Need Help - Important Case

[Bruiners]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Background Info Of What's Going On:​

I am a senior at a T5 public university preparing to apply to medical school. I am currently facing an academic integrity case under Section 102.01 (Academic Dishonesty) related to a fully asynchronous course taken in Summer 2025

The allegation is that my exam submission included an equation not found in lecture slides or the textbook and was “most likely provided by AI,” which was prohibited during the exam. The professor also alleged possible collusion through a GroupMe chat, although there is no direct evidence of AI use during the exam and no exam-related discussion in the GroupMe.

For context:

• I did not use AI during the exam.
• I used ChatGPT during exam preparation to explore lecture slide material and help with understanding.
• ChatGPT generated an alternative formulation, which I wrote in my notes.
  • I provided pictures of my notes + ChatGPT logs showing the conversation between me and ChatGPT.
• During the exam, under time pressure, I applied that formulation incorrectly.
  • One of the documents in the hearing packet shows me emailing the TA after the exam mentioning the exam was difficult.
• The answer was wrong and did not improve my score.
• I have never had any academic misconduct issues in 16 years of schooling.
• I can provide way more details if we speak on PM.

The Dean applied the “preponderance of evidence” standard and referred the case to the Student Conduct Committee.

The current sanction on the table (if found responsible) is:

• Deferred suspension
• 5-year disciplinary record at UCLA (not transcript notation)

Ina UCLA legal services meeting I had today, an attorney told me that appeals are very limited and that there may be little difference between acknowledging responsibility and appealing versus going to hearing and appealing. They indicated sanction reductions typically occur only in VERY extreme procedural cases.


I understand that AMCAS asks whether you have ever been the subject of institutional action, even if it is not on the transcript.
I am very concerned that a 5-year notation, even if internal, would significantly harm my medical school chances.

Questions​

1. Has anyone here applied to medical school with a deferred suspension or internal institutional action that was not on the transcript? How did schools respond?
2. Does a 5-year internal record (non-transcript) typically carry the same weight as a transcript notation when disclosed on AMCAS?
3. Is there any meaningful difference, from a medical admissions standpoint, between:
   • Accepting responsibility and appealing the sanction
   • Going to a hearing and then appealing
4. Would reaching out directly to the professor at this stage (to explain my situation and future career implications) be inappropriate or potentially harmful?
5. Are there any other procedural steps I should consider before the hearing that could meaningfully reduce risk?
6. For those familiar with med admissions committees: how damaging is a first-time, non-transcript academic integrity action when the applicant takes responsibility and explains the situation clearly?
7. Would delaying my application cycle be wiser if a sanction is imposed?
   1. I am already taking two gap years.

I understand that I made a mistake in how I handled exam preparation relative to course policy, but I did not gain any academic advantage and did not use AI during the exam itself. I am trying to assess realistically how this may affect my future, my dream career, and what strategic decisions make the most sense at this point.


Thank you all so much in advance for any guidance. I'm extremely worried.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I'm sorry to hear, but can I ask if you hired the attorney, or is this an attorney on behalf of the university?

 

[Bruiners]

I'm sorry to hear, but can I ask if you hired the attorney, or is this an attorney on behalf of the university?

This is an attorney on the behalf of the university.

 

[Bruiners]

This is an attorney on the behalf of the university.

I would appreciate clarification on why that is relevant. I have some thoughts, but I am currently feeling overwhelmed and not thinking as clearly as I normally would.

 

[SilentCavalier]

Any university proceeding with regards to discipline is not like your normal court proceeding. There is no due process, the standard of proof they use to assess responsibility is 50% and a feather which affords plenty of grey area, and the decisions they make are in the interest of mitigating risk to the university. They do not care what happens to you and the university-appointed attorneys may know how the process works, but they are not concerned with the outcome. If you care about keeping your record clean, and/or applying to and attending medical school, I would retain an outside lawyer specializing in this kind of thing. It won’t be cheap but it’s worth your future.

You likely also won’t get a final decision in anything close to a timely fashion. If you planned on applying this coming cycle, I would reconsider, and have a helluva gap year lined up to make your application stellar if this does end up going on your record in a way that med schools would be made aware of.

Best of luck.

 

[Bruiners]

Any university proceeding with regards to discipline is not like your normal court proceeding. There is no due process, the standard of proof they use to assess responsibility is 50% and a feather which affords plenty of grey area, and the decisions they make are in the interest of mitigating risk to the university. They do not care what happens to you and the university-appointed attorneys may know how the process works, but they are not concerned with the outcome. If you care about keeping your record clean, and/or applying to and attending medical school, I would retain an outside lawyer specializing in this kind of thing. It won’t be cheap but it’s worth your future.

You likely also won’t get a final decision in anything close to a timely fashion. If you planned on applying this coming cycle, I would reconsider, and have a helluva gap year lined up to make your application stellar if this does end up going on your record in a way that med schools would be made aware of.

Best of luck.

Thank you for your response. I am not very capable financially in locating legal counsel, but I am willing to take whatever steps are necessary. I am feeling discouraged because the process seems to be advancing on procedural grounds rather than being guided by ethical considerations. I sincerely appreciate any guidance or assistance anyone can provide.

 

[Med Ed]

I understand that I made a mistake in how I handled exam preparation relative to course policy,

I am unclear what mistake you actually made, and therefore what you could potentially accept responsibility for. Does course policy prohibit how you used AI to study?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I am not endorsing this service, and inclusion should not imply endorsement.



I don't have a direct contact to this group.

 

[polymerization]

Ina UCLA legal services meeting I had today, an attorney told me that appeals are very limited and that there may be little difference between acknowledging responsibility and appealing versus going to hearing and appealing. They indicated sanction reductions typically occur only in VERY extreme procedural cases.

Huh? This would only be true if they had clear evidence that you cheated. According to you, you did not, so there is a massive difference. One requires you to admit to something you say you did not do, a coerced false confession (which would then logically be impossible to appeal credibly). The other requires evidence to be disseminated, interpreted, and an adverse judgment adjudicated for you to appeal—which is a judgment they're taking for granted if you truly did not cheat, because there would be no substantive evidence driving the decision.

I know this may be part of a good cop/bad cop coercion strategy, but it's unusually direct for a situation with so much ambiguity (from what you have offered us here). Either they know more than you think they do, or they have shown you compelling enough evidence that you are approaching this knowing you are likely to lose. Or something else? You tell us. At face value, the group chat, e-mail, and ChatGPT transcripts don't prove anything directly. It's just weird that you would mention it if it was immaterial to the case, which leads me to believe it doesn't "look" good, even if you are being honest about the situation.

I agree with @SilentCavalier that, generally, schools have a tendency to just take the professor's word for it in 99% of cases... but considering what is on the line for you personally, I find it hard to believe that you could reach this point in your education and not go full-on scorched earth to protect your integrity and future.

An IA before graduating is a kiss of death, and the professor knows that—I would avoid communicating outside of the formal process, lest they perceive it as harassment. Once institutional gears start turning, there's no going back. I don't think the professor could reverse the referral even if they wanted.

 

[AJ25]

All these people on SDN with IA's trying to become docs LMAO!

 

[Goro]

One of the documents in the hearing packet shows me emailing the TA after the exam mentioning the exam was difficult.
This is irrelevant


The answer was wrong and did not improve my score.
Irrelevant. Also more evidence that one should never use ChatGPT. BTW, was this an open book exam????

I have never had any academic misconduct issues in 16 years of schooling.
One could counter that by saying you simply hadn't been caught yet.


I am very concerned that a 5-year notation, even if internal, would significantly harm my medical school chances.
This depends upon whether your school tells this to med schools that inquire about such things.

Does a 5-year internal record (non-transcript) typically carry the same weight as a transcript notation when disclosed on AMCAS?
Hmmm, if a school finds out that you didn't disclose what you were supposed to, that would likely be an auto-reject.


Accepting responsibility and appealing the sanction
We don't get to hear about this; it's an internal school matter.


Going to a hearing and then appealing

See above
Would reaching out directly to the professor at this stage (to explain my situation and future career implications) be inappropriate or potentially harmful?

Nothing screams entitlement to a professor more than saying "This will prevent me from going to medical school!"

For those familiar with med admissions committees: how damaging is a first-time, non-transcript academic integrity action when the applicant takes responsibility and explains the situation clearly?

It depends upon the IA. They're not all alike. A ******* freshman can be cut a lot more slack a senior, who should know better.


Would delaying my application cycle be wiser if a sanction is imposed?
I am already taking two gap years.

I can't sugar coat this, if your med school path isn't DOA, it's in deep stasis.

I understand that I made a mistake in how I handled exam preparation relative to course policy, but I did not gain any academic advantage
Again, the bolded is irrelevant. How would you interpret a student who claims "I cheated, but I cheated wrong, and it didn't help me"?

 

[chilly_md]

Did you use AI during your online exams or did you just learn the equivalent of very wrong quadratic formulas because you had Chatgpt summarize things for you instead of actually reading the textbook/powerpoint slides?

 

[IlDestriero]

This, if true as written, is a great example of what’s going on in universities today. I have kids in college. At one of their schools a CS professor failed 2/3 of the class because AI said they all used AI generated code for the final exam project.
So let’s pause here and think about this for a second. Should the professor really think 2/3 of the CS major students in his class at an elite university are using AI on their final project? 2/3? That doesn’t pass the sniff test, not remotely. But he pressed on and failed them anll and lodged honor code violations. It was in the newspapers, scandal, collusion, the kids were away for the summer, at their internships, and wham- failed, cheating, honor code, etc.
Well, as you can imagine in those 2/3 of the class at this well known school are some well heeled parents who aren’t just going to sit idly by and hope for the best for their babies. It turns out, after independent investigation of compelled evidence, that the portion of code that the AI detector determined to be generated by AI was in fact directly copied directly from the professors own course notes available online. Yes, the ace professor seems to have, pathetically, used AI to generate the code for his class notes, and then didn’t even recognize that fact when he was reviewing the exams. What a joke. I’d be so embarrassed I’d resign in disgrace immediately. If I was a student I’d incessantly refer to him in any conversation until the end of time as “the professor that uses AI to write his lectures”.

Good advice above. You’re focusing on some irrelevant things.
-Can you use AI or other online platforms to study? I wouldn’t see how they can prohibit that, or why. Many professors are terrible, or weak in certain areas. It’s normal and smart to look at other outside resources for help. What if you went to the math resource center and they gave you this formula there? No different. You weren’t using ai to do your exam, you were using AI to study and prepare.
-Can you use your notes for the test? Sounds like it.
-Can you prove that you used AI or whatever outside resources to study prior to the exam, and not during the exam? Yes.

This seems open and shut. You didn’t use AI for the exam. You had an open note test and used your own notes and assignments, study guides, etc.
DIE ON THAT HILL.
The only legal advice you should even listen to is that of your own attorney. A university attorney has one client and it’s not you. The advice they gave you is comically bad, UNLESS it was part of some kind of plea agreement that gave you a lesser sentence. Like if you lose we will expel you or suspend you for a year, but if you plead no contest now we will just give you an AI note and a zero on the exam.
If you plead guilty there will be nothing to appeal. If you are found guilty you can appeal that based on the above evidence they should have accepted your logs and study guides as proof you don’t use ai for the exam and they are trying to after the fact say you can’t use AI for anything ever, which is ridiculous btw. Especially now where universities are giving degrees in AI and training people to find ways to use it for everything.

And as an aside, be careful what you put in group chats, etc.

 

[RockClimberMed]

I feel like ive seen a billion "accused of chatGPT/AI on a test" on SDN/reddit recently...whatever happened to paper and pencil tests? Why are so many tests at home and/or open book nowadays? I was not an undergraduate too long ago and had 4+ hour exams as a math major at a desk with a pencil...seems like that would avoid instances like failing 2/3s of an entire class. CS being the exception maybe?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I feel like ive seen a billion "accused of chatGPT/AI on a test" on SDN/reddit recently...whatever happened to paper and pencil tests? Why are so many tests at home and/or open book nowadays? I was not an undergraduate too long ago and had 4+ hour exams as a math major at a desk with a pencil...seems like that would avoid instances like failing 2/3s of an entire class. CS being the exception maybe?

It's not like one can't cheat on a good old-fashioned pencil/paper test, but COVID likely made us become "more innovative." There's also the WSJ's article about the proliferation of accommodations (admitting: haven't read it, but relying on what the journalists' talking heads are saying).

 

[polymerization]

I feel like ive seen a billion "accused of chatGPT/AI on a test" on SDN/reddit recently...whatever happened to paper and pencil tests? Why are so many tests at home and/or open book nowadays? I was not an undergraduate too long ago and had 4+ hour exams as a math major at a desk with a pencil...seems like that would avoid instances like failing 2/3s of an entire class. CS being the exception maybe?

The process of professors taking scantrons to the testing center and getting back graded scantrons only to then have to sit and manually input grades into a student portal anyway is time-consuming and resource-intensive. It's not just one professor doing this, it's every professor offering paper multiple-choice exams across the entire university. Universities realized that they can fire most of the staff at the testing center by moving online and pocket the difference. Turn it into conference or lecture space. Employ an adjunct at $2K a semester for a class of 300 students paying at least $300 for the class. Profit.

It used to be that tuition was constantly rising because of administrative bloat. I think that is still the case, they're just replacing overworked work-study staff at the testing center with a lawyer or two to shake down and scare students who threaten the mode of assessment.

...and yes, of course this behavior deviates from purely benevolent intent. If students cheat at greater rates online than they do on paper, the value of the credential decreases, which means decreasing enrollment numbers, which means less money, which then becomes a vicious cycle of ensh*ttifying higher education through a billion cuts aimed at preserving the institution, not the learning.

It makes a lot of sense that they are vying to make examples out of students in this new era of AI s/p the old, garden variety "google it on your phone while someone's not looking" cheating era.

 

[IlDestriero]

I can’t imagine working as an adjunct professor for $3k a class.

 

[Starr_key]

Doesn't ChatGPT save your conversations? Idk if it shows the date (but I think it should) and the date is different than the date of your exam, that could likely corroborate your story. Not to mention, if you also showed the date of your last conversation with it/conversation history.

I'll probably be in the minority, but if you truly did not use AI during your exam, then I think this whole thing is ridiculous. You're a senior in your final semester I assume, so you're pretty close to graduating. What's the point of all of this? There's also no rule saying that student's can't use ChatGPT to study. Students do it all the time.

There's a significant difference b/w students using ChatGPT to study and make notes versus using it to write essays, exam help, etc. There's no rule saying you only have to use class notes/materials.

 

[LelouchLamperouge]

From my understanding of this post, OP used AI to teach themselves on this topic, however they learned differently from how the professor taught them and now the professor is accusing them of cheating because they used AI to learn? I feel like that's unfair to hit them with an IA, UNLESS they were explicitly told to not use AI in the course syllabus. If they were told, then shoot, you're cooked. But if the professor never stated that they couldn't use AI to study, what is the problem here? I understand there is a lot of stigmas around the use of AI, however it can be a good tool to study if optimized correctly.

 

[g0ldendoodle]

Was the exam closed or open notes?

That’s probably the most important question. Yes ChatGPT will show the date and time you asked the question, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t go back to view it when you weren’t allowed. It also doesn’t mean you provided them full documentation, just the exonerating parts.

I was on my school’s honor council at a different but similar school - appeals were generally “I have new evidence” and not “I don’t like the result.” So don’t go into the process expecting to be able to have and win an appeal.

You should be able to review the policies to understand how it works. I would generally not suggest pleading guilty if you truly think you are not guilty.

As long as you have been operating within the syllabus and with what the professor has told you throughout the semester, you probably have a reasonable defense. It would be unreasonable to expect people to use zero outside resources to augment their studying unless explicitly stated.

As for how it affects chances, I’m an applicant so can’t offer much experience there. You will have to answer yes to the IA question and explain it. I would like to think an otherwise strong applicant with one “light” IA would still be considered, but it probably somewhat reduces your opportunities.

 

[Starr_key]

From my understanding of this post, OP used AI to teach themselves on this topic, however they learned differently from how the professor taught them and now the professor is accusing them of cheating because they used AI to learn? I feel like that's unfair to hit them with an IA, UNLESS they were explicitly told to not use AI in the course syllabus. If they were told, then shoot, you're cooked. But if the professor never stated that they couldn't use AI to study, what is the problem here? I understand there is a lot of stigmas around the use of AI, however it can be a good tool to study if optimized correctly.

I graduated a long time ago, so idk, but how on earth can a professor just say "don't use AI" in the syllabus?? It makes sense to say "Use of AI is prohibited during exams or for writing essays." I don't get why it would matter for open book exams since you're using resources anyway, but I think saying that not using it for exams is okay.

But saying no use of AI at all? Seems egregious to me. Who is a professor to stop a student from using ChatGPT to organize notes, highlight important, stuff, etc.

 

[Med Ed]

It would help if OP would return to answer some questions, because this thread is starting to spiral.

 

[Goro]

I can’t imagine working as an adjunct professor for $3k a class.

Sadly, that's a very common thing. Those types of Faculty are called "freeway flyers", as they travel around from one Community College to another to teach a class for $3K.

 

[Goro]

From my understanding of this post, OP used AI to teach themselves on this topic, however they learned differently from how the professor taught them and now the professor is accusing them of cheating because they used AI to learn? I feel like that's unfair to hit them with an IA, UNLESS they were explicitly told to not use AI in the course syllabus. If they were told, then shoot, you're cooked. But if the professor never stated that they couldn't use AI to study, what is the problem here? I understand there is a lot of stigmas around the use of AI, however it can be a good tool to study if optimized correctly.

My concern is that the professor used an AI detector, which have unacceptable false positive rates.

 

[Bruiners]

I am unclear what mistake you actually made, and therefore what you could potentially accept responsibility for. Does course policy prohibit how you used AI to study?

Sorry everyone for the delay. The course policy states the following pasted image:|

 

[Bruiners]

Huh? This would only be true if they had clear evidence that you cheated. According to you, you did not, so there is a massive difference.

Correct. There was no evidence that "I cheated". Professor sumitted the report for all students on the grounds of "they used a formula that I did not teach".

Either they know more than you think they do, or they have shown you compelling enough evidence that you are approaching this knowing you are likely to lose. Or something else? You tell us.

There was zero evidence submitted proving "I cheated". The evidence was simply my written scratch work that we all upload along with the completed exam. He circled the incorrect formula that was used for a specific question. Thats it. That was his evidence.

I agree with @SilentCavalier that, generally, schools have a tendency to just take the professor's word for it in 99% of cases... but considering what is on the line for you personally, I find it hard to believe that you could reach this point in your education and not go full-on scorched earth to protect your integrity and future.

I am genuinely hopeless. I can not afford an attorney and I lose sight of my dream of becoming a physician as the days go by.

 

[Bruiners]

One of the documents in the hearing packet shows me emailing the TA after the exam mentioning the exam was difficult.
This is irrelevant


The answer was wrong and did not improve my score.
Irrelevant. Also more evidence that one should never use ChatGPT. BTW, was this an open book exam????

Yes, this was an open-book, open-note exam.

I have never had any academic misconduct issues in 16 years of schooling.
One could counter that by saying you simply hadn't been caught yet.


I am very concerned that a 5-year notation, even if internal, would significantly harm my medical school chances.
This depends upon whether your school tells this to med schools that inquire about such things.

It is not automatically reported. I would have to disclose this.

Does a 5-year internal record (non-transcript) typically carry the same weight as a transcript notation when disclosed on AMCAS?
Hmmm, if a school finds out that you didn't disclose what you were supposed to, that would likely be an auto-reject.


Accepting responsibility and appealing the sanction
We don't get to hear about this; it's an internal school matter.


Going to a hearing and then appealing

See above
Would reaching out directly to the professor at this stage (to explain my situation and future career implications) be inappropriate or potentially harmful?

Nothing screams entitlement to a professor more than saying "This will prevent me from going to medical school!"

Not sure I agree with this. I'm looking at the proportionality of the sanction with the current case at hand.

For those familiar with med admissions committees: how damaging is a first-time, non-transcript academic integrity action when the applicant takes responsibility and explains the situation clearly?

It depends upon the IA. They're not all alike. A ******* freshman can be cut a lot more slack a senior, who should know better.


Would delaying my application cycle be wiser if a sanction is imposed?
I am already taking two gap years.

I can't sugar coat this, if your med school path isn't DOA, it's in deep stasis.

I understand that I made a mistake in how I handled exam preparation relative to course policy, but I did not gain any academic advantage
Again, the bolded is irrelevant. How would you interpret a student who claims "I cheated, but I cheated wrong, and it didn't help me"?

 

[Bruiners]

Did you use AI during your online exams or did you just learn the equivalent of very wrong quadratic formulas because you had Chatgpt summarize things for you instead of actually reading the textbook/powerpoint slides?

I did not use AI during the online exam. I just learned and used the incorrect variation of a formula on the exam.

 

[Bruiners]

Doesn't ChatGPT save your conversations? Idk if it shows the date (but I think it should) and the date is different than the date of your exam, that could likely corroborate your story. Not to mention, if you also showed the date of your last conversation with it/conversation history.

I'll probably be in the minority, but if you truly did not use AI during your exam, then I think this whole thing is ridiculous. You're a senior in your final semester I assume, so you're pretty close to graduating. What's the point of all of this? There's also no rule saying that student's can't use ChatGPT to study. Students do it all the time.

There's a significant difference b/w students using ChatGPT to study and make notes versus using it to write essays, exam help, etc. There's no rule saying you only have to use class notes/materials.

Yes, I completely agree. I am in need of a helping hand and it all just is so difficult right now.

 

[Bruiners]

From my understanding of this post, OP used AI to teach themselves on this topic, however they learned differently from how the professor taught them and now the professor is accusing them of cheating because they used AI to learn? I feel like that's unfair to hit them with an IA, UNLESS they were explicitly told to not use AI in the course syllabus. If they were told, then shoot, you're cooked. But if the professor never stated that they couldn't use AI to study, what is the problem here? I understand there is a lot of stigmas around the use of AI, however it can be a good tool to study if optimized correctly.

Professor mentioned this in the picture above. "inappropriate use of chatGPT". Does my case seem like an inappropriate use of ChatGPT?????

 

[Bruiners]

Was the exam closed or open notes?

That’s probably the most important question. Yes ChatGPT will show the date and time you asked the question, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t go back to view it when you weren’t allowed. It also doesn’t mean you provided them full documentation, just the exonerating parts.

The exam was open notes.

I was on my school’s honor council at a different but similar school - appeals were generally “I have new evidence” and not “I don’t like the result.” So don’t go into the process expecting to be able to have and win an appeal.

You should be able to review the policies to understand how it works. I would generally not suggest pleading guilty if you truly think you are not guilty.

As long as you have been operating within the syllabus and with what the professor has told you throughout the semester, you probably have a reasonable defense. It would be unreasonable to expect people to use zero outside resources to augment their studying unless explicitly stated.

I agree with this also. But what if nothing goes my way just because this is proceeding on "the preponderance of evidence".

As for how it affects chances, I’m an applicant so can’t offer much experience there. You will have to answer yes to the IA question and explain it. I would like to think an otherwise strong applicant with one “light” IA would still be considered, but it probably somewhat reduces your opportunities.

 

[Bruiners]

I graduated a long time ago, so idk, but how on earth can a professor just say "don't use AI" in the syllabus?? It makes sense to say "Use of AI is prohibited during exams or for writing essays." I don't get why it would matter for open book exams since you're using resources anyway, but I think saying that not using it for exams is okay.

But saying no use of AI at all? Seems egregious to me. Who is a professor to stop a student from using ChatGPT to organize notes, highlight important, stuff, etc.

Does my case seem like an "inappropriate use of ChatGPT"??????

 

[Bruiners]

It would help if OP would return to answer some questions, because this thread is starting to spiral.

Sorry, been busy with some things.

 

[Bruiners]

My concern is that the professor used an AI detector, which have unacceptable false positive rates.

No AI detector. His grounds for reporitng 23 students was that we used a formula he did not teach.

 

[Bruiners]

These were helpful responses from you guys. I would love to engage more and hopefully find the light at the end of the tunnel. In need of so much help as this situation has sent me down a depressing spiral of doubt and anxiety.

 

[Bruiners]

I agree with @SilentCavalier that, generally, schools have a tendency to just take the professor's word for it in 99% of cases... but considering what is on the line for you personally, I find it hard to believe that you could reach this point in your education and not go full-on scorched earth to protect your integrity and future.

I would appreciate any guidance on steps I can take to prevent this matter from moving forward in an unfavorable direction.

 

[polymerization]

It's been some time. I imagine there have been developments...?

All in all it looks like your professor is digging in their heels and has included a CYA disclaimer in their syllabus. It's an open note assessment so if you were using a device separate from your computer, it is impossible for your professor to tell whether or not you were definitively accessing AI, but on a preponderance of evidence basis, it makes sense that applying a formula they did not teach might imply that you accessed outside resources, not your notes.

In psychiatry there is this famous story about Carl Jung telling another psychologist about a patient he had, who was so psychotically organized that they ruminated for many sessions about how taxing it was for them to be living on the moon. The psychologist corrects him to say "as if they lived on the moon." Jung corrects them: no, for this particular patient, their psychic reality is that they lived on the moon. Jung demonstrates that in order to be an effective psychoanalyst, one has to occupy the psychic reality of the patient, no matter how seemingly deviant it might be from frank reality. For the patient, it is real.

In this case, your professor believes you cheated under their own definition of cheating, whether you agree or not. The only conceivable way of winning this thing is occupying that mindset and dismantling it from within. If you just keep flat out denying that their definition is unnecessarily broad, you will lose, because they have the right to establish that definition in their class.

The question is really where you are in the process, because if the decision was already made, your options are naturally more limited. It does not help that there were so many accused (comes across as busting a cheating ring as opposed to just one person: it will be difficult to argue that, no, your situation is meaningfully different from the 22 other accused and you deserve special treatment—remember, they already believe you are guilty) and, at least institutionally, it is not like you're being expelled. For them, it is an academic tracking thing... paperwork... for you, it's about as consequential and high-stakes as it gets. Sadly, that asymmetry means you are more likely to flounder, generate poor arguments, and get emotional. None of those things work in your favor, so it would have been ideal if you had a legal advocate, even if it's legal aid or from some other pro-bono source.

 

[Med Ed]

The course policy is ambiguous. The phrase "using AI-generated content on an exam" does not delineate between using AI while taking an exam versus using AI before taking an exam. The statement "Such platforms may be helpful for generating ideas" acknowledges that, in the professor's eyes, there are appropriate uses for the technology. Deciding what is inappropriate therefore becomes an exercise in mind reading.

Your best course of action is to produce evidence (i.e., chat logs) that show you learned the offending formula during exam preparation. It's no different than using a non-standard textbook that explains the content in a different way. The fact that the formula is wrong is incidental.

 

[Bruiners]

It's been some time. I imagine there have been developments...?

All in all it looks like your professor is digging in their heels and has included a CYA disclaimer in their syllabus. It's an open note assessment so if you were using a device separate from your computer, it is impossible for your professor to tell whether or not you were definitively accessing AI, but on a preponderance of evidence basis, it makes sense that applying a formula they did not teach might imply that you accessed outside resources, not your notes.

In psychiatry there is this famous story about Carl Jung telling another psychologist about a patient he had, who was so psychotically organized that they ruminated for many sessions about how taxing it was for them to be living on the moon. The psychologist corrects him to say "as if they lived on the moon." Jung corrects them: no, for this particular patient, their psychic reality is that they lived on the moon. Jung demonstrates that in order to be an effective psychoanalyst, one has to occupy the psychic reality of the patient, no matter how seemingly deviant it might be from frank reality. For the patient, it is real.

In this case, your professor believes you cheated under their own definition of cheating, whether you agree or not. The only conceivable way of winning this thing is occupying that mindset and dismantling it from within. If you just keep flat out denying that their definition is unnecessarily broad, you will lose, because they have the right to establish that definition in their class.

The question is really where you are in the process, because if the decision was already made, your options are naturally more limited. It does not help that there were so many accused (comes across as busting a cheating ring as opposed to just one person: it will be difficult to argue that, no, your situation is meaningfully different from the 22 other accused and you deserve special treatment—remember, they already believe you are guilty) and, at least institutionally, it is not like you're being expelled. For them, it is an academic tracking thing... paperwork... for you, it's about as consequential and high-stakes as it gets. Sadly, that asymmetry means you are more likely to flounder, generate poor arguments, and get emotional. None of those things work in your favor, so it would have been ideal if you had a legal advocate, even if it's legal aid or from some other pro-bono source.

We are currently in spring break right now. The only updates I have is that the dean of students clarified that this will move to a hearing based on the preponderance of evidence. I am awaiting a hearing to be scheduled. I agree with everything you have said. I don’t know where I can find a legal advocate that would take this case as a pro bono.

 

[Bruiners]

The course policy is ambiguous. The phrase "using AI-generated content on an exam" does not delineate between using AI while taking an exam versus using AI before taking an exam. The statement "Such platforms may be helpful for generating ideas" acknowledges that, in the professor's eyes, there are appropriate uses for the technology. Deciding what is inappropriate therefore becomes an exercise in mind reading.

Your best course of action is to produce evidence (i.e., chat logs) that show you learned the offending formula during exam preparation. It's no different than using a non-standard textbook that explains the content in a different way. The fact that the formula is wrong is incidental.

I agree. This is what’s happening so far. Professor accused us of using ChatGPT on the exam —> I proved I didn’t use ChatGPT on exam through documented chat logs and hand written notes spanning over 20 pages. —-> Professor and dean are now stating that “ok even if u didn’t use ChatGPT DURING th exam, the formula it generated for u that u incorrectly used in a time crunch is AI generated “material” and that’s why ur being punished for….

 

[Bruiners]

I recognize that this hearing will proceed regardless of the circumstances, and my priority is to be fully prepared to present my position as clearly and effectively as possible. My goal is to demonstrate that the case should be closed due to insufficient evidence.

At this point, I remain confused as to why the matter has not already been dismissed, given that the professor has not presented concrete evidence supporting the allegation. From my understanding, the case is advancing primarily on a procedural basis under the “preponderance of evidence” standard, despite my efforts to show that any AI usage occurred during prior study sessions and not during the exam itself.

I would appreciate guidance on how to best approach the hearing to ensure I communicate my position effectively and maximize the likelihood of a fair outcome. Per the university’s guidelines, there is an option to appeal the hearing decision; however, the Chancellor’s determination is final. Based on the information I have received, the likelihood of a successful appeal appears to be limited.

 

[Bruiners]

It's been some time. I imagine there have been developments...?

All in all it looks like your professor is digging in their heels and has included a CYA disclaimer in their syllabus. It's an open note assessment so if you were using a device separate from your computer, it is impossible for your professor to tell whether or not you were definitively accessing AI, but on a preponderance of evidence basis, it makes sense that applying a formula they did not teach might imply that you accessed outside resources, not your notes.

In psychiatry there is this famous story about Carl Jung telling another psychologist about a patient he had, who was so psychotically organized that they ruminated for many sessions about how taxing it was for them to be living on the moon. The psychologist corrects him to say "as if they lived on the moon." Jung corrects them: no, for this particular patient, their psychic reality is that they lived on the moon. Jung demonstrates that in order to be an effective psychoanalyst, one has to occupy the psychic reality of the patient, no matter how seemingly deviant it might be from frank reality. For the patient, it is real.

In this case, your professor believes you cheated under their own definition of cheating, whether you agree or not. The only conceivable way of winning this thing is occupying that mindset and dismantling it from within. If you just keep flat out denying that their definition is unnecessarily broad, you will lose, because they have the right to establish that definition in their class.

The question is really where you are in the process, because if the decision was already made, your options are naturally more limited. It does not help that there were so many accused (comes across as busting a cheating ring as opposed to just one person: it will be difficult to argue that, no, your situation is meaningfully different from the 22 other accused and you deserve special treatment—remember, they already believe you are guilty) and, at least institutionally, it is not like you're being expelled. For them, it is an academic tracking thing... paperwork... for you, it's about as consequential and high-stakes as it gets. Sadly, that asymmetry means you are more likely to flounder, generate poor arguments, and get emotional. None of those things work in your favor, so it would have been ideal if you had a legal advocate, even if it's legal aid or from some other pro-bono source.

This is great advice. What things can I mention to show that the proportioanlity of the sanction to the current case is not reasonable and that we are moving forward on unfair grounds?

 

[polymerization]

I agree. This is what’s happening so far. Professor accused us of using ChatGPT on the exam —> I proved I didn’t use ChatGPT on exam through documented chat logs and hand written notes spanning over 20 pages. —-> Professor and dean are now stating that “ok even if u didn’t use ChatGPT DURING th exam, the formula it generated for u that u incorrectly used in a time crunch is AI generated “material” and that’s why ur being punished for….

They're just closing ranks and stonewalling you, which is understandable considering the reality of 20+ students who are all going to try to insist that they are not like all the others and provide 90% the same story boilerplate with presumably the same evidence.

They have made the claim irrefutable because you cannot prove a negative. If the chat transcript that you provided from the very beginning was not compelling enough evidence, you can't help but wonder if there even can be any piece of evidence that is wholly exculpatory. It's unreasonable to expect CCTV overhead footage of your testing environment and they know that.

I also suspect this is not their first rodeo. We are back to my previous hypothesis that:

It makes a lot of sense that they are vying to make examples out of students

Whether you realize it or not, they are going to nail you for this. I don't think any of us can give you the "one secret trick they don't want you to know." It looks like they have already made the decision and have chosen to interpret what evidence exists in a way that supports that decision.

I wonder if there might be some part of the story that you're not sharing, which is fine. But the institutional confidence from a CA school tells me that, at least procedurally, they have all they need to bring down a sanction. I understand you're hesitant to reach out to legal aid, and I admit it is a long shot, but it might be your last shot.

 

[polymerization]

This is great advice. What things can I mention to show that the proportioanlity of the sanction to the current case is not reasonable and that we are moving forward on unfair grounds?

If you just keep flat out denying that their definition is unnecessarily broad, you will lose, because they have the right to establish that definition in their class.

Just arguing on the degree of punishment seems to concede the point at issue. I would not go down that route. Watch for floundering.

 

[Bruiners]

They're just closing ranks and stonewalling you, which is understandable considering the reality of 20+ students who are all going to try to insist that they are not like all the others and provide 90% the same story boilerplate with presumably the same evidence.

They have made the claim irrefutable because you cannot prove a negative. If the chat transcript that you provided from the very beginning was not compelling enough evidence, you can't help but wonder if there even can be any piece of evidence that is wholly exculpatory. It's unreasonable to expect CCTV overhead footage of your testing environment and they know that.

I also suspect this is not their first rodeo, and probably know that. We are back to my previous hypothesis that:



Whether you realize it or not, they are going to nail you for this. I don't think any of us can give you the "one secret trick they don't want you to know." It looks like they have already made the decision and have chosen to interpret what evidence exists in a way that supports that decision.

I suspect that there might be some part of the story that you're not sharing, which is fine. But the institutional confidence from a CA school tells me that, at least procedurally, they have all they need to bring down a sanction. I understand you're hesitant to reach out to legal aid, and I admit it is a long shot, but it might be your last shot.

Thank you. Does anyone have a good academic lawyer I could reach out to? I’ll try my very best to see if I can get one.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

To second the above, get a lawyer and cease any communication with the program unless it’s through them. Your premed office, if it’s actually for the students and not just the uni, should have someone they can recommend. If not, you’ll be able to find individuals online that can at least provide a consultation. From there, you’ll have a better idea of next steps.

 

[Starr_key]

No AI detector. His grounds for reporitng 23 students was that we used a formula he did not teach.

My advice would be for you guys to team up. 23 students is A LOT and if most, if not all, of you can show that you truly did not cheat, not only will you save yourselves, but also future students.

Personally, if I was the dean and 23 students, who are just about done with college, and have had no other academic issues show that this professor is being insane, I would absolutely side with the students.

I don't think every student will want to (but that would be ideal) but if you can at least get a group together.

 

[Bruiners]

Can I request a meeting with a higher-up? Maybe the chancellor to discuss how this case is not moving forward procedurally??

 

[polymerization]