← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.26 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.26 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

WashU

Washington University in St. Louis圣路易斯华盛顿大学

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 2026-08-29Accessed 2026-08-29 申请环节 · 本科 AI 明文边界Admissions · Explicit undergraduate rules

ai.policy.nestudy.cn/WashU

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.

Citation does not authorize a use that the course prohibits.

↓ 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
Arts & Sciences states that faculty determine whether, how, and to what extent AI may be used. The Learning Center offers a cautious practical default: when no explicit policy exists, students should not assume permission.

编码说明CODING NOTEFaculty set permission; the stated fallback where no policy exists is that students should not assume permission, phrased as Learning Center guidance.

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?

教师可定但有底线Instructor rules within limits主流口径MOST COMMON
Students must follow the expectations established for each course and ask for clarification before using AI when the rule is uncertain. Arts & Sciences states that faculty determine whether, how, and to what extent AI may be used.

编码说明CODING NOTEFaculty set the per-course rule, but the university integrity policy still binds; citation does not legitimize a use the course prohibits.

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?

强制披露Required主流口径MOST COMMON
The central undergraduate policy treats misuse of AI as an academic-integrity issue and directs students to cite AI-generated material as they would traditionally published material, using the citation style required by the instructor.

编码说明CODING NOTECentral policy directs citation of AI-generated material; Arts & Sciences adds disclosure of whether, when, and how AI was used.

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?

学生对成品完全负责Student fully responsible
Students remain responsible for their submissions. WashU warns that AI can invent facts and citations and reproduce bias; output should be vetted, double-checked against reliable sources, and not treated as a trusted research source merely because it sounds confident.

编码说明CODING NOTEStudents remain responsible for submissions; IT assigns users responsibility for verifying output, though the vetting language is 'should'.

52 校中 10 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：须自行核实（17/38）10 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
The central undergraduate policy treats misuse of AI as an academic-integrity issue and directs students to cite AI-generated material

编码说明CODING NOTEMisuse of AI is handled under the undergraduate academic-integrity policy; the file does not label it plagiarism specifically.

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?

禁止上传受限数据Restricted data prohibited主流口径MOST COMMON
WashU intellectual property or secure data—including deidentified healthcare data—must not be entered into a platform that has not been approved for that use.

编码说明CODING NOTENamed categories (institutional IP, secure data, deidentified healthcare data) are barred from platforms not approved for that use.

52 校中 20 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径：禁止上传受限数据（20/31）20 of 52 take this position · most common: Restricted data prohibited (20/31)

↓ 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 ↗

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 ↗

补充信息Further detail

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

正式引注Formal citation使用范围与程度Extent of use

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/26-WashU.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)

WashU本科招生页与FAQ均将AI为文书脑暴选题、起草和写作列为Never/不道德用法；允许研究大学及拟定选校名单，审慎允许检查已完成文书的语法拼写。

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; per-source retrieval timestamps are ISO 8601 UTC).
  • 格式说明Format note Exact English excerpts are separate from Chinese summaries. Whitespace is normalized; wording is retained. Local snapshots retain visible text (including some navigation) for validation. Blocked responses are not policy evidence.
  • 适用范围Scope note 本科招生办公室的申请AI规则，涉及文书、Sam Fox作品集和申请证明材料；不是课程政策。
  • 证据状态Evidence status explicit-undergraduate-ai — WashU本科招生页与FAQ均将AI为文书脑暴选题、起草和写作列为Never/不道德用法；允许研究大学及拟定选校名单，审慎允许检查已完成文书的语法拼写。
  • 校内／课程指导（非招生政策）Original campus/course guidance (not admissions policy) 26-WashU.md

中文结论 / Findings

  • 重要：当前官方页面明确把AI“brainstorm topics”列入Never，FAQ进一步写成“brainstorm essay topics”；不能沿用允许脑暴的二手概括。[S1][S2]
  • 生成Sam Fox作品集图像，以及伪造推荐信、成绩单或获奖证明，也列入Never；文书起草/代写同样在此列。[S1][S2]
  • 研究大学、制定选校名单属于Always；检查已完成文书的语法拼写、询问申请流程属于Sometimes，提醒AI可能错误或过时。[S1]

Official sources and source text

[S1] What We’re Looking For - Our policy on generative AI

  • 发布单位Publisher WashU Office of Undergraduate Admissions
  • 链接URL https://admissions.washu.edu/how-to-apply/what-were-looking-for/
  • 页面日期Page date not stated / not verified — Publication/effective date not stated; HTML modified_time: 2026-07-17.
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority policy
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; HTTP 200; 2026-09-24T15:06:58.125301+00:00

[S1-Q1] prohibited brainstorming, authorship, portfolio images, fraud

Never Unethical uses include (but are not limited to) using AI to brainstorm topics, draft, or write your essays; generating images for your Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts portfolio; or producing fraudulent application materials such as a letter of recommendation, a transcript of high school courses, or a certificate for an award.

[S1-Q2] college research allowed

Always Researching colleges and developing your list of colleges are ethical uses of AI.

[S1-Q3] conditional proofreading and application research

Sometimes Reviewing the grammar and spelling of your completed essays can be a helpful use of AI, but you may ask a teacher or counselor to review as well. You can use AI to find answers to questions you have about the application process; beware that AI can be wrong or out of date!

[S2] Common Questions - Generative AI in the application process

  • 发布单位Publisher WashU Office of Undergraduate Admissions
  • 链接URL https://admissions.washu.edu/how-to-apply/common-questions/
  • 页面日期Page date not stated / not verified — Publication/effective date not stated; HTML modified_time: 2026-09-09.
  • 适用范围Scope undergraduate
  • 来源性质Authority policy
  • 采集方式Retrieval full-text; HTTP 200; 2026-09-24T15:09:39.548215+00:00

[S2-Q1] FAQ confirms brainstorming ban

Never Unethical uses include (but are not limited to) using AI to brainstorm essay topics or draft or write your essays; generating images for your Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts portfolio; or producing fraudulent application materials such as a letter of recommendation, a transcript of high school courses, or a certificate for an award.

中文归纳（与原文分开）

WashU本科招生页与FAQ均将AI为文书脑暴选题、起草和写作列为Never/不道德用法；允许研究大学及拟定选校名单，审慎允许检查已完成文书的语法拼写。

可用 / Permitted or positively advised

研究大学和制定选校名单；有条件/审慎地检查已完成文书的语法拼写、查问申请流程（分别标为Always和Sometimes）。[S1]

禁止或不建议 / Prohibited or discouraged

用AI脑暴文书选题、起草或写文书；生成Sam Fox作品集图像；制作虚假的推荐信、课程成绩单、获奖证明等。[S1][S2]

未明确 / Not stated or not verified

翻译、整句改写/风格润色、短答单独细则、使用声明模板、AI检测方法和具体处分未明确；不能将语法拼写许可扩张为重写许可。

Search log

检索日：2026-09-24。搜索结果用于发现来源；只有成功实时取得的正文支持已核验规则。

  • 检索Query site:admissions.washu.edu "artificial intelligence"
    • 结果Result 定位本科What We’re Looking For页面的generative AI规则。
  • 检索Query WashU undergraduate admissions ethical artificial intelligence writing application
    • 结果Result 交叉定位招生规则；核验What We’re Looking For与Common Questions两个官方页面，均禁止AI脑暴选题。

Limitations

  • 网页未给出规则的独立发布/生效日期；HTML修改时间不等同政策开始时间。
  • S1为brainstorm topics，S2为brainstorm essay topics；保留各自原文，不擅自合并改写。
  • 未把Sometimes改写成无条件允许，未推断未刊载的处罚。
  • 未说明不等于允许；本科、研究生、校区/学院与招生官建议的适用范围和效力不可相互替代。

官方原文The official text

univ/26-WashU.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 2026-08-29
  • 格式说明Format note Concise, source-grounded summaries from official WashU webpages; navigation removed.
  • 适用范围Scope note The undergraduate academic-integrity policy is university-level. The AI-specific principles are Arts & Sciences guidance, the Learning Center page is student guidance, and the IT page addresses approved tools and data security. They do not create one fixed AI permission rule for every course or school.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison and later high-school adaptation.

Official sources

  1. Academic Integrity Policy for Undergraduate Students
  2. Artificial Intelligence and Undergraduate Student Learning
  3. ChatGPT and Other AI Composition Tools: A Guide for Students
  4. Tools & Infrastructure — Artificial Intelligence

Course permission and academic integrity

Students must follow the expectations established for each course and ask for clarification before using AI when the rule is uncertain. Arts & Sciences states that faculty determine whether, how, and to what extent AI may be used.课程规则优先Instructor override The Learning Center offers a cautious practical default: when no explicit policy exists, students should not assume permission.默认规则Default rule

The central undergraduate policy treats misuse of AI as an academic-integrity issue and directs students to cite AI-generated material违规定性Integrity framing as they would traditionally published material, using the citation style required by the instructor.披露要求Disclosure Arts & Sciences additionally calls for disclosure of whether, when, and how AI was used. Citation does not authorize a use that the course prohibits.摘录Excerpt

Verification and responsibility

Students remain responsible for their submissions. WashU warns that AI can invent facts and citations and reproduce bias; output should be vetted, double-checked against reliable sources, and not treated as a trusted research source merely because it sounds confident.核实责任Verification duty WashU IT likewise assigns users responsibility for verifying generated content.

Privacy and intellectual property

WashU intellectual property or secure data—including deidentified healthcare data—must not be entered into a platform that has not been approved for that use.数据与隐私Data & privacy Arts & Sciences also cautions students not to upload instructor-created materials or another student’s work without explicit consent and highlights copyright, privacy, and instructor-IP concerns.知识产权IP & copyright

AI detection

The reviewed central and student-facing sources do not state a university-wide position on detector reliability. Silence should not be read as approval; academic-integrity findings should rely on meaningful evidence and fair process rather than an unexplained score.

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

  • Publish an AI rule for every assignment; students should ask rather than assume permission.
  • Require a short AI-use note naming the tool and explaining what it contributed.
  • Require students to verify claims and open every cited source.
  • Prohibit uploading classmates’ work, teacher materials, student records, or confidential content.
  • Do not base discipline solely on an AI-detector score.