‘But there is a difference between recognising AI use and proving its use. So I tried an experiment. … I received 122 paper submissions. Of those, the Trojan horse easily identified 33 AI-generated papers. I sent these stats to all the students and gave them the opportunity to admit to using AI before they were locked into failing the class. Another 14 outed themselves. In other words, nearly 39% of the submissions were at least partially written by AI.‘
Article archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20251125225915/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/set-trap-to-catch-students-cheating-ai_uk_691f20d1e4b00ed8a94f4c01
What did you do at those universities (and were they notably accredited)? There's a world of options here, and the difference in areas of budgetary interest between being something like a provost vs. a lab manager is vast. Both deal with budgets, but the familiarity with the broad scope of the uni's budgetary policy vs. the realities of budgetary specifics is very relevant to the impression you present here.
For example, a reputation for enforcing academic rigour greatly improves things like grant allocation, which cover far more of a university's budget than a small percentage loss of tuition from academic dismissal of students does. That is not an aspect addressed directly below the level of deans (or program leads at larger unis, and PIs at research-heavy ones) but one that has a tremendous impact on the daily operation of the institution.
It's just not an either/or issue here, and in general academic dismissal is a net zero for a university because of those huge areas of unstated complexity.