Post-2023 Updates

Current-Cycle Guidance on Legal, Policy, Platform, and AI Changes Affecting College Essays

---

8.1 The SFFA Ruling and the Essay Carveout#

topic_category: legal_landscape
audience: student, parent
stage: topic selection, drafting essays that touch on identity or race
applies_to: all essays, especially identity and diversity essays
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: SFFA ruling, Students for Fair Admissions, affirmative action ruling 2023, race in college essays, essay carveout, Harvard UNC ruling, can I write about my race, is it okay to write about being Black Latino Asian in my essay, Supreme Court affirmative action admissions

What the SFFA ruling changed#

On June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and the companion case involving the University of North Carolina. The decision ended four-plus decades of precedent (originating with Bakke in 1978 and reaffirmed through Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003) that had permitted colleges to consider race as one factor in admissions. Going forward, race may not be used as a direct factor in admissions decisions at institutions receiving federal funding.

This is the legal baseline that all 2024-25, 2025-26, and subsequent admissions cycles operate under. Students applying today are applying under the post-SFFA regime.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "Can I still write about my race?" / "Is it okay to mention being Black/Latino/Asian in my essay?" / "Will writing about my culture hurt my application?" / "Am I supposed to avoid mentioning my background?" / "Do colleges even consider what I write about my identity anymore?"

Parent phrasings: "Can my daughter still write about her heritage?" / "Should my son avoid mentioning his immigration story?" / "Is writing about identity going to work against us now?" / "What does this ruling actually mean for the essay?"

The essay carveout, what it actually says#

The SFFA majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, included a specific passage directly addressing essays. The passage (often called "the essay carveout") states:

Nothing in the opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

That is the actual language, and it matters. The Court simultaneously warned that universities may not use essays to "establish the regime we hold unlawful today", that is, schools cannot use essays as a proxy to reinstate affirmative action through the back door.

The effect for applicants: students retain the right to discuss how race has affected their lives, including through discrimination, inspiration, identity formation, or any other way it has genuinely shaped their experience. What the school cannot do is use racial category, decoded from the essay, as a direct factor in the admissions decision. What the school can do is consider the specific life experience the student describes (and the qualities the student demonstrates through how they engage with that experience) in the holistic evaluation.

For practical purposes: writing about race-related life experience in a college essay remains legal, protected by the ruling itself, and in many cases encouraged by the prompts schools have added post-SFFA.

What students should actually do#

Three practical implications for students writing essays post-SFFA:

1. Write about race and identity if it is genuinely central to your experience. The ruling did not eliminate identity as essay material. If the student has a story where race or ethnicity meaningfully shaped their experience (immigration, language, cultural practice, discrimination, identity formation, family history), that material remains usable and, when well-executed, valuable.

2. Ground identity in specific experience, not abstract claims. The carveout is specifically for "discussion of how race affected the applicant's life." Essays that simply assert racial identity without specific experiential content (e.g., a student writing "As a Latina, I have faced challenges" without describing specific challenges) are weaker, both because the carveout protects lived experience rather than category claims, and because specific experience is what makes any essay strong.

3. Do not avoid the topic out of fear. Some students in 2024 and 2025 have reportedly been counseled to avoid writing about race entirely, fearing the ruling somehow makes it risky. The data shows the opposite: Sonja Starr's 2024 research (analyzing 881 students across the 2022-23 and 2023-24 cycles) found that students writing about race post-SFFA did so at roughly the same rates as pre-SFFA, and there is no indication in emerging outcome data that these essays are penalized.

What schools are actually doing#

After the ruling, many selective colleges added or revised essay prompts to address identity and background more directly. Examples (subject to annual revision):

• Brown University added an essay asking applicants to reflect on "where they came from" and how "an aspect of your growing up has inspired or challenged you."
• Harvard replaced its optional long-form essay with five required short-answer questions, including one explicitly about how an applicant would contribute to a diverse student body.
• Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Dartmouth, Yale, Rice, MIT, and many others have added or retained prompts that invite discussion of identity, community, background, or perspective.

These prompts are permissible under the carveout and are being used to allow applicants to discuss identity-related experience. Students should treat these prompts as genuine invitations, not traps. An applicant writing thoughtfully about their identity-connected experience on one of these prompts is doing exactly what the prompt is asking for.

What schools cannot do#

Schools cannot use essays to reinstate race-based admissions by:

• Explicitly categorizing applicants by race based on essay content
• Using essay evaluation as a proxy for racial preference
• Favoring applicants of certain racial categories decoded through essays

Whether any specific school's current practices cross this line is an ongoing legal question. SFFA (the organization) and other litigation groups have indicated they will monitor admissions outcomes and file suit if they believe schools are circumventing the ruling. In 2024-25, several lawsuits have been filed against schools alleging such circumvention. These cases are ongoing.

For applicants, the legal uncertainty about how schools internally evaluate essays is not directly relevant. The applicant's job is to write essays that genuinely represent them. The legal question of how the evaluating school uses the material is the school's problem, not the student's.

The special case of Asian American applicants#

SFFA's lawsuits were filed by and on behalf of Asian American applicants who alleged that affirmative action policies at Harvard and UNC discriminated against them. Under the SFFA regime, Asian American applicants should, in principle, benefit from the end of admissions practices that SFFA argued disadvantaged them. Whether this benefit is measurable in practice remains an empirical question; post-ruling admit rates for Asian American applicants at affected schools have been mixed.

For Asian American applicants writing essays, the practical guidance is the same as for any applicant: write about identity if it is genuinely central to your experience, ground claims in specific experience, and do not avoid the topic out of strategic fear. Prior concerns that Asian American applicants needed to "downplay" their ethnicity in essays have less purchase under the current regime; thoughtful essays about Asian American identity and experience are, by the same logic as any identity essay, permitted and often valued.

The bottom line for applicants#

The SFFA ruling did not eliminate identity from college essays. It prohibited the direct use of race as an admissions factor while explicitly preserving the student's right to discuss race-related life experience. The practical effect for most students: write the essay you would have written in 2022, with confidence that race-related material is legitimate material.

Quick-reference checklist for SFFA-era identity essays#

• Student understands the carveout: race-related life experience is protected essay material
• If writing about race or identity, student is grounding claims in specific experience, not abstract category
• Student has not avoided the topic purely out of strategic fear of the ruling
• Student has not attempted to exploit the topic by forcing an identity angle not genuine to their experience
• If the target school added a post-SFFA identity-related prompt, student is treating it as a legitimate invitation, not a trap

---

8.2 The Post-2023 Prompt Landscape and Identity-Linked Prompts#

topic_category: current_prompt_landscape
audience: student, parent
stage: topic selection, drafting
applies_to: supplementals at SFFA-responsive schools
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: new prompts post SFFA, identity prompts 2024 2025, where are you from prompt, community you belong to prompt, diversity essay prompts after affirmative action, Brown diversity essay new prompt

What the post-2023 prompt landscape looks like#

Starting with the 2023-24 application cycle and continuing through 2024-25 and 2025-26, many selective colleges added or revised supplemental prompts to give applicants a more direct invitation to discuss identity, background, and community. This reshaped the supplemental landscape in predictable ways: students applying to 10-15 selective schools now typically encounter 3-7 prompts that explicitly invite discussion of identity, compared to 1-3 in pre-2023 cycles.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "What are these new identity prompts asking for?" / "Why do so many schools have a 'tell us about your background' prompt now?" / "Am I supposed to write about race specifically?" / "What counts as an answer to this 'community you belong to' prompt?"

Parent phrasings: "These prompts all sound similar, how do we handle this?" / "Is the student supposed to write the same essay for each?" / "What are these schools actually looking for?"

The five patterns of post-SFFA prompts#

Post-2023 prompts vary in exact phrasing, but they fall into five rough patterns.

Pattern 1, the "where you come from" prompt#

Example wording: "Reflect on where you come from and how an aspect of your background has shaped your perspective."

Schools using variants: Brown, Rice, Boston College, Duke, Columbia (partial).

What it invites: identity material grounded in family, community, place, or origin. Race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background, immigration history, geographic origin all qualify. Students should write specifically about something real in their background rather than trying to identify the "right" identity to claim.

Pattern 2, the "community you belong to" prompt#

Example wording: "Describe a community you belong to and your place within it."

Schools using variants: Stanford (partial), USC, Williams, Tufts.

What it invites: membership in a community, which can be cultural, religious, geographic, activity-based, or chosen. The word "community" is deliberately capacious; the student can interpret it widely. Strong answers name a specific community, show what membership has involved in practice, and reveal something about the student's values or role within that community.

Pattern 3, the "diverse perspective you'll contribute" prompt#

Example wording: "How will your background, perspective, or experience contribute to the intellectual community at our school?"

Schools using variants: Harvard (implicit), Yale (implicit), Northwestern, WashU.

What it invites: a forward-looking statement about what the student will bring to campus. Strong answers ground the contribution in specific prior experience rather than generic claims of diversity. The student who says "I will contribute my experience as a first-generation immigrant who has translated for my parents at every medical appointment since age 8" offers concrete material; the student who says "I will contribute diversity" offers none.

Pattern 4, the "challenge or identity-based obstacle" prompt#

Example wording: "Describe a challenge, obstacle, or difficulty you have faced and how you approached it."

Schools using variants: Columbia (one version), UVA, Michigan.

What it invites: adversity that can include but is not limited to identity-based challenges. The prompt is broad enough that students without identity-specific challenges can write about other kinds of difficulty, but it also licenses students to write about identity-related difficulty (discrimination, cultural navigation, language barriers) if those have been central.

Pattern 5, the identity-explicit prompt#

Example wording: "Share an element of your identity, experience, or perspective that has shaped who you are."

Schools using variants: Princeton, Georgetown, certain UC-adjacent prompts.

What it invites: the most direct version of the carveout. Students can write about any aspect of identity (race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender, class, regional origin, family role) and connect it to specific experience.

The strategic question: which prompt, and what to write about#

For students applying to 8-15 schools, these prompts overlap enough that strategic planning matters. Key considerations:

1. The personal statement constrains supplementals. If the Common App personal statement is about the student's immigrant family background, a Pattern 1 or Pattern 5 prompt at a specific school should not simply restate the same material. The student needs to either find a different angle on the same material or choose different material that reveals a different side of themselves.

2. The super-essay strategy applies here. Many Pattern 1 and Pattern 2 prompts are close enough that a single strong essay can be adapted across multiple schools. A well-written "community I belong to" essay can often be adapted to a "where you come from" prompt with 30-50% rewriting. See → 2.5 Super-Essay Strategy.

3. The student does not have to write about race. Every post-SFFA prompt is written to accommodate a range of identity and background responses. A student whose most meaningful identity element is their religious community, their geographic identity, their role in a family, or their relationship to a specific practice can write about that. The prompt does not require a race-focused answer.

4. Specificity trumps category-claiming. An essay that names identity category without specific experience ("As a Muslim woman, I bring diversity") is weaker than an essay that describes specific experience without explicit category-claiming ("Every Friday afternoon I leave school early to pray at the mosque with my grandmother, who has taught me the first surah across five years in four languages"). The specific experience usually signals the identity more effectively than the category label does.

What these prompts are not asking for#

Not a manifesto. The prompts invite the student's personal experience, not a political statement about identity. An essay that is mostly advocacy (positions taken on broader social issues) tends to work against the student.

Not a trauma dump. The prompts do not require the student to have suffered discrimination or hardship. A student with a positive, rooted identity experience can write a strong essay on these prompts without invoking suffering.

Not a claim about what the student will do for the school's diversity statistics. Students do not write diversity essays to help the school check boxes; they write them to reveal themselves. The shift in framing matters.

Common pitfalls in post-SFFA prompt responses#

• Writing what you think the school wants, not what is true. Students who force an identity angle that is not genuine to their experience produce forced essays that admissions readers correctly identify as performed.
• Generic category claims. "As a person of color" or "As a first-generation American" are labels that do not, on their own, reveal anything. The essay must land in specific experience.
• Treating all the Pattern 1-5 prompts as the same prompt. While they overlap, each has a slightly different frame (origin vs. community vs. contribution vs. challenge vs. identity). The student should pay attention to the specific framing.
• Using race essays to avoid writing the personal statement well. A weak personal statement is not saved by a strong post-SFFA supplement. The Common App personal statement remains the heaviest-weighted essay in most applications.
• Over-attributing significance to the SFFA ruling in the essay itself. Students do not need to address the ruling directly. Writing "In a post-affirmative action world, I believe..." is not what the prompt is asking for.

Parent guidance for post-SFFA prompts#

Parents should avoid pushing students toward specific identity angles they do not feel ("write about being Korean," "emphasize the immigrant angle") and should avoid pushing students away from identity material they do feel ("don't write about race, it's risky"). The student is the best judge of which aspects of their identity are genuinely central to their experience. See → 6.1 for the broader parental don'ts.

Quick-reference checklist for post-SFFA prompt work#

• Student has read the specific prompt wording for each school (patterns differ)
• Student has mapped the post-SFFA prompts against the personal statement to avoid redundancy
• Student is writing about experience that is genuinely central to their identity, not performed
• Specificity present: the essay has concrete experience, not just identity category claims
• Parent has not pushed or pulled the student toward/away from specific identity angles

---

8.3 DOJ and Federal Guidance on Post-SFFA Admissions#

topic_category: federal_guidance_post_sffa
audience: student, parent (secondary: institutional context)
stage: topic selection, drafting
applies_to: identity-related essays, diversity essays
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: DOJ guidance college admissions, federal guidance SFFA, Department of Education SFFA, Dear Colleague letter admissions, post affirmative action federal guidance, Biden administration SFFA guidance, Trump administration SFFA guidance

What federal guidance has said post-SFFA#

After the SFFA ruling in June 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (ED, specifically the Office for Civil Rights) issued guidance to help institutions understand what admissions practices remained permissible. This guidance has evolved across administrations and continues to evolve. For applicants, the key point: federal guidance affects schools more than it affects students, but understanding the landscape is useful context.

How this question surfaces#

Student phrasings: "I've heard the federal government is cracking down on colleges that consider race, is that true?" / "Do I need to worry about whether my essay will get my target school in trouble?"

Parent phrasings: "What is the federal government saying about these new essay prompts?" / "Will schools be scared to consider identity-based essays?"

The 2023 Biden-administration DOJ and ED guidance#

The initial DOJ-ED guidance (issued August 2023, shortly after the ruling) took a relatively expansive view of what remained permissible post-SFFA. Key points from that guidance:

• Schools may continue to consider "experiences" that applicants describe in essays, which may include experiences related to race, but the consideration must focus on the experiences themselves and qualities demonstrated through them, not on the racial category that can be inferred.
• Schools may pursue diversity through race-neutral means: recruitment from diverse geographic areas, outreach to specific high schools, socioeconomic considerations, first-generation status considerations.
• The guidance encouraged schools to use essay responses to understand "what each applicant will bring to campus" through individual experience.

For applicants, this guidance meant writing about identity-related experience was both legal (the carveout) and, per federal encouragement, welcomed by the admissions system.

The 2025 Trump-administration DOE/OCR guidance#

In early 2025, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issued new guidance that took a substantially narrower view of what remained permissible. Key elements:

• A "Dear Colleague" letter issued February 14, 2025, directed educational institutions that "DEI programs" could, in certain configurations, constitute racial discrimination under the SFFA precedent as applied to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
• A March 1, 2025, follow-up with a "Frequently Asked Questions" document on Racial Preferences and Stereotypes under Title VI.
• The guidance increased the risk, from the institutional perspective, of practices that could be construed as race-conscious.

Legal commentators have disputed whether this guidance accurately reflects SFFA or extends beyond it. Litigation continues; guidance may evolve further.

What this means for applicants#

For students writing essays in 2025-26 and beyond, the federal guidance landscape is relevant primarily in the following ways:

1. Identity-related essays remain legal. Nothing in either administration's guidance changes the SFFA essay carveout. Writing about race-related life experience in your essay is protected by the Supreme Court's own language.

2. Schools may evaluate identity essays slightly differently. Some schools, in response to the 2025 guidance, may be more cautious about how their admissions readers note identity-related content from essays. This is the school's internal practice, not the student's concern.

3. The guidance has not changed the essay prompts. Schools that added post-SFFA identity prompts have largely maintained them through the 2025-26 cycle. Students should treat the prompts as genuine invitations regardless of broader federal guidance shifts.

4. The student's job remains the same. Write honest essays about genuine experience. Federal guidance does not shift what an effective college essay looks like.

The litigation landscape#

As of April 2026, multiple ongoing lawsuits challenge post-SFFA admissions practices at various schools. Cases include:

• Students Against Racial Discrimination v. University of California (filed February 2025)
• Cornell University challenges (filed March 2025)
• Harvard-related follow-on cases
• Various state-level challenges in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and elsewhere

These cases focus on whether specific schools have complied with SFFA in practice. None of them directly restricts what applicants may write about in their essays. Students should not factor ongoing litigation into their essay decisions.

What schools and counselors are telling students in 2025-26#

Most high school counselors, independent educational consultants, and admissions professionals are advising students to:

• Continue writing honestly about identity and background when it is genuinely central to their experience
• Ground identity material in specific experience rather than category claims
• Not treat the post-SFFA environment as a reason to avoid identity topics
• Be aware that the legal and policy landscape is evolving but treat this as institutional-level concern, not applicant-level concern

Solyo's guidance aligns with this consensus.

Quick-reference checklist for federal-guidance awareness#

• Student understands that federal guidance affects schools, not directly the student's essay choices
• Student is aware that the SFFA essay carveout has not been narrowed by subsequent guidance
• Student is writing about identity material when genuinely central, not performing or avoiding
• Student has not attempted to address the federal guidance or ongoing litigation in the essay itself
• Parent is not amplifying federal-guidance anxiety in ways that distort essay decisions

---

8.4 AI Tools and the Common App Fraud Policy#

topic_category: ai_and_fraud_policy
audience: student, parent
stage: drafting, revision, submission
applies_to: all essays, the overall Common App submission
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: Common App AI policy, ChatGPT college essay, is it cheating to use AI, Common App fraud AI, AI-generated essay policy, AI detection college essay, Common App 2025-26 AI attestation, AI essay fraud

What the Common App says about AI#

The Common Application's 2025-26 submission requires students to attest that the application content, including all essays, is their own original work. The Common App has publicly stated that submitting AI-generated content as the student's own work constitutes application fraud. This is not a recommendation; it is a violation of the submission agreement that binds students to every school on the Common App.

Consequences of detected AI-generated content can include: application rejection, admissions revocation (for students already admitted), and flagging to other schools on the student's application.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "Can I use ChatGPT for my college essay?" / "Is AI detection actually used?" / "What if I just use it for grammar?" / "Can I use AI to brainstorm?" / "What about Grammarly?"

Parent phrasings: "My kid keeps opening ChatGPT, is that allowed?" / "Where is the line with AI help?" / "Will the school find out?"

The Common App's actual position#

The Common App 2025-26 submission includes an e-signed attestation that all submitted content is the student's own original work. The Common App has published guidance that:

• AI-generated essay content violates the attestation
• Use of AI to draft, generate, or substantially rewrite essays is impermissible
• Basic proofreading and grammar tools are generally permitted (with school-specific variations)
• If a student is found to have submitted AI-generated content, the Common App reserves the right to flag the application to affected institutions

For 2025-26, the Common App continues to add tools internally to support its fraud-detection posture, though it has not publicly disclosed specific detection mechanisms.

How individual schools have responded#

Schools have taken a range of public positions on AI in applications. A summary of positions as of April 2026:

Restrictive positions (AI use is not permitted for essay content):

• Brown: "The use of artificial intelligence by an applicant is not permitted under any circumstances in conjunction with application content. While an applicant may use artificial intelligence to assist with spelling and grammar review... the content of all essays, short-answer questions, and any other material submitted by an applicant must be the work of that individual."
• Caltech: "Relying on AI, specifically large language models such as ChatGPT or Bard, to craft your essay will dilute your unique expression and perspective... Using AI tools to review grammar and spelling of your completed essays... is acceptable."
• Georgia Tech, Princeton, MIT, Northwestern: similar restrictive language.

Permissive-with-limits positions (brainstorming and proofreading yes; content generation no):

• Johns Hopkins: "AI-based writing assistance programs should be treated like any other form of assistance... The writing you submit... should be original and your own."
• Yale: permits grammar and spelling tools; prohibits content generation.

Silent positions (no public AI-specific policy; relies on Common App fraud policy):

• Roughly 67-68% of schools surveyed in 2024-25 did not have a specific public AI policy. These schools rely on the broader Common App fraud attestation.

For applicants, the practical implication: even schools without an explicit AI policy are bound by the Common App attestation, which prohibits AI-generated content. A school without a public AI policy is not a school that permits AI-generated essays; it is a school whose public policy is the Common App's default policy.

What counts as AI-generated content#

The line between acceptable and unacceptable AI use is not sharp, but a rough taxonomy:

Clearly impermissible:

• Asking an AI to write a draft of the essay and submitting substantially that draft
• Asking an AI to revise the student's draft in ways that produce substantially AI-written prose
• Using "humanizer" tools that disguise AI-generated content to appear more human
• Using AI to generate specific sentences, paragraphs, or openings that go into the essay

Gray area:

• Using AI to get feedback on the student's draft (some schools permit, others do not)
• Using AI to suggest word alternatives for specific sentences (likely not permitted at most schools)
• Using AI to check structure and flow (permitted as an analytical tool if the revisions remain the student's)

Generally permissible:

• Using AI as a research tool to learn about a topic
• Using AI to explain a concept or term
• Using AI for spell-check and grammar (Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, etc.)
• Using AI to brainstorm topics (asking "what topics might a student write about") without using any AI-generated content in the final essay
• Using AI to help organize notes into an outline the student then writes

Detection: what schools actually do#

Detection methods vary by school and have evolved rapidly. As of April 2026:

• Some schools use commercial AI-detection tools (Turnitin, GPTZero, others). These tools have known false-positive rates, and some schools have disabled them due to concerns about wrongful flagging.
• Admissions readers at experienced offices have developed intuition for recognizing AI-generated prose: it tends to be grammatically clean, use predictable structures, favor certain stock phrasings, and lack the voice inconsistencies that real teenagers produce.
• The student's essay is read against other application components (the writing supplement if required, graded papers, teacher letters, application short-answer responses). Inconsistency across the student's various writing samples is a red flag.
• Dartmouth, Duke, and other schools have reported adjustments to how they evaluate essays partly in response to ghostwriting and AI concerns (e.g., Duke stopped assigning numerical ratings to essays).

Student takeaway: detection is real, not always reliable, but a genuine and increasing concern. A student relying on AI to write their essay is taking a meaningful risk.

Why AI-generated essays tend to fail anyway#

Beyond the fraud-policy issue, AI-generated essays are often bad essays. LLM output, particularly from default prompts, tends to:

• Default to generic structures (Grand Ambiguous Statement openings, five-paragraph skeleton, summary-heavy paragraphs)
• Favor stock phrasings and clichés the Cliché Tax score (→ F.2) would flag
• Produce voiceless prose that fails the Does This Sound Like You test (→ C.5)
• Lack the sensory specificity that makes essays distinctive
• Reflect the LLM's training on web-scraped content, which is itself disproportionately generic admissions advice

A student relying on AI to produce an essay is likely to produce a weaker essay than the same student writing honestly from their own material. This is an additional reason beyond the ethics violation, the essays are not good.

What Solyo recommends#

Solyo's position aligns with the dominant counseling consensus:

1. Do not use AI to write or substantially revise the essay. This includes using AI to generate openings, closings, specific paragraphs, or sentence-level revisions that produce prose not written by the student.

2. AI can be used as a brainstorming tool if no generated content enters the essay. A student can ask an AI "what topics might fit this prompt" and then use only the thinking, not any AI-generated text, in their own writing.

3. Grammar and spell-check tools are permissible. Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, and similar tools that flag errors the student then corrects themselves remain acceptable under most school policies (see → 8.6).

4. Do not use AI humanizer tools. Tools specifically designed to disguise AI output are, by construction, evidence of fraud intent.

5. If in doubt, err toward less AI use, not more. The marginal benefit of AI assistance is small; the downside if flagged is substantial.

Parent guidance on AI#

Parents should:

• Understand that "I just asked ChatGPT to help" is not a safe approach
• Not themselves use AI to generate content they then share with the student as their own suggestion
• Not treat AI as a replacement for the process work the student needs to do
• If concerned the student is using AI, have a direct conversation rather than surveilling their browser history

Quick-reference checklist for AI use#

• Student has not used AI to generate essay content (openings, paragraphs, sentences)
• Student has not used AI "humanizer" tools to disguise generated content
• Any AI use has been limited to brainstorming, research, and basic grammar/spell-check
• Student understands that Common App submission includes attestation of original authorship
• Student is aware that their target schools may have specific AI policies (check each)
• Parent is not pushing student toward AI use as time-saver

---

8.5 Ethical Use of AI, Brainstorming Yes, Writing No#

topic_category: ai_ethics_student_practice
audience: student, parent
stage: brainstorming, drafting, revision
applies_to: all essay types
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: ethical AI use, can I use ChatGPT to brainstorm, AI for idea generation, is it cheating to use AI for ideas, ethical line AI college essay, how much AI is too much

Where the ethical line actually sits#

There is a workable distinction between using AI to help the student think and using AI to produce content the student submits as their own writing. The first is broadly accepted. The second is prohibited. The practical test: at the end of an AI interaction, does the student have (a) their own content, produced through their own thinking, or (b) AI-generated text they will incorporate into the essay? If (a), the student is on safe ground. If (b), they are not.

This framing is consistent with the Common App's fraud policy, with most individual school policies, and with the consensus of college counselors across the industry. It is also the framing that most closely tracks why admissions offices care: the essay is evidence about the student's voice, thinking, and lived experience. AI output is not evidence about the student.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "Can I use ChatGPT to brainstorm?" / "Is it okay if AI helps me come up with ideas but I write it all?" / "How much AI is too much?" / "Can I ask AI to ask me questions about my topic?" / "Is brainstorming different from writing?"

Parent phrasings: "Where's the line between using AI and cheating?" / "My kid uses ChatGPT for everything, what's the ethical use for college essays?" / "Can AI help with brainstorming without getting my kid in trouble?"

Acceptable AI use: the full list#

Asking AI to ask you questions. "Here's my topic: I worked at my family's restaurant. What would you want to know more about?" AI functions as a question-generator; the student answers from memory. The student's answers become their raw material. AI wrote no content for the essay.

Asking AI to explain a technique in general terms. "What is a loop ending and what are three published examples?" Research use. No content from the AI ends up in the essay.

Asking AI to summarize common pitfalls. "What clichés are common in sports injury essays?" Equivalent to reading a how-to article. The student uses this to avoid clichés in their own writing.

Walking through a brainstorming framework with AI. "Walk me through the Values Exercise for a college essay." AI explains the steps; the student does the exercise themselves, writing their own values list.

Using AI for dictionary/thesaurus lookup. Looking up synonyms or definitions is not AI content generation, it is reference lookup.

Basic grammar and spell-check. Flagging errors the student then corrects. (See → 8.6 for the Grammarly distinction.)

Unacceptable AI use: the full list#

Asking AI to draft the essay. "Write me a 650-word personal essay about teaching myself to bake bread." Obvious violation.

Asking AI to draft a paragraph. "Write an opening paragraph for this essay" produces AI content. Even if the student then edits it, the content originated with the AI. Violation.

Asking AI to rewrite a passage the student wrote. "Make this paragraph more vivid" produces new AI language to replace the student's language. Violation.

Asking AI to suggest reflection content. "What does this experience teach me about perseverance?" The insight is the AI's, not the student's. The student paraphrasing the AI's answer does not change the fact that the thinking is outsourced.

Asking AI to suggest the topic. "What are good topics for me?" when followed by the student using one of those topics means the topic selection was AI-driven. This is less clearly a fraud-policy violation, but it undermines the authenticity the essay is meant to provide. Solyo's position: do the topic work yourself.

Asking AI to "improve" the draft in any content-generating way. If the tool produces new text that ends up in the essay, it is content generation.

The drift problem#

The most common failure mode is drift within a single session. A student starts with acceptable use ("ask me questions about my topic"), gets useful brainstorming, and then as they start writing asks "can you show me what an opening paragraph might look like?" The second question crosses the line. The student is no longer using AI to think; they are asking AI to produce content.

The heuristic: if the next AI response would be text the student could paste or paraphrase into their essay, do not ask for it. Stop the AI interaction there.

What "thinking partner" looks like in practice#

A student is stuck on their personal statement. They have a topic (learning to fix bikes at a community co-op) but do not know how to give it shape. They open ChatGPT and type:

I want to write a 650-word personal essay about learning to fix bikes at a community bike co-op I volunteer at. I'm stuck on how to make it feel like more than just "I volunteered and learned things." What questions would you want to ask me to help me find what's actually interesting about this experience?

The AI responds with questions: What drew you to bikes specifically? Is there a particular bike or person you remember? What was the first thing you tried to fix and failed at? Has the skill transferred to anything outside the co-op? What do you know now that you didn't know a year ago?

The student answers the questions in their own notes, in their own words, pulling from memory. They then draft the essay using their answers as material. No AI-generated text enters the essay.

This is acceptable use. The AI helped the student see their own material more clearly. The thinking, the writing, the voice, and the reflection are all the student's.

Why human thinking partners are usually better#

The use cases where AI is most tempting (help me think through this topic, help me find what's missing, ask me questions) are use cases where a human is equally capable and raises no authorship question. A parent using the three-bullet feedback structure (→ 6.4) is doing exactly the work students are tempted to outsource to AI, and no fraud-policy concerns apply.

If a student has access to:

• An English teacher they trust
• A school counselor
• A parent (using the right role, see Section 6)
• A sibling or friend

any of these can function as a thinking partner more safely than AI. The AI approach is useful when human access is limited, but human access should be preferred where it exists.

Common pitfalls in the "ethical AI use" gray zone#

Starting acceptable, drifting unacceptable. The session starts with legitimate brainstorming, then progresses to "write me a draft." Once drafting starts, the essay is no longer the student's.

Treating AI-generated reflection as their own reflection. The student asks AI what the experience means, uses the answer (paraphrased) as the essay's reflection, and tells themselves "I would have gotten to the same answer anyway." The authenticity is compromised.

Using AI to work around the work. The entire point of the essay is for the student to do the reflection, find the specifics, make the structural choices. If AI does any of this, the essay fails its purpose even where it might pass detection.

Assuming "I just used it a little" is safe. The Common App's fraud policy does not recognize a threshold. Content generation is content generation.

Parent guidance on ethical AI use#

Parents are often more tempted than their student to use AI "to help" (run the draft through ChatGPT, ask it to suggest improvements, paste sections for review). This is often well-intentioned. It is also uniquely dangerous because parent-introduced AI content is content the student may absorb into the final version without realizing its origin.

Rule: the parent never runs the student's essay through AI. If the parent wants to help, they read it themselves and give three-bullet feedback (→ 6.4). If the essay needs more expert help than the parent can provide, find a human expert, an English teacher, a counselor, a trusted family friend.

If the student is using AI for brainstorming, the parent can ask what they are doing. "Are you asking it to generate text or to ask you questions?" is a reasonable parent question. "Let me see the AI chat" is reasonable if the parent is concerned.

Quick-reference checklist for ethical AI use#

• AI is being used to help the student think, not to produce content
• No AI-generated text is being incorporated into the essay, paraphrased or otherwise
• AI-generated reflection is not being used as the essay's reflection
• Student can clearly articulate what they did themselves vs what AI did
• Parent is not running the essay through AI "to help"
• When in doubt, the student chose not to ask AI for the thing in question

→ 8.4 Generative AI and the Common App Fraud Policy, → 8.6 Grammarly vs Generative AI, → 6.4 Three-Bullet Feedback Structure.

---

8.6 Grammarly Versus Generative AI, the Distinction That Matters#

topic_category: ai_tools_distinctions
audience: student, parent
stage: drafting, revision
applies_to: all essay types
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: is Grammarly cheating, Grammarly vs ChatGPT, spell check college essay, grammar tools for essays, is editing software AI, Word editor AI, autocorrect college essay

Why this is a separate chunk#

The question "is Grammarly okay but ChatGPT not okay?" comes up constantly from students and parents. The answer is nuanced, and it has gotten more complex as Grammarly and similar tools have added generative AI features on top of their original error-flagging functionality. A chunk-level answer helps Solyo's counselor give the accurate response.

The core distinction: flagging vs generating#

Flagging means the tool identifies a potential issue (spelling error, grammar error, punctuation issue, passive voice, unclear antecedent) and the student decides whether to fix it and how. The student writes the correction in their own words.

Generating means the tool produces new text, either a rewritten version of the student's sentence, a suggested alternative paragraph, or entirely new content. Even if the student accepts or adapts the suggestion, the language originated with the tool.

Flagging is broadly acceptable and has been part of writing workflows for decades. Generating falls under the same AI-policy concerns as ChatGPT.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "Is Grammarly cheating?" / "Can I use spell check on my essay?" / "Is it okay if Word auto-corrects my typos?" / "What about Grammarly Premium?" / "Can I use the grammar checker?"

Parent phrasings: "Is Grammarly the same as ChatGPT?" / "What editing tools are allowed?" / "Can I run my kid's essay through Grammarly before they submit?"

What counts as flagging (acceptable)#

Spell-check. The tool marks a misspelled word. The student types the correct spelling. Acceptable.

Basic grammar flagging. The tool highlights "their" where "there" belongs, or flags a sentence fragment. The student decides whether to fix it. Acceptable.

Punctuation suggestions. The tool suggests a comma after an introductory clause. The student decides to add it or not. Acceptable.

Passive voice flagging. The tool notes that a sentence is in the passive voice. The student decides to rewrite (in their own words) or keep it. Acceptable.

Wordiness flagging. The tool flags a long phrase as wordy. The student decides whether to tighten it (in their own words). Acceptable.

Readability scoring. The tool shows a reading-level score for the essay. The student uses this information in deciding what to revise. Acceptable.

Flagging repeated words. The tool notes that "really" appears seven times. The student decides which to keep. Acceptable.

What counts as generating (not acceptable)#

Rewriting a sentence or paragraph. The tool offers "here's a clearer version of this paragraph." That is AI-generated content. Not acceptable.

Suggesting a specific alternative phrasing. The tool says "try: As I walked into the classroom, I felt a surge of anticipation" in place of the student's sentence. That is AI-generated language. Not acceptable.

Tone-shift rewrites. Features that "make this more formal" or "make this more engaging" and produce new text. Not acceptable.

AI-assisted improvements or suggestions that produce new prose. Any feature where the output is text the student would paste or paraphrase into the essay. Not acceptable.

"Enhance" or "improve" buttons. Many tools now have buttons that, when clicked, generate a rewritten version of a selected passage. Not acceptable for college essays.

The Grammarly-specific issue#

Grammarly's original product was firmly in the flagging category. Its newer features (GrammarlyGO, generative rewrites, "improve it" suggestions, writing suggestions that produce new text) are in the generating category. Both live inside the same interface.

The practical implication for students: using Grammarly is fine if you only use the flagging features. If you accept generative suggestions that produce new prose, you are using generative AI, not spell-check.

To stay on the safe side:

• Use Grammarly in its original spell/grammar-check mode
• Do not accept suggestions that involve rewriting sentences
• Turn off generative AI features if possible
• Do not use "rewrite" or "enhance" buttons on essay content

Microsoft Word, Google Docs, Apple Writing Tools#

All three major writing platforms have added generative AI features in 2024-2026. Microsoft Word has Copilot integration, Google Docs has Gemini integration, Apple has Writing Tools. In each case, the original spell-check and grammar-check features remain, and new generative features have been layered on.

The same distinction applies. Spell-check and grammar-check: acceptable. Generative "rewrite" or "improve" features: not acceptable for college essays.

Students should know that these features are often enabled by default. A student working on their essay in a modern word processor may trigger generative features without meaning to. Being aware of which features are which, and disabling generative features when working on essays, is worth the time.

What about dictation and voice-to-text?#

Voice-to-text (Siri dictation, Google Voice Typing, Windows Speech Recognition) is transcription, not generation. The student speaks their own words, and the tool writes them down. This is acceptable. Students should proofread carefully for transcription errors, but the content is the student's.

Common pitfalls#

Accepting generative suggestions without realizing they're generative. A tool flags a sentence and offers a rewritten version as the suggested fix. The student clicks "accept" thinking they fixed a grammar issue, but they have accepted AI-rewritten language.

Using "accept all" buttons. Bulk-accept features may apply both simple corrections and generative rewrites. The result: AI language in the essay without the student having deliberately chosen to include it.

Running the essay through a tool "one more time" late in the process. Late-process tool runs increase the chance of accidentally accepting a generative suggestion that changes the essay's voice.

Assuming the tool's brand name defines its category. Grammarly is not categorically safe; ChatGPT is not categorically dangerous. The category depends on the specific feature used.

Parent guidance on editing tools#

Parents should not run the student's essay through any tool with generative features. Spell-check, yes. "Improve this essay" with an AI assistant, no.

If the parent wants to help with proofreading, they should do it themselves, reading line by line. That is a legitimate parent role (proper-noun checker, see → 6.2). Using AI as a proxy for proofreading is a different thing, and puts AI content into the student's work stream.

Quick-reference checklist for editing tools#

• Spell-check and grammar-check features: used and acceptable
• Generative features (rewrites, suggestions that produce new text): not used
• Generative AI features in Word, Docs, Apple Writing Tools: disabled or avoided when working on essays
• Voice-to-text transcription: acceptable, with proofreading for errors
• Parent has not run the essay through a tool with generative features
• Student knows which features they're using and can identify them by category

→ 8.4 Generative AI and the Common App Fraud Policy, → 8.5 Ethical Use of AI, → 6.2 Productive Parent Roles.

---

8.7 The Common App 2025-2026 Challenges and Circumstances Field#

topic_category: platform_policy_change
audience: student, parent
stage: application_planning, drafting
applies_to: additional_information, challenges_and_circumstances_supplement
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: Challenges and Circumstances prompt, Common App new prompt, what replaced COVID prompt, Community Disruption question, Additional Information 300 words, Common App changes 2025

What changed, specifically#

Effective August 1, 2025, the Common App made two changes to its optional "Additional Information" section.

Authoritative limits for first-year applicants (2025-26 and 2026-27)#

These are word counts, not character counts.

• Challenges and Circumstances section: 250 words. Unchanged from prior cycles. This is the prompt that replaced the old "Community Disruption" COVID-era question.
• Additional Information section: 300 words. Cut from the previous 650-word limit, effective August 1, 2025.
• Common App personal statement: 650 words. Unchanged. Seven core prompts unchanged for 2025-26 and 2026-27.

First change: "Community Disruption" renamed and broadened to "Challenges and Circumstances"#

The previous prompt, introduced in the 2020-21 cycle for COVID-related disruptions, was replaced with a broader prompt covering a wider range of life circumstances. Word limit is 250 words for first-year applicants (unchanged from prior cycles). The prompt remains optional.

Second change: the main "Additional Information" field's word limit was cut from 650 to 300 words#

This applies to first-year applicants. The main Additional Information section is separate from Challenges and Circumstances and is for context on transcript anomalies, significant awards that do not fit elsewhere, research abstracts, and similar application-context material.

Transfer applicants only — character-count limit (not applicable to first-year applicants)#

Note for transfer applicants specifically: the transfer Additional Information limit dropped from 3,500 to 1,500 characters in the same update. This character-based limit applies ONLY to the transfer application — first-year applicants use the 300-word limit described above, not a character count.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "What's the Challenges and Circumstances question?" / "Do I have to answer it?" / "Should I use the Challenges section?" / "What's the difference between that and the Additional Information section?" / "Can I skip it?"

Parent phrasings: "What should my kid put in the Challenges and Circumstances section?" / "Should we describe the divorce here?" / "How much detail do we put in the Additional Information?"

The Challenges and Circumstances prompt, verbatim#

As posted on the Common App starting August 1, 2025:

Sometimes a student's application and achievements may be impacted by challenges or other circumstances. This could involve:

• Access to and accessibility of resources
• Family disruptions (divorce, incarceration, job loss, health, loss of a family member, addiction, etc.)
• Family or other obligations (caretaking, financial support, etc.)
• Housing instability, displacement, or homelessness
• Personal disruption due to a safety concern or natural disaster
• Challenges related to identity (race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability, religion)

Colleges may use this information to provide you and your fellow students with support and resources.

Would you like to share any details about challenges or other circumstances you've experienced? Yes / No

[If yes] Please describe the challenges or circumstances and how they have impacted you. (250 words)

How to think about whether to use it#

The field is optional and many students skip it. Declining ("No") is normal and does not disadvantage the application. The question to ask is: does the student have a significant circumstance that admissions readers need to know about in order to read the application fairly, and is that circumstance not already covered elsewhere in the application?

Use the field when:

• A significant family, health, or life event affected the student's grades, course availability, extracurricular continuity, or test access in ways admissions would not otherwise understand
• There is meaningful context about opportunity access or resource limitations that shapes how the student's record should be read
• The student has carried significant responsibility (caregiving, household income, etc.) that explains a gap or limitation in the application
• A challenge to identity (as listed in the prompt) has materially shaped the student's experience in ways the other essays do not cover

Do not use the field when:

• The student has no significant circumstance and is writing just to fill the space
• The student wants a second personal statement
• The circumstance is already the subject of the main personal statement (do not repeat)
• The content would be a minor grievance (a single bad grade, a normal teenage setback) that does not rise to the level the prompt contemplates
• The student is trying to use the space for sympathy rather than context

What the tone should be#

This is a context field, not a narrative field. The main personal statement is where the student's voice, story, and reflection live. Challenges and Circumstances is where the student provides factual context that helps admissions read the rest of the application in the right frame.

The appropriate tone is concise and informational:

• What happened (briefly)
• When it happened and how long it lasted (if relevant)
• What impact it had on the student's academic record, activities, or opportunities
• What the student did in response, if relevant
• Where things stand now, if relevant

Not:

• A second attempt at literary voice
• Emotional intensity calibrated for effect
• An overlapping narrative with the main essay

A tight 150-word entry often works better than a stretched 250-word entry. The student is not expected to use all 250 words.

Sample structures that work#

Structure A: family event + academic impact

In November of junior year, my father was hospitalized with a serious illness and was out of work for four months. I took on significant responsibility at home, including care for my younger brother and part-time work to help with household expenses. My grades in the second half of that year dropped roughly one tier compared to my usual record, and I stepped back from my debate commitment that spring. By the fall of senior year, my father had recovered and returned to work, and I have resumed my previous course load and activity level.

This is 93 words. It gives context, not drama. The admissions office can now read the junior-year dip accurately.

Structure B: opportunity-access context

My high school offers 4 AP courses total, all science; no AP language or humanities options are available. I have completed all 4 APs offered and supplemented with dual-enrollment courses at [local community college] for humanities and language. The limited AP availability at my school may affect how my course rigor compares to students at better-resourced schools.

This is 60 words. It provides context for course-rigor evaluation without asking for special consideration.

Structure C: significant obligation

Since the end of sophomore year, I have worked 20 to 25 hours per week at my family's restaurant, with primary responsibility for weekend operations when my parents are off-site. This has shaped which extracurriculars I could commit to and limited my availability for evening activities. The work is reflected in my activities list, but its scope and effect on my schedule may be easier to understand with this context.

This is 72 words.

The main Additional Information section (300 words)#

Separate from Challenges and Circumstances, the main "Additional Information" field is for:

• Transcript anomalies (unusual grading systems, changed schools, withdrawals explained)
• Significant awards or honors that do not fit the 5-award limit in the activities list
• Research abstracts for students with published research
• Expanded explanation of an activity whose 150-character description is insufficient

Most students leave this blank. That is normal. At 300 words, the field is meant to be used only when necessary and to be used tightly.

Common pitfalls with Challenges and Circumstances#

Treating it as a second personal statement. The prompt is for context, not for a narrative. A student writing a literary 250-word second essay is misreading the prompt.

Repeating the main essay. If the personal statement is about the family challenge, Challenges and Circumstances should not also be about it. One space covers it.

Filling the space because it's available. If the student has no significant circumstance to share, the correct answer is "No." Filling the space with trivial material signals weak self-assessment.

Overdisclosure for sympathy. The prompt is about impact on the application. Going beyond impact into personal detail that does not serve that purpose can read as overreaching.

Using it for underperformance excuses. This is not a place to defend a grade. It is a place to explain genuinely significant circumstances that affected the overall record.

Parent guidance on Challenges and Circumstances#

Parents often know context the student does not think to mention. A grandparent's illness during sophomore year, a parent's job loss, a housing move, financial stress that meant the student worked more than showed up in the activities list. These are precisely what the prompt is for.

It is appropriate for a parent to raise these: "Is there anything about what happened at home during [time period] that you'd want admissions to know about?" The student decides what to include; the parent helps surface what could be relevant.

Parents should not write this section for the student. The writing and attestation are the student's. Parents can ask questions that help the student include relevant context; they should not compose the response.

Quick-reference checklist for Challenges and Circumstances#

• Student has considered whether a significant circumstance applies
• If using the field, the content is context-providing, not narrative
• Content does not duplicate the main personal statement
• Tone is concise and informational, not literary
• Word count is driven by content, not by filling the space
• If declining, student understands declining is normal
• Parent has raised relevant context questions but has not composed the response

→ 5.3 Family Hardship, → 5.4 COVID Essays, → 6.2 Productive Parent Roles.

---

8.8 Test-Optional Context and Elevated Essay Weight#

topic_category: admissions_landscape_change
audience: student, parent
stage: application_planning
applies_to: whole_application, essay_weighting
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: test optional 2026, does essay matter more without SAT, Yale test required, Harvard test required, Brown Dartmouth Cornell Penn testing, test-optional vs test-blind, essay weight test optional, should I submit my SAT, UC test blind

The current test-optional landscape, at a glance#

As of the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 application cycles, the landscape has mostly settled after several years of post-pandemic volatility:

Test-required at the most selective level. As of early 2026, Harvard, Yale (test-flexible, accepts SAT/ACT/AP/IB), Brown, Dartmouth, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Georgetown, Cornell, Penn, and Duke have all returned to requiring test scores for most undergraduate admissions. This list has grown each cycle since 2022. Students applying to these schools must submit scores.

Test-optional at most other selective schools. Columbia, Princeton (through Fall 2027), Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Washington University in St. Louis, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Rice, Johns Hopkins, and many more remain test-optional for 2025-26 and 2026-27. Students can choose whether to submit scores.

Test-blind. The University of California and California State University systems do not consider SAT or ACT scores at all, even if submitted. Hampshire College, Reed, and a few liberal arts colleges also fall in this category.

Test-optional elsewhere. Most U.S. four-year colleges (over 90% per Fair Test) remain test-optional for 2026.

The trend has been toward reinstatement at the most selective end and stability elsewhere. Students should verify each target school's current policy before finalizing their list.

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "Do essays matter more if I go test optional?" / "Should I submit my SAT?" / "Is Yale still test optional?" / "Does MIT require the SAT?" / "What's test-blind mean?" / "Should I take the SAT even if my schools don't require it?"

Parent phrasings: "How important are essays if my kid doesn't submit scores?" / "Which Ivies require SAT now?" / "Should we send scores to test-optional schools?" / "How do test-optional admissions actually work?"

What test-optional means for essay weight#

When a student applies to a test-optional school without submitting scores, admissions offices have explicitly said that the remaining parts of the application carry more weight. Specifically:

• GPA and course rigor
• Essays (personal statement and supplements)
• Recommendation letters
• Activities list and demonstrated impact

Essays have been the single part of the application most responsive to revision and preparation, which is why college counselors have emphasized essay investment more heavily since 2020. Grades, activities, and recommendations are largely set by the time application season arrives. Essays are not.

For a student applying test-optional to selective schools, the essays are often the highest-leverage area of preparation. An extra 20 hours on essays can move outcomes in a way that an extra 20 hours on almost anything else cannot.

Why essay weight is elevated even at test-required schools post-2023#

The SFFA decision (→ 8.1) removed race as a direct factor in admissions. Schools have consistently stated that the essay now carries more of the individual-story evaluative weight that was previously distributed across the application. This is true even at Harvard, Yale, MIT, and other schools that have reinstated testing. The essay has not become less important at these schools; if anything it has become more important, because it is now the primary vehicle through which the student's individual voice, background, and perspective reach the reader.

Combined with continued test-optional status at many schools, the consistent story since 2023 is: essays matter more now than in the pre-2020 era. The craft of the essay is the same. Its weight in the admissions decision is higher.

Whether to submit test scores, the working heuristic#

At test-optional schools, the working rule is: submit if the score is at or above the school's 25th percentile for admitted students. The 25th percentile is published in each school's Common Data Set (section C9) and also widely reported.

• Above 25th percentile: submitting generally helps
• At 25th percentile: roughly neutral; many counselors recommend submitting, on the theory that a present score is often better than a missing data point
• Below 25th percentile, above 10th: submitting may hurt at highly selective schools; may help at less selective schools where the score still signals academic readiness
• Well below 25th percentile: do not submit at selective schools

For the most selective schools (admit rates below 10%), the 25th percentile rule is effectively stricter. A score at the 25th percentile is below the school's median admit, and at a school with many above-median applicants, it does not differentiate. Many counselors recommend submitting to these schools only if the score is at or above the 50th percentile.

The decision is school by school. A single score profile may be strategic to submit to some schools on the list and strategic to withhold from others.

What the elevated essay weight means for time allocation#

If the student is allocating time during application season, and if grades/scores/activities are largely locked, a rough breakdown that reflects the current landscape:

• 30 to 40 percent on essays (personal statement plus supplements)
• 20 to 30 percent on supplement research (Research Grid, Why Us hooks, school-specific content)
• 10 to 15 percent on logistics (forms, transcripts, rec letter management, test score sending)
• 10 to 15 percent on application review, final checks, submission

These are approximate and the breakdown shifts based on the list size and selectivity. For a student applying to 12 selective schools with many supplements, the essay share is likely higher.

Common pitfalls in navigating test-optional#

Assuming test-optional means tests don't matter. They still matter for students who have strong scores. Test-optional shifts the choice to the student; it does not lower the value of a strong score.

Not verifying current policy for each school. The landscape has shifted every cycle since 2022. Students working from a 2023 list of test-optional schools may find that several of their targets now require scores. Verify current policy before finalizing the strategy.

Taking test-optional as a reason to deprioritize essays. The logic works the other way. Going test-optional means essays carry more weight, not less. Deprioritizing essays while applying test-optional is double weakness.

Over-investing in test prep while under-investing in essays. For students applying to a mix of test-required and test-optional schools, a realistic tradeoff: a 100-point SAT increase is valuable; 20 extra hours on essays is often more valuable still at the margin. Both matter, and students applying to test-required schools need competitive scores, but essays are the more flexible variable.

Assuming "going test-optional" is a neutral choice. At a test-optional school, submitting or not submitting is part of the admissions signal. A student with a strong score who applies test-optional at a school where most accepted students submit is making a choice, and the school's reader will read that choice.

Parent guidance on test-optional and essay weight#

Parents who went to college before 2020 often carry a mental model where test scores were the dominant factor in selective admissions. That mental model was always incomplete (essays, activities, and recommendations have mattered for decades) and it is now less accurate than ever. Since the SFFA decision and the test-optional expansion, essays are weighted more heavily than they were at any prior point in modern admissions.

Useful framing for parents:

• Essays matter more now than they did 20 years ago, not less
• A strong SAT score helps; it does not carry the application at selective schools
• Time spent on essays is high-leverage time; supporting that time is a legitimate parental contribution
• This does not mean "help with the essays more." The parent role is still support, logistics, and the Does This Sound Like You test (→ 6.2, 6.4)

Quick-reference checklist for test-optional and essay weight#

• Student has verified current testing policy at each target school
• For test-required schools, student is preparing and submitting scores
• For test-optional schools, decision to submit is based on the 25th percentile rule applied school-by-school
• Student is allocating time with awareness that essays carry elevated weight
• Parent understands that the current essay weight is higher than in their own era
• Parent is supporting essay time investment without crossing into content interference

→ 4.1 Master Timeline, → 6.5 Parental Anxieties, → 6.2 Productive Parent Roles.

---

8.9 How the Post-2023 Changes Combine: the 2026 Applicant Profile#

topic_category: landscape_synthesis
audience: student, parent
stage: application_planning
applies_to: whole_application
post_2023: true
last_verified: April 2026
aliases: what changed in admissions, new admissions landscape, post-2023 essays, 2026 applicant, admissions changes since pandemic, current essay environment

The combined picture#

A student applying in the 2025-2026 or 2026-2027 cycle is operating in an admissions environment materially different from the pre-2020 norm. The changes are interrelated, and their combined effect is coherent: the essay matters more than before, voice and specific lived experience matter more than before, and the student's individual story carries more of the weight of the decision.

The specific changes:

• Race-conscious admissions is gone (SFFA, June 2023), with an essay carveout preserving the student's ability to discuss how race shaped their life
• Selective schools have retooled supplemental prompts to invite identity, community, perspective, and adversity material
• Generative AI (ChatGPT and successor tools) is widely available but explicitly prohibited by the Common App Fraud Policy for content generation
• Most highly selective schools have reinstated testing requirements (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Penn, MIT, Stanford, Duke, Caltech, Georgetown); most other schools remain test-optional
• The Common App's "Additional Information" section has been restructured for 2025-26 (Challenges and Circumstances, 300-word limit on main Additional Information)
• Essay weight has risen at both test-required and test-optional schools

How students and parents phrase the question#

Student phrasings: "What's different about applying now?" / "What do I need to know about admissions that wasn't true five years ago?" / "Has the essay gotten harder?" / "Why does everyone keep talking about essays being more important now?"

Parent phrasings: "What's changed since I applied to college?" / "What do I need to understand about how admissions works now?" / "Is the process just fundamentally different?"

What has not changed#

The craft principles in Sections 1 through 7 are stable. Specificity beats abstraction. Voice beats polish. Clichés are still clichés. The reader tests still apply. Parents still help most by supporting process, not by rewriting content. The seven Common App essay prompts are the same as they were in 2022.

A student following the guidance in Sections 1 through 7 is doing the right things for the current environment. The underlying work has not shifted.

What has changed, and how to think about it#

The essay weight is higher. Consequence: time investment in essays is more valuable than ever. A student with 30 hours to put into essays will likely produce better outcomes than a student who puts in 10, holding everything else constant. Parents should support the time investment.

Category-based signals are diminished. Consequence: individual-story signals are elevated. The student's specific lived experience, the scene-level specificity of their essays, the voice they bring, and the reflective depth of their writing are more differentiating than demographic identifiers ever were. This is good news for students who have done the work; it is harder for students who expected to rely on category.

AI has made generic essays cheaper and individual essays more valuable. Consequence: AI-generated essays are recognizable and, where detected, fraudulent; they are also generally weaker than the student's own writing. The move to write in the student's own voice is not just an ethical position, it is a strategic one. Readers are actively tired of AI-pattern prose.

Testing has partially reverted. Consequence: students applying to the most selective schools generally need competitive scores. Students applying to the broader field of test-optional schools make a submission decision school by school. Essay investment is high-leverage in both cases, especially for the test-optional path.

Platform prompts have shifted. Consequence: students should read current prompts carefully and not rely on 2020-era guidance about what prompts say. The Common App essay prompts themselves are stable; the supplements at individual schools, and the Common App's Additional Information and Challenges and Circumstances sections, have moved.

Common misconceptions in the current environment#

"Because of SFFA, my kid shouldn't write about race anymore." Wrong. The essay carveout preserves exactly this kind of essay, when it is grounded in the student's individual lived experience.

"Because everyone is using AI, I have to use AI to keep up." Wrong. Many students are still writing their own essays. AI-generated essays are typically weaker and increasingly recognized as such. Using AI as the student's competitive edge is the wrong bet.

"Because test-optional exists, my kid can just not worry about testing." Depends on the schools. For selective schools that now require testing, the student still needs scores. For test-optional schools, the choice is strategic, not automatic.

"Because the essay matters more, I should help my kid more." Usually wrong. More parental content involvement typically makes essays worse, not better. The parent role is support, logistics, and the right kinds of feedback (Section 6), not ghostwriting.

"Because the Common App changed its prompts, my kid has to start over." No. The seven core prompts are unchanged, and confirmed unchanged for the next cycle. What changed is the Additional Information architecture, which is separate.

"Because admissions is harder and more uncertain, strategy matters more than authenticity." Wrong and dangerous. The elevation of individual-story essays means authenticity is a structural advantage, not a luxury. Strategic positioning at the expense of voice is the failure mode of the current environment, not the solution to it.

What a 2026 applicant should take away#

The essay is the biggest variable in the application. Write in your own voice, about what you actually know and have lived, with the specificity and reflection the craft sections of this RAG describe. Do not outsource the thinking to AI, do not let category anxieties steer your topic choice, and do not under-invest in the work. The current landscape has made these practices more rewarded, not less.

Parent guidance on the combined landscape#

Parents navigating the current environment often experience higher anxiety than their student does. The news cycle is saturated with admissions uncertainty, AI is in every headline, test-optional is confusing, and SFFA changed rules that many parents learned through their own experience. The anxiety is understandable, and it is also actively unhelpful to the student.

Useful framing for parents:

• The right strategies for essay writing have not changed, even as the landscape has
• The most high-leverage family action is protecting time for the student to write well
• The most high-leverage parent action is support, not content rewriting
• Uncertainty about outcomes has gone up, and no family can eliminate that uncertainty through positioning. Focus on what can be controlled: time, voice, authenticity, process
• Your student is not alone in navigating this. The whole application class is navigating it. Their strongest move is the same it has always been: write the best essay they can, in their own voice

→ 6.5 Parental Anxieties, → 6.9 Where You Go Is Not Who You'll Be, → 2.4 Application Narrative.

Quick-reference checklist for the combined post-2023 landscape#

• Student understands that essays carry more weight now than in the pre-2020 era
• Student is not avoiding race-related topics if those are their strongest material
• Student is not using AI to generate essay content
• Student knows which target schools require testing vs test-optional
• Student has checked current prompts at each target school, not relied on older guidance
• Student is not confusing "strategic positioning" with "better essay"
• Parent understands the craft has not changed; the weighting has
• Parent is protecting time, supporting process, not rewriting content
• Family has resisted the urge to over-manage in response to the elevated uncertainty

---

End of Section 8.