← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.23 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.23 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Georgetown

Georgetown University乔治城大学

来源层级 · 校级通用Source level · University-wide 7 / 12 项有明文规定7 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-08-21Accessed 2026-08-21 申请环节 · 本科 AI 明文边界Admissions · Explicit undergraduate rules

ai.policy.nestudy.cn/Georgetown

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.

Members of the Georgetown community are accountable for the work product or decisions resulting from their use of AI.

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

十二项条款The twelve provisions

7 / 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
A departmental student example states that students may not use AI tools to complete coursework unless explicitly directed by the instructor, and AI cannot replace the deep learning created by reflection, authentic production, and revision.

编码说明CODING NOTECoursework use is barred absent explicit instructor direction, but this appears only as a departmental example, not as a university-wide student rule.

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?

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 7 所同样未作表述7 of 52 are likewise silent

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?

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 32 所同样未作表述32 of 52 are likewise silent

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?

强制披露Required主流口径MOST COMMON
Transparency: AI use must be disclosed when required by law, university policy, or publisher requirements.

编码说明CODING NOTEStated with "must", but the duty is conditioned on an external trigger: law, university policy, or publisher requirements.

52 校中 20 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：强制披露（20/46）20 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?

学生对成品完全负责Student fully responsible
Members of the Georgetown community are accountable for the work product or decisions resulting from their use of AI.

编码说明CODING NOTEAccountability for the resulting work product rests on the community member; the file separately notes outputs may contain bias and urges awareness of limits.

52 校中 10 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：须自行核实（17/38）10 of 52 take this position · most common: Verification required (17/38)

↓ 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 ↗

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?

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 8 所同样未作表述8 of 52 are likewise silent

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?

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 38 所同样未作表述38 of 52 are likewise silent

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?

禁止上传受限数据Restricted data prohibited主流口径MOST COMMON
Do not upload, input, or analyze university data in an AI tool that is not approved by UIS and under an enterprise-wide contract.

编码说明CODING NOTEUniversity data may not be entered into AI tools lacking UIS approval and an enterprise contract; users must also respect others' personal information.

52 校中 20 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：禁止上传受限数据（20/31）20 of 52 take this position · most common: Restricted data prohibited (20/31)

↓ 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 ↗

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?

批准工具清单Approved tool list
Do not upload, input, or analyze university data in an AI tool that is not approved by UIS and under an enterprise-wide contract.

编码说明CODING NOTETools must be UIS-approved and enterprise-contracted before university data may be entered; no tool is named and no provided tier is asserted.

52 校中 5 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：提供机构版工具（19/24）5 of 52 take this position · most common: Institution-provided tool (19/24)

↓ 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 ↗
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?

明确以学习目标为据Explicit learning-objective rationale主流口径MOST COMMON
AI cannot replace the deep learning created by reflection, authentic production, and revision.

编码说明CODING NOTERules are justified by learning that AI cannot substitute for, though the statement comes from the departmental example rather than the core principles.

52 校中 22 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：明确以学习目标为据（22/37）22 of 52 take this position · most common: Explicit learning-objective rationale (22/37)

↓ 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 ↗

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/23-Georgetown.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 本科申请 AI 明文边界（效力见来源）Explicit AI boundaries for undergraduate applicants (force as stated in the source)

公开本科申请表的签名确认明确禁止用AI工具完成申请任何部分（含文书），未列校对/润色例外。CEH硕士亦禁AI辅助/代写，而MBA允许有限辅助；这些研究生差异不能覆盖本科禁令。[S1][S2][S3]

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 Official pages were live-fetched using ordinary requests GET. Readable UTF-8 text is preserved locally; navigation/scripts were removed where tagged, and layout/whitespace may differ. Short English excerpts retain the source wording and were checked after whitespace normalization.
  • 适用范围Scope note 主要证据为Fall 2027 first-year Georgetown Application的公开申请认证；研究生CEH与MBA仅作分项目对照。
  • 证据状态Evidence status explicit-undergraduate-ai — 各来源分别标明政策/申请认证或官方建议，不以搜索空白推断许可。
  • 原研究参考Original reference ../23-Georgetown.md（原在校AI使用资料，不代替申请规则）

中文要点

公开本科申请表的签名确认明确禁止用AI工具完成申请任何部分（含文书），未列校对/润色例外。CEH硕士亦禁AI辅助/代写，而MBA允许有限辅助；这些研究生差异不能覆盖本科禁令。[S1][S2][S3]

Official sources and exact excerpts

[S1] First Year Application for Admission — Application Affirmation and Electronic Signature

  • 发布单位Publisher Georgetown University, Office of Undergraduate Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://uapply.georgetown.edu/register/firstyearapplication
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope Fall 2027 first-year Georgetown Application申请者及签名的家长/监护人 (undergraduate)
  • 来源性质Authority policy — 公开申请表的签名确认，具有申请认证性质；未登录、未提交，仅普通GET读取。表单显示Fall 2027，不是网页发布日。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:08:37+08:00

[S1-Q1] explicit undergraduate prohibition

Further, the applicant understands that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to complete any portion of the application, including essays, is prohibited.

[S1-Q2] general false/incomplete/inaccurate information consequences

The applicant understands that Georgetown may take disciplinary action, including rescission of admission and dismissal from the university, if information or statements submitted during the admissions process are incomplete, inaccurate, or false.

[S1-Q3] responsibility for third-party assistance

If the applicant received assistance from a third party in completing the application, the applicant takes full responsibility for the accuracy of the information that was submitted.

[S2] How to Apply — M.S. in Climate, Environment, and Health

  • 发布单位Publisher Georgetown University, M.S. in Climate, Environment, and Health
  • 官方链接Official URL https://ceh.georgetown.edu/admissions/how-to-apply/
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope MS-CEH硕士申请者；页面显示Fall 2027周期 (graduate)
  • 来源性质Authority policy — 仅适用此研究生项目，不能扩展到全校所有申请。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:05:40+08:00

[S2-Q1] program-specific prohibition including assistance

Essay responses should be original and authentic. The use of artificial intelligence to assist in or write essay responses for this application is strictly prohibited.

[S3] MBA Application Components

  • 发布单位Publisher Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business MBA Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://msb.georgetown.edu/mba/application-components/
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope 该MBA申请组件页面涵盖的申请者，不适用于本科 (graduate)
  • 来源性质Authority official-advice — MBA官方招生指导与禁用清单，反映分项目规则差异，不能放宽本科S1。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:05:41+08:00

[S3-Q1] MBA conditional assistance

AI can be a valuable collaborator to help you brainstorm, edit, and refine your ideas, especially if you do not have access to other support.

[S3-Q2] MBA own voice and work

However, your application materials should ultimately reflect your own voice, experiences, and unique perspective. As with collaboration with other people, any assistance from AI should be used to enhance and not replace your own work.

[S3-Q3] MBA prohibited misuse

Do not copy and paste AI-generated responses Do not use AI to fabricate experiences, achievements, or credentials Do not rely on AI to write your essays for you Do not use AI to misrepresent your qualifications or intentions Do not assume all use is acceptable – when unsure, reach out for clarification

中文解释（非原文）

主结论是本科申请认证的明文禁止，不是仅有研究生政策。普通requests从公开表单取得完整正文，补足web_fetch只抽到页脚的情况。撤录/开除原文直接针对不完整、不准确或虚假的信息，不应写成AI一经使用必然开除。研究生项目差异不能冲抵本科认证；也不声称逐字核验了Common App路径中的签名界面。

允许 / 禁止 / 未说明

  • 允许或认可的辅助：本科S1没有列出AI例外；不得将研究生MBA的有限许可移植过来。[S1][S3]
  • 禁止或反对的使用：本科：使用AI工具完成申请任何部分，包括文书。MS-CEH禁AI辅助或撰写文书；MBA则禁止粘贴生成回答、虚构、代写和失实表达。[S1-Q1][S2-Q1][S3-Q3]
  • 未明确说明：本科未单列翻译、校对、头脑风暴例外，未细分准备/检索与完成申请的界线，也未给披露例外、AI阈值或专项自动处分。未列细项不能当作豁免。

检索与局限

实际执行的官方站点定向检索如下。摘要仅用于定位；规则结论均来自已取得的可读官方正文。

  • site:georgetown.edu undergraduate application "AI" "prohibited" — 先定位研究生线索，继续核查本科申请原文，不据摘要认定本科规则。
  • site:georgetown.edu "application" "artificial intelligence" "essays" — 多个研究生项目结果，逐项区分范围。
  • site:uadmissions.georgetown.edu application certification "artificial" — 没有相关可读本科结果，返回噪声，不视为不存在政策。
  • site:uadmissions.georgetown.edu "essays" "own" — 定位Application Requirements and Forms和First Year Applicants；其正常请求超时或连接失败，摘要不纳入规则证据。
  • site:georgetown.edu "application" "I certify" "essays" — 定位公开first-year申请表；web_fetch仅页脚，普通GET取得完整正文并在Application Affirmation中核验AI禁止条款。
  • site:georgetown.edu "AI tools" "application" "essays" admissions — 完整核查MBA与CEH的分项目指导。
  • site:uadmissions.georgetown.edu FAQ essays authenticity artificial intelligence admissions — 检索并尝试读取本科FAQ及申请要求页面，超时或连接失败；改以可读公开申请认证作为主要证据。

局限：

  • S1未提交表单、创建账户或联系学校；只是读取公开表单，正文显示Fall 2027。
  • 表单说明也可通过Common Application申请，但未进入该平台内核验对应签名页；不声称逐字检查了所有路径的界面。
  • 不得将完成申请任何部分的禁用表述扩大为与申请无关的所有日常AI学习活动也被禁止。
  • 撤录/开除条款直接针对不完整、不准确或虚假信息，不等于AI使用必然自动开除。
  • 本科FAQ、First Year Applicants、Application Requirements页面普通请求超时或连接失败；其搜索摘要没有作为政策证据。
  • S2/S3适用不同研究生项目，不能泛化到本科或全校。

“未说明”不代表允许。本次没有提交申请、创建申请账号、联系学校或修改原有大学资料/网站；未来申请周期、其他路径与院系仍须各自核对。

官方原文The official text

univ/23-Georgetown.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

  • 来源层级Source level校级通用 —— 中央或教务层级、面向全校学生的政策University-wide — a central or provost-level policy that applies to all students
  • 抽取审计Extraction audit轻微修正（审计员修正 2 处）Minor corrections (2 corrections by the auditor)
  • 官方来源Official sourceUniversity Information Services, developed with the Office of General Counsel and university community members
    https://aiguidelines.georgetown.edu
  • 官方来源Official sourcehttps://german.georgetown.edu/undergraduate/ai-statement
  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-08-21
  • 格式说明Format note Direct excerpts and concise formatting edits from Georgetown’s official AI Guidelines site; navigation removed. Directly quoted wording is retained.
  • 适用范围Scope note These are community-wide responsible-use guidelines aligned with existing university policies, not a single course-level student permission rule.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison and later high-school adaptation.

Guidelines for the Georgetown Community on Use of Generative AI

  • 发布单位Publishing unit University Information Services, developed with the Office of General Counsel and university community members
  • 官方来源Official source https://aiguidelines.georgetown.edu

Georgetown recognizes AI’s transformative potential but requires its use to remain aligned with the university’s core principles, institutional values, and existing policies.

The site warns: “Do not upload, input, or analyze university data in an AI tool that is not approved by UIS and under an enterprise-wide contract.数据与隐私Data & privacy机构工具Institutional tools”

Core principles

  • Accountability: “Members of the Georgetown community are accountable for the work product or decisions resulting from their use of AI.摘录Excerpt核实责任Verification duty”
  • Transparency: AI use must be disclosed when required by law, university policy, or publisher requirements.披露要求Disclosure
  • Fairness: Community members should recognize that AI outputs may contain bias.
  • Privacy: Users must respect the privacy of others’ personally identifiable information and applicable law and policy.
  • Security: Users should maintain the security and integrity of Georgetown resources.
  • Intellectual Property and Confidentiality: Users should respect and preserve intellectual-property rights when using AI.知识产权IP & copyright
  • Understanding limitations: Responsible use requires awareness of what AI can and cannot reliably do.

A departmental student example states that students may not use AI tools to complete coursework unless explicitly directed by the instructor, and AI cannot replace the deep learning created by reflection, authentic production, and revision.默认规则Default rule学习理由Learning rationale

以下为整理者所写的高中适用要点，非该校原文，不作为任何条款的依据。Below: the collector’s notes on application to high school — not the university’s text, and not used as evidence for any provision.

High-school adaptation takeaways

  • Organize the school guideline around accountability, transparency, fairness, privacy, security, intellectual property, and limitations.
  • Permit school data only in institutionally approved systems.
  • Keep the student—not the AI provider—accountable for the final work or decision.
  • Explain that permitted AI should not replace reflection, authentic production, and revision.