← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.08 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.08 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Duke

Duke University杜克大学

来源层级 · 面向教师Source level · Instructor-facing 6 / 12 项有明文规定6 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-08-21Accessed 2026-08-21 申请环节 · AI 明文仅见于研究生Admissions · Graduate programmes only

ai.policy.nestudy.cn/Duke

原文摘录Excerpt

选取标准：对高中读者最具引用价值的一句原文。Selected as the sentence most quotable for a high-school reader.

Detection results should never be the sole evidence of academic dishonesty, but can open a conversation with students if approached from a questioning perspective and not punishment.

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source

十二项条款The twelve provisions

6 / 12

每项附该校原文中的依据语句，以及图谱 52 校中持同一立场的校数。颜色越深，规定越明确、越具约束力（不代表优劣）；斜纹表示该来源未作表述。Each provision gives the supporting sentence and how many of the 52 universities in the atlas take the same position. Darker means more explicit and binding (not better); hatching means the source does not address it.

许可Permission使用许可由谁决定who decides whether AI may be used

默认规则Default rule

Default rule默认规则

作业未说明可否使用 AI 时，适用何种规则？When an assignment says nothing about AI, what applies?

默认禁止Prohibited by default主流口径MOST COMMON
Under the Duke Community Standard, the unauthorized use of generative AI to complete assignments, exams, and other academic assignments is considered academic dishonesty.

编码说明CODING NOTEUnauthorized use is dishonesty, so use is banned absent instructor authorization; the file adds that "unauthorized" is left undefined per course.

52 校中 19 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：默认禁止（19/45）19 of 52 take this position · most common: Prohibited by default (19/45)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

课程规则优先Instructor override

Instructor override课程规则优先

任课教师的规定是否优先于校级规定？Does an instructor's rule take precedence over the institution's?

教师可定但有底线Instructor rules within limits主流口径MOST COMMON
The university’s statement sets a base level policy, however, it does not explain what unauthorized means for your course.

编码说明CODING NOTEInstructors define what counts as authorized in their course, while the Community Standard remains the stated base level policy.

52 校中 33 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：教师可定但有底线（33/45）33 of 52 take this position · most common: Instructor rules within limits (33/45)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

分级许可Tiered scale

Tiered scale分级许可

是否设有分级的使用许可框架？Is there a graduated permission framework?

非正式分类Informal categories主流口径MOST COMMON
substantive assistance from others, including automated tools.Use only with prior permissionStudents are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course if instructor permission is obtained in advance.

编码说明CODING NOTEFour sample syllabus policies run from prohibited to freely permitted, but there is no numbered or named scale; instructors adopt one policy per course.

52 校中 15 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：非正式分类（15/20）15 of 52 take this position · most common: Informal categories (15/20)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
透明Transparency使用后须说明的内容what must be declared after use

披露要求Disclosure

Disclosure披露要求

使用 AI 是否须予披露？为强制还是建议？Must AI use be disclosed, and is that required or recommended?

依课程而定Course dependent
Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course if that use is properly documented and credited.

编码说明CODING NOTEOne sample policy requires documentation and citation; another states no documentation or citation is required, so the duty follows the course policy.

52 校中 14 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：强制披露（20/46）14 of 52 take this position · most common: Required (20/46)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

过程留证Process evidence

Process evidence过程留证

是否须保留草稿、提示词或编辑历史？Must drafts, prompts or edit history be kept?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述；这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 33 所同样未作表述33 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
责任Accountability错误与违规的责任归属responsibility for errors and violations

核实责任Verification duty

Verification duty核实责任

AI 输出有误或虚构引注时，由谁负责？Who is responsible when AI output is wrong or a citation is invented?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述；这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 14 所同样未作表述14 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

违规定性Integrity framing

Integrity framing违规定性

违规使用在纪律体系中如何定性？How is a violation classified in the disciplinary system?

学术不端Academic integrity violation主流口径MOST COMMON
the unauthorized use of generative AI to complete assignments, exams, and other academic assignments is considered academic dishonesty

编码说明CODING NOTEClassified as academic dishonesty under the Duke Community Standard; the file never uses the word plagiarism.

52 校中 28 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：学术不端（28/44）28 of 52 take this position · most common: Academic integrity violation (28/44)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

检测器证据Detector evidence

Detector evidence检测器证据

AI 检测工具的结果能否作为证据？Can AI-detection results be used as evidence?

不得作为唯一或主要证据Not sole or primary evidence主流口径MOST COMMON
Detection results should never be the sole evidence of academic dishonesty, but can open a conversation with students if approached from a questioning perspective and not punishment.

编码说明CODING NOTEDetectors are not recommended (false positives, biased detections); if used, students are informed in advance and results alone cannot establish dishonesty.

52 校中 8 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：不得作为唯一或主要证据（8/14）8 of 52 take this position · most common: Not sole or primary evidence (8/14)

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
边界Boundaries数据、版权与工具的限制limits on data, copyright and tools

数据与隐私Data & privacy

Data & privacy数据与隐私

哪些内容不得输入 AI 工具？What must not be entered into an AI tool?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述；这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 21 所同样未作表述21 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

机构工具Institutional tools

Institutional tools机构工具

学校是否指定或提供 AI 工具？Does the institution designate or provide AI tools?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述；这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 28 所同样未作表述28 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗
理由Rationale规则的依据the stated basis for the rules

学习理由Learning rationale

Learning rationale学习理由

规则是否以“不得绕过应习得的能力”为依据？Are the rules grounded in not bypassing the skills to be learned?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述；这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 15 所同样未作表述15 of 52 are likewise silent

在图谱中与其他学校对照 ↗Compare with the others in the atlas ↗

补充信息Further detail

该校的分级框架Its permission levels

  1. Use prohibited
  2. Use only with prior permission
  3. Use only with acknowledgement
  4. Use is freely permitted with no acknowledgement

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

工具名称Tool name提示词Prompts正式引注Formal citation

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/08-Duke.md

该校招生办公室就申请人使用 AI 的公开表述，以本科新生申请为主。英文为逐字原文，中文为整理者的分析。证据状态描述找到了什么材料，不是宽严等级；未说明不代表允许。What this university's admissions office says about applicants using AI, chiefly for first-year undergraduate applications. English passages are verbatim; the Chinese is the collector's analysis. The evidence status describes what material was found, not how strict the rules are; silence does not mean permission.

证据状态Evidence status AI 明文仅核实于研究生/特定项目Explicit AI rules verified only for graduate or specific programmes

本科申请与 FAQ 正文已检查，未找到校方明确的本科申请 AI 使用细则。Fuqua Daytime MBA 有明确规则：AI 可辅助编辑与清晰表达，不应生成内容；该规则不能外推本科。

52 所大学对照 →All 52 compared →

来源信息Source information

  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-09-24 (Asia/Shanghai)
  • 格式说明Format note Short exact English excerpts from live official sources; surrounding Chinese analysis is not quoted university text. Layout/whitespace may differ. Saved readable snapshots retain navigation where present.
  • 适用范围Scope note Undergraduate admissions is the primary question (S1–S2). Explicit AI rules are verified only for the Fuqua Daytime MBA graduate application (S4); S3 is a scoped MBA admissions-update blog.
  • 证据状态Evidence status graduate-only-ai
  • 校内 AI 指导（范围不同）Original university AI guidance (different scope) ../08-Duke.md
  • 用途说明Use note Source comparison, not legal advice or permission to use AI. Application-platform rules, including Common App, are reviewed separately.

中文结论

  • 本科申请页与 FAQ 均已读取，但没有找到针对本科申请人如何使用 AI 的明确细则；不能据此推断可用。[S1][S2]
  • Fuqua Daytime MBA 明确允许 AI 辅助编辑、提升清晰度，但要求构思、经历和回答属于申请人，不应由 AI 生成内容。这是研究生项目规则，不是 Duke 全校本科规则。[S4]
  • 仅在 Fuqua 范围：未适当注明来源的外部／AI 内容构成抄袭，可能导致拒录；文书也可能经 AI 检测工具检查，重度依赖生成内容或失实表述可能影响评估并违反 Honor Code。[S4]
  • 旧年度“谈谈 AI”的选答题不能等同于使用许可。本次读取的本科页明确标为 2026–27，当前题目未列出该选项。[S1]

Official sources and exact excerpts

[S1] Apply

  • 发布单位Unit / publisher Duke Undergraduate Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://admissions.duke.edu/apply/
  • 页面日期Page date not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority official-application-instructions
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; accessed 2026-09-24
  • 核验说明Verification note Full page, including essay and short-essay sections, inspected. Current 2026–27 prompts do not contain the AI-reflection option reported for the older 2025–26 cycle.

[S1-Q1] current undergraduate application cycle

The following questions are required for all first-year applicants to Duke University during the 2026-27 application cycle.

[S2] Resources + FAQs

  • 发布单位Unit / publisher Duke Undergraduate Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://admissions.duke.edu/resources/
  • 页面日期Page date not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority official-advice
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; accessed 2026-09-24
  • 核验说明Verification note Full HTML-derived text, including FAQ and gap-year conditions, inspected; no explicit applicant-AI permission/prohibition located. The gap-year section references Conditions of Application without reproducing their full text.

No quoted rule: this source documents the inspected scope/context; the substantive quoted rule, if any, is identified separately.

[S3] What You Should Know About Applying to Fuqua This Year

  • 发布单位Unit / publisher Duke Fuqua School of Business; Allison Jamison; Daytime MBA Student Blog
  • 官方链接Official URL https://blogs.fuqua.duke.edu/duke-mba/2026/07/08/allison-jamison/what-you-should-know-about-applying-to-fuqua-this-year
  • 页面日期Page date 2026-07-08
  • 适用对象Audience / scope graduate: Fuqua Daytime MBA
  • 来源性质Authority official-hosted-blog
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; accessed 2026-09-24
  • 核验说明Verification note Admissions update on an official site with a Student Blog masthead, concerning the 2026–27 MBA application. Used as cycle/context confirmation, not as a university-wide policy; the operative text is independently verified in S4.

No quoted rule: this source documents the inspected scope/context; the substantive quoted rule, if any, is identified separately.

[S4] DAYTIME: Application Instructions

  • 发布单位Unit / publisher Duke Fuqua School of Business
  • 官方链接Official URL https://www.fuqua.duke.edu/programs/daytime-mba/application-instructions
  • 页面日期Page date not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope graduate: Fuqua Daytime MBA
  • 来源性质Authority policy
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; accessed 2026-09-24
  • 核验说明Verification note Instructions for all written submissions, including the MBA short answer and essays. Do not treat attribution as permission to outsource content generation.

[S4-Q1] permitted editing versus generated content

These tools may be used to support editing and clarity, but your ideas, experiences, and responses should be your own. AI should help refine your content, not generate it.

[S4-Q2] review and potential consequences

Essays may also be reviewed using AI-detection tools. Submissions that rely heavily on AI-generated content, misrepresent the applicant, or are written by another person may negatively affect an applicant's evaluation and may constitute a violation of the Fuqua Honor Code.

[S4-Q3] attribution, plagiarism and denial

Using language or content from external sources, including websites, publications, other applicants' materials, consultants, or AI-generated content, without proper attribution constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism is a violation of the Fuqua Honor Code and may result in denial of admission.

中文解读：允许、禁止与未说明

以下为研究者解读，不是校方原文；不把一般真实性期待写成未发布的 AI 规则。

  • 本科：允许／禁止： 均未查到明确 AI 分类；不要借用下列 MBA 规则填补本科空白。
  • 仅 Fuqua MBA：允许： 支持编辑与表达清晰度；仍须保留本人构思、经历与回答。[S4]
  • 仅 Fuqua MBA：不当／禁止： 用 AI 生成内容而非打磨本人内容；将未注明来源的 AI／外部内容当作本人作品；他人代写、失实表述及重度依赖生成内容可能触发负面评估或 Honor Code 后果。[S4]
  • 未说明： 本科全部具体 AI 场景；MBA 的具体翻译、头脑风暴边界、研究补充材料以及统一 AI 使用披露表，未在所引条款中明确。注明来源不是生成文书的通行许可。

Limits and verification gaps

  • Undergraduate conclusion is a bounded search finding, not an assertion that Duke has no rules and not permission to use AI.
  • The current undergraduate page is for 2026–27. An older essay prompt asking applicants to discuss AI is not a use policy; it is not listed among the current prompts inspected.
  • Fuqua MBA editing permission, attribution requirements, detection statements and penalties do not apply to undergraduate applicants on the strength of these sources.
  • Undergraduate grammar, brainstorming, translation, research-supplement AI use, disclosure and AI-specific penalties were not specified in the inspected pages.
  • No private application form or complete Conditions of Application was accessed. Common App rules are researched separately.
Search log

Live targeted searches on 2026-09-24; secondary results were used only to locate official evidence.

  1. site.admissions.duke.edu artificial intelligence AI application essays policy
    • Located undergraduate application material, older AI-prompt reports, and graduate/Fuqua leads; secondary reports not used as policy evidence.
  2. site.admissions.duke.edu "application" "own" "AI" OR "artificial intelligence" OR "authentic"
    • Did not locate an explicit undergraduate applicant-AI rule; followed official admissions sources.
  3. site.admissions.duke.edu application essay artificial intelligence guidance
    • Located official Apply page and Fuqua admissions-update lead; no undergraduate AI-specific rule verified.
  4. site.admissions.duke.edu frequently asked questions application integrity original work
    • Located and fetched Apply and Resources + FAQs, including application-related conditions.
  5. site.fuqua.duke.edu daytime mba application instructions AI essays editing clarity
    • Located and fetched explicit Daytime MBA written-submission rules; kept graduate-only.

No admissions office was contacted. No private application account or anti-bot bypass was used.

官方原文The official text

univ/08-Duke.md

本项目采集的该校官方文本。图谱引用的语句已高亮，句末标签注明对应条款，点击可返回该条款。The official text collected for this university. Sentences the atlas cites are highlighted; the tag after each names the provision it supports and links back to it.

来源信息Source information

  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-08-21
  • 页面更新Page last updated 2026-08-09
  • 格式说明Format note Relevant text extracted from the official university webpage; navigation and site chrome removed. Wording is retained; layout may differ from the webpage.
  • 适用范围Scope note Center for Teaching and Learning guidance interpreting the Duke Community Standard; instructors define what assistance is authorized in each course or assignment.
  • 用途说明Use note This is source material for comparison, not a translation or the school’s final high-school policy.

Artificial Intelligence Policies: Guidelines and Considerations

Under the Duke Community Standard, the unauthorized use of generative AI to complete assignments, exams, and other academic assignments is considered academic dishonesty违规定性Integrity framing.默认规则Default rule The university’s statement sets a base level policy, however, it does not explain what unauthorized means for your course.课程规则优先Instructor override

All instructors should update their syllabi to include clear guidance on the use of generative AI in their courses. We encourage faculty to thoughtfully determine their stance, recognizing that in a rapidly evolving AI landscape, standardized, one-size-fits-all policies are neither sustainable nor reflective of the diversity of teaching approaches.

As generative AI becomes increasingly widespread, it is important to consider not only your stance on its use in the classroom but also in your own scholarly and professional work. Establishing a course-specific AI policy enables you to set expectations, engage students in meaningful conversations about AI, and provide clarity if academic integrity concerns arise.

Possible course-policy models reproduced by Duke

Use prohibited

Students are not allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course. Each student is expected to complete each assignment without substantive assistance from others, including automated tools.

Use only with prior permission

Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course if instructor permission is obtained in advance.分级许可Tiered scale Unless given permission to use those tools, each student is expected to complete each assignment without substantive assistance from others, including automated tools.

Use only with acknowledgement

Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course if that use is properly documented and credited.披露要求Disclosure For example, text generated using ChatGPT-3 should include a citation such as: “Chat-GPT-3. (YYYY, Month DD of query). ‘Text of your query.’ Generated using OpenAI. https://chat.openai.com/” Material generated using other tools should follow a similar citation convention.

Use is freely permitted with no acknowledgement

Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course; no special documentation or citation is required.

About AI detection software

We do not recommend AI detection software as a part of your AI policy because of false positive rates, biased detections, and software shortcomings. If you choose to use these tools, inform students in advance. Detection results should never be the sole evidence of academic dishonesty, but can open a conversation with students if approached from a questioning perspective and not punishment.检测器证据Detector evidence摘录Excerpt