CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 19Artificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationOnline Learning and Analytics

Generative AI in Higher Education: Evidence from an Elite College

Open access
Contractor, Zara, Reyes, Germán·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2508.00717arXiv 2508.00717
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generative AI is transforming higher education, yet systematic evidence on student adoption, usage patterns, and perceived learning impacts remains scarce. Using survey data from a selective U.S. college, we document rapid generative-AI adoption, reaching over 80 percent within two years of ChatGPT's release. Adoption varies sharply across disciplines, demographics, and achievement levels. Students use AI both to augment their learning -- by obtaining explanations and feedback -- and to automate coursework by generating final outputs, with augmentation more common than automation. Students generally perceive AI as benefiting their learning, and these beliefs are strongly correlated with adoption. Institutional policies shape usage but have uneven effects, in part because awareness and compliance vary across student groups. These findings suggest that effective AI policies must distinguish between uses that enhance learning and those that substitute for it.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.00717

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Students in engineering and computer science demonstrate higher adoption rates than those in social sciences and humanities, attributable to their increased familiarity with computational tools.

    “Students in engineering and computer science demonstrate higher adoption rates than those in social sciences and humanities, attributable to their increased familiarity with computational tools (Contractor & Reyes, 2025).”

    From <b>Beyond Access: Socioeconomic, Academic and Disciplinary Determinants of Generative AI Use in Higher Education</b> (2026) · cites this paper as Contractor & Reyes, 2025

    Section 3.2 reports higher AI adoption in Natural Sciences, a category including computer science, than in several humanities fields. It also says Social Sciences students have adoption rates similar to Natural Sciences students, contrary to that part of the comparison. The paper suggests differences in AI’s usefulness for field-specific tasks, not greater familiarity with computational tools, and does not report a separate engineering adoption rate. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2025). Nobel lecture: Institutions, technology, and prosperity. American Economic Review 115 (6), 1709-1748.
  2. Acemoglu, D. and P. Restrepo (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives 33 (2), 3-30.
  3. Angrist, J., D. Lang, and P. Oreopoulos (2009). Incentives and services for college achievement: Evidence from a randomized trial. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (1), 136-163.
  4. Bailey, M., D. Johnston, T. Kuchler, J. Stroebel, and A. Wong (2022). Peer effects in product adoption. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 14 (3), 488-526.
  5. Bastani, H., O. Bastani, A. Sungu, H. Ge, Ö. Kabakcı, and R. Mariman (2025, July). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 (26), e2422633122.
  6. Beaman, L., A. BenYishay, J. Magruder, and A. M. Mobarak (2021). Can network theorybased targeting increase technology adoption? American Economic Review 111 (6), 1918-1943.
  7. Bonsu, E. M. and D. Baffour-Koduah (2023). From the consumers' side: Determining students' perception and intention to use chatgpt in ghanaian higher education. Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism 4 (1), 1-29.
  8. Bresnahan, T. F. and M. Trajtenberg (1995). General purpose technologies 'engines of growth'? Journal of econometrics 65 (1), 83-108.
  9. Brynjolfsson, E. and L. M. Hitt (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (4), 23-48.
  10. Brynjolfsson, E., D. Li, and L. Raymond (2025, May). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 140 (2), 889-942.
  11. Brynjolfsson, E. and T. Mitchell (2017). What can machine learning do? workforce implications. Science 358 (6370), 1530-1534.
  12. Comin, D. and B. Hobijn (2010a). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review 100 (5), 2031-2059.
  13. Comin, D. and B. Hobijn (2010b). Technology Diffusion and Postwar Growth , Volume 25, pp. 209-246. University of Chicago Press.
  14. David, P. A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. The American economic review 80 (2), 355-361.
  15. Duflo, E., M. Kremer, and J. Robinson (2011, October). Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review 101 (6), 2350-2390.
  16. Eloundou, T., S. Manning, P. Mishkin, and D. Rock (2024, June). GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs. Science 384 (6702), 1306-1308.
  17. Fairlie, R. W., F. Hoffmann, and P. Oreopoulos (2014). A community college instructor like me: Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. American Economic Review 104 (8), 2567-2591.
  18. Foster, A. D. and M. R. Rosenzweig (1995). Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture. Journal of political Economy 103 (6), 1176-1209.
  19. Foster, A. D. and M. R. Rosenzweig (2010). Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2 (1), 395-424.
  20. Freeman, J. (2025, February). Student generative AI survey 2025. Policy Note 61, Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, UK.
  21. Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25 (4), 501-522.
  22. Handa, K., A. Tamkin, M. McCain, S. Huang, E. Durmus, S. Heck, J. Mueller, J. Hong, S. Ritchie, T. Belonax, et al. (2025). Which economic tasks are performed with AI? Evidence from millions of Claude conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04761 . · arXiv
  23. Hanna, R., S. Mullainathan, and J. Schwartzstein (2014, August). Learning Through Noticing: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (3), 1311-1353.
  24. Hartley, J., F. Jolevski, V. Melo, and B. Moore (2026). The labor market effects of generative artificial intelligence. SSRN Scholarly Paper 5136877.
  25. Hirabayashi, S., R. Jain, N. Jurković, and G. Wu (2024). Harvard undergraduate survey on generative AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00833 . · arXiv
  26. Hutto, C. and E. Gilbert (2014). Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Volume 8, pp. 216-225.
  27. Kelly, A., M. Sullivan, and K. Strampel (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: University student awareness, experience, and confidence in use across disciplines. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 20 (6), 1-16.
  28. Ling, Y., A. Kale, and A. Imas (2025). Underreporting of ai use: The role of social desirability bias. Available at SSRN 5464215 .
  29. Lira, B., T. Rogers, D. G. Goldstein, L. Ungar, and A. L. Duckworth (2025). Coach not crutch: Evidence that AI can improve writing skill despite reducing effort. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania. arXiv:2502.02880. · arXiv
  30. Ravšelj, D., D. Keržič, N. Tomaževič, L. Umek, N. Brezovar, et al. (2025, February). Higher education students' perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions. PLOS ONE 20 (2), e0315011.
  31. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations . New York: Free Press.
  32. Sacerdote, B. (2001). Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2), 681-704.
  33. Stinebrickner, R. and T. R. Stinebrickner (2008). The causal effect of studying on academic performance. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 8 (1).
  34. Stokey, N. L. (2021). Technology diffusion. Review of Economic Dynamics 42 , 15-36.
  35. Xiao, P., Y. Chen, and W. Bao (2023). Waiting, banning, and embracing: An empirical analysis of adapting policies for generative ai in higher education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18617 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Contractor, Z., & Reyes, G.
Affiliations
Middlebury College (US)
Corresponding author
Reyes, Germán
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2508.00717
arXiv
2508.00717
OpenAlex
W4413287097
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • El Servicio de Difusión de la Creación Intelectual (National University of La Plata) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, higher education, educational inequality, disciplinary differences, student demographics, academic performance, student perceptions of AI, institutional AI policies, indirect discrimination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review