Georgetown vs Caltech: Two Competing Models for AI in College Admissions

The college admissions world has split into two camps on artificial intelligence. On one side, schools like Georgetown University treat any AI use as a violation worthy of rescission. On the other, schools like Caltech ask a simple confidential question and move on. These two philosophies represent the poles of a debate that will shape admissions for years to come.

Understanding where your target school falls isn't optional anymore. It's the difference between a smart application strategy and a devastating mistake.

The Georgetown Model: Total Prohibition

Georgetown University operates one of the strictest AI policies in higher education, but the details are more nuanced than a single blanket ban. The university actually maintains three distinct program-level policies, each with different severity levels.

Undergraduate Admissions: L4/D3/E3 (Maximum Restriction)

Georgetown's undergraduate admissions policy is unambiguous. Their application portal states:

"Use of AI tools to complete any portion of the application is prohibited."

That's an L4 restriction level (total prohibition), D3 disclosure requirement (formal attestation required), and E3 enforcement (active detection with consequences including rescission). There is no gray area. No "well, I just used it for brainstorming." No exceptions for grammar checking. Any AI use in any portion of the application is a violation.

Law School: L3/D0/E1 (Moderate Restriction)

Georgetown Law takes a different approach. Their J.D. FAQ page states:

"Only the applicant should write the actual essays."

This translates to L3 (AI prohibited for content generation but some assistance may be tolerated), D0 (no specific disclosure requirement), and E1 (standard enforcement). The emphasis is on the applicant doing the writing, not on banning every tool.

Graduate Business Programs: L2/D2/E1 (Permissive with Guardrails)

The McDonough School of Business is even more lenient:

"AI may be used for support like brainstorming or grammar checking."

At L2/D2/E1, Georgetown's business school explicitly permits limited AI assistance for brainstorming and grammar checking while expecting disclosure. This is a world away from the undergraduate blanket ban.

The practical takeaway: Even within Georgetown, the rules change dramatically depending on which program you're applying to. An undergraduate applicant and an MBA applicant at the same university face completely different standards.

The Caltech Model: Structured Disclosure

The California Institute of Technology takes a fundamentally different philosophical approach. Rather than prohibition, Caltech builds its policy around transparency and responsible use.

The Policy: L2/D2/E1

Caltech's admissions AI policy page is refreshingly direct about what's allowed and what isn't.

Allowed uses:

• Grammar and spelling review using tools like Grammarly or Microsoft Editor
• Generating brainstorming questions or exercises
• Researching the college application process

Prohibited uses:

• Directly copying AI-generated content
• Using AI to draft or outline essays
• Replacing personal voice with AI-generated text
• Translating essays using AI

The "Trusted Adult Test"

Caltech frames its ethical boundary with an elegant principle: if you wouldn't be comfortable having a trusted adult watch you use the tool in the way you're using it, you've crossed the line. This framework respects students' intelligence while setting clear boundaries.

The Confidential Disclosure Question

Here's what makes Caltech truly distinctive. Their application includes a confidential yes/no question:

"Did you receive any AI generated assistance in the preparation of your application materials?"

Caltech explicitly states this question will not impact admission decisions. The purpose is data collection and honesty, not punishment. They're building understanding of how applicants actually use these tools.

Their policy page puts it plainly:

"Your essays are where we hear your voice — overuse of AI will diminish your individual, bold, creative identity."

The message isn't "don't use AI or else." It's "use it wisely because your authentic voice is what matters."

Why These Represent Two Poles of the Debate

Georgetown and Caltech aren't just making different policy choices. They're operating from fundamentally different assumptions about students, technology, and integrity.

Georgetown's model says: "We cannot verify what AI was used for, so we ban everything." Caltech's model says: "We trust you to use tools responsibly and tell us about it."

The Practical Difference for Applicants

For a student applying to Georgetown's undergraduate program, the stakes are existential. Any AI use risks rescission. That means no ChatGPT for brainstorming topics. No Grammarly's AI-powered suggestions. No AI-assisted outline generation. If Georgetown discovers AI involvement at any level, your admission can be revoked. You need to write your essays the old-fashioned way: blank page, your brain, maybe a human advisor.

For a student applying to Caltech, the calculation is entirely different. You're expected to use AI responsibly and disclose it. Caltech recognizes that in 2026, pretending AI tools don't exist is neither realistic nor productive. The question isn't whether you used AI. It's whether the final product reflects your authentic voice and thinking.

Which Model Is Winning?

According to the 2024 Kaplan survey of admissions officers:

• 30% of colleges have policies that effectively ban AI use (the Georgetown model)
• 2% of colleges explicitly allow AI with guidelines (closer to the Caltech model)
• 68% have no AI policy at all

On raw numbers, the prohibition model appears dominant. But that 68% without any policy is the real story. Most schools haven't decided yet, and the direction they choose will determine the landscape.

Other Schools Following Each Model

The Georgetown Model: Total Prohibition (L4)

Several other schools have adopted prohibition-level policies:

• Brown University (L4/D0/E1): AI is "not permitted under any circumstances in conjunction with application content." Brown's language is absolute, with "all essays and materials required to be the applicant's original work."
• Villanova University (L4/D0/E3): "The Admission Committee expects that each writing supplement be the original work of the applicant, unaided by artificial intelligence." Enforcement includes denial or rescission.
• BYU (L4/D3/E2): "You may not use generative AI tools (like ChatGPT) as you compose your responses." BYU requires attestation and warns "BYU may rescind the admission offer."

The Caltech Model: Structured Permission (L1-L2)

Schools that allow responsible AI use with varying levels of structure:

• Georgia Tech (L2/D0/E0): "AI tools can be powerful and valuable in the application process when used thoughtfully." Georgia Tech explicitly allows brainstorming, editing, and even constructing resumes in the Activities section.
• Cornell University (L2/D0/E1): Permits AI for "researching colleges, brainstorming essay topics, grammar checking" but prohibits "outlining essays, drafting essays, writing essays." Cornell's motto for applications: "your words, your voice, your story."
• Dartmouth College (L1/D0/E0): Dean Coffin's informal guidance allows organizational assistance. "Students can use an AI tool to help get organized, but they should write their essays themselves."

What This Means for the Future of Admissions

The tension between these models is unsustainable. Here's why:

The Georgetown model has an enforcement problem. Banning all AI use requires detecting all AI use, and current detection technology simply isn't reliable enough. Turnitin's 4% false positive rate means human-written essays get flagged while sophisticated AI use slips through. Strict bans may punish honest students more than clever cheaters.

The Caltech model has a fairness problem. Allowing AI use advantages students who have access to premium AI tools and the sophistication to use them well. Students from under-resourced backgrounds may not know how to leverage AI for brainstorming effectively.

The 68% with no policy have a credibility problem. Silence isn't a strategy. When a third of applicants are using AI tools (per the Kaplan data), not having a policy means different applicants are playing by different self-imposed rules.

The most likely future? A convergence toward the Caltech model. As AI tools become ubiquitous, total prohibition will become increasingly impractical. The schools that develop sophisticated frameworks for responsible use will be better positioned than those trying to hold back the tide.

But that transition will be messy. And in the meantime, applicants need to know exactly where each school stands.

What You Should Do Right Now

1. Check every school's specific policy before you write a single word. Don't assume. Don't guess. Read the policy for your specific program.
2. When in doubt, don't use AI. If a school's policy is ambiguous, the safe choice is always to write without AI assistance.
3. If a school permits AI use, use it minimally and disclose it. Caltech's "trusted adult test" is a good universal standard.
4. Never use AI to generate content you'll submit as your own. Even at the most permissive schools, this crosses the line.
5. Use GradPilot's AI policy database to check each school's exact L/D/E ratings before application season.

Check the detailed policy pages for Georgetown University and Caltech, or use our comparison tool to see how your target schools stack up side by side.

Related Reading

• Do Top 10 Colleges Check for AI? Official Policies
• Do Colleges Use AI Detectors? The Truth About Turnitin
• Why Turnitin Failed College Admissions
• Same School, Different AI Rules: Program Contradictions
• How Colleges Spend on AI Detection Tools