With top applicants beginning their college submissions this summer, many parents question me about whether their teen should turn to AI for help on personal statements.

In my role advising on admissions, I explain to families that the real answer hinges on the timing and method of using these tools.

Producing a dull or unoriginal essay is hardly a fresh tactic. Households have purchased pieces from writing services, borrowed proven structures from collections, or hired specialists to compose them for years. AI simply lowered the cost and spread the option more widely.

Research covering over 370,000 submissions, reported in the New York Times, showed that once ChatGPT launched, statements grew more polished and vivid yet increasingly alike. They improved in flow but lost distinct substance.

Therefore, if a student chooses to incorporate AI into their statement, here is guidance on the proper approach and sequence.

What defines an outstanding college statement

The initial lesson I share with parents is that applicants write not for a school but for an individual reader: an officer who reviews dozens of pieces weekly and feels drained.

That reader seeks not the flashiest profile but the one that lingers in memory.

A strong statement avoids listing achievements already covered elsewhere in the file. It captures interest through three elements instead.

It offers a fresh observation that prompts the reader to see an idea differently.
It demonstrates genuine thought and insight into personal experiences.
It leaves the reader wanting to meet the writer as a peer or companion.

How my advisees reach top universities

In coaching sessions we begin not with sentences but with specific events. Most teens aim to cover broad topics such as years playing an instrument or a term in a club. Such topics fade quickly since they appear everywhere.

Prior to any drafting, I ask students to spend several days collecting three types of details from their past. These include setbacks that humanize them, personal costs they accepted that reveal priorities, and internal conflicts like a skeptic exploring religious writings or an athlete who feels timid away from the game. Such unexpected angles draw readers closer.

Only after this reflection period do students produce an initial version, often uneven. Those admitted to selective places continue revising through many rounds until the piece rings true.

The core effort lies in the reflection itself, which cannot be outsourced.

Appropriate roles for AI and clear limits

AI lacks a student's unique perspective, recollections, or tone. After a writer completes an authentic draft alone, however, the tool can refine clarity and detail.

Treated as a reviewer instead of an author, AI can prompt sharper descriptions and tighter focus. Trusted prompts for a completed personal draft include questions about whether sections feel ordinary or rest on untested ideas, and whether any part lacks development or clarity.

These uses position AI as a sounding board rather than a substitute. It adds value only when the core ideas and style already belong to the student.

Concerns about AI are widespread, yet the underlying issue is longstanding and the fix remains the same: an applicant sharing an honest thought in a voice that belongs only to them. No automated system has achieved that.

Guide your teen through the reflection stage first. Bring in AI later, if at all, merely to polish a genuine piece rather than create one.

Steve Gardner instructs on Leadership and Impact at Harvard Summer School and leads The Ivy League Challenge.