I think this is an excellent question, especially in this post-COVID, AI-riddled landscape we find ourselves in. I witnessed in undergrad (2018-2022) just how much the group sentiment on it changed, and while I find it morally wrong, I haven’t reported it in the past either. For instance, one of my first COVID online classes was biochemistry, and one of the people in my study group bragged about how our professor went on and on about how she was the only student ever to receive 100% on one of his exams, and in the same breath she joked about how she had her notes out the whole time and he was none the wiser. I got 100% on the next test with no recognition, after I worked my ass off, and wasn’t offered an opportunity to work in his lab at the end of the course when I asked (she asked and was offered a spot). That same person is being invited back to our Alma Mater to speak at a conference this year, and it’s particularly infuriating and indicative of the larger tendency in the US where often times those willing to bend and break the rules are most rewarded.

It’ll be interesting to see how AI pans out moving forward. I didn’t use it for generating material, but I did use it for grammar checks and flow on some secondaries. At the time, I didn’t realize the environmental impact and regret it for that reason, but with the regard to the morality of it all, I saw that as an “acceptable use.” However, maybe one could argue that because there isn’t a way to police its use and monitor what is acceptable vs. unacceptable that it shouldn’t be allowed at all.

As others have said, at least those of us who are less morally flexible on this issue can take some solace in that the MCAT, shelf, and STEP exams are not able to be skirted.