← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.32 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.32 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Swarthmore

Swarthmore College斯沃斯莫尔学院

来源层级 · 院系或项目级Source level · Unit or school 3 / 12 项有明文规定3 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-09-26Accessed 2026-09-26 申请环节 · 未取得可核实指导Admissions · No verifiable guidance

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.

The use of generative AI (e.g., chatGPT or GitHub CoPilot) is also considered to be unauthorized collaboration with an outside source and is a violation of our academic integrity policy.

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

十二项条款The twelve provisions

3 / 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?

等同他人协助Treated as outside help
The use of generative AI (e.g., chatGPT or GitHub CoPilot) is also considered to be unauthorized collaboration with an outside source and is a violation of our academic integrity policy.

编码说明CODING NOTEGenerative AI use is explicitly equated with unauthorized outside collaboration, not just discouraged.

52 校中 7 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:默认禁止(19/45)7 of 52 take this position · most common: Prohibited by default (19/45)

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

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

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

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

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

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
is also considered to be unauthorized collaboration with an outside source and is a violation of our academic integrity policy.

编码说明CODING NOTEAI use is called unauthorized collaboration and a policy violation; breaking these rules also invokes Handbook plagiarism penalties.

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)

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

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

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

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
The general ethos of this policy is that actions which shortcut the learning process are forbidden while actions which promote learning are encouraged.

编码说明CODING NOTEStates the policy's ethos: actions that shortcut learning are forbidden, actions that promote learning are encouraged.

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)

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/32-Swarthmore.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 未取得可核实的适用指导No verifiable applicable guidance obtained

招生办公室有 AI 使用指导专页,但原网页返回 202 且正文为空;搜索索引片段不足以核定允许与禁止事项,因此未核实可引用的招生 AI 规则。[S1]

52 所大学对照 →All 52 compared →

来源信息Source information

  • Research review: 2026-09-26 Asia/Shanghai; acquisition timestamps are listed per source (UTC).
  • Evidence status: no-verified-guidance
  • Scope: Undergraduate admissions only; do not infer admissions requirements from course rules.
  • Original snapshots were reused without changing original acquisition times. Blocked/empty pages remain marked as such.

中文结论 / Findings

招生办公室有 AI 使用指导专页,但原网页返回 202 且正文为空;搜索索引片段不足以核定允许与禁止事项,因此未核实可引用的招生 AI 规则。[S1]

Official sources and selected original text

[S1] Admissions Guidance on Usage of Artificial Intelligence

  • 发布单位Publisher Swarthmore Admissions & Aid
  • 官方链接Official URL https://www.swarthmore.edu/admissions-aid/admissions-guidance-usage-artificial-intelligence
  • 范围/性质Scope / authority undergraduate admissions / blocked official page
  • 发布日期Publication date Not stated
  • 采集方式Retrieval suspected-block-or-empty; acquired 2026-09-26T02:16:42.373726+00:00
  • 保存的正文Saved body unavailable or empty; existing metadata records failed retrieval; no rule quoted.

Evidence boundaries

  • 官方招生 AI 指导页 HTTP 202、空正文;搜索摘要只作发现线索,不作规则证据。
Negative search record

Three varied official-domain admissions / essay / AI searches were attempted for this school; Google HTML responses exposed no parseable results, so these are inconclusive, not proof of absence. An earlier web_search call returned an official Swarthmore admissions AI page as a discovery lead, but its body remained blocked; subsequent provider calls hit HTTP 432 quota. See branch search log and metadata.

官方原文The official text

univ/32-Swarthmore.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 1 处)Minor corrections (1 corrections by the auditor)
  • 官方来源Official sourceSwarthmore Computer Science course staff
    https://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/courses/CS21/F23/
  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-09-26
  • 格式说明Format note Relevant passages copied verbatim from saved copies of the official pages below; navigation and unrelated page content removed. Wording is retained; layout may differ from the webpage.
  • 适用范围Scope note [Computer Science 21: Introduction to Computer Science (Fall 2023)] Swarthmore Computer Science course staff — scope: course-specific; authority: course academic-integrity rule.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison, not a translation or the school's final high-school policy.

Computer Science 21: Introduction to Computer Science (Fall 2023)


Academic Integrity

Academic honesty is required in all your work. Under no circumstances may you hand in work done with or by someone else under your own name. Discussing ideas and approaches to problems with others on a general level is encouraged, but you should never share your solutions with anyone else nor allow others to share solutions with you. You may not examine solutions belonging to someone else, nor may you let anyone else look at or make a copy of your solutions. This includes, but is not limited to, obtaining solutions from students who previously took the course or solutions that can be found online. The use of generative AI (e.g., chatGPT or GitHub CoPilot) is also considered to be unauthorized collaboration with an outside source and is a violation of our academic integrity policy.默认规则Default rule违规定性Integrity framing摘录Excerpt

You may not share information about your solution in such a manner that a student could reconstruct your solution in a meaningful way (such as by dictation, providing a detailed outline, or discussing specific aspects of the solution). You may not share your solutions even after the due date of the assignment.

In your solutions, you are permitted to include material which was distributed in class, material which is found in the course textbook, and material developed by or with an assigned partner. In these cases, you should always include detailed comments indicating on which parts of the assignment you received help and what your sources were.

When working on quizzes, exams, or similar assessments, you are not permitted to communicate with anyone about the exam during the entire examination period (even if you have already submitted your work). You are not permitted to use any resources to complete the exam other than those explicitly permitted by course policy. (For instance, you may not look at the course website during the exam unless explicitly permitted by the instructor when the exam is distributed.)

Failure to abide by these rules constitutes academic dishonesty and will lead to a hearing of the College Judiciary Committee. According to the Faculty Handbook:

Because plagiarism is considered to be so serious a transgression, it is the opinion of the faculty that for the first offense, failure in the course and, as appropriate, suspension for a semester or deprivation of the degree in that year is suitable; for a second offense, the penalty should normally be expulsion.

This policy applies to all course work, including but not limited to code, written solutions (e.g. proofs, analyses, reports, etc.), exams, and so on. This is not meant to be an enumeration of all possible violations; students are responsible for seeking clarification if there is any doubt about the level of permissible communication.

The general ethos of this policy is that actions which shortcut the learning process are forbidden while actions which promote learning are encouraged.学习理由Learning rationale Studying lecture materials together, for example, provides an additional avenue for learning and is encouraged. Using a classmate’s solution, however, is prohibited because it avoids the learning process entirely. If you have any questions about what is or is not permissible, please contact your instructor.

Regret clause for lab assignments

If you commit some act that is a violation of the integrity policy (or, if you are unsure if it violates the policy) but bring it to the attention of the course’s instructors within 48 hours, the course may impose local sanctions that may include an unsatisfactory or failing grade for work submitted, but the course will not refer the matter for further disciplinary action except in cases of repeated acts.

The regret clause applies to lab assignments only .

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

  • Ask for assignment-specific AI permission and distinguish brainstorming, drafting, attribution and independent verification.
  • Keep course-specific requirements separate from campus-wide academic-integrity standards and separate again from admissions instructions.