The entrance exam for medicine studies at university did not go smoothly this year, says the chair of the examination committee, Prof Jan Eggermont. The pass rate was much higher than usual, leading some participants to suspect that others had used AI tool ChatGPT. The examination committee admits: "During the exam, you could open other tabs. We are looking into whether this can be changed next year." Flemish education minister Zuhal Demir (Flemish nationalist N-VA) has already ordered a general investigation into how the exam proceeds.
Home News
Mounting concern ChatGPT was used during medicine entrance exam
Colin Clapson
Published:
Updated:
This year, 2,608 participants passed their medical studies entrance exam. That is 47 percent of the total of 5,544 participating in the exam. Only 1,741 students are allowed to start medical studies at Flemish universities. Many participants passed this year but are still being held back from the programme.
It has emerged that some students have lodged an appeal with the examination board because they suspect that participants used ChatGPT during the exam, and as a result, they are not being allowed to start the programme.
By way of comparison, in the previous two years, no or only a few successful participants were excluded. In 2024, the pass rate was only 18.9 percent, and in 2023, it was 36.7 percent.
The question arises: has there been widespread fraud involving AI?
Fraud with ChatGPT?
There is no precise evidence of this, says the chair of the examination board, Prof Jan Eggermont. ‘But it is possible to click on other tabs during the exam and possibly launch another website.’
The reason for this is that the entrance exam is organised at around 70 locations, including various secondary schools where different computer infrastructure is used. The laptops are not controlled from one central location or one central network.
‘That is not ideal. The examination board does not take this lightly. We actively supervise the exams. The supervisors also receive specific instructions on what to look out for,’ explains Eggermont.
On that basis, three participants were caught and immediately excluded. ‘The supervisors submitted a report after the exam. After evaluating additional evidence, we decided to exclude the three participants.’
Looking ahead to next year, Eggermont says the board will consider whether the exam can be made more robust. ‘And we will continue to focus on active supervision. We are also considering imposing stricter sanctions for cheating, so that you are not only excluded from the current exam, but also from future participation.’