Same School, Different AI Rules: Program-Level Policy Contradictions That Could Cost You Admission

Here's a scenario that trips up applicants every cycle: you look up whether University X allows AI in applications. You find a permissive policy. You use AI for brainstorming. Then your application gets flagged because the specific program you applied to has a completely different, much stricter policy that you never saw.

This isn't hypothetical. At least five major universities maintain AI policies that directly contradict each other across programs. The institution says one thing. The law school says another. The business school says something else entirely. And you, the applicant, are expected to find the right one.

Here are the most dramatic contradictions we've found, verified against official policy documents and program pages.

University of Michigan: AI Required for One Essay, Banned for Others

Institution Level: L0/D0/E1 (no specific AI admissions policy)

Michigan's institutional position relies on the Common Application fraud policy:

"The University of Michigan expects all applicants to be familiar with and abide by the Common App Fraud Policy, which prohibits the use of AI systems to generate content."

That's effectively a passive reference to an external policy. No specific Michigan AI guidance. No disclosure requirement. Minimal enforcement.

But drill into the programs and the picture changes completely.

Rackham Graduate School: L2/D3/E2

The Rackham Graduate School permits limited AI use but demands formal attestation:

"Grammar and spelling review tools like Grammarly permitted, but attestation required that applicant is sole author."

You can use Grammarly. You can use basic grammar tools. But you must formally attest that you are the sole author of your work, and the school actively screens applications. That's a significant step up from the institution's passive approach.

Law School: L1/D2/E1 (The Paradox)

Michigan Law takes the most unusual approach of any school in our database. Their policy:

"AI prohibited for personal statements but required for one optional essay while certifying non-use for others."

Read that again. Michigan Law requires AI use for one specific optional essay while simultaneously prohibiting it for personal statements and requiring you to certify you didn't use it on other components. You need to track, essay by essay, which ones permit AI and which ones forbid it.

The practical problem: A student applying to Michigan's undergraduate program, Rackham, and the Law School simultaneously faces three different AI frameworks at the same institution. Get confused about which policy applies to which essay, and you've either violated a prohibition or failed to use a required tool.

View Michigan's full policy breakdown

UW-Madison: "We Won't Disqualify You" vs "We'll Rescind Your Admission"

Institution Level: L1/D0/E0 (explicitly permissive)

UW-Madison's undergraduate admissions page contains one of the most applicant-friendly AI statements in higher education:

"We will not disqualify an applicant found to have used or suspected of using AI in their admissions essays, nor are we running essays through any system to detect if AI was used."

They also add:

"However, we strongly discourage students from simply feeding AI a prompt for their essay, as it denies you the opportunity to help us better understand why you would be a good fit for UW-Madison."

This is about as permissive as it gets. No disqualification. No detection systems. No disclosure requirement. Just a gentle discouragement.

La Follette School of Public Affairs: L4/D3/E3 (Polar Opposite)

Now read what the La Follette School says to its graduate applicants:

"We require you to certify that the essays you submit are entirely your own original work and have not been created using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Please be aware that if it is discovered that the submitted essays do not meet this requirement, we retain the right to revoke your admission."

That's a total prohibition (L4), formal certification requirement (D3), and active enforcement with admission rescission (E3). It is the maximum possible restriction on every dimension.

The whiplash: UW-Madison's undergraduate admissions explicitly says they won't even look for AI. The La Follette School at the same university says they'll revoke your admission if they find it. The institutional policy and the program policy aren't just different. They're diametrically opposed.

View UW-Madison's full policy breakdown

Columbia University: Institutional Silence, Program-Level Severity

Institution Level: L0/D0/E0 (no policy found)

Columbia University has no university-wide AI policy for admissions. Their institutional page effectively says:

"No official AI policy."

But three of Columbia's programs have taken aggressive independent positions.

School of the Arts (Graduate): L4/D3/E3

"Forbids the use of any generative artificial intelligence platforms in the creation of application materials."

Total prohibition with attestation and active enforcement. If you're applying to Columbia's MFA programs, AI is completely off limits.

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: L4/D0/E2

"Artificial intelligence programs may not be used to produce any application materials or responses."

Another total prohibition, this time with screening-based enforcement but no formal disclosure requirement. The school assumes you'll comply and checks rather than making you attest.

Business School: L4/D0/E2

"Work contained in applications must be completely accurate and exclusively your own."

Columbia Business School doesn't explicitly mention AI, but the "exclusively your own" language has been interpreted as a prohibition. Enforcement is active.

The gap: An applicant to Columbia's undergraduate program finds zero guidance. An applicant to the School of the Arts at the same university finds one of the strictest policies in the country. If you're applying to multiple Columbia programs, you need to check each one individually.

View Columbia's full policy breakdown

University of Pennsylvania: Institution Allows, Wharton and Law Forbid

Institution Level: L1/D1/E1 (limited AI permitted)

Penn's institutional AI guidance states:

"If it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task, it is also unacceptable to have AI complete the task."

And:

"Be transparent about the use of AI. Disclose when a work product was created wholly or partially using an AI tool."

This allows brainstorming, idea generation, and limited assistance. It asks for disclosure. It's a reasonable middle-ground framework.

Wharton Business School: L4/D0/E2

Wharton's policy is far stricter:

"Your work contained within this application must be your own."

Total prohibition, with active screening. No allowance for brainstorming or grammar assistance. Wharton is known to use AI detection tools to identify AI-authored content.

Penn Law School: L4/D3/E2

Penn Law goes even further:

"Work must be sole and original."

Total prohibition with a formal attestation requirement. You must certify that your work is entirely your own, and the school actively screens submissions.

The contradiction: Penn's institutional policy explicitly says "be transparent about the use of AI," implying it's acceptable if disclosed. But Wharton and Penn Law say your work must be exclusively yours, with no room for AI assistance at any level. A dual-degree applicant to Penn's main programs and Wharton would face two contradictory frameworks from the same university.

View Penn's full policy breakdown

Stanford University: Institutional Ambiguity vs GSB Absolutism

Institution Level: L0/D1/E1 (no specific policy)

Stanford's institutional position is minimal. Their guidance emphasizes authenticity:

"Essays should allow the applicant's genuine voice to come through."

No specific mention of AI prohibition. No disclosure framework. Just an emphasis on voice and authenticity. Stanford's AI Advisory Committee has focused on how the university itself uses AI, not on restricting applicants.

Graduate School of Business: L4/D0/E3

Stanford GSB takes one of the hardest lines of any business school:

"It is improper to have another person or tool write your essays. Such behavior will result in denial."

Not rescission. Not review. Denial. The GSB treats AI essay assistance as grounds for automatic rejection, with the strongest possible enforcement. No disclosure process because there's nothing to disclose: the answer is simply no.

The disconnect: A student applying to Stanford's graduate engineering program finds no AI guidance whatsoever. The same student adding a GSB application faces one of the most punitive policies in higher education. At Stanford, the question isn't "does the university allow AI?" It's "which program are you applying to?"

View Stanford's full policy breakdown

Why This Matters More Than You Think

These contradictions aren't academic curiosities. They have real consequences for applicants:

1. Dual-degree applicants are navigating a minefield. If you're applying to Penn's general graduate programs and Wharton simultaneously, you need two different AI strategies for the same university.

2. "Does University X allow AI?" is the wrong question. The right question is always "does this specific program at University X allow AI?" The institution-level policy may have zero bearing on your program.

3. Program-specific policies override institutional policies. In every case we've documented, the program-level policy is stricter than the institutional policy. Never assume the institutional policy is the ceiling. It's usually the floor.

4. Silence isn't permission. When Columbia's institution has no policy but Arts has an L4 prohibition, the absence of a university-level policy doesn't mean Arts applicants can use AI. It means the university hasn't caught up to what its programs are already doing.

How to Navigate This

1. Always check the specific program's admissions page. Don't stop at the university-level policy. Look for the admissions requirements for your exact program, department, or school.

2. Check GradPilot's AI policy database. We track both institution-level and program-specific policies, so you can see exactly where contradictions exist.

3. Read our methodology page to understand how program-specific overrides work in our L/D/E rating system.

4. When program and institution policies conflict, follow the stricter one. You'll never get in trouble for being too cautious.

5. If you're applying to multiple programs at the same university, treat each application as having its own AI rules. Because it does.

6. Contact the admissions office directly if you're unsure. A quick email asking "does your program have specific AI guidelines for application essays?" can save you enormous stress.

The age of "one school, one policy" is over. Programs are setting their own rules, often without coordinating with the institution or each other. The applicants who succeed will be the ones who check every program individually.

Related Reading

• Georgetown vs Caltech: Two Models for AI in Admissions
• Do Top 10 Colleges Check for AI? Official Policies
• Do Colleges Use AI Detectors? The Truth About Turnitin
• Colleges Ban Student AI but Use AI to Read Essays
• AI Reads Your College Essays: Virginia Tech, UCLA, Penn State