← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.38 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.38 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

UW Seattle

University of Washington华盛顿大学(西雅图)

来源层级 · 混合来源Source level · Mixed 7 / 12 项有明文规定7 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-09-26Accessed 2026-09-26 申请环节 · 本科 AI 明文边界Admissions · Explicit undergraduate rules

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.

Under the Student Conduct Code, cheating includes the unauthorized use of assistance, including technology, in completing assignments or exams.

↓ 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
using these technologies without your instructor’s permission may violate academic standards of the University

编码说明CODING NOTEUnapproved AI/technology use without instructor permission may violate academic standards.

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)

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
unauthorized assistance, unauthorized collaboration, and prohibited behavior are based on the expectations set for that assignment or that class. For example, it is never appropriate for students to plagiarize

编码说明CODING NOTEWhat counts as unauthorized assistance depends on each class or assignment, within a Student Conduct Code that always bars plagiarism.

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)

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?

依课程而定Course dependent
includes complete citations to all references or sources of help, including other students or work colleagues

编码说明CODING NOTEA faculty tip for final projects asks students to cite sources of help; not a universal AI-disclosure rule.

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)

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
Ask for a tentative bibliography and outline in advance of the deadline.

编码说明CODING NOTEFaculty tip to collect an outline and bibliography before the deadline.

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)

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?

未授权协助Unauthorized assistance
cheating includes the unauthorized use of assistance, including technology, in completing assignments or exams

编码说明CODING NOTEUnapproved AI/technology use is classified as cheating via the Code's unauthorized-assistance provision.

52 校中 3 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:学术不端(28/44)3 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?

一般性表述General statement
AI content generators, such as ChatGPT, present opportunities that can contribute to your learning and academic work.

编码说明CODING NOTERefers to AI’s value for learning without grounding the rules in skills that must not be bypassed.

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)

补充信息Further detail

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

正式引注Formal citation

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/38-Washington-Seattle.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)

UW 本科招生写作页明确要求申请中的全部文字(含 essay/personal statement)为本人原创;即使请 AI 工具审阅,也必须以负责任、合乎伦理的方式进行,最后仍为本人原创。[S1-Q1]

52 所大学对照 →All 52 compared →

来源信息Source information

  • 检索日期Research date 2026-09-26 (Asia/Shanghai); individual original snapshot retrieval dates below.
  • 证据状态Evidence status explicit-undergraduate-ai (evidence category, not a permission rating).
  • 格式说明Format brief original English excerpts from saved official source bodies; whitespace normalized, wording preserved. Chinese findings and adaptations below are research interpretation, not quotations.

中文结论(研究解读,非学校原文)

UW 本科招生写作页明确要求申请中的全部文字(含 essay/personal statement)为本人原创;即使请 AI 工具审阅,也必须以负责任、合乎伦理的方式进行,最后仍为本人原创。[S1-Q1]

Official sources and exact excerpts

[S1] First-year writing section

  • 发布单位Publisher University of Washington Office of Admissions
  • 官方链接Official URL https://admit.washington.edu/apply/first-year/how-to-apply/writing-section/
  • 来源日期Source date Not stated
  • 适用范围Scope first-year Common App writing
  • 来源性质Authority official-admissions-guidance
  • 采集时间Retrieved 2026-09-26T02:16:43.053164+00:00 (original acquisition); full-text

[S1-Q1] Originality even if AI reviews

All writing in the application, including your essay/personal statement, must be your own original work. If you choose to have a parent, counselor, tutor, friend or AI tool review your writing, it must be done responsibly and ethically — again, it must be your own original work.

边界与尚未核实

  • UW 原文用“review your writing”并未列出具体允许的 AI 改写程度,也未载明 AI 披露格式、检测或后果。
  • 未逐项核实的细节不可视为默认许可;本页无招生/课堂之间的相互授权。

申请材料使用提醒(研究者建议,非学校原文)

先核对当季官方招生说明与适用的申请平台条款;保持本人经历、观点与最终写作的真实归属,记录使用过程;不可凭课堂准用规则推定申请准用。

官方原文The official text

univ/38-Washington-Seattle.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 2026-09-26
  • 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 [AI tools and academic integrity] UW Student Life — Vice President for Student Life — scope: UW students and instructors; authority: official-student-guidance. [Academic misconduct public page describing faculty toolkit] UW Community Standards & Student Conduct — scope: Public academic-misconduct landing page for faculty; restricted toolkit itself not accessed; authority: official-public-description-of-faculty-resource.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison, not a translation or the school's final high-school policy.

AI tools and academic integrity


AI tools and academic integrity

AI tools and academic integrity

Dear UW Student,

I hope that you are having a successful start to the academic year.

Amid ongoing national conversations across higher education regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools, I am writing to share resources and the University’s expectations regarding AI tools and academic integrity.

At the UW, we view academic integrity as a commitment to the values of honesty, trust and responsibility. Academic integrity is at the heart of what makes us Huskies — it’s not just a set of rules, but a way of life that we carry with us as we journey through our academic pursuits. UW students are expected to practice high standards of academic and professional integrity.

It is important to know and understand the expectations of the University and your instructors regarding academic standards. This is especially relevant to the use of technology and online resources available today.

AI content generators, such as ChatGPT, present opportunities that can contribute to your learning and academic work.学习理由Learning rationale However, using these technologies without your instructor’s permission may violate academic standards of the University默认规则Default rule. Under the Student Conduct Code, cheating includes the unauthorized use of assistance, including technology, in completing assignments or exams违规定性Integrity framing.摘录Excerpt

While some instructors may encourage you to utilize technology to enhance your learning experience, other instructors may require that you do your own work without seeking outside help.

We ask that you take these steps:

Read the syllabus for each course you take so that you understand the particular expectations of each of your instructors.

If you are unsure of expectations, ask for clarification before you use specific resources in completing assignments or exams.

Review the

Student Conduct Code and

Chapter 209 of the Student Governance Policies. If you have questions, please contact

Community Standards & Student Conduct

.

The UW is committed to helping students realize their potential at the University and beyond. If you need support, we have many academic support programs and UW Libraries services available such as writing tools and services

, citation resources

, digital scholarship tools and support and

24/7 chat with a librarian

.

At the UW, we promote access to excellence and strive to inspire through education that emphasizes the power of discovery and the foundation of critical and analytic thinking.

You are part of a community of students, researchers, faculty and staff who bring their unique ideas and perspectives to learning, discovering and building solutions to tomorrow’s challenges.

Be a part of the impact of innovation and academic integrity at the UW.

Sincerely,

Denzil J. Suite

Vice President for Student Life

Academic misconduct public page describing faculty toolkit


Academic Misconduct

Academic Misconduct

University of Washington students are expected to practice high standards of academic and professional honesty and integrity. As defined in

Student Governance Policy, Chapter 209 Section 7.C

, academic misconduct includes:

Cheating

Falsification

Plagiarism

Unauthorized collaboration

Engaging in prohibited behavior

Submitting the same work for separate courses without the permission of the instructor(s)

Taking deliberate action to destroy or damage another person’s academic work

Recording and/or disseminating instructional content without the permission of the instructor知识产权IP & copyright (unless approved as a disability accommodation

See

Section 7.C for more detailed information and definitions of academic misconduct.

Reporting

Academic misconduct violations may only be adjudicated under

WAC 478-121 and

Student Governance and Policies, Chapter 209 by those who have the authority to initiate a conduct proceeding. This ensures a student’s due process rights, creates consistency in the process, and accountability for any additional misconduct by the student. For additional information about the student conduct process visit

Student Conduct Process

.

Academic Misconduct and Grading

It is common practice at the University of Washington to temporarily withhold a grade for any examination or assignment that is suspected of academic misconduct. If an investigation is not resolved by the end of the term, an “X” (leaving a grade unreported) should be submitted for the course until a decision is made.

If the student is found not responsible in the conduct process, the faculty member can choose whether to reinstate the grade the student would have received if the misconduct charges were not submitted. Under the Student Conduct Code, a grade penalty is not a sanction and grading is at the purview of the instructor.

Academic Integrity Toolkit for Faculty and Academic Support Services

CSSC created the

Academic Integrity Toolkit

  • as a reference for faculty when addressing student misconduct in their classroom. The toolkit includes information about CSSC, how to report misconduct, tips for preventing academic misconduct, and addressing the use of AI/ChatGPT with students in the classroom.

*UW NetID login is required to access and view the toolkit.

If a student is found responsible for misconduct, there is a range of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed on the student as a result of the student conduct process.

Tips for Faculty: Preventing Academic Misconduct

In general, UW students want to do the right thing when it comes to their academics! Students report that they are most successful in doing their work properly when instructors provide clear, detailed expectations about how they want students to learn.

Academic misconduct is best prevented up front with clear guidelines. Your syllabus is a great tool to use as it serves as your class policy statement. You are encouraged to write a policy statement in your syllabus about your expectations regarding plagiarism, cheating, and unauthorized collaboration. Additionally, you should remind students before the first assignment about your expectations regarding academic integrity and let students know what the consequences are of engaging in academic misconduct.

General Tips

Regularly remind students of the academic misconduct section in the Student Conduct Code in class and in your syllabus

Explain how the Code applies to your specific course regarding cheating, falsification, and/or plagiarism, and advise students of the consequences of academic misconduct in your classroom.

Remember that some pieces of the Code need additional context to understand how they apply to an assignment. Specifically, unauthorized assistance, unauthorized collaboration, and prohibited behavior are based on the expectations set for that assignment or that class. For example, it is never appropriate for students to plagiarize课程规则优先Instructor override but there are assignments where they can work with others. Please indicate what is not permitted for an assignment.

Written Assignments

Identify prompts and topics that are specific to class discussion and the course materials so students can demonstrate their understanding of the material.

Ask for a tentative bibliography and outline in advance of the deadline.过程留证Process evidence

Have students complete in-class writing assignments to help establish a student’s voice and writing style

Think critically about the assignments you are creating. As technology advances, pinpoint the areas within your discipline that cannot be automated or AI-generated.

Clearly explain your expectations for writing styles for written assignments. For example, if students need to complete an essay using APA style, explain what your expectations are using that style of writing and how essays will be graded.

Each student has a different educational background and experience. Provide resources for your students to seek writing help related to your expectations.

Final Projects

Require students to include a signed statement in their report stating that the project report represents their own work and includes complete citations to all references or sources of help, including other students or work colleagues披露要求Disclosure

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

  • 中学写作任务区分“反馈/审阅”与“代写”,留存早期草稿作为学习过程;课程规定和招生要求分别解读。