← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.06 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.06 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Penn

University of Pennsylvania宾夕法尼亚大学

来源层级 · 院系或项目级Source level · Unit or school 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 · 本科 AI 明文边界Admissions · Explicit undergraduate rules

ai.policy.nestudy.cn/Penn

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.

If you use AI to assist you in any way during the competition, how you use it must be recorded in your Works Cited pages.

↓ 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?

有条件允许Conditional use allowed
You may use generative AI programs (e.g., tools like ChatGPT) to help generate ideas and to brainstorm.

编码说明CODING NOTEGenerative AI is permitted for ideation and brainstorming, subject to conditions: no AI-generated work submitted as one's own, and use recorded in Works Cited.

52 校中 5 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：默认禁止（19/45）5 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?

非正式分类Informal categories主流口径MOST COMMON
You may not submit any work generated by an AI program as your own. All material referenced or generated by AI should be cited like any other reference material

编码说明CODING NOTESeparates allowed use (ideas, brainstorming) from banned use (submitting AI-generated work as one's own); no named ladder of levels.

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?

强制披露Required主流口径MOST COMMON
If you use AI to assist you in any way during the competition, how you use it must be recorded in your Works Cited pages.

编码说明CODING NOTERecording how AI was used is a 'must'; the parallel sentence on citing AI material is phrased as 'should', so the binding duty is the Works Cited record.

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?

一般性提醒General caution
However, you should note that the material generated by these programs may be inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise problematic.

编码说明CODING NOTEWarns that AI output may be inaccurate or incomplete and that reference quality may be poor, but states no explicit duty to verify claims or check sources.

52 校中 11 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：须自行核实（17/38）11 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?

学术不端Academic integrity violation主流口径MOST COMMON
If you use AI to assist you in any way during the competition, how you use it must be recorded in your Works Cited pages. Any plagiarism or other form of cheating will be dealt with severely under relevant Investment Competition policies.

编码说明CODING NOTEAI rules close with a plagiarism-or-other-cheating enforcement clause; the file never labels unapproved or undisclosed AI use plagiarism itself.

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?

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?

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?

一般性表述General statement
Beware that use may also stifle your own independent thinking and creativity.

编码说明CODING NOTEA general warning that AI use may suppress independent thinking and creativity; no tie to a specific skill being assessed.

52 校中 15 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：明确以学习目标为据（22/37）15 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 ↗

补充信息Further detail

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

AI 输出内容AI output使用范围与程度Extent of use正式引注Formal citation

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/06-Penn.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)

Penn 本科明确允许 AI 组织自己的思路和检查语法；申请须为本人工作，AI 生成回答、他人代写或虚构经历会破坏申请认证。2026–2027 升学顾问页再次确认，并区分推荐人及校方的 AI 使用。

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, verbatim English excerpts from live official webpages; whitespace and layout may be normalized. Chinese analysis is separate. Saved readable source bodies may retain some menus or comments; URL and retrieval metadata are in research/group1.json, not inserted into source text.
  • 适用范围Scope note Penn undergraduate admissions, including essays, activities, responses and supporting materials. Counselor/teacher recommendations and Penn’s internal AI use are identified separately.
  • 证据状态Evidence status explicit-undergraduate-ai — Penn Admissions publishes an integrity/AI page, corroborated by its 2026–2027 counselor guidance.
  • 校内 AI 政策原文Original campus-AI source file 06-Penn.md (separate scope; not an admissions rule).
  • 用途说明Use note 本文件供来源比较与核验，不构成学校新增规定；未说明不代表许可。

关键发现（中文）

  • Penn 明确说用 AI 组织自己的思路、检查语法不会破坏申请认证；这些帮助必须保留申请人的内容所有权。[S1]
  • 提交不真实属于本人的作品、想法或经历会破坏认证，例子包括他人写文书、AI 生成回答、活动/荣誉虚构。规则覆盖文书、活动、回答及整个申请档案，不是只针对一篇主文书。[S1]
  • 诚信义务不止到提交为止，录取仍以申请时确认的同样标准为条件；页面没有逐项列出 AI 违规对应的自动撤录或开除制裁。[S1]
  • 面向升学顾问的 2026–2027 申请变化页再次确认上述允许边界，并说明 AI 生成推荐信不能替代教师/顾问基于直接了解的判断。[S2]
  • Penn 另说不让 AI 评价材料或作录取决定；AI 可以辅助部分行政工作且有人复核。这是校方流程说明，不是扩大学生 AI 使用权限。[S1][S2]

Official sources

1. [S1] Integrity and AI Use in the Admissions Process

[S1-Q1]

Penn Admissions asks every applicant to certify that their application is their own work, factually true, and honestly presented.

[S1-Q2]

Getting help is not the same as losing ownership. Talking through an idea with a parent, teacher, or counselor, having someone proofread your writing, or using a tool, including an AI tool, to organize your thoughts or check your grammar, doesn't compromise your application certification.

[S1-Q3]

What would compromise your application is submitting work, ideas, or experiences that aren't authentically yours, whether that means someone else wrote your essay, an AI tool generated your responses, or your activities and honors are embellished or invented.

[S1-Q4]

This same standard extends to every part of your file. Supporting materials must come from you or from an authorized source, and any change in your circumstances or the information you've provided should be reported to us directly, as your certification already requires.

[S1-Q5]

Your offer of admission remains contingent on the same standards you affirmed when you applied.

中文说明：这是一份 Penn Admissions 自己对申请认证的具体解释，含申请者、推荐人和校方三个范围。短引文集中保留可接受帮助、AI 生成回答的反例、支持材料来源与持续诚信义务。原文无可见发布日期。

2. [S2] About the Application

[S2-Q1]

Just as talking through an idea with a parent, teacher, or counselor or having someone proofread your writing are permissible, so is using an AI to organize your thoughts or check your grammar.

[S2-Q2]

Counselors’ and teachers’ judgement and direct, detailed knowledge of students cannot be replaced by AI-generated letters of recommendation and evaluations.

[S2-Q3]

Penn does not use AI to evaluate materials or to make decisions about admissions.

中文说明：本页标题下明确是 What’s Changing for Penn’s 2026-2027 Application；申请季不是发布日期，故 page_date 仍为 not stated。引文分别对应申请人、推荐人和校方，不能混作一个统一的“AI 可用/不可用”结论。

Permitted / prohibited / not stated（按用途）

  • 明确允许：用 AI 组织自己的思路、检查语法；真人讨论想法或校对同样被认可，但申请内容仍须属于本人。[S1][S2]
  • 不符合认证：AI 生成申请回答、他人代写、提交非本人真实想法/经历、虚构或夸大活动荣誉。[S1]
  • 未单独说明：AI 翻译、生成提纲与“组织思路”的具体界线、逐句重写、科研补充材料专门规则、AI 使用披露格式、AI 检测工具和具体制裁表。不能把“组织思路”扩张为任意生成内容的许可。
  • 推荐人另行适用：直接了解学生的判断与细节不可被 AI 生成信件替代；这不是一条已经明确禁止所有推荐信 AI 语法辅助的规定。[S2]
  • 后果 / 持续义务：申请认证及诚实要求贯穿后续，录取以遵守同样标准为条件；未查到本文来源列举的专门 AI 自动惩罚。[S1]

Research limitations

  • 范围为 Penn 本科招生，不能用 Wharton Global Youth、在校课程、Wharton MBA 或其他研究生院规则替代。
  • 2026–2027 申请季由官方顾问页面确认，但两个页面都未明确标注发布时间；不据学生报纸日期推断政策发布日期。
  • 没有登录申请门户取得所有动态补充表或认证字段；公开页未说明的用途不能当作已许可。
  • 没有用校方不依赖 AI 作录取判断，推断校方从不使用任何 AI 或从不调查申请真实性。
Search log
  • 检索日期Research date 2026-09-24, Asia/Shanghai. Search results were leads only; findings above are based on retrieved official body text.
  1. 检索Query site.admissions.upenn.edu "AI" application essays
    • 结果Result 找到并全文核验 Integrity and AI Use in the Admissions Process [S1]。
  2. 检索Query site.admissions.upenn.edu "AI" "grammar" integrity
    • 结果Result 第二组定向检索明确允许边界；取得顾问页面 [S2] 交叉核验。
  3. 检索Query Direct public fetch: Penn Admissions integrity page and counselor About the Application page
    • 结果Result 两页均实时取得完整正文；2026–2027 申请变化说明与专页一致。

官方原文The official text

univ/06-Penn.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院系或项目级 —— 仅适用于某一学院、项目或系Unit or school — applies to one school, programme or department only
  • 抽取审计Extraction audit轻微修正（审计员修正 3 处）Minor corrections (3 corrections by the auditor)
  • 官方来源Official sourceWharton Global Youth Program
    https://globalyouth.wharton.upenn.edu/ai-policy/
  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-08-21
  • 格式说明Format note 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 This policy applies to Wharton Global Youth programs for high-school participants; it is not a university-wide policy for all Penn students.
  • 用途说明Use note This is source material for comparison, not a translation or the school’s final high-school policy.

Wharton Global Youth Program AI Policy

Ethics

All Wharton Global High School Investment competition team members are held to high personal ethical standards. The decisions you make from the moment you register for the competition should be honest and truthful to the best of your ability. This starts with your number of team members (you must have at least four active members at all times to compete) and ends with how you articulate your strategy and investment choices in your final papers — and includes everything in between. We trust that you will not lie about your investment decisions and outcomes, fabricate analyses, invent teamwork and experiential stories, compensate advisors, education consultants, or other agents, enroll in non-Wharton extracurricular courses that claim to “teach” the competition, pass AI generated writing or work off as your own, or plagiarize existing strategies. If at any point you are unsure about a decision or situation, please reach out to the Wharton Global Youth Program team for clarification.

Students must abide by the University of Pennsylvania’s Code of Academic Integrity, which states a student’s work must be their own, and not be plagiarized from any other source, including advisors or “unofficial” advisors. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the use of another’s words or ideas as if they are one’s own. Plagiarism and any kind of academic cheating are grounds for dismissal from the competition. If at any point you are unsure about a decision or situation, please reach out to the Wharton Global Youth Program staff for clarification.

AI Policy

You may use generative AI programs (e.g., tools like ChatGPT) to help generate ideas and to brainstorm.默认规则Default rule However, you should note that the material generated by these programs may be inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise problematic.核实责任Verification duty Beware that use may also stifle your own independent thinking and creativity.学习理由Learning rationale You may not submit any work generated by an AI program as your own. All material referenced or generated by AI should be cited like any other reference material分级许可Tiered scale (with due consideration for the quality of the reference, which may be poor). If you use AI to assist you in any way during the competition, how you use it must be recorded in your Works Cited pages.披露要求Disclosure摘录Excerpt Any plagiarism or other form of cheating will be dealt with severely under relevant Investment Competition policies.违规定性Integrity framing