From the Student Success edition of October 20, 2026
Northwestern professors shift to in-person and paper exams, version-history checks and AI disclosure after Brown's take-home exam AI cheating episode
Northwestern University (McCormick School of Engineering and Weinberg College); The Daily Northwestern · Higher education assessment and academic integrity · Evanston, Illinois, United States
- Publisher
- The Daily Northwestern
- Original publication
- The Daily Northwestern, 20 October 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-21
What happened
The 20 October article relays, from Fortune, that a Brown economics professor's spring take-home midterm averaged 96% against 65% to 80% in earlier years, with 40 of 86 students scoring perfect marks and most answers matching ChatGPT output; when the final moved in person, nearly a third of the class dropped or did not sit it and the average fell to 48%. At Northwestern, McCormick professor Zach Wood-Doughty now feels compelled to use in-person or paper exams in 300- and 400-level classes. A student reports a professor reviewing Google Docs version histories. Professor Edith Elkind asks students to disclose AI use without grade penalty and says completion grading reduces homework cheating.
Why it matters
Shows how a widely reported unsupervised-exam failure is changing assessment practice at another research university, alongside lighter-touch disclosure approaches. Relevant to U.S. course policy and integrity process design.
Evidence and measured results
Student journalism with named faculty and student sources; Brown statistics are second-hand from Fortune. Instructor observations, not studies.
Limitations and uncertainty
Anecdotal and instructor-level; the Brown figures come from another outlet. Completion grading reducing cheating is one professor's observation.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-21; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Take-home assessments may no longer show what students can do, and faculty responses are inconsistent.
- Stakeholders
- Associate deans for undergraduate education
- Academic integrity office
- Testing and accommodations centre
- Faculty in high-enrolment courses
- Student government
- Discovery questions
- Which courses rely on unsupervised take-home exams?
- What proctoring and accommodation capacity exists?
- Is there a standard AI disclosure format?
- How are integrity cases trending?
- Value hypothesis
- Interpretation: a coordinated assessment-risk review could make controls more consistent and fair than course-by-course changes.
- Potential engagement
- A bounded assessment-risk inventory and policy alignment exercise for one school or college.
- Unsupported claims
- Reduced cheating from in-person exams
- Learning gains
- Reliability of version-history evidence
- Brown figures verified at source
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Fits institutions using shared document platforms and LMS tools that can record drafting history and disclosures.
- Architecture and integration
- Assessment evidence from Google Docs version histories and AI-use disclosure statements, plus in-person exam logistics.
- Prerequisites
- Document platform settings
- LMS assignment configuration
- Proctoring space and staff
- Disclosure template
- Constraints
- Instructor-level practices only
- Second-hand statistics
- Privacy expectations for drafting data
- Accommodation requirements for in-person exams
- Security
- Limit access to version histories to the instructor, define retention, and tell students in advance when drafting history will be reviewed.
- Proof of value
- Grade distribution comparison with prior terms
- Withdrawal rate tracking after format change
- Integrity case volume and outcomes
- Student survey on fairness
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Coordinate assessment controls across courses and plan proctoring and disclosure processes.
- Dependencies
- Faculty participation
- Testing centre capacity
- Integrity office
- Document and LMS platforms
- Ownership
- Associate dean for undergraduate education with the academic integrity office.
- Skills and adoption
- Faculty guidance on approved controls and student guidance on disclosure and drafting evidence.
- Governance checkpoints
- School-level assessment policy review
- Accommodation impact review
- Privacy review of drafting evidence
- End-of-term review of outcomes
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: every gateway course lists its AI assessment control in the syllabus
- Proposed: accommodation requests for in-person exams met in full
- Proposed: withdrawal rates monitored and reviewed each term
- Proposed: disclosure format used across participating courses
- Risks
- Higher withdrawals after format change
- Inconsistent rules confusing students
- Privacy complaints about version histories
- Proctoring overload
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Version-history review and disclosure workflows depend on document platforms (Google Docs) and LMS settings rather than detectors.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Practices vary by instructor: in-person exams, version-history review, and penalty-free disclosure. No school-wide policy is reported.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Reviewing document version histories exposes students' drafting process; consent and retention expectations are not described.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
In-person and paper exams add proctoring and accommodation workload; this is not discussed in the article.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Limited: favours assessment design and existing tools over detector purchases.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Assessment changes are being made course by course, which risks inconsistent student experience without coordination.
Publication history
- 2026-10-20Student Success · Issue 436 resources
Stable resource ID: daily-northwestern-mccormick-professors-in-person-exams-after-brown-ai-cheating-20261020