AI cheating in job interviews hits record high as employers warn graduates

92 per cent of graduate employers have suspected or encountered misconduct during recruitment Real-time AI assistance during interviews is the most commonly reported form of misconduct. Graduate roles attract an average of 141 applications each, intensifying competition for jobs. Job candidates using artificial intelligence (AI) to generate answers during online interviews are increasingly being caught by recruiters, with some employers ending interviews when they suspect applicants are relying on chatbots for real-time assistance. Chris Morrow, who runs Manchester-based recruitment agency Digitalent, reportedly said candidates often give themselves away by pausing while waiting for an AI tool to generate a response or speaking in an unnaturally formal style. “It’s like they are reading off an Autocue,” he said. Morrow, who recruits talent for the AI sector, said his agency tended to end interviews when it encountered the practice. “Whenever it happens to us, we tend to end the interview. It’s cheating,” he said. The warning comes as reports of misconduct during graduate recruitment have reached a record high, according to the Institute of Student Employers (ISE). Its annual survey found that 92 per cent of employers had suspected or encountered inappropriate behaviour during assessment and selection, up from 85 per cent the previous year and 78 per cent two years earlier. The most frequently reported issue was unauthorised AI use during interviews. Some 66 per cent of employers surveyed reported at least one incident involving a graduate candidate using AI improperly during an interview. When does using AI in a job application become cheating? Not every use of AI is considered misconduct. Employers are becoming more accepting of candidates using the technology to prepare CVs, write cover letters and complete application questions, provided it is used appropriately. The problem arises when candidates use AI to misrepresent their abilities during assessments or interviews, where employers are trying to evaluate their own skills, judgement and communication. Stephen Isherwood, chief executive of the ISE, warned that candidates who misrepresent themselves could end up in roles that do not suit them. “If you misrepresent yourself, you could end up doing the wrong job,” he said. He advised applicants to research the role and understand what an employer is looking for before an interview, rather than relying on AI-generated answers. The distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate as candidates use the technology to manage large numbers of applications. Tom, a 22-year-old geography graduate from Maidstone, said he applied for more than 200 jobs before securing a restaurant manager role. He described the process as “exhausting” and “demoralising”, saying AI had helped him prepare CVs and cover letters and identify keywords that could help applications pass initial screening. However, he said he did not use the technology during interviews or assessments. Tom also questioned whether employers were applying consistent standards when some companies use AI to screen candidates themselves. “You can’t use AI too much because otherwise you’re not human. But if you don’t write like an AI, you may get skipped by the AI screening,” he said. The ISE found that employers were becoming more accepting of AI at certain stages of recruitment, particularly for CVs, cover letters and online application questions. But real-time assistance during interviews and the use of AI to complete assessments remained key concerns. Is AI making graduate recruitment more competitive? AI is also making it easier for applicants to submit large numbers of applications, a practice sometimes described in recruitment as “spray and pray”. While the technology can help candidates save time, it may also increase competition for individual roles. The ISE survey found that graduate vacancies attracted an average of 141 applications each. More than half of surveyed employers said they planned to introduce AI screening, although only 16 per cent were already using it. Hollie Moody, head of early careers recruitment at energy company EDF, said she understood why graduates were turning to AI in a difficult jobs market but warned that its use could undermine fairness. EDF closed its graduate recruitment scheme early after receiving 12,000 applications, a 10 per cent increase on the previous year. Moody said AI was likely to have contributed to the volume and that some candidates were also using it during the selection process. “What we don’t have is a level playing field, because what you’ll find is that some candidates will absolutely use AI throughout the whole process, and other candidates won’t,” she said as per reports. EDF provides guidance on acceptable AI use and has adjusted its recruitment process to focus on skills and behaviour-based assessments and video interviews. It does not currently use AI to screen candidates, although Moody said the company might need to consider it in future. The ISE’s findings also suggest that AI is not yet the main driver of changes in graduate hiring. Its survey found that graduate recruitment had stabilised in 2026 after an 8 per cent fall the previous year, with hiring rising by 4 per cent and employers expecting a further 7 per cent increase over the following 12 months. However, the figures mask differences between employers: 40 per cent planned to reduce graduate intake, 45 per cent expected to increase it and 15 per cent intended to maintain current levels. Isherwood said reductions in graduate hiring were being driven by economic uncertainty rather than the adoption of AI, adding that the technology’s wider impact on graduate employment was likely to become clearer over the next two or three years. For recruiters, the immediate challenge is ensuring that AI helps candidates present their genuine abilities rather than disguising gaps in their knowledge. As Moody put it, employers are looking for “authenticity, but also personality”, and want to see “diversity of thought in the business”.