Spending 50,000 Australian dollars on tuition only to attend classes with AI chatbots? The university reform in Australia has sparked fierce controversy.

The Australian higher education sector has recently been thrown into an uproar — Macquarie University has replaced traditional face-to-face teaching in two compulsory psychology courses with AI chatbots, online quizzes and optional Zoom tutorials.

The university calls this tool a "virtual peer". It asks students questions during weekly learning sessions to guide them through scenario-based exercises. The university emphasizes that AI activities are optional and only serve as a supplement to "core learning" — which refers to online readings, videos and quizzes that are also not mandatory for attendance. The final grade is solely determined by independent research assignments and examinations.

In other words, students do not have to step into a physical classroom even once throughout the entire semester.

"I feel like I'm teaching the robot how to take the teacher's job"

In the first semester of this year, these two courses were still taught offline. The university stated that in-person classes will resume in 2027, but on an alternating semester basis — which implies that in the future, students may only be able to choose between an "AI semester" and a "face-to-face semester".

One anonymous student expressed his dissatisfaction. Restricted by the degree structure, he was forced to choose online learning and "felt that he had suffered a great loss".

"This is not classroom discussion or teacher lectures at all, but completing activities with a robot," he said. "It seems that I am instead teaching this robot how to take the teacher's job away."

It is worth noting that under the Australian Commonwealth funded quota in 2026, each psychology course charges 2,174 Australian dollars, and the total tuition fee for a three-year bachelor's degree exceeds 50,000 Australian dollars. Spending so much money only to get conversations with algorithms is unacceptable for many students.

University administration: AI is only an assistant, not a replacement

Macquarie University responded that the tool was designed in collaboration with educators, with the aim of supporting rather than replacing teachers. Professors will upload materials used on the platform and review the content, which makes the "virtual peer" more accurate than general-purpose AI (such as ChatGPT) and better avoids the "hallucination" problem — that is, AI fabricates information out of thin air. The platform can also monitor students' conversation records.

In addition, the courses still retain paid tutors, who hold optional small Zoom classes every week. There are 6 sessions per week for 400 students in the introductory course, and 10 sessions per week for 700 students in the final-year course — roughly one class for every 70 students. The university encourages students who wish to communicate with teachers to attend, but admits that attendance rate is unstable, usually rising temporarily before assignment deadlines.

Data shows that the usage of this tool has skyrocketed: it answered about 80,000 student questions throughout 2025, and almost matched that number in the first half of 2026, most of which were administrative inquiries. The university stated that the vast majority of teachers and students surveyed considered the tool valuable and would recommend it.

More than Macquarie: AI is fully "sneaking into" Australian universities

Macquarie is not an isolated case. The University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney are also systematically integrating AI into teaching. The University of Sydney has even become a "pioneer" — hundreds of academics use the university's self-developed educational generative AI platform "Cogniti" for chatbot and scenario exercises, and this platform has been shared with many institutions in Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

At the end of August this year, the University of Sydney released a discussion paper envisioning that AI will provide personalized teaching for each student in the future, while significantly reducing the face-to-face contact time between teachers and students. A university spokesperson quickly stated: "Human judgment, sense of responsibility and interpersonal relationships can never be replaced by technology, and this is by no means a cost-saving measure."

But trade unions and teaching staff are not buying it.

Union warning: Layoffs, burnout, and loss of the meaning of work

Chen Peter, president of the University of Sydney branch of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), said that due to funding shortages and shrinking staff numbers, it is already difficult to offer large-scale courses, and this document has made employees deeply worried about their career prospects.

"Some people are worried about losing their jobs," Chen said. "For others, what they are more afraid of is that all the things that make this job meaningful will disappear, and they will only be left to take the blame when something goes wrong."

The University of Sydney faculty plans to go on strike this Wednesday to fight for a number of rights and interests including AI protection clauses, in response to the increasing workload and employment instability. The union has made it clear that it will not accept any work agreement that does not address AI issues.

The university responded that AI is developing too fast and should be dynamically managed through policies, rather than being "locked" by enterprise agreements signed every three years. But Dr. Alison Barnes, national president of the NTEU and a scholar at Macquarie University, retorted: "University staff are overwhelmed by the workload crisis, and the scattered rollout of AI to cover up the problem may instead cause more damaging consequences."

Experts' concerns: When "virtual avatars" replace real interactions

Associate Professor Mina Jia from Central Queensland University has been researching AI in higher education for many years. She said she has never seen a university cut face-to-face courses and introduce AI chatbots at the same time. "Students need human-to-human interaction," Professor Jia said. "If we replace everything with virtual tutors, student engagement will face huge risks."

The university where Professor Jia works is piloting its self-developed AI tool "Birdy" as an auxiliary support across 24 units, and she herself has even created an AI virtual avatar "Nina Chatbot" modeled after herself to answer students' questions. But she insists that technology must be introduced step by step: "You have to give people time to try, see the value, and provide usage guidance at the same time."

AI is not a devil, but nor is it a savior

There is no doubt that AI can bring efficiency improvements, personalized services and 24-hour response to education. However, when universities, under the pressure of funding constraints and the need for enrollment expansion, take AI as a shortcut to reduce labor costs, the essence of education — the mutual inspiration, collision and companionship between people — may be quietly diluted.

If the high tuition fees paid by students are exchanged for cold conversation records, their complaint of "suffering a loss" is not unreasonable. What teachers are worried about losing is not just a job, but also the dignity and meaning of "imparting knowledge and enlightening minds".

Technology should always be a tool, not a substitute. When universities rush to stuff AI into classrooms, perhaps they should first ask a question: Are we really upgrading education, or are we simply achieving "cost reduction and efficiency improvement" in a cheap way?

This article is from the WeChat official account "Edu Guide", written by Luca, and published with authorization from 36Kr.