Generative AI Policy

Generative AI is now part of academic life. Used well, it can support learning. Used to produce work a student then passes off as their own, it undermines the entire point of research mentorship. ScholarBridge does not ban AI, but we hold a firm line: any work a student submits must be a genuine demonstration of their own thinking, skills, and knowledge.

1. Three golden rules

1. Learn with AI, never submit its words as your own. Copying or pasting AI-generated content into work you submit is not acceptable practice unless the institution receiving the work has explicitly authorised it.
2. If you are unsure, ask. Ask your mentor, and check the rules of the school, examination board, or university the work is for, before you use a tool.
3. Be honest about what you used. Disclose your use of AI to your mentor, and declare it accurately wherever an institution requires you to.

2. The receiving institution's rules always govern

Schools, examination boards, universities, and admissions bodies each set their own rules on AI, and they are frequently stricter than this policy. Where they are, their rules govern, and it is the student's responsibility to know and follow them. Because our students apply across both the United States and the United Kingdom, this includes, among others:

• United States admissions: the Common Application and the Coalition Application require that an application and its essays are the applicant's own work, and treat presenting the content or output of an AI platform as one's own as fraud. Many universities add their own honor code.
• United States coursework and testing: the College Board (Advanced Placement) and individual schools set their own rules on the use of AI in coursework and assessment.
• United Kingdom coursework and non-examined assessment (for example JCQ-regulated NEA at GCSE and A-Level): strict rules apply, and AI misuse can be treated as malpractice.
• UCAS personal statements and university applications: statements must be the student's own work and are screened for AI-generated text.
• The International Baccalaureate (Extended Essay, Internal Assessments): AI use must fall within IB academic-integrity rules and be acknowledged.
• Individual universities, competitions, and publishers, each with their own requirements.

Nothing ScholarBridge permits overrides a stricter external requirement. When you are unsure, follow the stricter rule, and ask.

3. Permitted uses within mentorship

Subject to the rule above, AI tools may be used during a ScholarBridge programme to support learning, for example to:

• Explore a topic, or generate questions and directions for further reading that the student then verifies against real sources.
• Explain an unfamiliar concept, method, or piece of terminology through dialogue.
• Check spelling, grammar, and basic clarity in the student's own draft.
• Suggest how the student might organise ideas that are already their own.

In every permitted use the student remains the author. The ideas, argument, analysis, and words that are submitted must originate with the student.

4. Prohibited uses

Unauthorised use of AI means presenting work produced wholly or in part by AI as your own. This remains misconduct even where the student edits or amends the AI output. The following are not permitted and are treated as academic misconduct under the Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy:

• Generating text, paragraphs, or sections and submitting them as the student's own writing.
• Using AI to produce a research question, thesis, argument, or analysis and presenting it as independently developed.
• Effectively outsourcing the writing or thinking task to a tool.
• Fabricating or inventing data, quotations, sources, or citations, including AI-generated references that do not exist.
• Using AI in any way the receiving institution prohibits, or without a disclosure it requires.

5. Disclosure and declaration

Students are expected to be open with their mentor about any use of AI during their project. Where an institution requires a declaration of AI use, it must be made accurately and in the format that institution prescribes. As a simple model, a student should be able to make one of the following honestly:

You do not normally need to cite an AI tool as a source in a reference list, in the way you would a book or article, but you must acknowledge its use where required. Concealing AI use, or understating it, is itself a breach of this policy.

6. Accuracy, bias, and fabricated sources

AI output can seem convincing and still be wrong. These tools can state falsehoods with confidence, invent sources and quotations that do not exist, and reflect the biases in their training data. A student is responsible for everything they submit. Anything drawn from an AI tool must be checked against real, verifiable sources before it is relied on, and fabricated references are a serious form of misconduct.

7. Privacy and safety when using AI

Students should not enter personal data, sensitive information, or other people's work into any AI platform, and should be cautious with tools that require additional sign-ins or accounts. Given that our students are aged 14–18, mentors will encourage age-appropriate, safe, and responsible use, and will raise any concern about a tool that appears unsafe.

8. Over-reliance and owning your learning

AI can support understanding, but it cannot replace it. AI tools cannot replace the critical thinking, the evidence-based argument, and the subject knowledge that are the whole point of an education. A student who leans on a tool instead of doing the thinking loses exactly what mentorship is for: the ability to understand, explain, and defend their own work. The goal is always for the student to learn, not to extract an output.

9. How mentors use AI

ScholarBridge mentors do not use AI to produce, draft, or rewrite student work. Any use of AI by a mentor is limited to their own preparation and never substitutes for their own judgement or the student's authorship.

10. Verification

Because genuinely student-authored work can be discussed and defended by its author, ScholarBridge, and any external institution, may reasonably ask a student to explain their work, sources, and process. An inability to do so may indicate a breach of this policy and will be handled under the Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy.

11. Consequences

Breaches of this policy are treated as academic misconduct and may result in outcomes up to and including termination of the programme without refund, as set out in the Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy and the Terms of Service.

12. Review

Because these tools change quickly, this policy is reviewed regularly and updated to reflect current tools and the changing requirements of the schools, examination boards, and universities our students work toward.

Contact

For questions about this policy, contact us at [email protected].