Both AI and human tutoring produce larger GRE learning gains than a no-tutoring control¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? After adjustment for pre-test score, AI tutoring outperformed the control condition by 6.15 percentage points combined (6.86 Quantitative, 5.47 Verbal), with human tutoring also exceeding control in both sections. → Curtis Northcutt 2026

Evidence¶

Curtis Northcutt 2026¶

Curtis Northcutt, Inaara Hasmani, Kevin Feng, Trevor Khangi, Andreas Plesner, Jonas Mueller. (2026). StudentBench: AI and human tutoring yield equivalent GRE learning gains. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.28470 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.28470

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA-adjusted comparison against the no-tutoring control in the same randomized study; the difference "was 6.15 percentage points ([4.08,8.21])", about 1.5–2 more correct answers out of 27. Percentages only, no standardized effect size printed.

"After adjustment for pre-test score, the AI− control difference in learning gain was 6.86 percentage points in Quantitative (95% CI[4.02, 9.69]) and 5.47 in Verbal ([2.46, 8.47]). Gains with human tutoring were also higher than those in the control condition in both sections. Across both sections, the AI− control difference was 6.15 percentage points ([4.08,8.21])."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pooled AI tutoring produces statistically equivalent GRE learning gains to expert human tutoring — related
• Six AI tutors individually matched human tutoring, with Gemma 4 31B equivalent at 918× lower cost per percentage point of learning gain — related
• The best AI tutors exceeded human mean learning gains in Quantitative domains while human tutoring led pooled AI means in all Verbal domains — related
• AI access raises immediate unaided test scores by 7.2 percentage points (0.28 SD) after a timed learning phase — a broader claim this one bears on