← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.22 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.22 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Michigan

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor密歇根大学

来源层级 · 混合来源Source level · Mixed 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/UMich

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.

Students therefore need to verify claims and sources instead of treating fluent language as evidence of truth.

↓ 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?

交由教师决定Instructor decides, no default
The available university-level pages frame improper AI use through existing academic-integrity and unfair-advantage standards but do not establish one universal permission or disclosure rule for every course.

编码说明CODING NOTENo university-wide permission default is set; improper use is judged by existing integrity and unfair-advantage standards, with specifics left to each course.

52 校中 14 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：默认禁止（19/45）14 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
frame improper AI use through existing academic-integrity and unfair-advantage standards but do not establish one universal permission or disclosure rule for every course

编码说明CODING NOTEStated as an absence of a universal rule rather than an explicit override clause; the integrity and unfair-advantage standards remain the shared floor.

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?

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?

依课程而定Course dependent
do not establish one universal permission or disclosure rule for every course

编码说明CODING NOTEThe source explicitly declines to set one disclosure duty for all courses; no acknowledgement or citation format is specified anywhere in the file.

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?

须自行核实Verification required主流口径MOST COMMON
Students therefore need to verify claims and sources instead of treating fluent language as evidence of truth.

编码说明CODING NOTEStudents are told they need to verify claims and sources; framed as a stated need in library guidance rather than an enforced disciplinary rule.

52 校中 17 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：须自行核实（17/38）17 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
U-M defines academic misconduct as conduct that may create an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an unfair advantage or disadvantage for another member of the academic community.

编码说明CODING NOTEImproper AI use is routed through existing academic misconduct standards keyed to unfair advantage; the file never labels it 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?

质疑其可靠性Reliability questioned
The page connects AI use to established academic integrity principles and notes reliability problems with AI-detection tools, including false positives that may unfairly penalize students.

编码说明CODING NOTEWarns of unreliability and false positives, but the university text states no limit on using detector output as evidence in adjudication.

52 校中 5 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：不得作为唯一或主要证据（8/14）5 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 ↗

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/22-Michigan.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)

本科文书页列举审慎使用AI进行头脑风暴、提纲、校对、整理信息；须体现本人想法、经历与声音，禁止粘贴AI生成文字或提交不代表自己的作品。Apply页另要求遵守Common App Fraud Policy。[S1][S2]

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 Michigan–Ann Arbor本科first-year申请文书；不推及Dearborn/Flint、所有研究生或课程作业。
  • 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 ../22-Michigan.md（原在校AI使用资料，不代替申请规则）

中文要点

本科文书页列举审慎使用AI进行头脑风暴、提纲、校对、整理信息；须体现本人想法、经历与声音，禁止粘贴AI生成文字或提交不代表自己的作品。Apply页另要求遵守Common App Fraud Policy。[S1][S2]

Official sources and exact excerpts

[S1] Essay Questions — Representing Your Authentic Voice

  • 发布单位Publisher University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://admissions.umich.edu/apply/first-year-applicants/essay-questions
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope Michigan–Ann Arbor本科first-year申请者；页面另链接transfer文书 (undergraduate)
  • 来源性质Authority policy — 官方本科文书指示，明确列出辅助例子及Do not禁止项。web_fetch曾403，普通requests GET为200且全文可读。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:04:45+08:00

[S1-Q1] allowed assistance; own words

Your essays should tell your story, in your words. AI tools can be helpful when used thoughtfully, such as for brainstorming, outlining, proofreading, or organizing information. We recognize these tools may be especially useful for applicants who have limited access to application guidance.

[S1-Q2] no pasted generated text; authentic voice

However, your application should reflect your own ideas, experiences, and authentic voice. Do not copy and paste AI-generated text or submit work that does not represent you.

[S2] Apply

  • 发布单位Publisher University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://admissions.umich.edu/apply
  • 页面日期Page date Not stated
  • 适用对象Audience / scope 本科申请者；页面说明新生、转学、国际生流程差异 (undergraduate)
  • 来源性质Authority policy — 这是Michigan页面自身的平台遵循要求及概括；不是独立整理Common App原文，也不抹去S1的有限辅助许可。
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; ordinary GET returned HTTP 200. Accessed/saved: 2026-09-24T23:04:46+08:00

[S2-Q1] university explicitly adopts platform requirement

The University of Michigan expects all applicants to be familiar with and abide by the Common App Fraud Policy

[S2-Q2] university summary of platform restriction

The Policy also prohibits the use of AI systems to generate content.

中文解释（非原文）

不能把禁止粘贴AI生成文字改写成所有AI辅助一律禁止，也不能把允许提纲/校对扩成允许代写。S2仅记录学校明确采用平台要求及其页面概括，不另移植Common App平台原文；应和S1明确列举的辅助用途同时阅读。

允许 / 禁止 / 未说明

  • 允许或认可的辅助：brainstorming、outlining、proofreading、organizing information；限定thoughtfully，且不替代本人的思想与声音。[S1-Q1]
  • 禁止或反对的使用：Do not copy and paste AI-generated text；不得提交不代表自己的作品。[S1-Q2]
  • 未明确说明：AI翻译、实质改写界线、披露、工具/比例阈值、检测与具体本科处分未列明。

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:admissions.umich.edu "AI" "essays" — 定位Essay Questions的Representing Your Authentic Voice与Apply总页。
  • site:umich.edu undergraduate application "artificial intelligence" essays — 交叉定位本科说明及研究生Rackham线索；后者取文403，未用于认定政策。

局限：

“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/22-Michigan.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 U-M Library and academic-technology resources; navigation removed. Directly quoted wording is retained.
  • 适用范围Scope note The accessible sources are academic-integrity and library guides rather than one central university-wide student AI permission policy. Individual schools, courses, and instructors may provide more specific rules.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison and later high-school adaptation.

Generative AI Academic Integrity Resources

U-M gathers resources for faculty and students on using GenAI properly in teaching and learning. The page connects AI use to established academic integrity principles and notes reliability problems with AI-detection tools, including false positives that may unfairly penalize students.检测器证据Detector evidence

Academic integrity and ChatGPT

U-M defines academic misconduct as conduct that may create an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an unfair advantage or disadvantage for another member of the academic community.违规定性Integrity framing Upholding academic integrity is a fundamental responsibility and includes integrating other people’s ideas ethically.

The Library explains that tools such as ChatGPT, U-M GPT, and Gemini are not necessarily good or bad in themselves; they are a new way to interact with information. However:

  • “ChatGPT and other generative AI tools are not search engines”; they create information and answers rather than reliably pointing to external evidence.
  • Their conversational appearance is produced by mathematical models that guess likely words.
  • Students therefore need to verify claims and sources instead of treating fluent language as evidence of truth.摘录Excerpt核实责任Verification duty

The available university-level pages frame improper AI use through existing academic-integrity and unfair-advantage standards but do not establish one universal permission or disclosure rule for every course披露要求Disclosure课程规则优先Instructor override.默认规则Default rule

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

  • Define improper AI assistance partly by whether it creates an unfair academic advantage.
  • Teach students that fluent AI output is generated prediction, not verified research evidence.
  • Require source verification and independent checking.
  • Avoid automatic penalties based only on detector output; use fair process and multiple forms of evidence.
  • Allow teachers and subjects to specify more detailed rules while maintaining shared integrity principles.