Princeton Faculty Votes to Restore Exam Proctoring After Rise in AI Cheating

Students signed a pledge stating they had neither given nor received help. They were expected to report any violations, with accused students appearing before a jury of peers. The system originated from an 1876 editorial in the campus newspaper The Princetonian.

It argued that treating students as presumptively dishonest would encourage dishonesty, while treating them as honorable would promote honorable behavior. The editorial proposed that students write a pledge at the end of their papers instead of being watched.

The Honor Code remains in effect and students will still sign pledges. Professors will now monitor to ensure compliance. Even before AI, some students cheated. Author F. Scott Fitzgerald, who attended Princeton in 1913, expressed surprise at unreported violations during a later campus visit.

At that time, cheating required significant effort, such as finding someone to copy from. The internet and computers lowered barriers to cheating. A Rutgers University study found that a majority of thousands of students copied homework from the internet in 2017.

Generative AI has taken this further by producing unique essays that mimic writing styles and can include intentional typos to appear human. Since generative AI became widely available in fall 2022, Princeton has recorded rising academic dishonesty.

The Committee on Discipline found 82 students responsible for violations in the 2024–25 academic year, up from 50 in 2021–22. These figures represent only caught cases. Twenty-eight percent said they had used ChatGPT on an assignment when not allowed.

Forty-five percent said they knew of cheating by a peer but chose not to report it.

Professors have adjusted practices in response.

The number of take-home exams has declined by more than two-thirds in the past year. The economics department will require oral defenses of research projects next year. History professor David Bell has added oral exams and shifted from take-home papers to in-class writing using blue books.

One colleague requires students to write papers in Google Docs so that drafting stages can be reviewed. Anthony Grafton, a history professor who retired last year, described AI as a temptation for students. Michael Laffan, another history professor, said he has observed students copying responses from ChatGPT in coffee shops near campus.

Makuc, a senior and former chair of the Honor Committee, said cheating has become more visible. Students post about violations on the anonymous app Fizz. This visibility makes students who follow the rules feel disadvantaged and can encourage further cheating.

William Aepli, a graduating senior and former chair of the group representing students accused of violations, said the change alters the student-faculty relationship. The tradition of self-proctoring and trust is being replaced by surveillance. Bell noted that adjustments to prevent cheating signal distrust to students.

Bell said all current solutions involve greater surveillance. He expressed reluctance about the direction this may take instruction but indicated adaptation may be necessary. The university’s actions reflect an effort to address challenges posed by generative AI to academic integrity.