Students Use AI to Cheat at Brown University
Students Use AI to Cheat at Brown University
布朗大學學生利用 AI 作弊
Introduction
A teacher at Brown University thinks some students used AI to cheat on a test.
布朗大學的一位教師認為有些學生在考試中使用 AI 作弊。
Main Body
Professor Serrano gave a math test at home. Many students got perfect scores. The average score was 96. This was very high. The teacher saw that the answers looked like ChatGPT.
Serrano 教授布置了一次在家完成的數學考試。許多學生獲得了滿分，平均分數為 96 分。這分數非常高。老師發現答案看起來像是 ChatGPT 生成的。
Next, the teacher gave a test in the classroom. 27 students left the class. The students who stayed did poorly. The average score fell to 48. Many students failed.
接著，老師在教室內進行了一次考試。27 名學生離開了教室。留在教室的學生表現不佳，平均分數下降至 48 分。許多學生不及格。
Now, the university is checking the students. The teacher will not give tests at home anymore. He will not give grades for homework. He wants students to think for themselves.
現在，大學正在對這些學生進行調查。老師將不再布置在家完成的考試，也不會再給予作業分數。他希望學生能獨立思考。
Conclusion
The university is looking at the cheating. The teacher is changing how he tests students.
大學正在處理作弊事件。老師正在改變評量學生的方式。
Vocabulary Learning
📉 The Power of 'Opposites'
To reach A2, you need to describe how things change. Look at how the scores moved in the story:
- High Low
- Perfect Poorly
The 'Fall' Pattern When something goes from a big number to a small number, we use the word fell.
Example: "The average score fell to 48."
🚫 Saying 'No' to the Future
Notice how the teacher decides to stop something. He uses: will not.
- He will not give tests at home.
- He will not give grades for homework.
Easy Rule: Use Will not + Action to promise that something stops happening starting now.
Vocabulary Learning
Investigation into Academic Dishonesty at Brown University After AI Use
布朗大學調查使用 AI 導致的學術不端行為
Introduction
A professor at Brown University has reported a large difference between student scores on a remote midterm and a later in-person final exam, suggesting that students used artificial intelligence without permission.
布朗大學的一位教授報告，學生在遠端期中考與隨後的實體期末考之間分數差異巨大，顯示學生在未經許可的情況下使用了人工智能。
Main Body
The problem began when Professor Roberto Serrano decided to give a mathematical economics midterm online. He did this to support students who were stressed after a fatal shooting on campus in December. However, this change led to unusual results: 40 out of 86 students got perfect scores, and the class average was 96. This was much higher than the usual average of 65 to 80, even though the exam was more difficult. Professor Serrano noticed that some answers looked exactly like those produced by ChatGPT, so he decided to make the final exam in-person and supervised.
問題始於 Roberto Serrano 教授決定將數學經濟學的期中考改為線上形式。他這樣做是為了支持那些在 12 月校園發生致命槍擊案後感到壓力巨大的學生。然而，這一改變導致了異常的結果：86 名學生中有 40 人獲得滿分，全班平均分高達 96 分。儘管考試難度增加，但這遠高於通常 65 到 80 分的平均水平。Serrano 教授注意到某些答案與 ChatGPT 生成的內容完全一致，因此他決定將期末考改為實體監考。
After the professor announced the in-person requirement, 27 students dropped the course, and 22 of those had previously received perfect scores. For the students who stayed, the class average dropped to 48, and 19 students failed. Consequently, the university's Vice President for communications, Brian E. Clark, confirmed that the case was sent to the academic code committee on July 8 for a formal review.
在教授宣布實體考試要求後，有 27 名學生退課，其中 22 人先前曾獲得滿分。對於留在課程中的學生，全班平均分下降至 48 分，且有 19 名學生不及格。因此，大學負責傳訊的副校長 Brian E. Clark 確認，該案件已於 7 月 8 日提交至學術準則委員會進行正式審查。
Furthermore, this incident has started a wider conversation about the loss of academic standards due to easy cheating tools. Technology experts and alumni are now debating whether students who rely on AI can actually think critically. As a result, Professor Serrano has announced that he will no longer use take-home exams or homework-based grades to prevent future cheating.
此外，此事件引發了關於作弊工具普及導致學術標準下降的更廣泛討論。科技專家與校友目前正在爭論依賴 AI 的學生是否還能進行批判性思考。因此，Serrano 教授宣布，他將不再使用帶回家考試或以作業為基礎的評分方式，以防止未來再次發生作弊行為。
Conclusion
Brown University is now carrying out a formal review of the cheating allegations while teachers change how they test students to stop AI-driven plagiarism.
布朗大學目前正對作弊指控進行正式審查，而教師們也正在改變測試方式，以阻止 AI 驅動的抄襲行為。
Vocabulary Learning
⚡ The 'B2 Power-Up': Moving from Basic to Complex Links
At the A2 level, you likely use simple words like and, but, and so. To reach B2, you need to show the relationship between ideas using Logical Connectors.
Look at these three 'evolutions' found in the text:
1. The Result Chain
- A2: Students used AI, so the grades were high.
- B2: "Consequently," the university sent the case to the committee.
- Coach's Tip: Use Consequently or As a result at the start of a sentence to sound more professional and academic.
2. Adding Information
- A2: And people are talking about AI.
- B2: "Furthermore," this incident has started a wider conversation...
- Coach's Tip: Instead of repeating and or also, use Furthermore to add a strong, secondary point to your argument.
3. The Contrast Shift
- A2: The exam was hard but the scores were high.
- B2: ...the class average was 96... "even though" the exam was more difficult.
- Coach's Tip: Even though is a 'bridge' word. It connects two opposite ideas in one smooth sentence, which is a classic B2 hallmark.
🚀 Quick Guide: Swap your words
| A2 Word | B2 Upgrade | Context |
|---|---|---|
| So | Consequently | Cause Effect |
| And | Furthermore | Adding a new point |
| But | Even though | Unexpected contrast |
💡 Pro-Tip for B2 Fluency: Stop thinking in short, chopped sentences. Start using these connectors to glue your ideas together into longer, more sophisticated thoughts.
Vocabulary Learning
Investigation into Academic Integrity Variance at Brown University Following AI Integration.
調查布朗大學在導入 AI 後學術誠信表現差異之研究
Introduction
A professor at Brown University has reported a significant discrepancy between student performance on a remote midterm and a subsequent in-person final examination, suggesting the unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence.
布朗大學的一位教授報告指出，學生在遠端期中考與隨後的實體期末考表現之間存在顯著差異，顯示其可能在未經授權的情況下使用了生成式人工智慧。
Main Body
The divergence in academic performance originated from a decision by Professor Roberto Serrano to administer a mathematical economics midterm remotely, a concession predicated on the psychological distress of students following a fatal shooting on campus in December. This pedagogical shift resulted in an anomalous grade distribution; 40 of 86 students achieved perfect scores, and the class average reached 96, markedly exceeding historical averages of 65 to 80 despite an increase in exam difficulty. Professor Serrano noted that specific responses mirrored outputs generated by ChatGPT, leading to the implementation of a proctored, in-person final examination.
學術表現的差異源於 Roberto Serrano 教授決定將數學經濟學期中考改為遠端進行，這是基於 12 月校園發生致命槍擊事件後，考量到學生的心理壓力而做出的讓步。這次教學轉變導致成績分佈異常：86 名學生中 40 人獲得滿分，班級平均分達到 96 分，儘管考題難度增加，仍遠高於歷史平均的 65 至 80 分。Serrano 教授注意到，特定答案與 ChatGPT 生成的內容極其相似，因此決定實施有監考的實體期末考試。
Upon the announcement of the in-person requirement, a notable attrition occurred, with 27 students withdrawing from the course, 22 of whom had previously secured perfect scores. Among those who remained, the class average declined to 48, and 19 students failed. This statistical collapse has prompted an institutional response; Brian E. Clark, Vice President for news and strategic campus communications, confirmed that the matter was referred to the university's standing committee on the academic code on July 8 for procedural review.
在宣布實體應考要求後，出現了明顯的人數流失，共有 27 名學生退出課程，其中 22 人此前曾獲得滿分。在留下來的學生中，班級平均分下降至 48 分，且有 19 名學生不及格。這種數據崩潰引起了校方反應；負責新聞與策略校園傳訊的副校長 Brian E. Clark 確認，此事件已於 7 月 8 日提交至大學學術守則常設委員會進行程序審查。
Beyond the immediate institutional implications, the incident has catalyzed a broader discourse regarding the erosion of academic rigor in the era of low-cost cheating. The case has attracted attention from technology sector figures and alumni, sparking debate over the professional viability of students who rely on AI for critical thinking. Consequently, Professor Serrano has announced a permanent cessation of take-home examinations and the elimination of homework-based grading to mitigate future integrity risks.
除了立即的體制影響外，此事件還催化了關於在低成本作弊時代學術嚴謹性被削弱的更廣泛討論。該案例吸引了科技業人士與校友的關注，引發了關於依賴 AI 進行批判性思考的學生其專業可行性的爭論。因此，Serrano 教授宣布將永久停止採取帶回家做的考試，並取消基於作業的評分，以降低未來的誠信風險。
Conclusion
Brown University is currently conducting a formal review of the alleged academic misconduct while the faculty adjusts assessment methodologies to counter AI-driven plagiarism.
布朗大學目前正針對涉嫌的學術不端行為進行正式審查，而教職員則在調整評估方法，以對抗 AI 驅動的抄襲。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of 'Clinical Detachment'
To ascend from B2 to C2, a student must move beyond simple 'formal' language and master Nominalization and Lexical Density. The provided text is a masterclass in clinical detachment—the ability to describe a scandalous event (mass cheating) without using emotional or accusatory adjectives.
⚡ The Pivot: From Action to Concept
Notice how the author avoids saying "Students cheated using AI" (Active/B2). Instead, they write:
"...suggesting the unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence."
By transforming the verb "cheat" into the noun phrase "unauthorized use," the writer shifts the focus from the actor (the students) to the phenomenon (the usage). This is the hallmark of C2 academic prose: depersonalization.
🔬 Dissecting High-Density Collocations
Observe the precise, multi-syllabic pairings used to maintain this scholarly distance:
- "Pedagogical shift" Instead of saying "the teacher changed how he taught."
- "Statistical collapse" Instead of saying "the grades dropped suddenly."
- "Permanent cessation" Instead of saying "stopping forever."
🛠️ The C2 Upgrade Path
To emulate this, stop using verbs to describe the 'core' of your sentence. Turn the action into a noun (the headword) and surround it with qualifying adjectives.
B2 Logic: The students left the class because they were afraid of the final exam. C2 Logic: A notable attrition occurred upon the announcement of the in-person requirement.
Analysis: The subject is no longer "The students," but "attrition" (the process of reducing in size). This removes the human element and replaces it with a systemic observation, providing the writer with an aura of objectivity and intellectual authority.