The Western Sydney University senior lecturer in law and technology has been studying and experimenting with AI for years \u2013 he is speaking from Palermo in Italy, where he is attending a series of university workshops on the technology. He says, colleagues have been asking him lately if it could help lighten the burden of grading. Alimardani finds this talk \u201cextremely concerning\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve got to be really careful where we are stepping here,\u201d he says. \u201cBecause I think there\u2019s always a risk, at the moment, for higher education to collapse\u201d.<\/p>\n
AI being used to mark assignments is no theoretical prospect \u2013 but a fork in the road at which universities have suddenly found themselves confronted.<\/p>\n
Alimardani\u2019s is among several universities in Australia that allow staff to use AI in marking assessments and giving students feedback.<\/p>\n
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email<\/a><\/p>\n Though limited, fellow critics say such use of AI risks universities replacing the work of human academics on campuses with algorithms in datacentres \u2013 and that it could create a so-called \u201cslop-cycle\u201d, in which students submit AI generated assignments that academics mark with AI.<\/p>\n \u201cStudents are already financially struggling,\u201d Alimardani says. \u201cIf they are not receiving proper feedback, if they feel like their degree is not as meaningful for employers and if they think that having a university degree doesn\u2019t help them that much with guaranteeing a job \u2013 why would they come to university, really?\u201d<\/p>\n The University of Newcastle, also in New South Wales, Deakin University and RMIT in Victoria and South Australia\u2019s University of Adelaide all give similar allowances to WSU. In all those cases, it is a qualified green light for AI. Newcastle, for example, gives students the right to opt out and Deakin says staff can use AI to \u201cimprove efficiency and support assessment and administrative activities\u201d but not \u201cassign grades\u201d.<\/p>\n A spokesperson said WSU took \u201ca human-centred approach to generative AI use in assessment\u201d in which \u201cthe awarding of marks, grades and feedback must also always be the responsibility of academic staff\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cAcademic staff may use AI tools to support certain aspects of assessment and feedback, however responsibility for academic judgment must always remain with university teaching staff,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n Alimardani says AI does have the potential to improve the quality of marking by acting as a \u201csecond pair of eyes\u201d \u2013 he is working to create models that can pick out inconsistencies in human assessment. And the promise of AI assistance comes at a time when many university staff are overworked to \u201cbreaking point\u201d, he notes, with marking taking up a large portion of academics\u2019 time.<\/p>\n But claims of the potential benefit AI would bring to marking, he says, are largely untested, while the risk it poses is so great as to behoove a \u201creally slow\u201d and considered evaluation of those claims. Alimardani is not sure how AI could be used at scale to speed up assessments at all, without inviting disaster.<\/p>\n Imagine 100 academics are given an AI marking tool but told to verify its assessments, Alimardani says.<\/p>\n \u201cLet\u2019s say 80 do exactly as advised, there are going to be 20 who do not\u201d.<\/p>\n He calls this \u201cverification drift\u201d: after a few AI generated assessments appear fine, the human charged with its oversight \u2013 often overworked themselves \u2013 stops being as vigilant and AI hallucinations slip through as facts.<\/p>\n Such scandals, as have been seen in courtrooms over recent years<\/a>, would be almost inevitable, he says, tarnishing university reputations and fostering a sense of unfairness among students that would see them question the value of higher education<\/a>.<\/p>\n Which may explain several high-ranking universities \u2013 including University of NSW, the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney \u2013 draw the line at using generative AI in marking, despite enthusiastically allowing it in other aspects of the classroom.<\/p>\n Jury still out<\/p>\n For all those that have adopted a position on the matter, a number of universities say they are considering how they might use AI as a marking tool.<\/p>\n A Monash spokesperson said \u201cat this time, AI is not used in the marking process\u201d, but that the university was \u201ctransforming assessment through a programmatic approach\u201d in which \u201cAI is integrated into teaching and assessment to support students\u2019 learning\u201d.<\/p>\n Wollongong and James Cook universities responded similarly. Others appeared to dodge the question entirely.<\/p>\n A University of Queensland spokesperson said its academics are \u201crequired to confirm that all specified learning outcomes are achieved and that grades awarded reflect the level of student attainment\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cUQ maintains an expectation that academics assess their students\u2019 work and is actively developing policies to maintain this expectation in the age of AI,\u201d the spokesperson said in response to a direct question.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1790526012_93_2998.jpg\")
<\/p>\n