A cheating scandal at Brown University has brought the issue of AI-assisted academic dishonesty at elite universities into sharp focus. The controversy centers on an economics course where take-home exams produced extraordinarily high scores, raising serious questions about whether students are using generative AI to substitute for genuine learning.
The situation came to light through the efforts of Roberto Serrano, a blind economics professor at Brown, who shared his experience with both El País and Inside Higher Ed. His account reveals how changes to exam formats, made under difficult circumstances, may have inadvertently created conditions ripe for AI-assisted cheating.
A Campus Tragedy and a Professor's Response
The story begins in December 2025, when a gunman attacked Brown's campus, killing two people. One of the victims had recently introduced herself to Serrano. Deeply affected by the tragedy, the Spanish-born professor decided to alter his approach to the challenging ECON 1170 course for the spring 2026 semester, opting to allow take-home exams for both the midterm and the final.
This decision would have unintended consequences. The course, known for its difficulty, had historically attracted small numbers of highly capable students. Serrano had never had more than 30 students enrolled at one time, and on some occasions, as few as eight had signed up. With the new take-home exam policy in place, enrollment surged to 86 students.
Extraordinary Results That Raised Suspicions
When the midterm exam was administered on March 5, the results were unlike anything Serrano had seen before. The average score was 96 out of 100, with 40 students achieving a perfect score of 100.
These numbers were remarkable given the course's history. Serrano told Inside Higher Ed that the average midterm grade in the course had traditionally ranged between 65 and 80 percent. Furthermore, he had deliberately made this exam more difficult than previous ones, reasoning that the take-home format — with its unlimited time — presented an opportunity to challenge students more rigorously.
The combination of a harder exam, historically lower averages, and suddenly near-perfect performance across a much larger class suggested that something beyond studying was at work.