More than half of Copenhagen Business School’s full-time students are internationals, yet Denmark has no binding national law on how universities should handle AI-written assignments in higher education, leaving many international students to navigate high-stakes oral exams in a system they may be less familiar with.
External examiners at CBS have begun documenting a troubling pattern in official reports. Students submit polished written work that earns strong marks. Then they struggle through oral defenses, unable to explain basic concepts in their own papers. Examiners have begun noting AI tools in censor reports, according to documents cited by Berlingske through freedom-of-information requests.
What most Danish coverage misses is that this is fundamentally an international student story. According to CBS Facts and Figures 2024, 51.2 percent of all full-time degree students at CBS were non-Danish. These students are navigating a Danish exam culture they did not grow up in, often with residence permits that depend on timely graduation.
The Oral Exam Trap for International Students
Denmark leans heavily on oral exams in ways many countries do not. For many students educated in systems that rely more on written or multiple-choice formats, the Danish mundtlig eksamen can be unfamiliar and high stakes.
CBS does have guidelines. The school’s 2024 rules state that using AI to generate assignment content without independent analysis may constitute exam cheating. But the guidance focuses on written work and says almost nothing about oral defense requirements. International students who rely heavily on ChatGPT for written assignments may be less prepared for oral defenses if they do not fully understand or internalize the content.
According to an anonymized censor report obtained via freedom-of-information request and described by Berlingske, one examiner noted that a written report showed advanced understanding of econometric modeling, including correct use of heteroskedasticity tests, while the same student could not explain the basic meaning of coefficient estimates at the oral exam. The examiner flagged this as suggesting extensive use of generative AI or external assistance.
No Binding National Law, Rising Stakes
Denmark has no binding national law targeting student use of generative AI in higher education exams. The Ministry of Higher Education sent universities a non-binding letter in April 2024 urging them to adapt exam formats, but left concrete changes to each institution. The result is a patchwork of institutional rules that differ significantly between universities and even between programs.
CBS is not alone in attracting internationals. According to Statistics Denmark, the total number of non-Danish students at Danish universities climbed from 28,600 in 2013 to 40,500 in 2023, a 41.6 percent increase. As reported by Statistics Denmark and Eurostat, internationals now make up roughly 14 percent of all higher education students in Denmark, well above the EU average of around 9 percent. The country has actively recruited them, but the 2022 national strategy to attract more international students made no mention of AI or digital assessment.
For non-EU students, the stakes go beyond grades. According to the Danish Agency for International Recruitment and Integration, students must complete their program within the standard duration plus a limited extension. Repeated failures or significant delays can, for some non-EU students, jeopardize their residence permit if they cannot complete within the allowed timeframe.
What International Students Can Do
CBS publishes English-language guidelines that clarify when AI tools may be used for brainstorming or language polishing and when use becomes misconduct. Students who fail exams are entitled to feedback and can request clarification from examiners. CBS also offers study skills workshops, often in English, on how to structure an oral defense and handle examiner questions.
External examiners have expressed serious concern about the current situation. Examiner comments to the Ministry, as summarized in FOI material cited by Berlingske, warn that without changes Denmark risks a growing gap between strong written results and weak oral performances, undermining the reliability of both. CBS leadership has publicly argued that AI is now a basic academic and professional skill and that students should learn to use such tools critically.
The EU AI Act classifies certain educational applications as high risk, but does not regulate students’ use of consumer tools like ChatGPT. Denmark has not adopted any national law targeting student use in higher education specifically. Universities are left to experiment with software detectors of uncertain reliability while the government tightens rules on essay mills and contract cheating.
For now, the burden falls on students to find out what is allowed and to prepare for an oral exam format many have never encountered. Until Denmark establishes clear, binding national rules for higher education, international students at CBS and beyond are navigating a high-stakes system largely on their own.
