator, emphasizes that detection is "impossible" reliably, advocating assessment redesign over technological policing. This erosion of trust in detectors paved the way for structural changes like campus mandates.
Campus Return Policies: A Nationwide Rollout
With detectors deemed unreliable, universities turned to proven methods: physical presence. UQ extended exam windows to weekends for more supervised slots and introduced mini-vivas in science courses for suspected AI misuse. UniSA pioneered viva voce replacements for written finals since 2022, requiring live defenses to probe understanding.
Curtin University disabled Turnitin AI detection in January 2026, focusing on secure in-person formats. The University of Sydney permits AI by default except in exams, implementing 'two-lane' assessments. Nationwide, over 150 institutions plan to phase out online-only evaluations, favoring observed activities comprising at least 50 percent of grades.
Former Melbourne University Chancellor Glyn Davis and University of Western Australia Chancellor Michael Chaney urged a full in-person pivot in a February 2026 op-ed, arguing supervised exams counter AI effectively without tech dependencies.
Escalating Costs for Universities Implementing Mandates
In-person mandates inflate operational expenses. Online exams are cheaper—no room bookings, minimal staffing, digital delivery. Supervised sessions demand venues, invigilators, printing, absence management, and resits. Macquarie University's Dr. Michael Hitchens describes leadership reluctance, labeling in-person advocates as "dinosaurs" due to these costs.
Financial pressures compound: 40 percent of universities in deficit, R&D investment at 20-year lows, declining enrollments. Yet, revenue from international students—despite visa scrutiny calls—necessitates action to preserve reputation.
Student Backlash: Transport Costs and Lifestyle Disruptions
Students bear the brunt. National Union of Students President Felix Hughes decries mandates forcing choices between classes and essentials, with many "skipping meals" amid cost-of-living crises. Weekend exams disrupt part-time jobs and family commitments, labeled "draconian" by representatives.
Regional and disabled students face equity issues; transport costs soar in sprawling cities like Adelaide and Perth. Social media echoes frustration: "Why punish honest students for cheaters?" Protests highlight burnout, with some opting out of attendance despite penalties.
Expert Perspectives on Mandates and AI Integration
Professor Jason Lodge warns of an "illusion of competence" from unchecked AI, advocating ethical integration over bans. TEQSA's hub promotes redesign: vivas, portfolios, real-world tasks. Resources from UQ, Adelaide, and others detail frameworks like SAGE and S.E.C.U.R.E.
CQUniversity's Professor Purnell urges focus on learning outcomes, not panic. Jonathan Albright's analysis reveals institutional erosion of confidence in tech solutions.
Beyond Mandates: Redesigning Assessments for the AI Era
- Viva voce defenses to test comprehension.
- Pen-and-paper exams under supervision.
- Process-based portfolios tracking development.
- Real-time oral presentations.
- AI-allowed tracks with disclosure.
Southern Cross University's adaptation model evaluates outcome-context-method alignment. UTS and Monash emphasize AI literacy modules.
Implications for Degree Credibility and International Enrollments
Unchecked cheating risks global standing; employers question graduate skills. International cohorts, vital economically, face stricter vetting proposals. Balanced policies could position Australia as AI-savvy.
Photo by Ryan Jubber on Unsplash
Future Outlook: Sustainable Solutions Ahead
While mandates address immediate threats, long-term success lies in hybrid innovations: AI as tool, not crutch. TEQSA pushes sector-wide reform; universities invest in training. Students adapt, but equity demands support like subsidized transport. Australian higher education stands at a crossroads—upholding integrity while embracing technology.
