According to Futurism, University of Staffordshire has been using AI to teach coding courses for the past two years in a government-funded apprenticeship program. The program’s 41 students reported AI-generated voice lessons and slideshows with inconsistent American English and “generic, surface level information.” One student named James expressed frustration that he may have “used up two years” of his life on a program done “in the cheapest way possible.” Meanwhile, the university’s academic guidelines strictly prohibit students from using AI for their work under penalty of academic misconduct. Recent evidence shows the AI teaching continues, with one video lesson featuring an AI voice that switches from British to Spanish accent mid-sentence.
The stunning double standard
Here’s what really gets me about this situation. The university has clear policies stating students can’t “out source your academic work to AI or another human” and that work “must have been produced by yourself.” But at the same time, they quietly updated their teaching framework to justify using AI automation. So students get expelled for AI use while the institution saves money by replacing professors with algorithms. That’s not just hypocritical – it’s fundamentally dishonest. How can you maintain academic integrity when you’re outsourcing the teaching itself?
This isn’t happening in a vacuum
This AI teaching experiment fits into a larger pattern of UK government program cuts that have affected everything from children’s services to transportation. Basically, when you systematically defund public services, you create situations where institutions feel pressured to cut corners. Universities facing budget constraints might see AI as a cost-saving miracle. But education isn’t just about information delivery – it’s about mentorship, critical thinking development, and human interaction. You can’t automate that.
What AI teaching actually looks like
The technical implementation sounds… rough. Students reported dubious file names, inconsistent language styles, and voiceovers that can’t even maintain a consistent accent. That last one is particularly telling – it suggests they’re using multiple AI systems or poorly configured prompts. When you’re dealing with complex technical subjects like coding, consistency matters. And surface-level information just doesn’t cut it for professional development. These aren’t kids learning basic concepts – they’re adults trying to build careers.
The real impact on students
James’s comment about being “midway through my life, my career” and feeling stuck hits hard. These aren’t teenagers fresh out of high school – they’re people making significant life investments. Two years is a massive commitment, especially when you’re balancing work and family responsibilities. Now imagine discovering your education was essentially automated while you followed rules that would have expelled you for doing the same. The betrayal goes beyond wasted money – it’s about wasted time and lost opportunities that people in their 30s, 40s, and beyond can’t easily recover.
Where automation makes sense
Look, I’m not against automation where it actually adds value. In industrial settings, for example, reliable computing systems are essential. Companies like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com provide the robust panel PCs that keep manufacturing and processing running smoothly. That’s appropriate automation – enhancing human work rather than replacing it entirely. But education? That’s different. The relationship between teacher and student, the ability to ask nuanced questions, the mentorship aspect – these can’t be replicated by current AI systems. We’re automating the wrong things.
Where does this leave us?
The Staffordshire situation raises uncomfortable questions about the future of education. If this has been happening for two years already, how many other institutions are quietly experimenting with AI teaching? And what quality controls exist? The fact that students had to go to The Guardian to get attention suggests the internal complaint process failed them. Now we’re left wondering: is this the new normal for budget-conscious education, or will pushback from students and faculty force a reevaluation? Either way, the genie’s out of the bottle – and it can’t even maintain a consistent accent.
