As 'Bot' Students Continue to Flood In, Community Colleges Struggle to Respond

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

How the scam works

  • Several commenters clarify that aid isn’t only tuition: Pell grants, loans, and other packages often include living-expense money beyond what the college charges.
  • Excess funds, after tuition/fees, are refunded to the student’s bank account; scammers exploit this by creating fake identities, enrolling in multiple online classes, doing minimal AI-generated work for a few weeks, then cashing out.
  • Some aid is not strictly mediated by the college’s bursar, further widening attack surface.
  • One community college professor describes 10–50% of students in some online sections being “fake,” with telltale boilerplate posts and mismatched contact info.

Online vs in‑person education

  • One camp argues the fix is to stop or sharply limit online classes, claiming online quality is worse, cheating is rampant, and community college should be a “grind” that certifies real learning.
  • Others counter that online and remote formats are essential for: working adults, parents, people in conservative/controlling homes, disabled or ill students, and those far from campus. For many, the alternative isn’t in‑person school; it’s no school.
  • Experiences with online programs vary: some report high engagement and solid learning (e.g., online master’s), others say even well-designed courses still feel weaker than in-person.

Financial aid, incentives, and fairness

  • Critics say California is effectively “paying people to attend online community college,” creating predictable fraud and burdening taxpayers, including non-college-goers.
  • Supporters argue that modest living-support aid is necessary so low‑income students don’t need full‑time work, and that societal returns (better jobs, higher taxes, less social-service use) justify subsidies.
  • There is debate over “skin in the game”: some claim paying nothing reduces commitment; others note plenty succeed without debt and that free K–12 is already accepted.
  • One figure cited: this fraud is about 0.3% of total state student aid, suggesting it’s sizable but not system-dominating.

Verification and proposed fixes

  • Suggested countermeasures include: mandatory in-person orientation or first-week attendance for aid recipients; random or repeated ID checks; tying aid to demonstrated participation; paying landlords/booksellers directly; or limiting first-time online-only enrollment.
  • Critics of in-person requirements warn this can exclude exactly the populations aid is meant to help.
  • Commenters note colleges are starting to use third-party ID verification services, but AI and global connectivity make “Sybil attacks” on aid programs much easier.

Broader concerns

  • Some see this as one instance of a wider “post-truth” era where distinguishing real from fake (students, work, identities) is increasingly hard, and where both access and integrity are in tension.