The Great AI Cheat Code: Can Students Really Outsource Thinking?
Imagine that a student submits a flawless essay—grammatically perfect, rich in insight, and impeccably structured. But when asked to explain their reasoning or defend their arguments, they falter. Did they truly learn, or did they simply outsource their thinking to AI?
In his recent article for Cult of Pedagogy, “Catch Them Learning: A Pathway to Academic Integrity in the Age of AI,” consultant Tony Frontier draws a striking parallel between the infamous Rosie Ruiz marathon scandal and today’s challenges with AI-assisted cheating. Ruiz, who faked her 1980 Boston Marathon victory, was exposed not by technology, but by her inability to explain her supposed achievement. Similarly, students who rely on AI to bypass learning may produce impressive work. That is, until they’re asked to justify it.
Just as Ruiz exploited gaps in marathon oversight, students today use AI to bypass effort. But most teachers will tell you that, while tools change, the duty to uphold standards does not. Frontier rightly notes that AI detection tools are imperfect. A reasonable approach would therefore emphasize personal responsibility: students must own their work, not just evade consequences. Rather than policing every submission, teachers should demand explanations—students must articulate their process, sources, and reasoning. This aligns with our most fundamental values of honesty and earned achievement.
AI has the potential to personalize learning and assist struggling students. But when misused, it breeds dependency and dishonesty. Those of us who are more skeptical of AI fear that over-reliance on it erodes critical thinking, which is the very skill that education should protect.
Academic integrity isn’t just about fairness—it’s about preserving the value of education. If students can fake mastery, diplomas become meaningless. So what can we do? Well, the first method of defense is to clearly define acceptable AI use for our students (e.g., brainstorming vs. writing entire essays). Beyond that, in-person demonstrations of learning (like oral defenses, in-class writing, and process reflections) can help ensure that students are truly earning their grades, and provide opportunities for students to do what Ruiz could not: explain themselves and their process. Without such rigor, education becomes a hollow credential, and not a testament to real growth.
The Rosie Ruiz scandal reminds us that shortcuts undermine achievement. In the AI era, we have the duty to ensure that, when students cross the finish line, they’ve truly run the race.