ChatGPT vs. Students: A Comparative Analysis of Performance in Corporate Finance Exams

Abstract

This study assesses the performance of ChatGPT in comparison with that of undergraduate students in 60 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) of Corporate Finance exams that sought to measure students’ abilities to solve different types of questions (descriptive and numerical) and of varying difficulty levels (basic and intermediate). Our results indicate that overall, the students performed significantly better in all question categories except ChatGPT, outperforming the students in descriptive questions. These results imply that while AI tools offer great potential in the teaching and learning domain, we must consider their limitations, especially in the application of numerical skills and the ability to develop practical solutions. Similar to other areas, AI is becoming inevitable in education, particularly in Finance, but it should be used cautiously as a supplementary tool, not completely replacing human intelligence.

Keywords

ChatGPT corporate finance multiple-Choice questions MCQ AI in education student performance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Flodén

(2024) Grading exams using large language models: A comparison between human and AI grading of exams in higher education using ChatGPT British Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4069

Geerling

Mateer

G. D.

Wooten

Damodaran

(2023). ChatGPT has aced the test of understanding in college economics: Now what? The American Economist, 68(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/05694345231169654

Gencer

Aydin

(2023). Can ChatGPT pass the thoracic surgery exam? The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 366(4), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2023.08.001

Hargreaves

(2023). ‘Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup': ChatGPT & law school assessments. Legal Educ. Rev, 33, 69. https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.83297

Ishida

Arisaka

Fujii

(2024a) Analysis of responses of GPT-4V to the Japanese national clinical engineer licensing examination. Journal of Medical Systems, 48(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02103-w

Ishida

Hanada

Ishida

Hanada

(2024b). Potential of ChatGPT to pass the Japanese Medical and Healthcare Professional National Licenses: a literature review. Cureus, 16(8).

Laohawetwanit

Apornvirat

Kantasiripitak

(2024) ChatGPT as a teaching tool: Preparing pathology residents for board examination with AI-generated digestive system pathology tests. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 162(5), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae062

Malik

Khan

M L

Hussain

Qadir

Tarhini

(2025) AI In higher education: Unveiling academicians’ perspectives on teaching, research, and ethics in the age of ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(3), 2390–2406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2409407

Mhlanga

(2023). Digital transformation education, opportunities, and challenges of the application of ChatGPT to emerging economies. Education Research International, 2023(1), 7605075. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7605075

10.

Newton

Xiromeriti

(2024). ChatGPT performance on multiple choice question examinations in higher education: A pragmatic scoping review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 781–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2299059

11.

Rodriguez-Echeverría

Gutiérrez

J. D.

Conejero

J. M.

Prieto

Á. E.

(2024) Analysis of ChatGPT Performance in Computer Engineering Exams. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 19, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2024.3381842

12.

Ross

S. A.

Westerfield

Jordan

B. D.

(2021). Fundamentals of Corporate Finance (13th Ed.). McGraw-Hill LLC. LCCN: 2020054557, ISBN: 9781260772395. https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/fundamentals-of-corporate-finance-ross.html?isbn=9781260772395

13.

Shabbir

Rizvi

Alam

M. M.

Su'ud

M. M.

(2024). Beyond boundaries: Navigating the positive potential of ChatGPT, empowering education in underdeveloped corners of the world. Heliyon, 10(16). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35845

14.

M. C.

Lin

L. E.

Lin

L. H.

Chen

Y. C.

(2024). Assessing question characteristic influences on ChatGPT's performance and response-explanation consistency: Insights from Taiwan's nursing licensing exam. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 153, 104717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104717

15.

Lin

Lai

(2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752

16.

Szabo

(2023). ChatGPT is a breakthrough in science and education, but fails a test in sports and exercise psychology. Baltic Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 1(128), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.33607/bjshs.v1i128.1341

17.

Weng

T. L.

Wang

Y. M.

Chang

Chen

T. J.

Hwang

S. J.

(2023). ChatGPT failed Taiwan's family medicine board exam. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 86(8), 762–766. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000946

18.

Yanid

Davenport

Carmichael

Thompson

(2024). From Computation to Adjudication: Evaluating Large Language Model Judges on Mathematical Reasoning and Precision Calculation. Centre for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8y3km. OSFP reprints