24 Universities Lack AI Admissions Policies, Report Reveals
Prestigious institutions show policy gaps in AI use for admissions processes.
1Research Scope
Student Defense sent public records requests to 24 public universities in spring 2026, inquiring about AI use policies. Twenty institutions, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UT Austin, Ohio State, and Michigan State, responded. None could provide a specific AI policy for undergraduate admissions offices. Training materials were equally scarce: only one school sent materials targeted at enrollment management staff.
2Current AI Applications
One university disclosed using AI to extract high school course data and recalculate applicant GPAs—a practice spreading faster than applicants realize. The lack of specific policies for AI in admissions poses risks to applicant rights. Universities often cited campus-wide AI policies, but these fail to address admissions-specific risks, leaving accountability gaps in critical decision-making processes.
3Risks and Impacts
The report highlights how AI use could affect 'high-stakes, individualized, and legally sensitive' admissions decisions. Policy gaps may increase biases, create errors, and distort admitted student profiles. Americans' confidence in higher education has plummeted to 38%, with growing AI skepticism contributing to this decline. This erosion of trust undermines institutional accountability at a crucial time.
4Parallel Issues in Financial Aid
A July 2026 NASFAA task force report revealed similar policy gaps in financial aid offices, where AI-driven fraud has cost the system over $1 billion. These findings demonstrate systemic regulatory failures in higher education AI use. Both admissions and financial aid processes now show vulnerabilities that compromise student rights and institutional integrity.
5Proposed Solutions
Student Defense recommends all institutions adopt formal AI policies and training programs for admissions staff. Key suggestions include conducting written use case analyses before deploying tools, maintaining human accountability for decisions, and ensuring transparency with applicants about AI use. The group also emphasizes protecting student data and monitoring outcomes for unintended biases.
6Double Standards Exposed
The College Investor's direct inquiries to 24 colleges about AI application policies yielded matching results: only one Ivy League school reported having a formal policy, while 16 never responded. This hypocrisy is stark—institutions warn applicants against AI use in essays while lacking governance for their own AI applications, exacerbating fairness and transparency issues.
7Next Steps
Student Defense plans to release more SHAPE AI papers in coming months. Families should monitor whether major public universities implement AI admissions policies before the 2026-27 application cycle opens this fall. The report urges immediate action, warning that continued inaction could deepen inequities and accountability crises in admissions processes.
8Student Rights and AI
Dan Zibel, Student Defense's chief counsel, discussed AI and student data rights earlier this year with The College Investor. The organization's Student AI Bill of Rights and 'Dos and Don'ts' reports on application evaluation form the basis for these recommendations. These initiatives aim to strengthen ethical and legal frameworks for AI in higher education.
Original article: The College Investor — 24 Üniversitede Yapay Zeka Kabul Politikası Bulunmuyor