All Members

The front page of the Weekend Australian 7-8 February 2026 carries a lead article titled "Universities stand idly by while cheating students 'lobotomise' their brains with AI". This article is followed up in more detail in The Australian Magazine supplement in an article titled "We don't need no education" in which student fraud is outlined in considerable and disturbing detail. Two outtakes from the article:

"I've been interviewing students across the country about the rates of AI abuse in universities – and from undergrads to Honours and Masters students, their confessions of cheating are breathtaking. And not just for their brazenness, but for something more disturbing: an almost universal sense of satisfaction at having "beaten" the system. Many smugly describe how easy it is to escape accountability. Over and over I've heard the same defence: "It's not cheating if everyone's doing it.""

"I've interviewed six senior academics in three states, including heads of school in media and communications, physics, mathematics, statistics and chemistry*. All but one put student fraud at more than 80 per cent. And yet each of the students I spoke to for this story scoffed at that figure, saying the rate of "full-bore" cheating in their units is more like 95 per cent."
* The emphasis is mine.

To me, it indicates that student dishonesty has become normalized, even institutionalized. Are university degrees now to be regarded as worthless bits of paper? What value does a university degree awarded since the advent of AI as a consumer product? How should intending employers regard recent graduates seeking jobs? Would you as an employer trust a recent university graduate to act in your company's best interests? What does this say about morality in our society as a whole, not just university students? These are existential questions which need urgent attention, and ones that I consider that the RACI should address. 

In a quick search of this forum, I have found a number of references to the beneficial use of AI in chemistry research. As such, it is proving itself to be an invaluable too. To date, I have not found any reference to the use of AI by students in cheating their way through university. Yet we need to do so. The foundation of science is honesty: honest inquiry, honest discussion, honest endeavour and honest application. However, students have found that before they even start their careers that dishonesty pays. I would like to suggest that this is a topic which should be discussed at length and in depth at the forthcoming RACI 2026 Congress.

This is an issue that also needs to be addressed before students get to universities. Is this level of academic dishonesty being fostered, perhaps unintentionally, in high schools? What are high school chemistry teachers observing/detecting in terms of students cheating?

Thanks for raising the issue Tom.

------------------------------
Lynda Colquhoun
Science/Maths/IT Teacher

Original Message:
Sent: 08-02-2026 09:31
From: Tom Smith
Subject: Do we need to talk more about AI?

The front page of the Weekend Australian 7-8 February 2026 carries a lead article titled "Universities stand idly by while cheating students 'lobotomise' their brains with AI". This article is followed up in more detail in The Australian Magazine supplement in an article titled "We don't need no education" in which student fraud is outlined in considerable and disturbing detail. Two outtakes from the article:

"I've been interviewing students across the country about the rates of AI abuse in universities – and from undergrads to Honours and Masters students, their confessions of cheating are breathtaking. And not just for their brazenness, but for something more disturbing: an almost universal sense of satisfaction at having "beaten" the system. Many smugly describe how easy it is to escape accountability. Over and over I've heard the same defence: "It's not cheating if everyone's doing it.""

"I've interviewed six senior academics in three states, including heads of school in media and communications, physics, mathematics, statistics and chemistry*. All but one put student fraud at more than 80 per cent. And yet each of the students I spoke to for this story scoffed at that figure, saying the rate of "full-bore" cheating in their units is more like 95 per cent."
* The emphasis is mine.

To me, it indicates that student dishonesty has become normalized, even institutionalized. Are university degrees now to be regarded as worthless bits of paper? What value does a university degree awarded since the advent of AI as a consumer product? How should intending employers regard recent graduates seeking jobs? Would you as an employer trust a recent university graduate to act in your company's best interests? What does this say about morality in our society as a whole, not just university students? These are existential questions which need urgent attention, and ones that I consider that the RACI should address. 

In a quick search of this forum, I have found a number of references to the beneficial use of AI in chemistry research. As such, it is proving itself to be an invaluable too. To date, I have not found any reference to the use of AI by students in cheating their way through university. Yet we need to do so. The foundation of science is honesty: honest inquiry, honest discussion, honest endeavour and honest application. However, students have found that before they even start their careers that dishonesty pays. I would like to suggest that this is a topic which should be discussed at length and in depth at the forthcoming RACI 2026 Congress.

------------------------------
Tom Smith
------------------------------

The front page of the Weekend Australian 7-8 February 2026 carries a lead article titled "Universities stand idly by while cheating students 'lobotomise' their brains with AI". This article is followed up in more detail in The Australian Magazine supplement in an article titled "We don't need no education" in which student fraud is outlined in considerable and disturbing detail. Two outtakes from the article:

"I've been interviewing students across the country about the rates of AI abuse in universities – and from undergrads to Honours and Masters students, their confessions of cheating are breathtaking. And not just for their brazenness, but for something more disturbing: an almost universal sense of satisfaction at having "beaten" the system. Many smugly describe how easy it is to escape accountability. Over and over I've heard the same defence: "It's not cheating if everyone's doing it.""

"I've interviewed six senior academics in three states, including heads of school in media and communications, physics, mathematics, statistics and chemistry*. All but one put student fraud at more than 80 per cent. And yet each of the students I spoke to for this story scoffed at that figure, saying the rate of "full-bore" cheating in their units is more like 95 per cent."
* The emphasis is mine.

To me, it indicates that student dishonesty has become normalized, even institutionalized. Are university degrees now to be regarded as worthless bits of paper? What value does a university degree awarded since the advent of AI as a consumer product? How should intending employers regard recent graduates seeking jobs? Would you as an employer trust a recent university graduate to act in your company's best interests? What does this say about morality in our society as a whole, not just university students? These are existential questions which need urgent attention, and ones that I consider that the RACI should address. 

In a quick search of this forum, I have found a number of references to the beneficial use of AI in chemistry research. As such, it is proving itself to be an invaluable too. To date, I have not found any reference to the use of AI by students in cheating their way through university. Yet we need to do so. The foundation of science is honesty: honest inquiry, honest discussion, honest endeavour and honest application. However, students have found that before they even start their careers that dishonesty pays. I would like to suggest that this is a topic which should be discussed at length and in depth at the forthcoming RACI 2026 Congress.

I think that it is human nature to take the easy way out. We are constantly looking to optimise things (designs, processes, finances). I think in the old days bringing calculators in to a maths exam was considered 'cheating' and not long after I finished high school students were allowed to bring graphic calculators into exams that would display graphs on the screen, which seemed a bit unfair to me. I have always considered the current education system deficient, in that you are required to remember an enormous amount of information which for many promotes a ROTE-type approach to learning. This doesn't work for everyone and as I have told people working under me in the workplace if they provided me with an answer off the top of their head, without consulting any references/colleagues or having it reviewed I would march them out of the office, yet this is how we ask students to operate. I have encountered MANY young graduates that were very good at remembering things, they could come up the the answers very quickly, but they didn't understand the problem so they were unable to define the question in the first place which is career limiting. Understanding and experience will trump knowledge every time in the real world.

As far as I'm concerned AI is simply another tool that is available to students. The education system can try to prevent students from using it or they can embrace it. I use AI regularly as part of my work to speed up my workflow, however, if you've ever asked AI a detailed technical question it will very confidently provide you with an answer that is about 80% correct. The key to using AI is that you have to know more than AI about the source material to identify the 20% that is incorrect. Furthermore it scours all available information and seems to give Joe Rogan equal weighting as an authority of vaccines as it does the NHMRC.

The new generation is a bit smarter than we were. We were told to 'work hard' because that's how our senior peers had to do it. Students nowadays are optimising with the mindset of 'working hard enough'. I would say, embrace AI rather than banning it. Get 30 students to ask AI detailed technical question and compare the responses. Then as a class exercise go through a few of them pointing out the obvious (and some non-obvious) errors. Challenge their understanding rather than their memory.

The front page of the Weekend Australian 7-8 February 2026 carries a lead article titled "Universities stand idly by while cheating students 'lobotomise' their brains with AI". This article is followed up in more detail in The Australian Magazine supplement in an article titled "We don't need no education" in which student fraud is outlined in considerable and disturbing detail. Two outtakes from the article:

"I've been interviewing students across the country about the rates of AI abuse in universities – and from undergrads to Honours and Masters students, their confessions of cheating are breathtaking. And not just for their brazenness, but for something more disturbing: an almost universal sense of satisfaction at having "beaten" the system. Many smugly describe how easy it is to escape accountability. Over and over I've heard the same defence: "It's not cheating if everyone's doing it.""

"I've interviewed six senior academics in three states, including heads of school in media and communications, physics, mathematics, statistics and chemistry*. All but one put student fraud at more than 80 per cent. And yet each of the students I spoke to for this story scoffed at that figure, saying the rate of "full-bore" cheating in their units is more like 95 per cent."
* The emphasis is mine.

To me, it indicates that student dishonesty has become normalized, even institutionalized. Are university degrees now to be regarded as worthless bits of paper? What value does a university degree awarded since the advent of AI as a consumer product? How should intending employers regard recent graduates seeking jobs? Would you as an employer trust a recent university graduate to act in your company's best interests? What does this say about morality in our society as a whole, not just university students? These are existential questions which need urgent attention, and ones that I consider that the RACI should address. 

In a quick search of this forum, I have found a number of references to the beneficial use of AI in chemistry research. As such, it is proving itself to be an invaluable too. To date, I have not found any reference to the use of AI by students in cheating their way through university. Yet we need to do so. The foundation of science is honesty: honest inquiry, honest discussion, honest endeavour and honest application. However, students have found that before they even start their careers that dishonesty pays. I would like to suggest that this is a topic which should be discussed at length and in depth at the forthcoming RACI 2026 Congress.

I think that it is human nature to take the easy way out. We are constantly looking to optimise things (designs, processes, finances). I think in the old days bringing calculators in to a maths exam was considered 'cheating' and not long after I finished high school students were allowed to bring graphic calculators into exams that would display graphs on the screen, which seemed a bit unfair to me. I have always considered the current education system deficient, in that you are required to remember an enormous amount of information which for many promotes a ROTE-type approach to learning. This doesn't work for everyone and as I have told people working under me in the workplace if they provided me with an answer off the top of their head, without consulting any references/colleagues or having it reviewed I would march them out of the office, yet this is how we ask students to operate. I have encountered MANY young graduates that were very good at remembering things, they could come up the the answers very quickly, but they didn't understand the problem so they were unable to define the question in the first place which is career limiting. Understanding and experience will trump knowledge every time in the real world.

As far as I'm concerned AI is simply another tool that is available to students. The education system can try to prevent students from using it or they can embrace it. I use AI regularly as part of my work to speed up my workflow, however, if you've ever asked AI a detailed technical question it will very confidently provide you with an answer that is about 80% correct. The key to using AI is that you have to know more than AI about the source material to identify the 20% that is incorrect. Furthermore it scours all available information and seems to give Joe Rogan equal weighting as an authority of vaccines as it does the NHMRC.

The new generation is a bit smarter than we were. We were told to 'work hard' because that's how our senior peers had to do it. Students nowadays are optimising with the mindset of 'working hard enough'. I would say, embrace AI rather than banning it. Get 30 students to ask AI detailed technical question and compare the responses. Then as a class exercise go through a few of them pointing out the obvious (and some non-obvious) errors. Challenge their understanding rather than their memory.

The front page of the Weekend Australian 7-8 February 2026 carries a lead article titled "Universities stand idly by while cheating students 'lobotomise' their brains with AI". This article is followed up in more detail in The Australian Magazine supplement in an article titled "We don't need no education" in which student fraud is outlined in considerable and disturbing detail. Two outtakes from the article:

"I've been interviewing students across the country about the rates of AI abuse in universities – and from undergrads to Honours and Masters students, their confessions of cheating are breathtaking. And not just for their brazenness, but for something more disturbing: an almost universal sense of satisfaction at having "beaten" the system. Many smugly describe how easy it is to escape accountability. Over and over I've heard the same defence: "It's not cheating if everyone's doing it.""

"I've interviewed six senior academics in three states, including heads of school in media and communications, physics, mathematics, statistics and chemistry*. All but one put student fraud at more than 80 per cent. And yet each of the students I spoke to for this story scoffed at that figure, saying the rate of "full-bore" cheating in their units is more like 95 per cent."
* The emphasis is mine.

To me, it indicates that student dishonesty has become normalized, even institutionalized. Are university degrees now to be regarded as worthless bits of paper? What value does a university degree awarded since the advent of AI as a consumer product? How should intending employers regard recent graduates seeking jobs? Would you as an employer trust a recent university graduate to act in your company's best interests? What does this say about morality in our society as a whole, not just university students? These are existential questions which need urgent attention, and ones that I consider that the RACI should address. 

In a quick search of this forum, I have found a number of references to the beneficial use of AI in chemistry research. As such, it is proving itself to be an invaluable too. To date, I have not found any reference to the use of AI by students in cheating their way through university. Yet we need to do so. The foundation of science is honesty: honest inquiry, honest discussion, honest endeavour and honest application. However, students have found that before they even start their careers that dishonesty pays. I would like to suggest that this is a topic which should be discussed at length and in depth at the forthcoming RACI 2026 Congress.