← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.18 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.18 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Rice

Rice University莱斯大学

来源层级 · 校级通用Source level · University-wide 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/Rice

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.

Utilizing AI software to generate ideas and pass them off as one’s own will also be considered plagiarism and will be adjudicated as such.

↓ 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
The student guidance says AI tools are allowed only when the instructor explicitly permits them. Each course may differ, so students should check the syllabus or ask before using AI.

编码说明CODING NOTEStudent-facing guidance allows AI only when the instructor explicitly permits it; students should check the syllabus or ask first.

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?

课程规则优先Course rule supersedes
The policy governs academic work, but professors may create course-specific AI policies, and “any course-specific AI policy supersedes the Honor Council’s general AI policy.”

编码说明CODING NOTEA course-specific AI policy explicitly supersedes the Honor Council's general AI policy.

52 校中 12 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：教师可定但有底线（33/45）12 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?

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?

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 6 所同样未作表述6 of 52 are likewise silent

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?

建议留证Recommended主流口径MOST COMMON
The Council suggests using document editing history to help establish student-produced work and designing prompts that require engagement with course material and critical thinking.

编码说明CODING NOTEEditing history is suggested, not required, and the suggestion is addressed to the Council rather than imposing a student retention duty.

52 校中 18 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：建议留证（18/19）18 of 52 take this position · most common: Recommended (18/19)

↓ 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 ↗
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?

明确等同抄袭Explicitly plagiarism
Utilizing AI software to generate ideas and pass them off as one’s own will also be considered plagiarism and will be adjudicated as such.

编码说明CODING NOTEPassing off AI-generated ideas as one's own is named plagiarism and adjudicated as plagiarism.

52 校中 13 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：学术不端（28/44）13 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
The Honor Council permits detector results to support the opening of an investigation. However, “due to their inaccuracy, the Council will not use detector software as the sole or primary evidence in an adjudication”; results may serve only as supplementary evidence.

编码说明CODING NOTEDetector output may open an investigation but is capped as supplementary evidence, never sole or primary proof in adjudication.

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?

一般性表述General statement
The guidance frames responsible AI as a collaboration tool, not a replacement for thinking.

编码说明CODING NOTEAI is framed as a collaboration tool rather than a replacement for thinking, with no rule tied to a specific assessed skill.

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 ↗

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/18-Rice.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)

现行本科招生 FAQ 明确回答 AI 帮助申请的问题：可用于构思或整理申请者自己的想法，但必须保留原创思考和本人声音，工具不应替申请者创作内容。并非只有在校生 AI/Honor Code 政策。

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 English excerpts from live official webpages/PDFs; whitespace and layout normalized, wording retained. Chinese findings are editorial interpretation, not official quotations. Local text snapshots retain provenance; unavailable pages are explicitly marked.
  • 适用范围Scope note Undergraduate application writing; FAQ includes first-year and transfer admissions. Rice classroom/Honor Code and staff-brand AI rules are not applied to applicants.
  • 证据状态Evidence status explicit-undergraduate-ai — verified direct undergraduate admissions FAQ policy; counselor blog is separate authenticity advice.
  • 相关校内／课程指导（范围不同）Related university/course guidance (different scope) Original file

中文结论（解读，非原文）

  • 现行招生 FAQ 直接以“Rice’s policy”询问 AI/外部协助，已核验完整回答；不能再仅凭搜索没命中而写“无本科 AI 说明”。[S2]
  • AI 可帮助构思或整理自己的想法，但必须保存申请者的原创思考、个人声音和故事；任何辅助资源都不应替申请者创作内容。[S2-Q1]
  • 补充文书建议由招生顾问 Steffannie Alter ’19 撰写，属于官方建议，不是学生博客政策；其强调真实、自我视角，但文章自身没有 AI 专条。[S1]
  • 本页不把 Rice 在校生 Honor Code 的 AI 规则或检测器证据标准套用到申请材料。

Official sources and exact excerpts

[S1] Four Tips for Writing Your Supplemental Essays | Office of Admission | Rice University

  • 发布单位Publishing unit Rice University — Office of Admission; Steffannie Alter ’19, identified on page as a Rice admission counselor
  • 链接URL https://admission.rice.edu/blog/in-the-know/writing-supplemental-essays
  • 页面日期Page date 2025-06-18
  • 适用对象Audience / scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority official-advice
  • 采集时间Retrieved full-text; 2026-09-24T23:04:33+08:00
  • 范围与核验说明Scope / verification note Admissions-counselor advice hosted by the Office of Admission, not a student-authored AI policy. The author’s alumni year is not a current-student byline. This article does not mention AI.

[S1-Q1] Applicant perspective

Remember that the people reading your application want to understand your interests, background and perspective through your eyes.

[S1-Q2] Genuine supplemental writing

Refining your college list is a normal part of the process, and being honest with yourself is the first step in writing a genuine and thoughtful supplemental essay.

[S2] Frequently Asked Questions | Office of Admission | Rice University

  • 发布单位Publishing unit Rice University — Office of Admission
  • 链接URL https://admission.rice.edu/frequently-asked-questions
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated on the retrieved page.
  • 适用对象Audience / scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority policy
  • 采集时间Retrieved full-text; 2026-09-24T23:04:32+08:00
  • 范围与核验说明Scope / verification note FAQ explicitly asks Rice’s policy on AI/external help for application writing; undergraduate first-year and transfer applicants are the surrounding page audience. This is direct admissions guidance, not the enrolled-student Honor Code. No AI-specific sanction is stated in the answer.

[S2-Q1] Undergraduate FAQ policy: brainstorm/organize, not content creation

As part of our contextual review at Rice, we value your authentic voice and story above all else. AI can be a helpful tool for brainstorming or organizing your ideas, much like consulting teachers, counselors, or family members. However, preserving your original thoughts remains essential. In alignment with Rice’s commitment to responsible AI usage, any resource you use should ultimately amplify your voice and should not create content for you, as no one else can articulate your unique lived experiences and perspective.

使用边界（中文解读，不是学校原话）

  • 明确正面举例：AI 构思、整理申请者自己的想法，类似老师/顾问/家人的帮助。[S2-Q1]
  • 明确边界：保留原创思考；工具应帮助表达本人声音，不应替申请者创作内容。[S2-Q1]
  • 未在该条明确许可或禁止的细项：AI 拼写/语法检查、翻译、深度编辑、研究补充材料与 The Box 生成图像。不得从构思许可推导这些细项已获准。
  • 披露与后果：该回答没有专门规定；不添加课堂处分或自动撤销录取说法。

限制与未说明事项

  • FAQ 未标明 AI 问答发布日期；2026–2027 题目标签不是 AI 条款发布日期。
  • 明确举例仅有 brainstorming / organizing ideas；未在该段明确列出 AI 拼写/语法、翻译、逐句润色或结构重写许可。
  • 研究补充材料、The Box 图像生成、作品集和其他特殊材料的 AI 使用未在该回答分别说明；不可从写作辅助推导全面许可。
  • 未找到该 AI 问答中的统一披露/提示词留存、AI 检测或具体违规处罚；不能移植 Rice 课堂 Honor Council 规则。
  • 政策问答的语气为 can / should，未自称独立纪律规章；本页 policy 分类表示招生 FAQ 明确以 policy 为题说明边界。
检索记录（2026-09-24）
  • site:admission.rice.edu application essays "AI" — 搜索主要返回一般申请/论文建议与无关 AI 结果，未仅凭低召回率认定没有政策。
  • site:rice.edu undergraduate admissions "artificial intelligence" essay — 出现 FAQ 及在校生/品牌 AI 规则；后两者不适用于本科申请，未引用为申请依据。
  • Rice admissions AI essays "rice.edu" authenticity — 定位招生 FAQ 与 first-year 页面；二手文章只作线索。
  • site:admission.rice.edu/blog "essay" "voice" — 找到 Four Tips for Writing Your Supplemental Essays，核实作者为招生顾问及发布日期。
  • site:admission.rice.edu "ChatGPT" — 无有效 AI 规则命中，不能据此作缺失判断。
  • Direct full-text review: https://admission.rice.edu/frequently-asked-questions — 完整正文 Application Materials 栏实际含 AI policy 问答；页面当前题目年份为 2026–2027。关键发现来自直接读取而非搜索摘要。

本页仅报告上述范围内已核验的材料；未找到、未明确说明或抓取失败均不等于允许使用 AI。课程/在校生政策不自动适用于申请者。

官方原文The official text

univ/18-Rice.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
  • 格式说明Format note Direct excerpts and concise, source-grounded summaries from official Rice University webpages; navigation removed. Directly quoted wording is retained.
  • 适用范围Scope note The Honor Council page states Rice’s general AI rule and explains evidence handling; individual instructors may adopt superseding course-specific rules.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison and later high-school adaptation.

Honor Council AI Policy and Information

Rice’s general policy states:

“Utilizing AI software to generate ideas and pass them off as one’s own will also be considered plagiarism and will be adjudicated as such.违规定性Integrity framing摘录Excerpt”

The policy governs academic work, but professors may create course-specific AI policies, and “any course-specific AI policy supersedes the Honor Council’s general AI policy.”课程规则优先Instructor override

Detector evidence

The Honor Council permits detector results to support the opening of an investigation. However, “due to their inaccuracy, the Council will not use detector software as the sole or primary evidence in an adjudication”; results may serve only as supplementary evidence.检测器证据Detector evidence

The Council suggests using document editing history to help establish student-produced work and designing prompts that require engagement with course material and critical thinking.过程留证Process evidence

Student-facing responsible-use guidance

The student guidance says AI tools are allowed only when the instructor explicitly permits them. Each course may differ, so students should check the syllabus or ask before using AI.默认规则Default rule

Submitting AI-generated work as one’s own may be academic dishonesty, including AI-generated essays, code, data analysis, or ideas. The guidance frames responsible AI as a collaboration tool, not a replacement for thinking.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

  • Establish a default rule but allow teachers to set clearer assignment-specific conditions.
  • Treat passing off AI-generated ideas—not only copied wording—as plagiarism.
  • Use drafts and editing history as process evidence.
  • AI-detector output may trigger a conversation but must not serve as sole or primary proof.