Student Guidelines for a Responsible Use of AI 

The policies listed below aim to protect the integrity of the learning process and the value of the degree you will receive from AUR. It is no exaggeration to say that you, the student, will be responsible for the outcome of your education like never before in the history of higher education.

​

This is because AI tools are quickly being integrated into widely used smart technologies and can easily short-circuit the opportunity to develop the hard-earned skills and expertise you will need to advance beyond college in graduate education or on the job market.

​

As AI tools become more integrated and prevalent in work routines, your prospects for success and advancement will depend on showing that you are able to bring added value beyond what AI can produce on its own. Such skills are developed over time and cannot be improvised.

For these reasons AUR will adopt the following policies: 

​

• The purpose of at-home and in-class tests and assignments is to measure the student’s understanding of the subject matter, and the student’s ability to express that understanding in a coherent, articulate, and grammatically correct form. 

• Text produced by generative AI, if included at all, is to be treated like a source and, as such, should be clearly attributed to the engine used. It should be in quotation marks or block quotes, and the circumstances of/reasons for its generation should be clearly explained. Large chunks of AI generated texts will not count towards the assignment’s word total. 

• Severe inaccuracies, fake sources, and other products of AI “hallucination” may be used by instructors to challenge the authenticity of submitted assignments as evidence of student progress.  

• Detection tools that report on AI generated text (ex. TurnItIn, ZeroGPT, AICheatCheck and others) may be used by instructors to challenge the authenticity of submitted assignments as evidence of student progress. These detection tools are very accurate, have no bias against language learners, and actually underreport AI use.

• Excessive disparity in quality between in-class written work or oral presentation, and work produced at home is sufficient reason for instructors to challenge the authenticity of submitted assignments as evidence of student progress. 

• Students may respond to challenges from instructors by demonstrating, in a short conversation, that they possess the knowledge, understanding, and skills evidenced in the assignment they submitted. 

• Depending on context and discipline, specific assignments MAY require you to make use of generative AI. In such cases, adhere to the directives given by the instructor.