TL;DR

England’s higher education regulator says AI is putting the credibility of qualifications at risk. Research published on 11 November by the Office for Students (OfS) and Advance HE found many institutions still set unsupervised work that AI can complete to a high standard. The OfS will require assessments that reliably measure what students know, which it says will often mean secure, AI-free tests.

What the research found

The findings come from roundtables and interviews with students and staff. Students described classmates who used large language models to finish assessments, sometimes within minutes, and got grades close to those of peers who did the work themselves. Staff said current assessments do not consistently show whether students have the knowledge and skills being tested.

The report says closed-book exams, presentations, practicals and performances are, in many cases, likely to be the most valid way to measure attainment.

Other findings point to uneven practice. Staff use of AI varies widely within and between institutions. Many students find their university’s AI rules hard to follow, and some said lecturers’ reliance on AI had made course materials worse. Training for staff in AI is usually optional, and few take it up. Students, meanwhile, want more chances to build AI skills for work.

Josh Fleming, who leads strategy and delivery at the OfS, called AI “a generational risk to the system as it stands” and said the sector needs “far greater use of AI-free assessment”.

What happens next

The OfS says it will hold institutions to account where they fall short, using levers that include specific conditions of registration, fines and suspension of student support or grant funding. It has published guidance on how its rules apply to AI. Advance HE plans an AI-focused Change Academy programme for members early in 2027.

What it means

This is regulatory pressure, not advice. Universities that rely on take-home essays and unsupervised online tests now face a regulator saying those formats may not meet its quality conditions. The same question has reached schools: we reported in July on Ofqual’s scrutiny of coursework, and last week on Jisc’s framework for college and university leaders.

In our view, the cost will fall on staff time. Moving to supervised exams, vivas and practical assessment is slower and more expensive to run than marking coursework, and the research already finds staff training thin. Employers recruiting graduates should watch how quickly assessment changes, since it decides what a degree certifies.