AI and application writing

An application should represent the student's experiences, judgement and writing. Generative AI creates a practical difficulty: a tool can move from commenting on a draft to supplying the substance of the answer in a single exchange. Families need a clear boundary before the writing begins.

The first step is to read the current rules for the platform and every institution involved. There is no single permission that covers every application, assessment, competition or school assignment.

Read the policy at the level of the task

As one specific example, Yale's undergraduate admissions AI policy prohibits submitting substantive AI-generated application content. It distinguishes this from uses such as checking grammar or spelling and seeking general advice or initial topic suggestions. This is Yale's stated position; it should not be treated as permission from another institution.

Record the relevant policy link and the date checked. Read it again before submission if the writing process has taken several months. Where the rule does not clearly address a proposed use, seek clarification from the institution or avoid that use while the question remains unresolved.

Permission for one kind of assistance does not imply permission for all of it. Checking a spelling is different from asking a tool to replace a paragraph with a more persuasive account of the student's life.

Agree on who does the thinking and writing

At Fulworth, students author their own application work. Our suggested boundary is that the student supplies the experiences, chooses the meaning and writes the answer. A reviewer can identify confusion, ask a question or point out an error for the student to address.

This principle applies to adults as well as software. An essay rewritten by a parent can lose the student's authorship even when no AI tool was involved. The important question is who made the substantive choices and produced the wording.

Before a review session, agree on the kind of feedback requested. “Tell me where my explanation becomes hard to follow” leaves a different role for the writer than “make this sound impressive”.

Keep a record of the actual drafting process

Begin with the student's own notes and a first draft. Save meaningful versions as the argument or structure changes. If permitted tools are used, record the type of assistance and keep any disclosure required by the institution.

Version history is useful for reflection and accurate disclosure. It is not a guarantee that an institution will accept the work, and it should not be created after the fact to simulate a process that did not happen.

A student reviewing a draft should be able to explain why a paragraph exists, what its details refer to and why they chose the language. If they cannot, return to their original notes and write the passage themselves.

Treat facts and privacy separately from fluency

A fluent sentence can still contain an invented detail, an exaggerated result or an incorrect university fact. Check every substantive claim against the student's records or the relevant official source. Do not allow a tool to fill a gap in memory with plausible dialogue or an outcome that did not occur.

Avoid entering private information about other people into external tools. Application material can contain family circumstances, personal experiences and identifying details. A request for general feedback rarely needs a full record of someone else's life.

If the student has already used generated text, do not try to disguise it through repeated paraphrasing. Revisit the rules, remove material the student did not author and rebuild the answer from their own experience. Follow any applicable disclosure instructions honestly.

Use a human review that leaves decisions with the student

A parent or adviser can mark a passage with “I cannot tell what you did here” or “This claim seems broader than the evidence”. The student can then decide what to explain, remove or revise. This makes the review about clarity and truthfulness rather than the production of a more adult voice.

Before submission, read the policy and the applicant's affirmation together. Check that the student can stand behind both the facts and the authorship of the final text. A successful review leaves the student with an answer they understand, mean and have written themselves.