How US CS courses let students use generative AI

Permissiveness level (count of policies)

Mean level by course level (0–4)

Mean level by policy year

All coded policies

InstitutionCourseTermLevelDisclose?Exam ban?Evidence

Analysis approach

Coding. Each course policy was read at its primary source and coded on an ordinal 0–4 permissiveness scale, plus three tri-state features: disclosure required, AI banned on exams, course-provided AI tool. Fields a policy doesn't address are left null and excluded from rates, so they don't count as "no".

Measures. Level distribution, mean level by course level / institution type / year, and feature rates among policies that state them. This is computed by analysis/analyze.py and checked by tests against hand-computed fixtures.

Limitations. The sample is small (17) and non-random: it favors well-known R1 schools with public course pages. Courses behind logins (e.g. Princeton) or with broken certificates (Cornell, UChicago) were excluded. A single coder (Claude) did the coding; the student should spot-check a sample against the sources. Treat the numbers as descriptive, not as national estimates.

Next step for a stronger analysis. Draw a stratified random sample (R1 / R2 / liberal arts / community college × CS1 / CS2 / upper) and have two coders apply the codebook independently. Report Cohen's κ, then test the year trend with an ordinal regression.

Codebook