text:
Is there a way to stop students using AI to generate essays?
A friend of mine teaches German at a university outside the EU and has observed a rise of the quality of essays written by students, comparing the same years of study: first-year students now compared to first-year students a year ago, second-year students now compared to second-year students a year ago, and so on. A year ago, the typical essay contained a number of language and stylistic errors, weird word choices, and awkward non-idiomatic expressions. Now, some essays read flawlessly - but somewhat blandly and emotionlessly, not really human.
So, she's afraid that some students might be actively using AI to generate essays, and she is stuck as to what to do about it. Even when her gut tells her that an essay is AI-generated, she needs some sort of proof in order to take an action about it. A baseless accusation could easily cost her a job. At the same time, her conscience doesn't let her just sit on her hands. Also, one of her KPIs is the average student score for the final exam - and the average score will surely go down if she doesn't find a way to force her students to write essays on their own.
So, she asked for my advice, and I'm typing this question here: Are there any strategies of building a proof that an essay is AI-generated?
There are various AI-detection tools on the Internet, but they are mostly for the English language, and I'm unsure how good are those that check German texts. I selected a random German language AI detector and tested it with a text generated by ChatGPT, only to be disappointed when the message indicated that the text appeared to be written by a human. Another German AI detector returned an AI-probability of 60% for a text actually written in the pre-AI era.
I'm seeking not only suggestions for reliable AI detectors for the German language, but also general advice about how to deal with the problem in a university setting.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

AI tools such as Chat GPT are really helpful for language learners, in that they can quite reliably pick up grammatical errors and other problems, and (albeit with somewhat less accuracy) can even explain what the problem was and how to do it properly.
Rather than banning such tools, I would suggest requiring them. Have students turn in:

The original (non-AI) version,
The corrected (post-AI) version, and
Some commentary on what mistakes the AI caught and especially anything the AI flagged but the student isn’t sure about

That draws a nice clear line between legitimate and illegitimate use of resources. Some students may still try to cheat by generating the original essay, inserting plausible errors, and then “correcting” the errors, but this seems like almost as much work as doing it legitimately.

This is an excellent suggestion.  Trying to stop students from using AI now is similar to trying to stop students from using calculators 40 or 50 years ago.  With better tools we can do better things, so prepare the student to work with the tools to produce things they could not without it.

They also make huge assumptions about semantics from the available syntax that can be very wrong: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.14921.pdf

If the course makes ChatGPT mandatory, it should also provide accounts for all participants or state clearly before students enroll that a ChatGPT account will be necessary and is not paid for by the institute.  Or some other tool / software, of course.

@gerrit and also see if this does not constitute endorsement of the tool by the institution. What if some FOSS purist wants to use their own LLM? Making proprietary, paid tool X or Y mandatory is a can of worms. Handle with care.

I'd be quite wary of the self-reflection ability of LLMs with such a suggestion. It's perfectly possible to query ChatGPT to reflect on issues with things it generates and even correct them.

@MindwinRememberMonica: It's extremely common for higher-level education to require the use of proprietary software. As an undergraduate, I once took a logic 101 course which required us to buy the professor's bespoke proof assistant software (he did not like Fitch). The purchase was made directly from his secretary and did not go through the school's bookstore. I often wonder if he was violating university policy (but it was $20 and I did not feel like fighting it at the time).

To Azor's point, this is why the reflection is so important. For example, a beginning student might write "er sagte, dass du hier warst" and AI will change "warst" to "wärst." An honest student will write "I have no idea why the AI did this or if it is correct" - and then the teacher can explain about reported speech. Whereas a cheating student will just use wärst and be unable to explain how they knew to do that. And if the AI is wrong, the teacher will be able to confirm that it is wrong - which is a very useful demonstration about not trusting the machine too much.

Problem is, the course is now less of a German course and more of a how-to-use AI course.

Disagree: one of the hardest things about learning a language is that it's difficult to know whether something is correct - especially thorny differences like ser/estar in Spanish, aspect in Russian, or prepositions in German. Even with the occasional errors, AI is already an amazing tool for this. You could just as easily say that we shouldn't allow bilingual dictionaries, since that will make the course more of a how-to-use-bilingual-dictionaries course.

@AzorAhai-him- which is why this is a good answer. If students use AI tool in secret, they will never learn how limited they are and will have unwarranted trust in them. If generative AI is a significant problem in the class, learning about it's limits is a good solution.

I don't think that this is a good suggestion. Why? Because ChatGPT got can handle this task as well. Just ask to write the whole stuff and it will do.

@Kevin It's extremely common for higher-level education (at least in the USA AFAIK) to suck every penny out of their students and burden them with a lifetime of debt. I'm not surprised they would turn a blind eye to the teachers unethical racketeering.

Here's how I have been dealing with it:  make it harder for the students to cheat than not cheat. You can't stop them from cheating, but you can definitely tilt the balance to make cheating less attractive. Some strategies that have worked for me:

Make the instructions so specific so that they are hard to enter as a query on a LLM. Add very specific formatting instructions, and specific instructions about the structure of the paper. For example, require that the first paragraph needs to address X and Y subjects, using the funnel writing style. What's the funnel writing style? Read the textbook.
Split papers into small submissions, giving the instructions for the next part one week at a time. It's hard for students to query LLMs so that their following submission matches something they submitted a week ago.
Have students write their papers in a shared Google Doc and disallow copy-pasting from another document. By "disallowing" I mean that they can't just claim they wrote the paper in another program and then just pasted the whole thing into Google Docs. They can still copy/paste as part of the normal editing process. Students must write their drafts and make all edits directly in the document while preserving the document's history. The downside of this is the realization of how little time students actually spend doing homework.
Make students write short paragraphs while in the classroom, and tell them you will compare writing styles against their final submissions.
Reason with your students. I often ask them: "Would you pay someone to go to the gym for you?" The whole purpose of the exercise is to force them to go through the difficult process or organizing their thoughts in a document.
Grade fairly. I often establish a baseline at the start of the semester (e.g. make them produce a writing sample) and tell students that I will grade them not against each other, but against their own baseline. It lowers the anxiety of having to produce a perfect piece of writing, when no such thing exists.

None of these strategies will stop a student who is determined to cheat, but they have helped me lower the amount of essays I see obviously composed by LLMs.

Have the students write essays by hand in the classroom based on a prompt revealed to them at the beginning of the class period.

is bad, you can resume a conversation with chatGPT you had months ago. 1. depends, but they are pretty good at following a certain style so I really dislike the specific formatting instruction idea. Reading a book is better, but you can feed the tool the information too. 3. is sound. 4. is hard to actually do in practice because it is no concrete evidence. 6. is weird - they could just try to produce a really bad baseline on purpose

The point with #1 is good not because it will prevent students from getting good responses from the LLM, but because since they don't know what the funnel writing style is they won't know when the LLM misses the mark.

For point #5, the whole purpose for most students will be to obtain a passing grade.  Actually learning something may be entirely incidental.

-1 for suggesting the use of Google tools. Plus, copy-pasting is a legitimate need of a person writing their homework.

@einpoklum The comment misses the point. Of course it's useful to copy/paste while writing. What I don't allow is for student to say that they wrote their essay offline, then copy/pasted the whole thing to Google Docs. I tell them that I need to see the development of the essay.

@Cheery The probably with that approach is that it's not accessible. There are students that absolutely need the ability to write their essay outside of your chosen program because of a disability they have. As an aside, I'm a web developer. However good you think disallowing copy-paste is I can get around it trivially. It's something I was able to do as a student. You may reduce the number of students using AI but you're more likely to disadvantage the least capable students instead.

@MiniRagnarok It's not disallowing copy/paste within the webpage (is that even possible?). The recommendation is to tell students that they can't just copy/paste the whole essay from another program. They have to do the editing process within the Google Doc. Students with documented disabilities get exemptions, of course.

@MiniRagnarok Even if a student has some significant disability that requires writing to happen outside of the chosen tool, that would be easily solved by the student going through the proper channels to document their disability, similar to how you would if you e.g. needed more time in exams or were unable to participate in oral examinations due to a disability. It isn't as if though the copy/paste functionality is somehow disabled - it's just an additional requirement when grading, which can be diverted from if needed.

@JHR "It isn't as if though the copy/paste functionality is somehow disabled - it's just an additional requirement when grading, which can be diverted from if needed." That's exactly what Cheery suggested doing. Disabling copy/paste into a shared Google Doc so that the student must type into the Google Doc.

@MiniRagnarok No. 'Disallowing' in the sense that it's against the given instructions. They can still copy/paste withing the doc. They need copy/paste to organize the paragraphs, add citations, etc.

@Cheery That is something you can actually do with Google Docs. You can probably see my confusion. If all you're doing is making it a policy that they should be good students and not copy/paste then why not just tell them to not use AI?

@MiniRagnarok Because it is easy to go into the revision history of a document and see how it was put together.  It is still entirely possible for a student to retype, word by word, a document from an AI source, but at the very least they will have read and processed the thing.  Is it possible to subvert the revision history in other ways?  Probably, but it takes additional steps and the average student doesn't know how to do it at this point.

Regarding #3: There are many alternatives to Google Docs with similar functionality, consider using them! If you settle for Google, provide accounts held by the institution. If I were required to register a google account to participate in a course I would rather just quit the course. Reading through the terms and conditions to actually understand what they mean is a full class of work all by itself. IF you stick with Google, I'm not sure what I think is worse: requiring the students who do read the contract to sign it or to require students to sign a contract they don't read. Either is bad.

@EdvinW I understand the feeling. I would think the same if forced to open a social media account. At my institution Google handles all email and storage, so all students already have an account.

#6 is neither fair nor equitable. By comparing coursework to personal baselines, you are proposing a grade represents growth rather than demonstrated proficiency. Expectations should be informed, high, yet reasonable, and clearly communicated. An informed expectation (e.g., considering past classes, developmental readiness, content to be successful at next level, etc.) allows for an external comparison without direct in-class competitive grading. Course grades are relevant for admissions, scholarships, honors, and more. To shift goalposts for individuals is not a sound solution to AI use.

#5 is tricky, because a lot of students have the attitude that they are there for a diploma, or for things directly related to the job they are trying to get, and not for the general learning or soft skills. It’s “would you pay someone to go to the gym for you if you needed a certificate that said you went to the gym 30 times in order to get a job!”

#3 isn't great as it's easily circumvented - example open the doc on your phone, enable voice to text then just read the AI generated content aloud into your phone's mic.

@aslum There is no way to stop students from cheating. All a teacher can do is (1) plead with student's moral sense, and (2) combine strategies to make it harder to cheat than not. From my answer: None of these strategies will stop a student who is determined to cheat, but they have helped me lower the amount of essays I see obviously composed by LLMs.

Make them write on Excel o other spreadsheet: one word per cell

@Cheery I'm just saying #3 is about as effective as using a pool noodle as road block - so really you're just making things more complicated for those who aren't cheating without deterring the cheaters at all.

@aslum To quote the big Lebowski, "that's, like, your opinion, man"

Frame challenge: Is there a way to stop students from using a calculator in maths homework?
It seems like the humanities are now encountering the problem which maths teachers faced when calculators became a thing. I remember my teachers saying: You should learn doing calculations in your head - you won't always have a calculator with you doing the computations for you (and I finished school in 2015!). And look where we are now.
Do you really want to be similar to those guys?
The availability of calculators meant, that the requirements for a mathematician changed. You now do not have to be any good at computation, because you can make a computer do it. So you can focus on the modelling.
Given that your students will have language models available for the rest of their lives, ask yourself the question: What can they do which the language model can not do? Grade them on that.
If the language model could actually do anything that is required from a student in your subject (which I don't actually believe), then your subject would be obsolete. Why hire anyone from that subject if a language model does it better? So focus on the things language models can not do, grade only those things and let the students use LLMs for the rest. Because that is actually preparing them for the future, which is your job after all.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

I think the common consensus is that, when properly used, AI is near impossible to detect. So the best you can do it make it so hard to use properly that most people won't bother.
If the main goal is language instruction, then the precise topics of the essays should be somewhat flexible. So I would make use of that and pick things the AI cannot know about. E.g. have the students discuss recent news events past the AI cutoff. Or in a beginner class on directions, have them describe in detail the way from the building entrance to the classroom.
You can also add in additional constraints that should confuse an AI. In a language class it should be perfectly fine to ask them something like to use precisely 10 words from a given 20 word list and use each of those words precisely once. This is a nice exercise in vocabulary, but from what I can gather something that LLMs are notoriously bad at. In particular since you ask about German which has different conjugated forms of the same word.

AI tools have a contexual window, in which you may simply provide some context and then ask them for the answer. For example you may provide some recent news titles, and then have it discuss the news. So I dont agree with your solution

@WordPressSpeed Not only that, but some AI will actually do web searches and summarize the information in their reply.  Giving directions, the student could simply write it in their own words (badly) and ask the AI to rewrite it.

Your last paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. If you ask for something that AI cannot (yet) do well, then it is not at all "near impossible to detect" AI even when it is used properly.

Check the sources
One of the known problems with generative AI is that they make up everything, often including reasonable fake citations.  If you set limits on acceptable citations so that they can be tracked down using library resources for example and actually check the citations are valid and relevant you should be able to catch papers that are completely AI instead of researched.

I second this one. Getting AI to cite anything has proven to be pretty difficult to me.

Citations are a problem now — but how long might it be before an improved AI has learned to cite genuine references?  (I don't think there's any reason why an AI couldn't learn that skill; there must be a lot of training data available, and as someone said, some AIs already perform web searches.)  So while this answer is probably a good idea in the short term, it could become obsolete before too long.

@gidds Maaaaybe, but there's a lot of technical issues, not the least of which gen AI are basically fancy Markov chains and don't understand anything.  I don't think practical AIs are able to hold enough 'context' to 'read' a whole text and then cite from it instead of parroting fragments of citations it's seen before.

@davolfman The latest OpenAI models have 128,000 token context windows, and multi-megabyte contexts are already under active development. Hoping to overflow the context window is a losing game, especially with technology evolving this rapidly.

doesn't this reward the student who trains their own LLM on the universitie's resources? i.e. it has only learned from the universities library sources and so on? You're basically making it hard for the average" person to cheat, but someone with an intimate knowledge of technology won't have any problem following your rules as much as the AI will have an issue following your rules. The AI can follow rules better, but it has to be trained with the right data.

@Snared While CS students are known for being willing to put in more effort to get out of work than to complete the work itself.  It usually doesn't extend to the level of a full time job or a thesis.

This might seem far fetched, but Honor Codes have been fairly successful in the past to avoid some practices that students might use to avoid learning and cheat for grades in various ways.
An Honor Code needs to be clearly stated and both the reasons for it and the consequences of not adhering to it need to be part of that statement. The main reason, of course, is to try to get the student to accept the fact that hard work is essential for true learning. In some places, breaking the code has severe consequences, up to expulsion.
This won't, of course, end all cheating, and it also requires a high level of instruction and reasonable expectations of students.
But, in the presence of an Honor Code, students could be told of how it relates to using AI shortcuts generally and how it impairs true learning.
If the students are generally "learning driven" rather than "grade driven" then an Honor Code can work in the main. And that, in turn, implies that grading be of an individual and their work and not competitive in any sense. If you don't introduce adverse incentives, things generally work out better.
There is unlikely to ever be a perfect solution to the problem of cheating, of course.

Honor codes are a US thing, it's unlikely to work in a place where there is no tradition of such codes.

@Marianne013, I don't think they are widespread even here in the US. But I've seen them work.

@Marianne013 Even if the name "honor code" is a US thing, most reputable institutions will have a policy regarding academic misconduct.

Make it hard for them to use AI.
What some teachers have been doing is giving the writing prompt in a Word document and hiding a secret prompt in the text by making the font on it white. They use something small and highly unrelated in the prompt like, "mention maraschino cherries in the paper." The student will not see the secret prompt, but AI will when the student copies and pastes it. Any paper containing something about maraschino cherries is likely guilty of using AI.
Once a student is caught maybe they will be embarrassed enough not to do it again.
Teach them AI can be a resource
Another way to handle it is to require them to use AI as a resource. Have the students learn that it's a tertiary aid at best. They can pick apart what AI has given them, hunt down sources, reword, discard, etc... Then you might get yourself a resourceful bunch of kids who have learned how to create something unique despite the increasing reliance on AI.

when the student pastes text into the chat gpt playground, the text becomes unformatted, so the cherries line won't make it in. Youd on't just upload the word doc, nor do you just copy verbatim what the teacher asks. You do "prompt engineering" which is where you continually tweak the prompt as well as parameters, so there would be 0% chance that a student misses the marino cherry reference and deletes it before generating and tweaking the outputs.

I've responded by 1) requiring disclosure, 2) potentially requiring discussion, and 3) tweaking questions.
I've deliberately avoided forbidding use or creating a slalom of ad-hoc requirements to discourage or detect it. It's part of the landscape, and while all of us, students and I included, are still learning how to use it well, I feel it inappropriate to reject AI use outright. I just seek to remove the temptation for students to outsource thinking to it, i.e., as a substitute, rather than complement, to learning.
As context, I'm an industry-experienced adjunct lecturer in an interdisciplinary field with a lot of autonomy to set my own policies.

I require disclosure by asking students to specify when submitting their writing if and how they used AI tools while writing; and if they did, to briefly indicate challenges/issues they faced. I explain in class that this is both in the interests of fairness, but also since I want us to be able to have a discussion collectively what challenges and issues people found (though I think I'm not actually going to have time to do that, since I'm behind....)

I added a clause to my syllabus that I can require any student to come in and discuss their paper viva voce prior to receiving a grade. I've explained orally I will not do this generally, only if they self-report extensive use of AI or I suspect it, i.e. something feels off. The goal of the discussion will not be to "catch them out" on using AI, but to ensure they understand and stand behind what they wrote, regardless of any AI assistance. I therefore also emphasize they are accountable for the paper they submit, that they can't blame AI for any inadequacies. I'm going to have that discussion with one paper where the student has self-reported extensive use of AI since I'm curious AND want to make sure they truly own the outcome, and with one other which seems AI-ey in style (to me subjectively) even though not disclosed (there may be a language comprehension/cultural issue too).

I've ran my questions through chatGPT and claude.ai to see what the "AI standard" is. In most cases it's just not too good and students obviously need to do better. Perhaps more careful AI prompting will help, which I don't mind if students disclose. In one case the AI answer was too good; I've changed the question since in retrospect it was too easy anyway, it was just structured regurgitation. My fault as a pedagogue that I didn't previously notice.

Just to say that although this is buried under earlier answers, it's my favourite. The disclosure is a great idea and I may well introduce that.

Felix's answer is already excellent. And I guess I'm making the same point but phrased differently. You are supposed to be teaching people skills that are useful. To be useful you have to be able to do something that a computer can't do cheaper and faster than you. If you are doing something by hand that a computer can do better/cheaper than that is neither a useful academic pursuit nor is it going to land you a job. That's okay for a hobby. But university isn't really about teaching you a hobby.
So the answer is to not care about whether the students used LLM's. You care whether they can complete the assignment. If LLM's are useful to the students they should be using them. (It is certainly what their future employer would want them to do. They care about the output not how it got there.) If that allows you to now move the bar higher and set higher demands and more difficult problems that's great!
Of course, using LLM's can have downsides. And in those cases where LLM assisted work is worse than independently produced work you should let that be reflected in their grade. Just like their old mistakes were reflected in the grade.
I'm sure there are many tasks you could give the students for which current LLM's aren't going to help much. Give some of those problems. It will teach them that they have to understand things for themselves. Not because it is some weird arbitrary rule made up by a professor but because there are problems they cannot solve otherwise.

Some specifics since this concerns a language course:

Professional translator commonly use LLM's to assist their work these days. It is good for students to be familiar with such a workflow.
One goal of language courses is often to have rapid on the fly conversational skills. Clearly LLM's (currently) won't help with that. So oral exams would provide a great (and useful!) test of the students' level without AI assistance.

Employer might care about how the output got there.  For example, if it got there with plagiarism or copyright violations, they would be not happy.  The direct use of LLM output risks violating the copyright of the material the LLM was trained on.

@gerrit, indeed for the moment there is some uncertainty in the air about copyright issues indeed. (I expect humanity will not be shooting itself in its foot and that this will be resolved in favor LLM's being treated more like a calculator asin Felix's answer in the future.)

We shall see.  Personally, I believe LLMs are being completely hyped at the moment and that we will enter the trough of disillusionement sooner or later, and that we are years away from separating the actual value from the hype.  More often than not, I've seen them used in ways that do more harm than good.

so this is why you use the LLM that you trained yourself on a data corpus you have verified? What about then, @gerrit ? Is it only bad bc the student was using the free version?

@Snared While there is some serious research along that path, the nature of the way that present AI's work means that even on specialty LLMs there is often a very high risk of hallucination of confabulation. New York City is providing a recent example of that. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/03/nycs-government-chatbot-is-lying-about-city-laws-and-regulations

@TimothyAWiseman I undewrstand that what it says may or may not be correct, but what would be the harm for a student to generate 10 bullet points about the essay they wrote, and then look at each and determine for his or herself which is a valid and which is an invalid point? And use that to iterate their work to a level far beyond what they would have been able to accomplish otherwise..? Again yes it may hallucinate, but a student who includes an AI hallucination in their essay should be punished just as severely as a student who includes a hallucination of their own in their essay

You can't blame the AI for hallucinating, you're to blame for including the hallucination in the essay, is what I mean to say in my last message. If the student is turning in junk arguments, whether it was produced by ai, or themselves, it's, at least in my classes, would have been a failing grade and they wouldn't be able to achieve course credit. Now if they use an ai to generate an argument and they use that argument, they are responsible for the logical underpinnings of that, potentially. Again it fully depends on what kind of recurring academic or scholastic power you have over them - fin

@Snared If you are fact checking every single bullet point, it is not clear that the AI is providing any benefit. It is certainly not at all clear that the results are "a level far beyond what they would have been able to accomplish otherwise." At least in my line of work, an unreliable assistant is often worse than none at all.

Block the website
Have the students write the essay in class, and give a list of what resources are allowed. In particular, note that the use of generative AI is excluded.
This is similar to when an assignment in math class needs to be calculator-free: you need to do it in class to make sure no calculator is used. In fact, I would recommend getting advice from math teachers.
If your friend has no way of blocking individual websites, a crude, annoying, yet effective solution is to ban all computing devices (including phones). You can't run a LLM in your head!
A not 100% effective but less annoying solution is to let students do the assignment at home, but they must record themselves doing it. Your friend would then randomly sample footage or use an AI to check if they are doing the assignment legitimately. It's possible in theory to cheat this with video editing or generation, but it would be massively more effort to pull-off. And random sampling should be a sufficient deterence.

My heard already contains a LLM.  It's not as fast as ChatGPT and it's not available for anyone else to use than myself, it makes more typoes than ChatGPT, but at least it doesn't usually confidently tell things that are completely untrue.

Does your last paragraph refer to screen recording (which can be fooled by running the AI on a separate system nearby and transcribing the results by typing), or camera recording (which is sure to violate privacy laws somewhere)?

In principle, you cannot detect AI much less prove that a text is AI. The whole point is that AI generates content that's "just like" an intelligent human's. As AI tech advances, the output will be more convincing, and it's already pretty advanced.
The best true test I can think of is something like a closed book exam. Have them write an essay in 2 hours, while being observed, with no technological aids. If they fail to produce essays similar to their homework, judge it as AI usage. But is it really worth it?
In practice, ChatGPT (and others) have some idiosyncracies because of how they are trained. These can be used to detect AI-like text. However, it will never be conclusive because there is nothing stopping a human from writing similar text "manually". Still, you might have some limited success with such tools, you could even try to ask ChatGPT itself.
The problem is that AIs advance and evolve, so these detection programs are locked in an arms race with them. At this point it's a whole ongoing project in itself to get comfortable detecting AI essays in your domain, and keeping up with the development. And all that, just to stop students from writing mediocre essays?

Now, some essays read flawlessly

So, students are using available tools to do better. Sounds like a great development.

but somewhat blandly and emotionlessly, not really human.

So the real problem is that they're bland and emotionless, not the AI. So, during the class explain what makes an essay bland and emotionless, and tell students you will grade based on that. Warn them that if they use AI, they will have to work extra hard on the bland/emotion part.

So, she's afraid that some students might be actively using AI to generate essays, and she is stuck as to what to do about it.

In brief, the solution here is probably to get over it. It's not a judgement on my part. Whether you like AI or not, it's here to stay, and it's getting better very fast. For essays, it's already excellent, and you will not put the cat back in the bag.
When calculators became commonplace, many math classes had a similar dilemma. Are the students really learning their numbers if they just punch it into a calculator? My own schooling banned calculators almost entirely, so I got very good at doing math in my head in school. As soon as I stopped being in school, and started working, I bought myself a $20 calculator (touchscreens have poor usability) and never looked back. I am still better than most I know at calculating tips and what not in my head. But I am certainly rustier than I was back in the day. And how does it affect my life? Hardly at all. I have to pay the very small calculator tax, and in exchange, I am free from tedious arithmetic and numeric errors are reduced by orders of magnitude. Honestly, all the years I spent memorizing squares so I could take square roots in my head were a waste of time.
I think the smarter math teachers responded by adapting. Since the calculator removed the challenge from a major, mechanical component of the course, they used the new space to emphasize the high level more. Since being good at actually doing addition is no longer important, they focus on the nature of addition.
Similarly, now that simply producing grammatically correct and coherent text has been trivialized, why not roll with it? What is there to gain from teaching students how to do something by hand, when after school they will inevitably use a much more efficient machine for it? Instead, you can focus on the deeper/higher questions of what makes an essay good. In fact, you might as well recommend them to use AI, and even advise on how to use it more effectively, so that they have more room to explore those finer points.

This is not even useful for you since you don't control the system but here's the truth.
Take away grading that has any ramifications outside of class. The point of the class is to learn. Students are afraid the grade hurts their GPA/ability to graduate the class, because the GPA matters/they want to graduate they cheat.
We begin by first considering the easy case of math where it should be

You go to class to learn; those grades aren't reported anywhere.

At the end of class you can take a written exam that is proctored by a grader and if you score sufficiently high you pass the class.

Now we go to your harder case of German it should be:

You go to class to learn; those grades aren't reported anywhere.

At the end of class you can take a written exam that includes a large handwritten essay section and perhaps an audio-based oral section.

At this point the students have no incentive to cheat. If they still do then you don't need to catch it/help them either. They aren't getting any unfair benefit for it. Making the whole class depend on 1 exam might be unfair so it could be 2,10, however many in-person exams it needs to be.
But any work that is taken home is basically fair game for the AI to cheat without being detected: if not today, then certainly another day in the future.

Don't stop students using AI, stop students from diminishing their own learning
I say this because you haven't actually said what exactly the issue is- the language is flawless but feels less human? How is that an issue? How does this diminish the learning progress of the student? I think the issues need to be clearly spelt out before we address them. Ideas such as having students write in a classroom in handwriting or on locked down computer systems rely heavily on room, personnel and hardware- which may not be something you can control.
I want to share my perspective here as someone who taught a course in which students have to hand in a research paper. After ChatGPT became widespread, the quality of the papers dropped immensely.
Students would run an experiment, and then tell ChatGPT to write what they did, using notes from the experiment. That sounds really good, doesn't it? The student still does the research work, but can use a tool to help getting that work to paper! It was a disaster. Here is why:

Students would generate language beyond their own level. This meant that oftentimes, synonyms were used that were not synonyms; sentences went from short and concise to long, verbose and unnecessarily wordy, not adding any information. Students could not tell that the quality was worse, because they did not have the required skill level and expertise to tell good writing apart from bad writing.
Students would generate more text than necessary, often leading to incoherent writing. One thing that GAI makes very easy is to generate volume. And for many students in many school systems, volume equates to quality (whether this is actually true, is another matter- but many paper requirements have minimum lengths).
Students would disengage from their own written work. Even when students had clearly carried out their research, had been in contact with me for feedback, even when they were otherwise good students showing understanding of the subject matter- those that relied on GAI to have the paper written for them, rather than support themselves writing it, ended up handing in terrible papers. The quality of their research work did not translate into quality of writing, because they did not engage with the text written for them. Why would they? The use of language is higher than what they could write themselves, and there is no need to check for typos. Students have learnt how to write text, but not how to edit text. This is a skillset that they need to have to, as the AI would phrase it, "leverage the power of AI tools".

So rather than ask how to stop using something that will likely become as ubiquitous as mobile phones or the internet, ask how it harms the students. In my case, several rule changes were made:

Instead of setting length minimums, maximums were set- and those were tightened, too. This requires higher information density in the text. This re-engages students with the text, because they need to reduce verbosity. I expect this to become less of an issue as GAI evolves, but in scientific writing, conciseness is a marker of quality, and should therefore be rewarded.

Students were taught on how to use GAI. Besides text-generating GAI, there are also translation tools such as Deepl (which is also available for German) which are very good, when used well. Students are taught which type of tool is good at what, they are taught what the issues with generated text are, and what they need to do to edit it. They are shown issues with fact hallucination and the danger of asking the AI questions in a narrow field of expertise when the students themselves can't tell truth apart from hallucination. They are shown how to use the tool to help them with their own work.

The grading was adjusted. Grammar and spelling mistakes are now no longer graded- more emphasis is placed on the use of language to get information across. The content-relevant grading parts were adjusted so that more emphasis was placed on the coherence of the paper as a communication tool, not just the research work that was done. This meant that students who write without AI could still be wholly rewarded, and students that use AI would need to engage with the generated text to meet the requirements.

AI is here to stay. Any answers that suggest exploiting a weakness of the current AI (such as no sources beyond the training data) is bound to be out of date quickly- we want to avoid an arms race with an industry that benefits heavily from improving the GAI systems that are already in use. And in the case of source-checking, places massive additional workload on the grader.

To answer the title question: I've read an article where someone had basically flipped the question around and gave students a bunch of ChatGPT generated essays to grade, making them aware of the hallucinations etc. it produced. I assume (or at least hope) that as students realize those issues exist, they might become less likely to use ChatGPT.

The use of AI by everyone (including students) is inevitable because it increases the productivity of work. Actually, students now study the ways to use AI effectively instead of study the class subjects and training the skills of thinking. This is the problem, not the use of AI in classes itself. I don't see how to fix this problem without principal changes in the process of teaching and grading.

Have them write about things AI won't know - current events, topic the grader is very familiar with, etc.  For example, I had students use ChatGPT to write about biodiversity in African countries where I lived.  ChatGPT got many details wrong even on things that can be determined from Wikipedia, like if there are lions in Senegal (yes) or elephants (nope).  AI may get better this eventually,  but I'm surprised that it does poorly on eg many science topics for which there are accurate resources it could've been trained on.

There was once a dance, back and forth, between artillery and armor. Each would have some advance that outdid the other. Things, of course, got worse and worse. That is happening now with LLM AI. The better it gets the worse it is likely to be. It can produce misinformation as easily as information.

It's not that AI "knows" stuff. LLMs don't work like that. Also they have a random component, so they may well get a thing wrong once and get it right next time the same prompt is tried. You can't really know what AI "won't know".

There's an obvious pseudo-problem when "the internet" can do much better than many college freshmen and sophomores. It's not a genuine "problem", since it is a fact, much like the points about even-very-basic calculators being able to do arithmetic better than most children, and contemporary phones/computers/whatever being able to "do" (the algorithmic parts of) calculus much better than many college kids.
To my mind, to insist that every young person in college do better than AIs is pointless and unreasonable. Um, they literally cannot!
And, dangit, if we decide to demand of college freshmen that they do things that AI's cannot... then we are... seriously ... placing a far-too-high-bar.
In the near term, "soft skills" may differentiate humans from AIs, though, well, ahem, lotta humans are worse than even the old-fashioned AI's at comforting and helping people in consultation situations.
So, seriously, I do wonder how/why we will constrain AI's. Sure, they may take away jobs from humans... but, on another hand, maybe they will benefit humans by being more competent than those humans whose jobs they've taken?

I don't think the requirement is that the students do things better than AI, just that they do this themselves.

Stop grading homework
I didn't study languages at university, but computer science. We had this issue much earlier, since Google and Stackexchange could help you cheat a lot already 10-15 years ago. The way they solved this issue in our university was to not grade homework.
They would grade how often homework was submitted, but not the content of the homework.
Instead, a lot of courses transitioned from a lecture-style setup (frontal lectures with homework) to a exercise-style setup (in-classroom exercises that get graded) or at least a hybrid setup where both styles are used in a course.
Stop grading things AI does well (at least in homework)
This is a bit more tricky. Remember roughly 20 years ago when writing homework on PCs got popular and everyone was worried that spellcheckers helped students to write better stuff than what they could without tools?
In the end, the response was to move the base level. 30 years ago, it was even OK to have spelling mistakes in professional communication. Nowadays you are expected to run a spell checker over a social media post.
Correct spelling isn't really a skill anymore, but a requirement. And it makes no sense to tell students not to use a spell checker, because in every written communication in their real life they will use a spell checker.
Similar things happened in maths with the introduction of the calculator.

My suggestion would be:
Either tell them to write an essay in a live classroom. Confiscate their cellular device and laptop before the start of the writing.
Or, eliminate essay writing altogether. Device new metrics to assess writing proficiency.

Can you elaborate on how you might assess writing proficiency after eliminating essay-writing from your tools?

@AzorAhai-him-, Yes, I can. However, that depends on what the OP mean by an essay.


text:
How to identify unknown citation style
I am in the process of finishing my bachelors thesis and my formal requirements do not name any particular citation style, but instead describe the citation style as following.
Author(s) in the format A. John, B.Doe, C.Miller : Title ; Journal , Publication date, Volume (issue), Page from-to.
In-text citations as author-date.
They recommend the usage of reference manager, endnote, citavi or similar third party software. I have prepared all references in BibTex and I've spent several hours today scouring Mendeley, Citavi et cetera for a suitable format to export to, but seem to be unable to locate a good fit without an actual name of the style.
Is there a good resource (or search engine) to look up such details? I see that citavi offers a search functionality, but this did not yield any result, and I hadn't even input the details like the usage of semicolons.

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

I think the question is very clear. OP, if you give full details of the citation style including several examples, someone on this site might recognize it.

This seems rather like a rather unique style. Usually Mendeley's search by example function returns something useful, but not here. Almost all related styles put the year earlier. Have you tried googling for something like 'bibtex style file NameOfYourUniversity'?

There's good advice here, but you can also just ask your supervisor directly "what is this?" They might say it's someone's personal style car they made and like best, and knowing that will save you time and effort.

Author(s) in the format A. John, B.Doe, C.Miller : Title ; Journal , Publication date, Volume (issue), Page from-to.

It does not look similar to any of the common citations styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc).
The best way is to list them as text entries in a .bbl file or go for a more sophisticated approach and create a custom style such that the Latex compiler generates references according to your style from the BibTeX file. See https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/457310/custom-citation-style-for-custom-document
I think https://tex.stackexchange.com/ would be much more suitable for your question

In light of digital systems for maintaining reference data bases such as Zotero, Endnote, Mendeley etc.and to apply a specific format to references, the request seems outdated. It is of course perfectly reasonable for a university or department to request a certain format but in a digital world it seems backwards to request something that would require a non-standard (name given) format.
It is of course open to the powers that be to decide on any required format of references but it is still quite backwards to require some format that is not a standard unless a format is provided for the digital platform in which you are required to work.
If the grade depends on this format then it is probably best to stick to the instructions, regardless how backwards they may seem. If your work with Word or LateX it is possible to generate a new reference style based along the guide line you are given. I am assuming your are using a refeence manager such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote.
So depemnding on your situation, there may be several ways to pursue to avoid too much problems with bureaucracy.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is it ethical to answer questions about homework for colleagues taking courses I've already completed?
I receive many questions from colleagues about homework in a certain course which I took a while back. I try to answer them and help them solve homework which are very similar to the ones I did when I was taking the course. There is no TA for that course, so they come to me with their questions.
I am not sure if what I am doing is ethical. The professor doesn't know that I am doing this. Should I stop and tell him about this and see what he says?

To "answer their questions" may mean different things, and some of them are OK, while others are not. E.g. answering questions like "What does this mean?" by explaining the thing in your own words is of course OK. However, solving their homework problems for them is not.
I guess, one can draw a line here: If you are helping them to learn the topic then it is OK. If you only try to help them to pass the course without caring about their progress in the topic, it is not OK.
So my advice would be: Focus on the topic itself when answering questions. Try to find out or guess what the instructor of the course wants the students to learn and help them to accomplish that.
Oh, and of course, asking the instructor is also OK.

I always thought this summed it up well: "What your friends learn is far more important than how they learn it." Giving them the answer is ok as long as they also understand the answer: the goal of the course is to increase knowledge, and as long as you're increasing their knowledge, there is no right or wrong. You teaching them is no different to the staff member teaching them, as long as they understand it at the end

In most courses I've seen, there is usually some sort of policy regarding how and when to cite sources, where "sources" include people. If your course has such a policy, then it should be straightforward to answer whether what you're doing is ethical or not. If the instructor explicitly forbids collaboration on homework assignments, then you should probably not answer anything related to homework. However, if there is no explicit policy, then it is fully acceptable to either ask the professor (as Dirk mentions) or ask that you be cited as a source on the homework.
Personally, I only answer homework questions where there is at least some effort put into trying to solve the question(s) and/or not working on the exact problem in favor of a similar one. As such, I am not just giving away solutions, and I can usually focus more on the theory behind the problem than the problem itself. The downside is that it can be hard to come up with a related problem that is not trivially different from the "real" homework problem.
As an aside, this type of question comes up very frequently in various Stack Exchange Metas. If you search "homework questions" or "homework policy" on Cross Validated or Mathematics, for example, you'll see many discussion about what to do when posed with homework questions. I think a lot of the discussions might be relevant to you or anyone faced with a situation like you describe.

I enjoy the Socratic method. I can walk somebody through a solution step by step without ever answering their question, by asking them questions that lead them to the next step on their own. This has been widely unpopular for me, because most people I surround myself with want instant gratification. When they see the solution, it makes perfect sense, and they feel like they "know that," but they were not able to synthesize the solution independently, and likely cannot do so later on, such as on an exam. Recognizing solutions and synthesizing them are different. I know very few people who want to endure the pain of learning something, and it sounds like the person using you as a crutch is using you from the way you narrate your situation. I see no harm in using the Socratic method and no need to tell anybody about it. Is the material on Khan Academy?

Now, I wish I had thought of using the Socratic Method when I was in a similar position, which was quite often back then.

It still depends, I believe, on whether the homework is part of the course assessment or not. If it is, then no matter how wise and wily you are, if you lead someone up the garden path to the solution (and especially if you can do so because you did similar assessment for the exact same course), then you risk subverting the intended assessment and they risk having cheated because they were helped on their assignment. If it isn't, then sure, when someone's definitely stuck on their homework then it's a great help to unstick them with the right question.

If, after you are done helping, the person you helped could take a blank piece of paper and completely answer the question(s), then you've helped someone learn and that is good.
If, on the other hand, the person you've helped is parroting your words, formulas, algorithms, or whatever and cannot otherwise answer the question, then (depending on the policies of the course) both of you may have committed academic misconduct.  Regardless of policies, what you have done is unethical because you've deprived another student of an opportunity to learn.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How many professors should I contact before applying to Graduate School?
I'm in the process of developing my academic profile and I am starting to create a shortlist of programs to apply for. I plan on applying to 8 Grad schools (although I do not know which ones yet). From what I've read so far, many of you recommend undergrads seeking to attend post graduate programs to first contact a professor to see if they are taking on any new students. Now I obviously won't go with the buckshot approach and submit an email to everyone. However, I've also read most professors do not reply. If I plan on applying to 8 programs, and most professors don't reply, or are not available to take on students, how many professors should I contact? Like I said, I won't just randomly send emails,  I will get to know them and their work first,  to see if I would be a good fit. I'm currently down to 40 possible programs of which I'm certain I can find at least 20-30 individual professors who would fit well with me. Would it be wise to find, assess, and contact as many as 30, in the hopes that maybe 10 or so reply? Thank you.

@buffy and solarmike thanks for the quick and informative response. My only fear is that I contact professors from my favorite 5 universities and only get 1 response. leading to the possibility of missing out on grad school for a year. If this helps my GPA is 3.92, I've published 2 Papers, won an Undergraduate Research Award and was prior service (Coast Guard)  and my time in service directly correlated to the program I wish to pursue (south east Asian history - I worked alongside vietnamese fisherman during hurricane Isaac to help rescue people/ their local knowledge and special was amazing)

and a GRE V 163 Q 157 AWA 5.5

You probably won't have a lot of trouble. See my edit - last paragraph.

I didn’t contact any faculty, and I got into the programs where I was an obvious fit. I didn’t get into any others. Honestly, it did not even occur to me to contact professors. I am not sure this is particularly common in the social sciences and humanities in the US. In my program, only the international students pre-contacted professors.
To check, I would recommend reading “The Professor is In” to lean more about the graduate admissions and hiring process for the humanities.

I'm assuming it is more common in the lab sciences.

From the advice I recieved from others @dawn it seems like, at least for History,  people do contact professors.  Although I imagine you can get in, as you said,  without attempting this process.  I don't imagine it can hurt too much trying though, provided you don't place a negative impression on the person you are reaching out too.

I don't think the direct answer to your question will help you much. It can be too variable and depend on too many other things. As a matter of fact, I didn't need to apply at all (more than 50 years ago) as I was invited into a program. That wasn't based on my obvious brilliance, though (laugh here). Another graduate of my college did very well as a new student at the university and my advisor was contacted with the question "Any more like that?". It actually turned out to be a mistake for me and I later changed universities - it was a very bad fit all around.
You are wise not to take a scattershot approach. It also depends on the strength of your background. But I think you've made a good start by identifying places you think would be a good fit. Any professor you contact will also be interested in what you can do for them as well as your likelihood of success.
I guess my advice here would be to pick out about five or so places that you would be interested in and which you think are good candidates for actually accepting you. I wouldn't choose only the top of the top schools. Write to people there as a sort of experiment and see what you learn. You can expand the search later or decide that someone in your initial list is the right place for you. Another way to say it is to use the initial information you get to refine your search if necessary rather than using all your ammunition in an initial blast. Having the right supervisor and the right problem are likely the two most important factors in success other than your own hard work.
Also, there is no reason that you can't start the application process with more than just a few universities immediately. You don't have to string that out. Many places the professors won't talk to you anyway until you are near or past the acceptance point.

Just like to add that it’s a fish and pond problem - in a top 5 institution you can be a small fish in a large pond - watch out for pike! But a Good Institution may mean that it is a smaller pond and fewer pike so you can actually get more out of it...

This depends on the context. In the Netherlands and Germany PhD positions are usually advertised. After all, they are regular jobs. So you need to know where that happens. You should not contact a prof directly if they didn't advertise a position. The fact that they didn't advertise means they are not hiring. This is organized differently in different countries, so there is no general rule, you just need to follow local custom.

apologize, I meant for applying to get into grad school as a student.

In whatt country and in what discipline?

History (South East Asian studies), I'm open to any university.

How many professors should I contact?

Do it sequentially until you have the responses you want.  Quality is more important than quantity.
Nobody can predict the response rate.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Should I explain that I cannot finish my current master due to religious discrimination when applying for another graduate program?
I am currently enrolled in a master’s program in the Middle East, which does not seem to be possible to finish / worth finishing for various reasons. The main problem is the lack of research facilities that would allow me to generate data for my thesis. The facilities that do exist seem to prioritise students from the religious majority. As a Christian, you do not get that many opportunities in the Middle East, and there is no protection against discrimination.
So I applied to a master’s programme in Europe. Shortly afterwards, I received a personal message from one of the professors asking for my motivation to restart the master's and not run for a PhD.
My question is: How open I should be about the reasons why I will not finish the master’s I’m enrolled in already? I am not sure if I should mention the religious reasons – I do not want to look whiney, but this is the reality of being a Christian in a predominantly Islamic country. Can mentioning religious discrimination negatively (and significantly) affect the professor’s decision in accepting me, despite how real it is?

Since you say " The main problem is the lack of research facilities that would allow me to generate data for my thesis.", can you explain why you can't scope down your thesis to something modest but implementable (and also discuss the limitations of data-gathering in detail in your thesis), and what your supervisor advises about that?

''As a Christian, you do not get that many opportunities in the Middle East, and there is no protection against discrimination.'' I don't think so...

@Krebto: do you mind expanding on why you think the OP's assumption is wrong?

I removed a lot of comments asking for clarification and responses to them which I deem obsolete. If you feel need for further improvement, please ask for it in a comment or perform an edit.

"As a Christian, you do not get that many opportunities in the Middle East, and there is no protection against discrimination" are you sure about this? I finished my masters in Abu-Dhabi, UAE (middle east, majority are Muslims). Everyone knew I am a Christian (as well as some other people around me). Have not seen there anything you are complaining about.

Maybe because Emirates actually have resources and facilities and the spots are not so limited. I was top of my class both at Bachelor and Master courses. There is no explanation for the problem other than faulty system and corruption.

This doesn't answer the question but might be useful for Christian academics in Muslim countries. I am not sure which country the OP is talking about. But there are private universities in middle eastern countries that have better research facilities than public ones, and are value diversity in gender and religion. I know of the German University in Cairo, American University in Cairo, and the German Jordanian University. You can even do a masters/PhD for free while earning a salary as a TA. I am not saying that public universities are discriminating; I just didn't try studying/working there.

My advice is to state facts not conclusions.
For example, you should not say:

It's impossible to finish my degree here because they discriminate against Christians.

Instead, you could say:

I finished all my coursework, but I have been unable to get a spot in a lab -- there are only 10 lab spots for 40 students. Further, two different professors told me they would give priority to Muslim students (I am not Muslim). Given this, my best option seems to be to restart at a different university.

By the way, I also wanted to comment on this line:

asking for my motivation to restart the Master's and not run for a PhD

In some fields and some countries, it is common to go straight from undergraduate to the PhD without getting a master's. This professor may be asking specifically why you want to try again to get a master's, as opposed to enrolling directly in a PhD program.

This is a very good answer. One does not appear whiney when one does not whine, but instead sticks to the facts and lets the readers draw their own conclusions.

Thank you. This is also helpful. Master's degree is generally a prerequisite for applying for PhD in the country of the desired university.

@Anonymous generally does not mean always. If you have gone through the masters but did not obtain the title for side reasons, perhaps the university is happy to treat you as if you did get the masters.

On these lines @Anonymous you could perhaps try to finish the master doing your research project with this professor (in case you don't make the cut) and then he and you'll be in better position to judge if you want to do the PhD with him

@AnderBiguri: in case the (new) country in question is Germany (which is one of the generally require Masters for PhD), then the generally boils down to allowing the student to enlist for a PhD, but typically with the additional requirement of (re)doing the relevant Master's exams...

@Anonymous Along the lines of what Ander is saying, this can vary not just by country, but also by field. For example, in the U.S., it's very common to go straight from a B.S. to a Ph.D. in, for example, Physics, but it's rather uncommon in many other fields.

@xLeitix "One does not appear whiney when one does not whine." We are talking about discrimination on the grounds of religion, which is very unfair and a violation of human rights. It is not appropriate to use words like "whine." (I just noticed this question is old)

@toby544 It's describing religious discrimination if the other side believes you. It's whining if they do not. You have no control over which of the two it will be. Hence, stay away.

@xLeitix I was not talking about whether the other side believes OP or whether sticking to the bare facts is good advice. Your comment implied that OP was whining and I don't think that is appropriate when we are talking about religious discrimination.

There's a lovely answer by @cag51.  If you're comfortable with that approach, go for it.
In case you're still feeling a little queasy and would prefer to be a bit more private about the situation -- I'll make a stab at a vaguer approach:

I finished all my coursework, but I would be more comfortable continuing my studies in an environment less fraught with political and religious tensions.  Research opportunities are very limited in my current university.

This way, you don't point any fingers and you don't identify your religion.
If that's still too personal for your taste, you could stick to the minimum:

Research opportunities are very limited in my current university.

How much one wants to disclose about difficult times one has gone through is a very personal decision.
I learned from Fred Rogers (who made the children's television program Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood) that no one should ever feel obligated to share more than one is comfortable sharing.

Very helpful and diplomatic phrases!

Yes, this is very nice. Thank you so much for the tips. It's not about being uncomfortable with disclosing it, but more about how appropriate it is to mention something like this. Especially when I suppose it's not 100% politically correct.

@Anonymous - What I usually do is wait to make a fuller disclosure after I know the person a bit better.  For example, if I'm face to face with someone, I can gauge their reaction to my initial explanation, and that helps me choose how much more to say.  I've learned that if I wear my heart on my sleeve with all and sundry, I may feel hurt if I get a cold, heartless response.  So, I guess I have learned to adopt a bit of a turtle shell for some things. // Back to your situation: as the other answers show, full disclosure is a valid option.  You get to decide.

This is a good answer, but I am just thinking that saying research is limited and leaving it at that might be problematic. The assumption of the new university might be that the limited research opportunities are given based on ability, and under that assumption leave the impression you couldn't get a slot due to lacking ability. I think it is necessary to let it be known that the research slots at that university were not filled based on ability.

@ThomasCarlisle - I've thought about the point you raised, and here's what I'm thinking: If a particular student in this situation prefers to avoid disclosing religious discrimination experienced (I don't know if this is the case, I'm just saying "if"), then I think it best to simply leave things ambiguous.  What we do know is that apparently OP's university admitted more students to a thesis-required program than they had available lab slots to accommodate. To justify a transfer, it's enough to point that out.  (Analogous to citing "poor fit" without airing dirty laundry ...

... when seeking to change jobs.) OP's course transcript and admissions essay will hopefully show that s/he is a solid candidate for the department. Hopefully, also, admissions people will be able to read between the lines enough to realize that there may be complex socio-geo-political factors underlying this application.

I would have +1'ed this, except for the last alternative, which is too evasive IMO. I would at least talk about the "lack of opportunity to generate data necessary for my research" and such.

There are two separate questions here, and the professor asked one, while you are answering the other.
(1) You are not finishing your Master's program because research opportunities [for non-Muslims] are limited in your current location.
(2) You are choosing to restart a Master's program instead of directly applying to a PhD program because direct PhD programs are not common in your region and you had not considered that as one of your options.
Or
(2a) You are choosing to restart the Masters program instead of applying directly to a PhD program for (some academic reason).
(This answer mostly combines and sharpens previous answers, but wanted to highlight the mismatch between the professor's question and your answer.)

This is an important point that a few people have brought up (including me!). I updated my answer to more directly address this angle of the question.

Mention it openly, but try not to be emotional and just state facts about the system you are in. Being discriminated against in their countries is a very common issue among researchers who go to study/work abroad. It adds to your motivation so it is unlikely to be viewed as something negative. Explaining your motivation is important for something with a long commitment such as masters or PhD. Don't write too much into it unless asked though.

I agree with this. Religious discrimination in the Middle East is hardly a secret, and professors are likely to be sympathetic.

You do not need to worry about looking "whiney" in this situation.  You have been asked explicitly about your motivation for leaving your present Masters program, so it is reasonable for you to be frank in stating the reason if you are comfortable doing this.  If they ask the question, presumably they are willing to hear the answer.

The professor asked why you want to re-start your Masters instead of pursuing a PhD.  You should consider the possibility that they will allow you to pursue a PhD track directly and without completing a Masters first.  Perhaps you should see if this is possible and take that option, provided that they accept the premise of why your Masters is not completed.
On a note related to disclosing perceived discrimination, I don't see any issue with disclosing it, as long as your tone does not conflate discrimination that is fact and discrimination that is assumed.  I live in a country where Christians frequently make frivolous and obviously false claims about being persecuted, when they are the dominant demographic and are not persecuted.  But if you live in the Middle East, then a professor in Europe would probably readily believe your story.
I assume that you chose a valid thesis topic, attempted to pursue it, and were rejected.  If pressed, you may want to demonstrate that your thesis topic was valid, and that it would have been approved at the institution that you're applying to.  I say this only because there may be people who failed to complete a thesis specifically because they were determined to pursue a subject that is dishonest or without academic merit.

Welcome to Academia.SE and thanks for your answer! As you will see, many of the other answers raise many of the same points you do. In such cases, it's usually encouraged to add your additional information as comments on existing answers.

@cag51 If the additional information constitutes an answer (i.e. has brand new content), then it should be posted as one to enable it to be up and down voted. Answers-as-comments aren't subject to quality assessment in the same way. If it is more like a suggested improvement to an existing answer, then a comment is appropriate. This answer does appear to provide content that doesn't appear elsewhere. For example, it addresses the possibility that the professor wonders whether or not the failure to complete is the fault of the applicant.

@JBentley - thanks for your input. I agree with your policy, but don't see any brand-new content in this answer. To your example - it goes without saying that the professor is wondering whether the failure to complete is the fault of the applicant; that's the whole reason OP is asking whether they should mention the religious issues. Peace!

@@cag51 & @JBentley, Some SE sites (do not know if Academia is one of them) require a higher reputation to post comment than they do to post answers. A new user then has no choice but to post an answer if they want to participate even if it would be more appropriate to post a comment.  This is pure speculation now, but perhaps that is what is going on here.


text:
Google Scholar does not return a report of 2016 when using as custom range 2016-2023
When searching for the string "open* education*" selecting Anytime, Google Scholar returns as 4th result "Opening up education: A support framework for higher education institutions" of 2016. When searching for the string "open* education*" selecting as Custom Range 2016-2023, Google Scholar does not return this report. How is this possible?

Google scholar is a commercial tool developed by Alphabet, the biggest advertising company in the world. Ask them and please report back your findings!

Search results are different depending on who is logged in and other factors.
When I try your first search, I don't get that result on the first page. To ensure I get it on the first page, I added "support" as an additional search term, and then your result shows up as the first result. But also, when I try your second search plus "support," that paper still shows up as the first result.
So I think it's still returning your paper, just not on the first page.
Try navigating through the pages of results by clicking Next at the bottom.

Re your last sentence: my search agrees with your prediction. The article mentioned by the OP is, in the second search, reported on page 4 ... not the 4th result.

To the OP of the question, your claim "Google Scholar does not return this report." is false. Please refine your search and don't jump to the conclusion.


text:
How to find old article "B. R. McGarvey, Transition Metal Chemistry 3, 89 (1966)"
I have encountered some experimental results on a molecule ($[V(H_2O)_6]^{2+}$) in various articles. However, the results are not original, and in each article they refer to "B. R. McGarvey, Transition Metal Chemistry 3, 89 (1966)". I have searched online, but I cannot seem to find that article. Does someone know a trick to find it rather than just doing a Google search?

Well, something is weird since Transition Metal Chemistry (https://link.springer.com/journal/11243/volumes-and-issues) started in 1976, and volume 3 in 1978 does not have an article by McGarvey. Web of Science finds no papers by McGarvey in Transition Metal Chemistry. However, a book exists that is the likely hit, Transition Metal Chemistry; A Series of Advances; Volume 3
Carlin, Richard L. (Editor)
Published by Marcel Dekker, Inc, NY, 1966

And, my obligatory, go talk to your friendly neighborhood research librarian...

@JonCuster, you are correct in your first comment. Thank you for the help!


text:
Joining three labs in the same university on the CV for a grad school
I am a sophomore. I have joined two labs now as an undergraduate. At the first one I joined, I had an interest in science but my supervisor was not good with me and she created a very competitive environment in the lab, so I left. Now I am in a different new lab. I love the supervisor so much and she loves me and is willing to write a pretty good rec of letter. However, I hate science, and I hate the approach we are using. I do not find the motivation to do research because of that.
There is another professor who I think about joining her lab. I am interested in her research because I have done something related to it before in high school. I heard she is also a good supervisor. I want to go to her lab.
The problem is that I will apply to grad school, and I am afraid that the many different labs on my CV will put me in a position of doubt. I am afraid that they might question why I moved to 3 labs. What should I do?

How is tis different from your previous question? Also again with the "I hate science" that was previously questioned. Do you hate the topic that is being worked on in the lab? Then please state so, saying to hate science is a VERY general statement that probably doesn't convey what you mean to say

No,   what i am focusing on here is how my experience in the three labs will be perceived by the admission officers.

At your current rate you seem likely to have gone through more than three labs… How many is not as relevant as whether you get good work done in one or two, although passing through many groups without accomplishing anything is not a good sign.

Is this for the US or elsewhere? Are you thinking of masters or doctoral education beyond undergraduate?

Since you are only in the second year and you are seemingly looking for doctoral study eventually, I'd think that this is a minor concern. The undergraduate program is normally very broad, especially in the US, but also other places. What this implies to me is that you are "looking around", which I think is a good thing.
However, the farther along you get the more important it is that you focus somewhat more narrowly, but (especially in the US) only somewhat. Having a lot of experience in different things puts you in a good place as long as you can maintain - and express - focus.
So, at this point it isn't an issue (IMO), but it will possibly become one as you go along. My advice might be a bit different if you were in the final year and, perhaps, a lot different if you aren't in the US but in the final year.

At my university (R1 with a strong focus in STEM), many students do "rotations" in different labs. Each rotation consists of a three to six months stint at a lab. It is rare to expect an undergrad to understand what they want to do and what kind of people they want to work with. So, no. It is unlikely that working in different labs will prove to be an issue later.
However, if I may suggest something, it is that your language in grad school applications matter. I would not use the word "hate" anywhere. This is also true when talking to someone who could possibly be writing a letter of recommendation for you. And try not to burn bridges.

In my experience, when it comes to applying to graduate school different institutions differ about what they care about. So it can be difficult to give general advice that would apply.
That being said, most graduate programs have two major categories: non-thesis and thesis.
If you're doing a non-thesis track, then you don't usually do any research, and you only take classes. In this case they will largely care about what is on your CV. They get awarded usually directly by the department you are applying for, so it usually only happens from your own merits. And in my experience it is more heavily weighted towards grades, but work experience would still matter. And as some of the other comments have mentioned, switching around a lot without have a ton to show for it, isn't always perceived positively. So it might be best to stick with the one you've got.
On the other hand, if you're doing a thesis track program, you often times need a faculty sponsor in your department, e.g. Someone that wants you to join their lab to do the research and write a thesis or dissertation in the process. For this, you want to reach out to professors directly and inquire about their work. Then you can send them your CV, and you both can decide if you're the "right" person for the job, and interested in working with one another. And while every supervisor is different, they ultimately want someone that is passionate about the work they are doing so they stick around and can get the job done. So they want people that know "this is what they want to do".
If you know that you don't like the current work, but would like to try something more in line with your passions, I think that's the right way to go. Then when you get that job with the new supervisor you can decide if that's what you actually want to do. From there, reach out to professors directly at the institutions you'd like to go to that are doing the research you want. And just tell them the situation up front and honestly. That you switched because you had a poor experience the first time. And the second time you had a better experience, but the work wasn't something you were passionate about. So you decided to switch to try one more thing to see if it was more in line with your long-term interests. And that that inspired you to join "so and so's lab". If they like you and you get along, they can put in a internal request for you to be admitted to the graduate school, and that holds its weight more than anything. Particularly, if they are willing to fund your research.
Moral of the story, if you're doing anything non-thesis, they will only really see your CV. So switching around a lot is not always perceived as good (they start to wonder why you can't stay anywhere). If you're doing a thesis track, it matters a lot more that you have a "sponsor" from someone (preferably the one you want to work with) in the department that you are applying to join. And for that, in my experience most supervisors would want someone they are confident will enjoy the work, and as a result be able to finish it. And if that means you have to try 3 research labs to figure out what you want, more power to you.
Ultimately the decision is up to you and do what you think is best. Every institution is different so no piece of advice works for everyone or every place. Do what you think is best for you now, and I'm sure it'll all work out in the future. As long as you're always up front about why you made the decisions you did.
Best of luck.

The tag is tag:phd which implies research and only that.