Letters: AI and marking in higher education

Editors: Finn Watton and Hugh Ludford

Dear Palatinate,

Many thanks for your incisive coverage of the AI and marking issue over which I resigned as Chair of the Board of Examiners in Philosophy – it was actually more like a month ago, as my article took a while to be published. Could I just clear up a minor error, and respond to the University’s “rebuttal”?

Your article says that I argued that “lazy student cheats” are enabled by AI use in exams under the current system. What I actually wrote is: The lazy student cheats with professional-grade versions of AI chatbots such as ChatGPT or Claude, and gets a first-class result. The hard- working student uses no bots, or a non professional bot honestly, thinking and writing for themselves – but gets a 2:1.

The University’s “rebuttal” is better-described as a simple “rejection”, as no arguments are given certainly no indication that there is an immediate crisis to be addressed. The ostrich is alive and well. Indeed, throughout this affair, I have been shocked but not surprised by the University’s reactions – as indeed one is shocked but not surprised by Trump’s.

The spokesperson repeatedly describes my arguments as “personal opinion”. No philosopher could have written such drivel. They are indeed personal opinion – supported by ten years’ experience as Chair of the Board of Examiners, and thirty years’ experience of marking. To describe them as “personal opinion” is reminiscent of Michael Gove’s populism. I would not call myself an expert, but rather an experienced examiner – that is why my opinions are worthy of particular consideration. As I say in my recent YouTube interview with Philip Davies – and repeatedly in lectures – in moral, political and aesthetic matters, “We decide for ourselves, but not by ourselves”. The university spokesperson is a pure subjectivist, a disastrous attitude – it’s implicated in many problems of our age, including Trump and Brexit.

The University “responded” that in-person exams, oral assessments, presentations and practical work are already employed in Durham programmes. I did not deny that – however, in many arts subjects, including philosophy, these alternatives are limited to non-existent. Can I also correct the University spokesperson’s claim that, “At a recent meeting, while the writer’s colleagues understood his concerns, they did not think that the solutions that he was presenting were workable”. That should read: “at this meeting of senior colleagues, while they understood his concerns, some did not agree with his immediate, sticking-plaster solutions. Many junior colleagues, who were not present, have a livelier appreciation of both”.

The spokesman denied that the University has ever said that a return to sit-down exams is “financially impractical”. I should simply have said “impractical” – which includes financial reasons, such as the cost of accommodating large numbers of special rooms. I am looking without success for an explanation of British universities’ failure to respond to the crisis. My union rep said that universities are large institutions without the required agility. Possibly, also, revenue from overseas students is at stake, if sit-down exams return. But who knows.

“Many universities, including Durham, are addressing actively the use of artificial intelligence”, the spokesperson says. Yes, but much too slowly. One has to have marked essays this academic year to know that there is indeed a crisis in university assessment. That crisis is a profound one.

Degrees must mean more than “The student had AI competence”. When someone graduates from Durham with a First or 2:1, the university must be able to say, “Yes – they earned that degree”. In summer 2026, it cannot do that.

Yours,
Andy Hamilton
Professor of Philosophy and former Chair of BoE, Durham University

Dear Palatinate,

Following the publication of Andy Hamilton’s article in The Spectator on 7th June, I wrote to him to express my thanks for highlighting the extent of the problem of essay-based assessment. 

I was somewhat surprised to learn that his article had not provoked much of a response from the student body. As students, I think we should be deeply concerned about how AI is degrading the value of our degrees. In my subject – Music – we are fortunate to have assessments in composition and performance which AI cannot (yet) effectively complete. However, other degrees, such as Philosophy and English, are 100% essay-based (including online exams). As I think every student has worked out by now, this means they are more or less 100% ChatGPT-able. It is only a matter of time before employers work this out too, and a coursework-based degree (from Durham or any other high-ranking university) becomes worthless on a CV. We are already dealing with a cut-throat job market; this is going to be a massive, massive problem for all of us. 

In a time when universities are so tight on budget, student satisfaction is parampunt; we are their main source of funding. They cannot risk a negative response from the student body due to a return to in-person assessment leading to worsened NSS scores. This would a drop in the league tables and thus a decrease in the number of applicants. Note, by the way, that Oxford and Cambridge have exempted themselves from factoring student satisfaction into their rankings. This is something that due to their established reputation and (more importantly) funding, they can afford to do. 

What does all this mean? It means that as students, it is our job to speak up against this – that is, if we want to! And for the reasons outlined above, I think we should. 

I am definitely not saying all assessment should be in-person; the research skills we develop writing essays (yes, including the responsible use of AI) are perhaps the most crucial ones we develop at university, especially for those wanting to continue in academia. Nor do I think in-person assessment should carry significant weighting in every module. However, I do think that it should form an innegotiably indispensable part of our examination portfolio, with the simple purpose of confirming that our coursework marks correlate to our true abilities, of confirming that our degree is indeed ours. 

And yes, there is also an element of frustration in knowing that other students are receiving often remarkably good results using chat bots. But this is not my primary concern, nor is it the aim of this letter. My aim is to say: I firmly believe that unless we, as students, start advocating for a re-introduction of in-person exams, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. In a matter of years (if not months), our degrees will be seen as worthless. 

From:

Neta Margoninski Morrag

These letters follow our coverage of Professor Andy Hamilton’s comments on AI.

A statement from the University on Professor Hamilton’s Spectator article said:

“We wholly reject the allegations made in an article published online by The Spectator on Sunday 7 June, 2026. We contacted The Spectator before and after publication to state unequivocally that the article is inaccurate and uninformed about the Department and the University’s approach and regulations.

“Many universities, including Durham, are addressing actively the use of artificial intelligence and what this emerging technology means for teaching, assessment and the career prospects of our students.

“Colleagues may articulate their own perspectives on these technological developments. However, we strongly dispute the assertions made in this article. They are personal opinion and unsubstantiated.”

Image: Mark Norton / Palatinate