52 所大学
By university
admissions/*.md点击校名查看该校的来源、逐字原文与整理者分析。摘要为整理者所写,以各校页面中的原文为准。
Select a university for its sources, verbatim text and the collector's analysis. Summaries are the collector's, written in Chinese; the source text on each page governs.
| 编号No. | 学校University | 证据状态Evidence status | 摘要Summary (in Chinese) | 来源Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Stanford斯坦福大学 | AI 明文仅见于研究生Graduate programmes only | 本科文书页要求本人措辞与真实声音,但本次未核验到本科专门 AI 使用细则。研究生指南提醒慎用生成式 AI;GSB MBA 禁止他人或工具代写,均不得外推至本科。 | 来源 4 引文 64 sources 6 quotes |
| 02 | MIT麻省理工学院 | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | MIT 本科申请页强调诚实、开放、真实;旧招生官博客区分校对与代写,但未专门讨论 AI。招生博客转载的 AI 教学讨论不具政策效力;化学系研究生 AI 线索因无法取回正文未采用。 | 来源 4 引文 64 sources 6 quotes |
| 03 | Harvard哈佛大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Harvard College 官方 FAQ 明确讨论 AI:引用 Common App 对将 AI 实质内容故意冒认为原创的欺诈条款,并提出本人内容、文风与英语水平要求及哈佛虚假陈述后果;未列 AI 语法、构思或翻译许可。 | 来源 1 引文 41 sources 4 quotes |
| 04 | Yale耶鲁大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Yale 本科有明确 AI 政策:允许语法/拼写检查及写作开始时的一般建议或选题建议;把 AI 实质内容用于申请视为欺诈,AI 代写个人陈述或其他回答可能导致撤销录取或开除。 | 来源 2 引文 42 sources 4 quotes |
| 05 | Cornell康奈尔大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Cornell 本科明确允许 AI 查学校、构思文书题目、检查已完成文书的语法拼写;明确不接受 AI 列提纲、起草/代写、翻译另一语言的文书及生成必需作品集内容。一般撤录政策另行适用。 | 来源 3 引文 53 sources 5 quotes |
| 06 | Penn宾夕法尼亚大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Penn 本科明确允许 AI 组织自己的思路和检查语法;申请须为本人工作,AI 生成回答、他人代写或虚构经历会破坏申请认证。2026–2027 升学顾问页再次确认,并区分推荐人及校方的 AI 使用。 | 来源 2 引文 82 sources 8 quotes |
| 07 | Columbia哥伦比亚大学 | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | Columbia 本科新生页承认申请人会使用各种工具与支持,但要求全部材料为本人原创、体现本人声音,并提示入学后须遵守校内 Generative AI Policy;本科真实性声明列出撤销录取等可能后果。两页均未逐项规定 AI 用途。(2026-09-25 补充检索取得本科正文) | 来源 3 引文 53 sources 5 quotes |
| 08 | Duke杜克大学 | AI 明文仅见于研究生Graduate programmes only | 本科申请与 FAQ 正文已检查,未找到校方明确的本科申请 AI 使用细则。Fuqua Daytime MBA 有明确规则:AI 可辅助编辑与清晰表达,不应生成内容;该规则不能外推本科。 | 来源 4 引文 44 sources 4 quotes |
| 09 | Northwestern西北大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 本科招生办公室明确区分建设性与不当 AI 用法:可研究学校、构思文书题目、检查完成稿语法等;不当用法包括代写、翻译文书、将本人提纲交给 AI 写成文书、改写其他学校补充文书。属于官方招生指导,不虚构处罚。 | 来源 1 引文 31 sources 3 quotes |
| 10 | UChicago芝加哥大学 | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | 本科申请页要求以自己的声音、真实的自己呈现申请;FAQ 提到可提交原创研究摘要。已核验的申请与 FAQ 正文没有明确 AI 使用分类,不能从一般真实性建议推导全面禁用或允许。 | 来源 2 引文 22 sources 2 quotes |
| 11 | Princeton普林斯顿大学 | 本科 AI 官方指导Official undergraduate guidance | 招生院长的 2026 与 2025 官方博客明确劝申请人不要依赖生成想法或代写文书的 AI,并强调本人作品的申请承诺;属于官方劝告,不能改写成细分用途的统一禁止政策。 | 来源 2 引文 42 sources 4 quotes |
| 12 | Caltech加州理工学院 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Fall 2027 明确要求遵守经本科招生与研究生委员会批准的 AI 指南,违规则可能撤销录取:可检查完成稿语法拼写、生成启发构思的问题/练习、研究申请流程;不得依赖 AI 写提纲/初稿、替换个人声音或翻译文书。 | 来源 2 引文 52 sources 5 quotes |
| 13 | Johns Hopkins约翰斯·霍普金斯大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 本科招生 FAQ 明确允许写作开始前用 AI 构思/细化想法,以及对本人文字做拼写、语法等基础校对;申请材料必须原创,提交 AI 实质内容被列为申请欺诈。 | 来源 1 引文 31 sources 3 quotes |
| 14 | Brown布朗大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Brown 本科招生办明确:任何情况下都不得将 AI 用于申请内容,仅允许像其他基础校对工具一样用 AI 检查拼写和语法;文书、短答等全部材料须为本人作品,并认可 Common App 的欺诈定义;可能后果包括撤销录取、开除或撤销学位。(2026-09-25 补充检索取得本科正文) | 来源 2 引文 42 sources 4 quotes |
| 15 | Vanderbilt范德堡大学 | 本科 AI 官方指导Official undergraduate guidance | 本科新生申请 FAQ 将 ChatGPT 等视为可能的辅助来源,以构思辅导、语法工具和清晰度/结构反馈作类比;明确 AI 不应替代申请者独立思考,文书应使用本人声音与真实经历。 | 来源 1 引文 31 sources 3 quotes |
| 16 | UC Berkeley加州大学伯克利分校 | UC 系统共同规定UC system (shared source) | UC 系统申请诚信声明明确允许 AI 辅助可读性,要求本人独立写作及本人内容/最终文字;2026–27 指南另提早期构思/整理。非 Berkeley 独有。LL.M. 个人陈述有另行的生成式 AI 限制,仅限该项目。 | 来源 5 引文 105 sources 10 quotes |
| 17 | UCLA加州大学洛杉矶分校 | UC 系统共同规定UC system (shared source) | UC 系统申请诚信声明允许 AI 辅助可读性但要求最终内容/文字为本人所有;2026–27 指南允许早期构思/整理。非 UCLA 独有。Anderson MBA 另允许校对但禁止生成/实质改写,仅限研究生项目。 | 来源 6 引文 106 sources 10 quotes |
| 18 | Rice莱斯大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 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。 | 来源 2 引文 32 sources 3 quotes |
| 19 | Dartmouth达特茅斯学院 | 本科 AI 官方指导Official undergraduate guidance | 官方历史播客中,招生负责人认可用AI帮助组织思路,反对外包个人表达;当时“没有政策”不能推出2026年仍无政策。现行文书页强调本人真实声音,未给AI逐项许可或处罚清单。[S1][S2] | 来源 2 引文 52 sources 5 quotes |
| 20 | Notre Dame圣母大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 本科AI政策明确允许拼写/语法审查及动笔前头脑风暴;文书、短答、活动等全部材料须为本人作品。提交AI生成、起草或实质写成的内容可能撤销录取或开除。[S1] | 来源 1 引文 21 sources 2 quotes |
| 21 | Carnegie Mellon卡内基梅隆大学 | 本科 AI 官方指导Official undergraduate guidance | 本科FAQ说明AI只能辅助:语法拼写检查、结构或词汇改进建议,不能替代个人声音、经历与表达,并提示抄袭风险;未列本科专项处罚。Heinz研究生文书另禁AI写任何部分,不得把研究生拒录后果泛化到本科。[S1][S2] | 来源 2 引文 52 sources 5 quotes |
| 22 | Michigan密歇根大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 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] | 来源 2 引文 42 sources 4 quotes |
| 23 | Georgetown乔治城大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 公开本科申请表的签名确认明确禁止用AI工具完成申请任何部分(含文书),未列校对/润色例外。CEH硕士亦禁AI辅助/代写,而MBA允许有限辅助;这些研究生差异不能覆盖本科禁令。[S1][S2][S3] | 来源 3 引文 73 sources 7 quotes |
| 24 | Emory埃默里大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 本科FAQ将AI定位为写作教练而非创作者,允许有限润色/编辑建议、活动栏表达澄清和个人陈述思路组织;不得替代或生成个人内容与创意,须保持本人声音。入学后Honor Code段落不能当作申请AI专项处罚。[S1] | 来源 1 引文 31 sources 3 quotes |
| 25 | UNC Chapel Hill北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校 | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | 已核验本科申请页希望个人文书展现本人声音;未在所查页面核验到申请人AI用途的具体规则。招生办自身使用AI的FAQ不能当作申请人可以使用AI的依据。 | 来源 4 引文 44 sources 4 quotes |
| 26 | WashU圣路易斯华盛顿大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 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。 | 来源 2 引文 42 sources 4 quotes |
| 27 | UVA弗吉尼亚大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | UVA 本科 AI FAQ 允许有限的选题构思和语法检查,但不得把 AI 内容复制粘贴进文书;最终材料须为本人原创,申请人须签署真实性 honor statement。官方正文已通过桌面浏览器核验。 | 来源 5 引文 75 sources 7 quotes |
| 28 | USC南加州大学 | 本科 AI 官方指导Official undergraduate guidance | USC本科招生官博客明确说好的文书应来自真实的你,而不是成人或AI;另建议用自己的话和风格、请真人反馈。属于官方招生建议,未细分AI脑暴、润色、翻译许可或处罚。 | 来源 3 引文 73 sources 7 quotes |
| 29 | UC San Diego加州大学圣地亚哥分校 | UC 系统共同规定UC system (shared source) | UC 系统声明允许 AI 辅助可读性,要求 PIQ 由本人独立写作、内容和最终文字属于本人;2026–27 first-year 指南另提早期构思/整理,须保留本人作品与声音。有真实性核验和虚假申请后果,非 UCSD 独有规则。 | 来源 5 引文 55 sources 5 quotes |
| 30 | NYU纽约大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | NYU 本科允许 AI 作工具,但最终须真实原创,须遵守与在校生相同的相关实践/标准;称审阅中不使用 AI 检测。Wagner MSPP 仅允许拼写/语法辅助,Tisch Film Production MFA 要求披露,均仅限各研究生项目。 | 来源 6 引文 86 sources 8 quotes |
| 31 | UC Irvine加州大学欧文分校 | UC 系统共同规定UC system (shared source) | UC 本科申请统一诚信声明允许包括生成式 AI 可读性辅助在内的内容/编辑建议,但 PIQ 的经历、思想和最终文字须由本人完成;UCI 招生主管 2023 年访谈建议用 AI 帮助构思故事而不是让 AI 凭空写故事。访谈不是更新版 UCI 2026 校园强制规则。[UC1-Q1][S1-Q1][S1-Q2] | 来源 3 引文 43 sources 4 quotes |
| 32 | Swarthmore斯沃斯莫尔学院 | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | 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] | 来源 1 引文 01 sources 0 quotes |
| 33 | Williams威廉姆斯学院 | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | 两处招生页面遭 403 拒绝,未核实本科申请 AI 专项规范。不能把图书馆课程指导转作招生规则。[S1][S2] | 来源 2 引文 02 sources 0 quotes |
| 34 | Pomona波莫纳学院 | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | 招生页面鼓励真实呈现自己,文书看重个人声音;已读取的两处本科页面未出现 AI 专项允许/禁止或披露规范,故只能归类为真实性建议。[S1][S2] | 来源 2 引文 22 sources 2 quotes |
| 35 | Boston University波士顿大学 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | BU 招生页明确把 AI 作为辅助原创想法的工具,不能用它完整写出申请文书;同时强调申请人要遵守学术诚实标准。与在校课程规范分开。[S1-Q1][S1-Q2] | 来源 1 引文 21 sources 2 quotes |
| 36 | Wellesley韦尔斯利学院 | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | 两处学院招生页面被访问验证阻断;Common App 学校资料仅确认需提交个人与学校专属文书,不能据此推断 AI 许可或禁止。[S1][S2][S3] | 来源 3 引文 13 sources 1 quotes |
| 37 | Barnard巴纳德学院 | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | Barnard本科招生审阅理念强调申请者自身经历、观点与写作呈现;所核验招生页未出现AI/ChatGPT专门准则。不能从课程学生指南推出申请使用权限。 | 来源 1 引文 21 sources 2 quotes |
| 38 | UW Seattle华盛顿大学(西雅图) | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 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] | 来源 1 引文 11 sources 1 quotes |
| 39 | LSE伦敦政治经济学院英国UK | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | LSE本科招生不鼓励AI创作个人陈述,并明确保留对与旧文书显著相似或用AI创作的陈述拒绝申请的权利;同页又列初步构思、与教师核验的荐读、本人原文校对为建设性用途。应结合两段阅读,不等于一切AI辅助都被禁止。 | 来源 1 引文 51 sources 5 quotes |
| 40 | Claremont McKenna克莱蒙特·麦肯纳学院 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | CMC本科新生申请说明的Essay Support and Artificial Intelligence明确:AI若使用仅限语法、标点、拼写等基础校对;文书须申请人自己写,不可由他人撰写、改写、深度编辑或根本改变想法。 | 来源 1 引文 31 sources 3 quotes |
| 41 | Vassar瓦萨学院 | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | 已核验Vassar官方本科申请入口及评估因素;提及作文体现申请者个人优势,但没有发现能核验的招生AI专门用法规则。不可据此断言允许。 | 来源 1 引文 11 sources 1 quotes |
| 42 | Carleton卡尔顿学院 | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | 已核验美国Carleton College本科招生审阅标准,描述学业和个人素质评估;所核验招生页不含AI作文政策,校园手册课程学术诚信条款不能自动外推。 | 来源 1 引文 11 sources 1 quotes |
| 43 | Georgia Tech佐治亚理工学院 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 本科招生 Statement on AI 明确可用于构思、编辑、精炼自己的想法,但最终提交须为本人作品且不得复制粘贴非本人创作内容。2026–27 起学校取消自己的补充短文,但仍需 Common App personal essay;不能把旧题目当当季要求。[S1-Q1][S1-Q2][S2-Q1] | 来源 2 引文 42 sources 4 quotes |
| 44 | NUS新加坡国立大学新加坡Singapore | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | NUS本科招生网页要求填写经历与简答,申请指南要求信息真实;检索范围内尚未核实本科申请文书的AI专项规则。在校生无监考作业默认许可不适用于申请材料。 | 来源 2 引文 22 sources 2 quotes |
| 45 | HKU香港大学中国香港Hong Kong | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | HKU国际资格本科申请页将个人陈述列为审阅材料;已查公开招生页未核实个人陈述中AI使用的专项规则。教学用GenAI政策不等同招生许可。 | 来源 2 引文 12 sources 1 quotes |
| 46 | Oxford牛津大学英国UK | AI 明文仅见于研究生Graduate programmes only | 找到 Oxford 官方问答对「AI 创建申请材料」的答复,但明确只链接研究生申请指导;本科 UCAS 页面检索链接出现反爬阻断,因此没有核实 Oxford 本科 AI 专项限制。 | 来源 1 引文 11 sources 1 quotes |
| 47 | Boston College波士顿学院 | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | BC 本科招生直接说明 AI(如 ChatGPT)仅可作为辅助指南,申请陈述与短答内容须由本人创作、不得直接复制 AI 或其他来源的内容。[S1-Q1][S1-Q2] | 来源 1 引文 21 sources 2 quotes |
| 48 | Cambridge剑桥大学英国UK | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | Cambridge 本科招生页面允许将 AI 用作个人陈述构思或研究辅助,但警示虚构个人成就可按申请欺诈处理、质量低可能削弱申请;面试期间任何使用 AI 均明确禁止。 | 来源 1 引文 41 sources 4 quotes |
| 49 | Waseda早稻田大学日本Japan | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | 早稻田英语本科招生页指出材料要求依学院与学历背景而异并要求查各项目申请指南;2026 FSE指南、2027 SILS作文PDF此次返回403,不能据此推断AI规则,更不能将某个项目扩大为全校。 | 来源 3 引文 23 sources 2 quotes |
| 50 | HKUST香港科技大学中国香港Hong Kong | 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance | HKUST本科直录指南要求提交个人陈述,国际资格页面列明材料;未核实本科申请文书AI专项规则。校内成员ITSO使用指南不是本科招生指导。 | 来源 2 引文 22 sources 2 quotes |
| 51 | Imperial帝国理工学院英国UK | 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only | Imperial 中央本科个人陈述页要求呈现本人的动机、勿抄他人,并说明 UCAS 相似度检测;没有核实该本科页的 AI 专项限制。唯一已读取 AI 招生建议来自 Imperial Business School 的项目招生博客,不能外推本科。 | 来源 2 引文 32 sources 3 quotes |
| 52 | Toronto多伦多大学加拿大Canada | 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules | 多伦多大学Daniels学院本科BAVS/BAAS补充申请明确禁止用生成式AI制作图文,违反可致自动拒录;该页面也规定把AI生成内容当本人作品者失去录取资格。St. George计算机科学页面要求申请者基于本人经历和想法写作,但其文字不是同样的显式AI禁令。两者均不能外推至全校所有本科项目。 | 来源 3 引文 33 sources 3 quotes |
证据状态的含义
What the statuses mean
- 本科 AI 明文边界Explicit undergraduate rules
- 对本科申请人使用 AI 写明了边界:哪些用途允许、哪些禁止,或违反的后果。效力以来源的性质为准。States in writing where the lines are for undergraduate applicants: which uses are allowed, which are not, or what follows a breach. Its force depends on the kind of source.
- UC 系统共同规定UC system (shared source)
- 依据 UC 系统的共同来源(申请诚信声明与申请指南),不是该校区单独发布的政策。Rests on the UC system's shared sources (the Statement of Application Integrity and the application guide), not on a policy issued by the campus.
- 本科 AI 官方指导Official undergraduate guidance
- 官方渠道对申请中使用 AI 给出指导或劝告,但没有写成明确的许可或禁止边界。An official channel gives guidance or advice on using AI in the application, without stating firm lines.
- 仅本人写作/真实性要求Authenticity requirement only
- 有本人写作或真实性要求,但未核实到针对 AI 的具体边界;不能据此推出任何 AI 用途被允许或禁止。Own-work or authenticity requirements exist, but no AI-specific lines were verified; no AI use can be inferred from them to be allowed or forbidden.
- AI 明文仅见于研究生Graduate programmes only
- 已核实的 AI 明文只适用于研究生或特定项目,不外推到本科申请。The explicit AI rules verified apply only to graduate or specific programmes and are not extended to undergraduate applications.
- 未取得可核实指导No verifiable guidance
- 未取得可核实的适用指导。No verifiable applicable guidance was obtained.
Common App 与 UC 系统
Common App and the UC system
admissions/00-Application-Platforms.mdCommon App 与 UC 系统的规定适用于通过这些平台提交的申请。它们是共同来源,不计为各校独立发布的规则。
Common App and UC system rules apply to applications submitted through those platforms. They are shared sources and are not counted as rules issued by each university.
来源信息Source information
- 访问日期Accessed 2026-09-24 (Asia/Shanghai; exact acquisition timestamps in
research/platforms.json) - 格式说明Format note Selected verbatim English excerpts with separate Chinese analysis; not a complete reproduction or legal interpretation.
- 适用范围Scope note Common App is an application platform; UC sources concern its shared undergraduate application. These are not additional universities and must not be counted as independently issued rules at every member/campus.
- 证据说明Evidence note All quoted text has been fetched from official public sources and matched against saved text. Common App's static HTML only exposed headings; its official public Gatsby page-data JSON contained the actual policy paragraphs. No login or access-control bypass was used.
关键发现
- Common App 禁止的是冒认实质性 AI 产出为本人原创。 必须保留
intentionally misrepresenting、one’s own original work、substantive content or output的条件,不能缩写成“使用任何 AI 就是申请欺诈”。该文件没有逐项授权语法检查、构思、翻译或改写;这些边界仍须查目标院校。[CA1] - 平台后果与大学录取决定不同。 Common App 可暂停、终止账号并向 My Colleges List 通报;大学如何处置录取是另一个层级,不能把平台处分直接等同于必然退学。[CA1]
- Common App 明文提供申诉机会。 针对平台自身的违规认定,注册用户可以在书面通知后 10 个工作日内提交陈述与证据。这并不保证每所大学都有同样的录取申诉程序,但足以说明不能笼统写“申请审查没有任何陈述或申诉机会”。[CA1-Q2]
- UC 官方材料区分辅助与代写。 官网招生人员访谈允许谨慎利用 AI 辅助结构、可读性;2025 年招生顾问培训材料承认早期阶段的辅助作用,但要求最后的 PIQ 在声音、实质和反思上属于申请人本人。不能据此理解为可直接提交 AI 改写后的任何内容。[UC1, UC3]
- UC 也有明确标注 2026–27 申请季的指导。 现场下载的 first-year 申请指南共 84 页,第 67 页将 AI 定位为早期构思/整理思路的工具,而非本人作品与声音的替代。搜索摘要仍可能显示旧版,不应照抄摘要。[UC5]
- UC 有直接点名生成式 AI 的申请诚信声明。 本轮找到并下载公开官方
Statement of Application Integrity:允许就内容、编辑获得建议,包括用生成式 AI 辅助可读性,但内容和最终文字必须属于本人;UC 可要求核实内容或写作确系本人所作。该正式系统文件比招生访谈更适合作为规则依据。[UC4]
Official sources and selected original text
[UC5] Presenting yourself on the first-year UC application 2026–27
- 发布单位Publishing unit University of California Admissions
- 官方来源Official source https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/_files/documents/presenting-yourself-on-the-uc-application-first-year.pdf
- 页面日期Page date 2026–27 cycle on cover; exact publication/update date not stated
- 适用范围Scope UC first-year application, 2026–27 cycle; physical PDF page 67 of 84
- 来源性质Authority official-application-guidance
[UC5-Q1]
Can be a useful tool for brainstorming or organizing your thoughts in the early stages, but your final PIQ responses should be your own work and voice
[UC5-Q2]
All applicants must agree to UC’s Statement of Application Integrity when submitting their UC application!
[UC4] Statement of Application Integrity
- 发布单位Publishing unit University of California undergraduate admissions application
- 官方来源Official source https://apply.universityofcalifornia.edu/docs/StatementOfIntegrity.pdf
- 页面日期Page date Last updated August 2023
- 适用范围Scope UC undergraduate application; shared system rule; public PDF page 1
- 来源性质Authority system-application-policy
[UC4-Q1]
The personal insight responses should reflect the student’s own ideas and experiences, be independently written by the student and reflect the student’s personal writing style. Students may receive advice on content and editing, including the use of generative artificial intelligence software to assist with readability, but content and final written text must be their own.
[UC4-Q2]
UC conducts regular screenings to verify the integrity of the responses, may request authentication of the content or writing as the student’s, and will take action when it is determined that the integrity of the response is compromised.
[UC4-Q3]
Students found to have falsified application information will be subject to penalties up to and including denial of admission, withdrawal of an admission offer, registration cancellation, expulsion or revocation of a University of California degree.
[CA1] Common Application Fraud Policy
- 发布单位Publishing unit The Common Application, Inc.
- 官方来源Official source https://www.commonapp.org/fraud-policy/
- 页面日期Page date August 2023 (Date of Last Update)
- 适用范围Scope Common App registered users; platform policy, not an individual university policy
- 来源性质Authority platform-policy
- 提取所用公开数据Public page-data used for extraction https://www.commonapp.org/page-data/fraud-policy/page-data.json
[CA1-Q1]
Submitting plagiarized essays or other written or oral material, or intentionally misrepresenting as one’s own original work: (1) another person’s thoughts, language, ideas, expressions, or experiences or (2) the substantive content or output of an artificial intelligence platform, technology, or algorithm;
[CA1-Q2]
A Registered User who receives notice that Common App has determined a violation of our Terms of Use occurred shall be provided an opportunity to appeal Common App’s decision within ten (10) business days from the date of Common App’s written notice by submitting a written statement and any relevant supporting documentation refuting the Fraud determination or otherwise explaining the circumstances around the misconduct.
[CA1-Q3]
Common App in its sole discretion may take action as a result of a Fraud determination which may include permanent suspension, temporary suspension, or termination of their Common App user account, and disclosure of the Fraud to the Registered User’s “My Colleges List."
[UC1] Shaping your personal narrative: PIQ tips and more from UC admissions experts
- 发布单位Publishing unit University of California; interview with UC admissions staff
- 官方来源Official source https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/shaping-your-personal-narrative-piq-tips-and-more-uc-admissions-experts
- 页面日期Page date 2025-10-23; metadata modified 2025-10-30
- 适用范围Scope UC undergraduate application; system-hosted interview, not a campus-specific rule
- 来源性质Authority official-advice
[UC1-Q1]
First, whatever you ultimately submit better be your own creation.
[UC1-Q2]
That said, an AI tool can help you with structure and readability, but use it with caution.
[UC1-Q3]
Your writing needs to reflect your own experiences, in your own words.
[UC2] Personal insight questions — Applying as a first year
- 发布单位Publishing unit University of California Admissions
- 官方来源Official source https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/how-to-apply/applying-as-a-first-year/personal-insight-questions.html
- 页面日期Page date Not stated
- 适用范围Scope UC first-year application PIQs
- 来源性质Authority official-application-instructions
[UC2-Q1]
Your answers should reflect your own ideas and be written by you alone, but others — family, teachers and friends can offer valuable suggestions. Ask advice of whomever you like, but do not plagiarize from sources in print or online and do not use anyone's words, published or unpublished, but your own.
[UC3] We just want to talk: Approaching the PIQ conversation with purpose
- 发布单位Publishing unit University of California Admissions — 2025 Counselor Conference
- 官方来源Official source https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/_files/documents/2025-counselor-conference-pdfs/ada-pdfs/cc-piq-workshop_ada.pdf
- 页面日期Page date 2025 conference material (not a confirmed 2026–27 rule update)
- 适用范围Scope UC PIQ counselor training; PDF page 29 of 44
- 来源性质Authority official-counselor-guidance
[UC3-Q1]
If used thoughtfully, AI tools might assist in the early stages of the writing process. But students should ensure that their final PIQ responses are entirely their own in voice, substance, and reflection.
[UC3-Q2]
AI is not a replacement for a student's own words!
Research limits / 适用边界
- 不将 2025 年资料的发布日期改成 2026 年。本次是 2026-09-24 访问到的公开快照;UC1 访谈的页末还保留 fall 2026/2025 deadline,UC3 为 2025 培训材料;与明确标注 2026–27 申请季的 UC5 分开。
- 已取得 UC 官方公开申请诚信声明 PDF(页内标明 2023 年 8 月更新),但未登录申请系统核对当季提交按钮前的最终认证界面。不得把公开 PDF 的访问日期改成它的更新日期,也不能保证其与未来申请季的界面完全一致。
- UC 的三所样本学校可共同受到系统 PIQ 要求约束,但在跨校统计中必须标记 共同来源,不可作为三份相互独立的政策证据。
- 原文提及 plagiarism detection 不等于公布 AI 检测器名称、准确率或“仅凭分数作决定”的程序,不能自行补推。
- 本文件不替代学校或申请平台当季页面;特殊项目、作品集、视频面试和推荐信可能另有要求。
Search and retrieval log
- Search:
site.commonapp.org fraud policy artificial intelligence substantive content application;官方 HTML 仅抽取到标题,转查同站公开 page-data 获取正文。 - Search:
Common App fraud policy official site AI;第三方解释未作为规则依据。 - Search:
site.universityofcalifornia.edu admissions artificial intelligence personal insight questions AI;定位系统官网招生访谈。 - Search:
"site:admission.universityofcalifornia.edu" "artificial intelligence";定位 2025 Counselor Conference PDF,并下载实际 PDF 后逐页提取,AI 段落位于物理第 29 页。 - UC first-year PIQ 页面实际读取,保存完整可读文本。
- 独立重新下载 first-year UC application PDF,核实 2026–27 封面、84 页总页数与第 67 页 AI 指导;引用现场文件而非搜索旧摘要。
- 追加精确短语检索
"Students may receive advice on content and editing",定位并下载 UC 官方申请系统的StatementOfIntegrity.pdf,核实 AI 条款和页末 August 2023 更新日期。
UCAS(英国)
UCAS (UK)
admissions/00-UCAS-AI-Guidance.md英国本科申请经 UCAS 提交,本项目涉及的 4 所英国大学均在其列。UCAS 的指导、申请声明与相似度检查适用于经其提交的申请;它是共同来源,不计为各校独立发布的规则,各校规定见其单校页面。
Undergraduate applications to UK universities go through UCAS, including the 4 UK universities covered here. Its guidance, applicant declaration and similarity checks apply to applications made through it; it is a shared source, not counted as a rule issued by each university, whose own rules are on its page.
来源信息Source information
- 检索日期Research snapshot 2026-09-26 (Asia/Shanghai). Exact acquisition timestamps appear below and in the evidence JSON.
- 适用范围Scope UCAS 本科申请个人陈述及相关真实性、相似度和申诉程序。平台材料,不计为额外学校,不计作英国四校各自独立发布的政策。
- 格式说明Format selected original-language quotations + Chinese research interpretation; excerpts are not the full policy. Publication/effective dates were not explicitly identified; access dates are not publication dates.
核心结论
- AI 辅助不等于 AI 代写。 UCAS 指导举例支持主题构思、结构建议、可读性检查,但最终个人陈述应反映申请者自己的经历与表达;页面明确把直接复制 AI 文字作为最终文本列入 Don’t。[UCAS-S1]
- 保留页面内部的细节,不能简化成“所有起草都禁用”。 同一指南还介绍 Copilot 可由本人笔记生成段落初稿。它是工具示例,不是许可将该段落直接作为最终文书提交;需结合 Don’t 项及本科申请声明阅读。是否符合某校更窄的使用边界,还须单独核查。[UCAS-S1][UCAS-S6]
- 声明比一般工具介绍更直接关联提交。 本科申请声明要求个人陈述由本人完成;若材料可能来自他人或 AI,UCAS 可通知相关机构与申请院校,由院校决定适当行动。不是每次 AI 辅助都必然取消申请。[UCAS-S6]
- 相似度检查不等于 AI 检测。 官方 PDF 描述与历年文书及网页样例库的文本比对、人员复核和通知流程;大于 30% 的相似度触发所述人工复核,并不是“30% 以下允许抄袭”或“AI 含量阈值”。[UCAS-S5]
- 两种程序不能混淆。 UCAS 取消申请有申诉程序,核验 PDF 给出取消后 28 天提交申诉及书面答复安排;而相似度报告 PDF 则称不预期对报告本身存在申诉理由。平台取消的申诉权不能自动外推为对大学录取决定的申诉权。[UCAS-S4][UCAS-S5][UCAS-S6]
- 英国四校仍分别核查。 UCAS 明确建议查各校的 AI 指导;LSE、Oxford、Cambridge、Imperial 的校方或项目规则见对应学校档案。本补充不是四校统一许可清单。[UCAS-S1]
Official sources and selected original text
[UCAS-S1] A guide to using AI and ChatGPT with your personal statement
- 官方来源Official source https://www.ucas.com/applying/applying-to-university/writing-your-personal-statement/a-guide-to-using-ai-and-chatgpt-with-your-personal-statement
- 最终页面地址Final URL https://www.ucas.com/applying/applying-to-university/writing-your-personal-statement/a-guide-to-using-ai-and-chatgpt-with-your-personal-statement
- 发布单位Publishing unit UCAS
- 来源性质Authority official-platform-advice
- 适用范围Scope UCAS personal statement applicants; general advice, subject to institution-specific rules
- 采集时间Acquired 2026-09-26T02:18:51.975021+00:00
- 上下文说明Context Q4 is the object of the page’s Don’t heading. The full source contains brainstorming and structure suggestions, and an explicitly described Copilot paragraph-drafting example; none removes the final authorship/declaration requirement.
UCAS-S1-Q1 — limited support, not outsourced authorship
You could use ChatGPT as a tool to help inspire, clarify and articulate your own ideas, rather than asking it to write your entire personal statement for you.
UCAS-S1-Q2 — readability
ChatGPT can be used to check your personal statement draft for readability. It may suggest ways to rephrase sentences to make them more concise, while maintaining their meaning.
UCAS-S1-Q3 — Copilot example must be read with final-text prohibition
It can create a first draft of a paragraph from a few bullet points from your notes, or summarise your first draft if you're over the character count.
UCAS-S1-Q4 — item under Don’t heading, not permission
Copy and paste from AI tools and use as final text.
UCAS-S1-Q5 — institution-specific guidance
We'd advise researching what individual universities and colleges recommend you include in your personal statement, and whether they have specific guidance around using AI tools like ChatGPT.
[UCAS-S6] UCAS Undergraduate declaration
- 官方来源Official source https://www.ucas.com/node/866
- 最终页面地址Final URL https://www.ucas.com/about-us/policies/ucas-data-privacy-portal/ucas-undergraduate-declaration
- 发布单位Publishing unit UCAS
- 来源性质Authority application-declaration
- 适用范围Scope Applicants submitting a UCAS Undergraduate application
- 采集时间Acquired 2026-09-26T02:44:26.130674+00:00
- 上下文说明Context Read publicly without entering the application system or accepting the declaration.
UCAS-S6-Q1 — authorship
Your personal statement must be completed by you and we do undertake checks to verify that it is your own work.
UCAS-S6-Q2 — notification; universities decide action
If your personal statement includes material that we reasonably consider may have been copied from or provided by another source, including but not limited to friends, writing service providers or artificial intelligence software, we may notify your current school, college or other UCAS registered centre (provided that, where legally required, we have your permission to share such information) and the universities and colleges to which you have applied, whose decision it will be to take what action they consider appropriate.
UCAS-S6-Q3 — platform cancellation appeal
If we cancel your application you have the right to appeal.
UCAS-S6-Q4 — not university-decision appeal
The appeal process relates only to applicants whose application has been cancelled by us.
[UCAS-S4] Fraud and Verification — guidance for applicants
- 官方来源Official source https://www.ucas.com/media/146941/download
- 最终页面地址Final URL https://www.ucas.com/media/146941/download
- 发布单位Publishing unit UCAS
- 来源性质Authority official-platform-procedure
- 适用范围Scope UCAS application verification and cancellation appeals
- 采集时间Acquired 2026-09-26T02:44:15.179950+00:00
- 上下文说明Context Three-page PDF; no visible publication/effective date identified. A later appeal may be considered with delay per the full paragraph.
UCAS-S4-Q1 — possible cancellation, not mandatory penalty for every AI use
We may cancel applications if false, missing, and/or misleading information is provided.
UCAS-S4-Q2 — appeal timing; page 2
If you decide to submit an appeal, you must do this within 28 days from the date your application was cancelled. We will notify you of our decision in writing within 28 days.
[UCAS-S5] Similarity Guidance for Applicants
- 官方来源Official source https://www.ucas.com/media/147176/download
- 最终页面地址Final URL https://www.ucas.com/media/147176/download
- 发布单位Publishing unit UCAS
- 来源性质Authority official-platform-procedure
- 适用范围Scope UCAS Undergraduate and UCAS Conservatoire personal-statement similarity checks
- 采集时间Acquired 2026-09-26T02:44:16.250307+00:00
- 上下文说明Context Five-page PDF. Page 5 explicitly addresses the 2026-cycle change to three answers and says similarity reporting continues. PDF extraction ligatures retained in verbatim quotes.
UCAS-S5-Q1 — text similarity, not AI authorship classification
Each personal statement is compared against a library of personal statements previously submitted to UCAS, and a library of sample statements collected from websites and other sources.
UCAS-S5-Q2 — human review threshold, not safe allowance
Any statements showing a level of similarity of greater than 30% are reviewed by members of the UCAS Verification Team.
UCAS-S5-Q3 — institutional decision
The chosen universities and colleges decide on the significance of the results and what action, if any, to take.
UCAS-S5-Q4 — under Can I appeal against a similarity report?
The report highlights similarities to other data already available to us, and we do not expect any grounds for an appeal against this.
检索与使用局限
- 搜索 API 额度受限,采用已有官网快照复读、实际官网页面直读和站内链接追踪;没有将搜索摘要或模型记忆当作规则证据。
- S1 初次快照取得于当天较早时段,保留原时间;主审再次直接读取同页。S4–S6 是本轮直接取得的官网/PDF。S2–S3 为发现路径,未计入实质规则来源。
- 未登录申请账号、未提交或代签任何声明,也未联系学校;真实申请时应复核当季页面与提交条款。
- 相似度 PDF 包含 2026 cycle 改为三个回答的说明;本报告不据此保证2028申请季规则不变。
- 来源中关于 AI 能力、训练数据或检测效果的宣传性解释,未当作经本研究独立验证的技术结论。
- 全部短引文已对本地实际取得正文作空白标准化后逐字核验;正文解释仍需语义审校。
方法与局限
Method and limitations
- 范围。以本科新生申请为主;研究生、转学和特定项目的规定单独标注,不外推到本科。
- 学校。编号 01–30 为美国 30 所大学;31–52 依据 College Fair 的学校名单补充,包括美国文理学院,以及英国、加拿大、新加坡、日本和中国香港的大学。各校适用同一套证据状态。
- 证据。只有原文明确写出的许可与后果才记为证据。英文引文与采集时保存的来源逐字比对(仅标准化空白);中文为整理者的分析,与原文分开标注。
- 不作的推断。未检索到或未说明,不代表没有规定,更不代表允许。禁止 AI 代写不等于禁止一切辅助;允许语法检查也不等于允许改写或翻译。
- 效力。正式规则、招生官建议与学生博客的效力不同,证据状态据此区分。
- 共同来源。Common App、UC 系统与 UCAS 单独列出;UC 的 4 所校区共用同一系统来源,不计为 4 份独立政策;UCAS 的指导也不计为英国各校的政策。
- 时效。01–30 采集于 2026 年 9 月 24 日,其中 Brown 与 Columbia 的本科页面当日无法访问,于 9 月 25 日补充检索取得正文;31–52 与 UCAS 采集于 9 月 26 日。访问日不是生效日,提交申请前须按当季页面复核。
- Scope. Chiefly first-year undergraduate applications. Rules for graduate, transfer and specific programmes are labelled as such and not extended to undergraduates.
- Universities. Nos. 01–30 are the 30 U.S. universities; 31–52 were added from the College Fair's list, including U.S. liberal arts colleges and universities in the UK, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong. The same evidence statuses apply to all.
- Evidence. Only permissions and consequences the source states explicitly count as evidence. English quotations were matched verbatim against the sources saved at collection (whitespace normalised only); the Chinese is the collector's analysis and is marked apart from the source text.
- Inferences not drawn. Nothing found, or nothing said, does not mean there is no rule, still less that a use is allowed. A ban on AI ghost-writing is not a ban on all help; permission to check grammar is not permission to rewrite or translate.
- Force. Formal rules, admissions officers' advice and student blogs carry different weight; the evidence status separates them.
- Shared sources. Common App, the UC system and UCAS are listed on their own; the 4 UC campuses share one system source and are not counted as 4 independent policies, and UCAS guidance is not counted as the policy of any UK university.
- Currency. Nos. 01–30 were collected on 24 September 2026; the undergraduate pages of Brown and Columbia could not be reached that day and were retrieved on 25 September. Nos. 31–52 and UCAS were collected on 26 September. An access date is not an effective date; check the pages for the current cycle before applying.