Abstract: Generative AI is increasingly used by medical school applicants for writing, research, organization, and interview preparation. This article combines findings from surveys of admissions consultants and premedical students with AAMC guidance and emerging research to identify how AI is changing medical school applications. Nearly 78% of consultants said applicants underestimate how AI can dilute their authentic voice, and 93% anticipated future disclosure requirements. Respondents supported limited uses such as proofreading, planning, school research, and interview practice, but cautioned against AI-generated narratives. Applicants should preserve ownership of their ideas and writing and be prepared to explain their AI use.

AI is everywhere in medical school admissions. Applicants are using it to draft their personal statements, edit their activity descriptions, build their school lists, and practice for interviews. And from what I see while running a team of expert medical school admissions consultants, former admissions officers, and MDs at Inspira Advantage is that most students keep making the same mistakes with it.

We recently surveyed our consulting team to get their thoughts on medical applicants using AI, where they see applicants going wrong, and what they think the future of AI disclosure in medical admissions looks like. The overwhelming majority say that AI can play a supporting role in your application, but the moment it starts doing the thinking or writing for you, it becomes a liability.

Here are the findings that matter most for anyone preparing to apply to medical school.

Nearly 4 in 5 Admissions Consultants Say That AI Dilutes Your Authentic Voice

We asked our team whether most applicants underestimate how much AI use can dilute their authentic voice. Nearly 78% agreed or strongly agreed, while zero respondents strongly disagreed.

Students typically follow a pattern. They write a personal statement draft that sounds like their own voice and run it through ChatGPT “just to clean it up.” What comes back is grammatically accurate, but it completely loses the applicant’s voice.

One of our consultants admitted that the output “sounds nice but is actually empty.” Another said that overusing AI “makes essays sound generic, vague, and emotionally flat,” adding that a strong medical school essay should read like a real person with real experiences, not a polished template.

Several consultants noted that when a student’s writing style changes between drafts, it immediately raises red flags. As one former admissions officer explained, when you speak with a student and their writing doesn’t match their voice, it’s very noticeable.

This also comes up in the interview phase. When an admissions consultant notices major discrepancies between the applicant’s personal statement and interview answers, they begin to ask deeper questions.

In this SDN interview, Dr. Emil Chuck and Dr. Aanika Warner discuss how generative AI is changing medical school applications for applicants and admissions committees.

GenAI Overuse May Be Associated with Reduced Cognitive Skills

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) highlighted an early, non-peer-reviewed essay-writing study in which MIT researchers examined people’s brain waves while writing an essay, both with and without the use of generative AI.^1,2 The study found that when people write with AI, their brain activity is significantly reduced. The AAMC article warns that continued AI use can decrease each user’s brain activity (now referred as “deskilling”), which is dangerous for the medical profession.

This applies directly to students who rely on generative AI, even in the admissions process. The biggest misconception, according to our survey, is that students think admissions committees can’t tell when AI wrote their essays.

Vaccaro et al. found that 56% of admissions reviewers correctly identified whether an essay was written by a human or by generative AI. However, 44% of admissions reviewers couldn’t determine the true authorship of a personal statement.³ When we asked our admissions consultants, many of whom are former medical school admissions officers, they said they notice inconsistencies that may suggest AI assistance.

Use GenAI as an Editor, not a Ghostwriter

The short answer? Use AI to catch a typo. Don’t use it to tell your story.

According to the AAMC’s AMCAS certification statements (opens in new tab), AI can help you brainstorm, edit, or proofread your personal statement, but the final draft should be entirely your own words.⁴

Your personal statement answers one question for admissions committees: Who is this person and why are they applying to medical school? AI can’t answer that question for you because it doesn’t know who you are, even if it documents everything you’ve ever told it.

It doesn’t know the feeling you felt when you scraped your knee in gym class and realized that was the moment you wanted to study medicine. It doesn’t know how volunteering in an underserved community abroad ignited your passion for whole person care. You can prompt it to learn more about you, but it’ll always be an emulation, never the real thing.

AI can help you catch a grammatical error or tighten up a sentence, but the moment you hand over the substance of your story, you lose what makes the essay personal and credible.

Applicants’ Relationship with GenAI: The Potential of Oversharing

A separate survey we conducted of 145 pre-medical students found that they’re already comfortable using AI for non-academic purposes.⁵ Over half said they believe AI can improve their mental health (opens in new tab) both during the application process and later as physicians, and 19% are very comfortable using an AI chatbot as an emotional outlet.

So, if students are already willing to share personal experiences with an algorithm, many are likely also willing to let that same algorithm control how they present those experiences to admissions committees. The jump from “AI can help me feel better” to “AI can help me write better” isn’t that absurd, yet it’s exactly what separates authentic essays from generic ones.

Our team, along with the AAMC, emphasizes that you can use AI for brainstorming and grammar checks, but the ideas, stories, and voice must be your own.

More Than 9 in 10 Admissions Consultants Expect That Medical Schools Will Require AI Disclosure

We also asked our team whether graduate schools will eventually require some form of AI-use disclosure on applications. An overwhelming 93% agreed or strongly agreed. Only a single respondent disagreed.

In February 2024, the AAMC convened a technical advisory committee to develop its Principles for Responsible AI in Medical School and Residency Selection (opens in new tab). The principles are intended to guide the AAMC’s use of AI and emphasize that AI should support, rather than replace, human judgment.⁶

We are likely heading into a future where the use of AI in medical school is the expectation, not a choice.⁷ Our consultants see formal disclosure requirements as inevitable.

One consultant said that if medical schools aren’t already using AI tools to detect AI-generated writing, they will be soon enough. Another pointed out that the conversation has moved past whether students use AI at all. The question now is whether schools will formalize how they track and evaluate that use. For comparison, see the discussion on GenAI disclosure in scholarly papers from the CASRAI Editorial Board.⁸

Track How and Why You Use GenAI

If you prepare for a formal disclosure, it changes how you use AI right now. Every interaction you have with a language model during your application process becomes something you may eventually need to account for. Running your personal statement through ChatGPT “just to see what it says” is a choice that could have unintended consequences.

In only a few years’ time, medical schools might ask you if you used AI to prepare these materials and expand upon your answer. It’ll be much easier to simply state that you only used AI for simple grammar mistakes. And your answer might indicate more than you think, since the essay itself will be evidence of how you used or didn’t use AI.

Start incorporating responsible AI habits now. If your workflow relies on AI-generated content, you’ll need to change it eventually, or you may have difficulty accurately explaining or disclosing how AI contributed to your application.

What Else Our Admissions Team Wants Applicants to Know About AI

Our consultants also gave their perspectives on where AI helps, where it hurts, and how students should think about it going forward.

Consultants who endorsed AI use outside of essays highlighted three areas that AI can help out with:

1. Researching medical schools and comparing alignment with a school’s mission
2. Practicing for interviews by generating sample questions
3. Building timelines or organizational systems to manage deadlines

A third of respondents said that school research and selection is the most productive use of AI in the application process. Using AI to compare program stats, requirements, and geographic factors across long lists of schools can be a great use of your time.

But one consultant said that AI works best when students use it as “a thought partner for organization and strategy”, not as a ghostwriter. Building a timeline, tracking secondary prompts, comparing school requirements, and preparing interview practice questions all represent legitimate uses that can reduce stress without compromising authenticity.

Around one third of consultants think that students treat AI as a shortcut, even though the application process is specifically designed to evaluate the kind of work that shortcuts can’t replicate.

As one counselor put it, “every other student that is using AI will have essays that sound the same as theirs, which decreases impact.” The result is a compilation of applications that read nearly identical, which is the opposite of what a personal statement needs to accomplish.

Another consultant spoke from the student’s perspective. The biggest misconception, they said, is “everybody else is using it, so I need to use it too to be at an advantage.” The reality is closer to the opposite. If everyone is using the same tool to produce the same output, the student who writes human-written content stands out with their own voice.

Our team largely agrees that ignoring AI or pretending it can be banned entirely isn’t realistic. Medical schools already know that many applicants use AI, and admissions officers have to learn to work with it rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

AI isn’t going away. The question for applicants is whether they’ll use it in a way that makes their applications more authentically theirs or less. Based on what our team sees every cycle, the answer to that question matters more now than it ever did.

The general rule of thumb from our survey findings is that AI should be seen as a tool with drastic limitations. Use it to improve your workflow and catch easy mistakes. Don’t use it to replace the reflection, critical thinking, and personal judgment that makes you human.

After all, that’s exactly what medical schools are looking for in the first place.

Takeaways

• Surveyed admissions consultants (nearly 78%) believe that overreliance on generative AI tools can dilute a writer’s personal writing style (“authentic voice”).
• Discrepancies between an applicant’s written essays and their interview communication style may prompt additional questions.
• Early cognitive science researchers suggest that overreliance on GenAI may coincide with reduced brain activity and result in “deskilling” of medical trainees and physicians.
• AMCAS/admissions committees expect applicants to craft their own application essays and responsibly use GenAI tools to help refine their writing (spelling, grammar, tone, length). Admissions committees may ask applicants to disclose their specific use of GenAI during the process.
• GenAI has gained more acceptance to help maintain applicants’ mental health.
• Admissions consultants expect and might encourage applicants to use GenAI to research prospective schools/programs, prepare sample questions or scenarios for interviews, or construct accountability plans or schedules.
• Consultants (about 33%) think students use GenAI tools as an efficiency “shortcut” to complete tasks quickly.

Survey Methodology

Inspira Advantage conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered online survey of 145 US-based pre-medical students between October 4 and November 21, 2025, examining attitudes and experiences around their use of AI tools, stress levels, and views on the future of AI in medicine. The survey was not submitted for institutional review. Responses were gathered internally through Inspira Advantage’s email subscribers, website visitors, and social media followers. A $50 gift card raffle was used to encourage survey responses.

In June 2026, Inspira Advantage conducted a self-administered online survey of its 52 expert medical school admissions consultants, examining their professional insights and observations on AI usage among pre-med applicants in the admissions process. The survey was not submitted for institutional review. Responses were gathered internally from Inspira Advantage’s consultant team. No monetary or other incentive was offered to encourage survey responses.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Arush Chandna is a co-founder and employee of Inspira Advantage, which conducted the surveys described in this article. No financial compensation was provided. The views expressed in the article solely represent the author’s perspective.

AI use

AI tools were used to assist with organizing collected information and researching supplemental topics. All content, ideas, and writing are original to the author. ChatGPT was used to draft the abstract and apply formatting standards, with all changes reviewed and approved by the editorial team.

Updates

September 18, 2026: Updated survey methodology information to add information on the medical school admissions consultant survey.

References

1. Balch, B. (2026, July 28). Could using AI erode a doctor’s ability to think? Association of American Medical Colleges. https://www.aamc.org/news/could-using-ai-erode-doctor-s-ability-think (opens in new tab)
2. Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y.T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A.V., Braunstein, I., and Maes, P. (2025) “Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08872. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 (opens in new tab)
3. Vaccaro, M. J., Sharma, I., Espina-Rey, A. P., Lyman, N., Palacios, C., Zhang, Y., Mehta, A., Leto Barone, A. A., & Kellogg, B. C. (2026). Death of the personal statement: Qualitative comparison between human-authored and artificial intelligence-generated medical school admissions essays. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 242(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000001602 (opens in new tab)
4. Association of American Medical Colleges. (n.d.). Certification statements. Students & Residents. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school-amcas/publication-chapters/certification-statements (opens in new tab)
5. Chandna, A. (2026, June 29). 55% pre-med students believe AI can improve their mental health during their applications and careers. Inspira Advantage. https://www.inspiraadvantage.com/blog/pre-med-students-believe-ai-can-improve-their-mental-health (opens in new tab)
6. Association of American Medical Colleges. (n.d.). Use of artificial intelligence in AAMC service programs. https://www.aamc.org/services/use-artificial-intelligence-aamc-service-programs (opens in new tab)
7. Association of American Medical Colleges (n.d.). Artificial intelligence and academic medicine. https://www.aamc.org/about-us/medical-education/artificial-intelligence-and-academic-medicine (opens in new tab) (Accessed September 3, 2026).
8. CASRAI Editorial Board. (2026, August 22). GenAI in scholarly authorship: The 2026 disclosure landscape. CASRAI. https://casrai.org/news/genai-disclosure-scholarly-authorship-2026 (opens in new tab) (Accessed September 3, 2026).

Abstract: While an application to a health professional program represents a single candidate, multiple influencers impact its trajectory, including advisors, mentors, and loved ones. This article maps the people and institutions in a prehealth applicant’s support network and considers how their expertise, perspectives, and incentives can shape preparation and decision-making. Applicants should build a trusted support network, assess advice critically, and remain responsible for their own application and course corrections.

According to Newton’s laws of motion, a body travels in a straight line until it encounters an unbalanced force that bends its trajectory. In deep space, a comet’s course is influenced by the gravitational bodies it encounters, and the orbits of moons around a planet (and planets around a sun) rely on gravitational attraction. Most young adults see their futures as a broad runway before them, regardless of the weather they encounter, but a better analogy may be a planet subject to the gravity of many bodies.

In this article, we examine the prehealth universe that envelops an applicant, identifying other influencers that can shape a candidate’s success in their career journey. A well-written application is your own work, but it includes support from mentors and champions. How many of these individuals do you recognize as your guiding stars?

Planning Your Journey

Milestones for NASA and SpaceX missions are meticulously planned, down to the exact second when a command needs to be executed. While each vessel can course-correct, each crew must anticipate multiple failures and setbacks. One single mission can enlist hundreds of experts, and planning can involve many years of testing and training.

Preparing for a health professional career may seem more straightforward than a manned mission to Mars, but success also requires similar prehealth expertise and the momentum it imparts to get you closer to your professional destination.

Prehealth Advisors At Your Institution

Career Advisors

These staff members have insights into getting clinical exposure to guide you in exploring a healthcare career. Many help with writing resumes, personal statements, or cover letters. Mock interviews may be scheduled with a virtual or computer program, a live person, or an alumnus. Some may be certified to provide additional assessments to help you articulate your strengths and how they align with your desired career.

Academic Advisors

Academic advisors guide undeclared students in choosing a major by reviewing the requirements for completing a degree. They also help declared students follow through on completing their major or figure out how to fit in other minors, majors, or available certificates. Some departments hire graduate students for this role, while others may have dedicated staff or an assigned faculty advisor. They help students understand grading policies (including drop/add/withdrawals) and meet with those at risk of probation due to a low GPA. Many will manage transfer credits from community colleges or other institutions. Most students must meet with an academic advisor before registering for classes or in preparing for graduation.

Student Affairs Administrators

Student affairs officers oversee extracurricular activities and organizations (NASPA¹ is one of their professional societies). The student government sets policies for establishing clubs, securing funding, and inviting speakers or programs for the community. These administrators support and provide resources for a constellation of constituencies such as veterans, first-generation students, and commuters. Many students develop close relationships with these student affairs administrators as they seek community with like-minded peers. Learning specialists are also important staff members, as they help students identify gaps and the need for academic accommodations that emerge under the pressures of college coursework.

Some student affairs administrators also support the central executive officers (presidents, provosts, chancellors, deans), alumni (including boards of visitors or directors), research infrastructure, satellite campuses, and community/government relations. Honors programs, financial aid, residential life, and student opportunity (career bridge/experiential) support programs are often connected to this group.

Lecturers, Teachers, and Adjunct Faculty

Higher education institutions rely on teaching-only faculty to deliver traditional gateway courses. Such faculty may have contracted appointments and teach courses as needed each year. Others may have been hired to teach three or four courses, while more experienced teachers may be hired to improve teaching and learning. Most prehealth students will ask this group of faculty for letters of recommendation for summer opportunities and professional school applications, so these faculty write dozens of letters after spring grades are reported. However, students should be aware that many of these professors leave the institution after their contracts are completed. Furthermore, students must make a serious effort to connect with these professors outside of the large lecture auditorium.

Tenured-Track Researchers and Professors

At most research-intensive universities, deans and department chairs are tenure-track faculty with research, curricular, and fiscal responsibilities. Some tenured professors enjoy teaching gateway classes to better welcome prospective majors to other research faculty who need undergraduate research assistants. Some professors may have multiple appointments, meaning they work for more than one specific department within the university. These professors are interested in the career success of their students, whether in health professions, research, or other science-related fields, so they are generally most interested in prehealth support.

Outside Your Institution

Health Professional Program Admissions Professionals

Professional programs will have designated staff members who talk to interested students at recruitment events and encourage further engagement with the school. They schedule travel around campus recruitment events (sponsored by the career or prehealth advisors), and they organize on-campus visits, including interview days. They provide insight into the common characteristics of successful applicants² and refer interested students to other opportunities offered by faculty in their program.

Some admissions professionals are proud to make their process as transparent as possible. Often they will communicate with applicants about available interview offers, low-stakes meet-and-greets, or summer opportunities to help applicants gain better insight into their programs.

Experienced Applicants and Professionals (students, residents)

Most current applicants lean on the experience of their peers who have successfully been admitted in prior years. Many organizations (such as AMSA, SNDA, ASDA, SOMA, SAVMA, and APhSA) highlight students and alumni who remained resilient in their unique journeys toward becoming successful professionals. Some students, residents, and faculty leverage their experiences as boutique admissions consultants to become influencers for aspiring healthcare professionals.

Association staff members, such as those involved with the central application process like AACOMAS, AMCAS, TMDSAS, or AADSAS, are also included in this category. Many sponsors offer multi-institutional recruitment opportunities and participate in social media campaigns to encourage applicants. Their blogs often feature interviews with admissions professionals and give other successful application tips.

Family and Relatives

Finally, applicants trust the advice and feedback of their closest family and friends. Decisions to attend specific programs are often made with their opinions or life situations in mind (proximity to desired jobs, schools, or childcare/healthcare resources).

However, I have often seen many applicants who experience a rather large “gravitational attraction” to their families. Their choices of courses, majors, and extracurricular activities seem to be influenced by their family. Often I see applicants who are unable to alter their orbits towards their desired career destination due to unplanned family health or financial challenges. These forces don’t subside when the applicant enters professional school.

Going on Auto-Pilot (Influencers and GenAI)

Recent internet trends have encouraged young people to go “all in” to be their best and most impressive. Whether one seeks “life hacks” for cooking, fashion, nutrition, wellness, or crushing college, undergraduate students seem to focus more on “maxxing” than being emotionally engaged with their campus communities.³ While most students recognize that they gain employable skills,⁴ prehealth students may seek ways to maximize their college experience by pursuing clinical, research, and leadership opportunities through brief conversations or aggregated guidance curated by generative AI agents or programs.

Consequently, applicants could start to believe in the prehealth myths perpetuated by internet mythology, private Discord rooms, or similar closed communities. GenAI summaries further amplify such myths, as if they were “settled science” about what it takes to gain admission. However, these summaries are often inaccurate for applicants taking gap years or more non-traditional students. Remember that influencer content often feeds your fears and inferiority complex because they know that being an explorer is isolating.⁵

When Worlds Collide

How do you adapt to a sudden change in your journey? Experiencing life is all about exploring the unknown and discovering the unexpected (going beyond your comfort zone). When you are in deep space, anyone’s gravity can help or hinder your ability to reach your destination. If you are caught seeing worlds collide, the resulting gravitational pull can change your destination.

It is important to balance these powerful forces – the desire to belong to a new community, perform to one’s academic expectations, remain connected with longtime friends or family, and balance time and financial commitments to remain healthy. An imbalance could lead to improper shortcuts or unhealthy habits that could set your journey toward a career as a health professional off course.

When you experience a sudden change, how can each person in this prehealth universe help you? Whose voices will help you course-correct? Whose words carry more weight to help you align with their vision? Where can you get reliable, trustworthy advice? Your application profile for a health professional program and your first clinical position is the product of how you consider every contact you allow into your orbit.

Conflict of interest disclosure

No conflict of interest reported.

AI use

Generative AI tools (Grammarly) were used to edit and proofread this article and expand the abstract (ChatGPT). Gemini (in browser) was used to create the Reference List. ChatGPT was used to apply formatting standards and generate the featured image, which was reviewed and approved by the editorial team.

References

1. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (n.d.). NASPA – Student affairs administrators in higher education. https://www.naspa.org/ (opens in new tab)
2. Chuck, E. (2024, August 23). Finding your greatest common factors with successful students. Student Doctor Network. https://www.studentdoctor.net/2024/08/23/finding-your-greatest-common-factors-with-successful-students/
3. Mowreader, A. (2025, April 11). Fewer students engage in college activities after COVID. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/college-experience/2025/04/11/fewer-students-engage-college-activities-after (opens in new tab)
4. Lumina Foundation and Gallup. (2026, February 23). College students, grads see strong career value in degree. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/702284/college-students-grads-strong-career-value-degree.aspx (opens in new tab)
5. Smith, A. P., and Alheneidi, H. (2023). The internet and loneliness. AMA Journal of Ethics, 25 (11), E828–E834. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/internet-and-loneliness/2023-11 (opens in new tab)

Abstract: This article provides advice on writing effective letters of recommendation for a scholarship awardee, a research assistant, a prospective employee/volunteer, or an entering graduate/professional student. The author suggests a process for establishing meaningful rapport with the candidate to glean useful insights for reference or evaluation letters.

Do you remember the first time a student asked you to write a strong letter of recommendation? I remember the student who asked 10 days after I had already committed to writing 15 other letters. The student bargained further in the hope that I would make an exception, but the other 15 requests had similar deadlines. Medical school application season was nigh, and everyone wanted their letters submitted before June 1, right after the registrar’s deadline to submit my final semester grades.

I hardly knew these students, aside from their midterm and final grades in my 200-person lecture class. Everyone earned A’s or B’s, so they felt they were doing well enough to avoid asking for my help during office hours. Each one sent me a customized email with an upload link.

I planned to begin writing during finals week, but my follow-up emails to these students went unanswered (which I attributed to their focus on their exams). But when finals week was over, I emailed each student to ask for more information so I could better highlight their strengths and fit for their desired graduate school opportunities.

All the medical school applicants sent me a link to the Guidelines for Writing a Letter of Evaluation for a Medical School Applicant.¹ However, I often could not recall information about each candidate; some of us use an online filing system to organize documents, while others hope our search function will find the candidate’s emails.

While we expect our lecturers to effectively manage introductory courses with hundreds of students, we rarely teach new faculty how to write a meaningful letter that helps a medical, veterinary, or dental school applicant, including those who need support letters for summer research opportunities. This guide is designed to help you write effective letters of recommendation help your students achieve their dreams.

Do not ask the candidate to write their own reference letter.

Admissions committees cannot condone the practice of having candidates write reference letters that the reference signs off on. For professor letters, the practice violates the principle that a student waives rights to review the letter under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), as discussed below. Instead, admissions committees expect references to maintain their professional responsibilities to deliver a supportive letter of recommendation.

This practice also invites candidates to use generative AI tools to ghost-write letters of recommendation. Admissions committees are highly concerned about references written predominantly by generative AI, and many schools may draft guidelines for writers about appropriate AI use.

Using templates and GenAI can produce less effective letters of recommendation, and admissions committees can tell.

Experienced admissions committee members develop preferences about the elements of an effective letter of recommendation because they often read letters from the same references over many application cycles. Many letters are effective because the writers organize information about an applicant’s academic performance, personal growth, professional demeanor, and communication skills in ways that would be valuable to the future professional community. The most effective letters reaffirm the applicants’ purpose and goals as future professionals and add to the application essays and interview responses.

Recently, admissions officers have boldly expressed concerns about the growing prevalence of generative-AI recommendation letters. Many commented on this topic from the 2026 conference of the National Association for Advisors of the Health Professions:

When a recommendation reads like ChatGPT, admissions committees stop asking, “Is this student exceptional?” and start asking, “Is this letter even real?”

The danger of AI-generated letters isn’t that they’re bad; it’s that they’re bland. They erase the quirks, content, and conviction that make advocacy believable.

AI can help a recommender organize their thoughts, but the moment it starts inventing them, the letter’s ethical foundation collapses.

AI can generate adjectives; it cannot generate accountability. A recommender still owns every word, whether they typed it or not.

In an era of AI-written letters, specific, verifiable stories about a student are the new currency of trust.

Admissions committees expect references to use genAI tools appropriately when outlining content, correcting grammar or spelling errors, auditing/reducing inappropriate bias, or adjusting for professional clarity. Generative AI tools should not be used to create generic reference letters, invent encounters with the applicant, or wordsmith to express a stronger endorsement when the evidence is lacking. Higher education institutions are also concerned about the use of genAI when faculty members are using tools that may not properly protect student information from larger public language models.

References should be informed that health professions programs have adopted different policies on using genAI in letters of recommendation.² They may be required to attest to the use of genAI (2026-27 CASPA policy).³ Similar policies are being considered in graduate medical education for letters supporting residency applicants.⁴

Set conditions for letters of recommendation for current students.

Writing letters for students is an uncompensated faculty responsibility. Faculty are not promoted based on the number or quality of reference letters they write for students. While your letter authenticates your official capacity representing your department, school, or university, most faculty letters do not require approval from the chair, dean, or university counsel.

In your syllabus or when making your first announcements to your class, tell your students when you are accepting requests to write letters, the circumstances for requesting your help, and the requirements for a strong letter. I needed at least 2 months to respond to each letter request.

Because many students may ask for letters from those who previously took your class, meetings with these students should be scheduled separately from your designated class office hours. Some evaluators ask students to meet at a nearby cafe or coffee shop for a more casual conversation; I know of another university whose student government underwrites vouchers that let students take a professor to lunch or dinner on the government’s tab (no alcohol or unnecessary indulgences). Otherwise, meetings can be done over a webcam or a leisurely walk around campus.

Ask for talking points and documentation

I find it helpful to get the online description of a scholarship, internship, or research opportunity, so students should provide this information before meeting with the reference. The meeting should go over why the student wants the professor to write the recommendation and specific “talking points” that put the student in a strong position.

As someone who reviews letters of recommendation, I want to know the following:

• How do you know the applicant (in what role)?
• How long have you known the applicant?
• How well do you know the applicant (to observe and evaluate their successful attributes)?

As a reference, if you know your answers will likely not support the applicant, you should decline by saying you are unable to write a “strong” letter of recommendation.

For me, my best letters come after at least two meetings over six months with the student that discuss their personal journey, their inspiration to pursue a health professional career, and whether they have leveraged the university’s resources (prehealth advising, career services, learning support, multicultural or interfaith centers). An actual packet with a resume, a biosketch, a photo for the application process, and a shortlist of desired programs, especially a printed copy, helps me craft a highly individualized letter of support.

One-on-one meetings also give me insight into how the students will perform in conversational interviews. What stories about their successes and failures can they comfortably share or discuss? How do they talk about their study habits and time management?

Code phrases and rubrics

Many faculty peers who engage in the admissions process often ask for “code words” that signal some comparative value: for example, what is the difference between “highly recommended” and “strongly recommended”? I have developed a working rubric with appropriate phrases to explain my summary recommendations, highlighting how the candidate has earned that assessment based on what I know about the candidate’s performance and connection with students in my course. Sometimes I share this rubric with the candidates in advance.

However, some evaluation portals ask you to complete their own rubric. The most recent ADEA AADSAS evaluation portal (2026-2027 cycle FAQ⁵) asks us to provide a Likert score for 10 attributes about an applicant.

• Critical thinking
• Didactic knowledge
• Integrity
• Interpersonal skills
• Maturity
• Motivation (to pursue dentistry)
• Organizational skills
• Professional demeanor
• Reaction to criticism
• Self-awareness

Likert Levels:

• Not observed
• Not ready at this time
• Meets expectation
• Exceeds expectation

Even if the applicant is not interested in dental school, I insist on meeting with each student to go over this rubric (or my own) and identify areas where I can offer insight and comment. I know most students would not ask me as a reference if they thought they were not ready in any one of these competencies; more likely, I have been asked because they feel I can articulate how the student exceeds expectations in all ten. But if the student is in my large lecture class, I couldn’t assess them as “exceeding expectations” in integrity. If the student has worked in my lab, I feel more comfortable rating them on their academic competencies. My expertise as a professor gives me greater insight.

Understanding FERPA (for professors)

As a professor, I should be familiar with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).⁷ Faculty guidance is likely available at your institution (see FERPA Release for Letters of Recommendation & References at Towson University).⁸

Transparency and Trust

Because students waive their right to review my recommendation letters, I have always sought transparency in my work with students. Over the years, I have shared an outline of my recommendations. The length of the letter varies with the depth of my mentoring relationship with students, but I keep the length of my letters to within two pages as follows:

1. The opening focuses on the purpose of the reference letter and introduces the candidate. I strongly recommend [candidate’s name, application ID if available] as [professor/supervisor]… as a participant in your summer enrichment program.
2. I may briefly add more context about the size of the lecture class or any additional opportunities to mentor the candidate.
3. Summary recommendation with two or three specific accomplishments that show the candidate’s growth, maturity, and trustworthiness. I will specify skills, techniques, or projects that support my observations.
4. Envision the candidate’s success with a future opportunity. I present a closing statement commending the candidate as an appropriate fit for a scholarship, internship, or job opportunity, based on the information the student provided.

Even if I know they have waived their FERPA rights, I share a draft of my recommendation with the student to ensure I haven’t made any mistakes (such as improper naming or gender-appropriate language/pronouns). Those detail errors are noticed by application reviewers and can undermine the candidate’s standing. The student is also assured that their journey to the profession is accurately documented.

The Office of Medical Education at the University of California San Francisco provides guidance for clinical faculty when documenting student performance, including examples of strong recommendations.⁹

Letterhead and signature policies

In the past, many students asked former professors to write letters of recommendation, but the schools contacted the students because those letters were not submitted on officially branded letterhead. At my institution, letterhead is restricted to official business for current employees. For those leaving the institution, I advise my peers on our letterhead policy.

Many graduate programs are more accustomed to “digital signatures” that we affix to our letters. A few of us still keep a copy of our signature or have created an artistic “signature logo” to paste into our letters. The rest just type /* their name */ (within slashes and asterisks). At any rate, admissions professionals want to see a signature, and it doesn’t take much effort to satisfy this expectation.

Final takeaways

I love learning about these students and their dreams through this process. I am reminded how inspirational these students are in the way they speak about their futures, even as I have to set aside about two to three hours per letter. I hope this guide gives you an opportunity to see how you have guided them towards their dream professions.

Checklist for Recommenders (and Reviewers)

I make sure all of these items are fulfilled when I write a reference letter.

Logistics (Recommenders only)

Timeline/Deadline

• Allow one month for scholarship/summer programs. Requests begin after fall/winter exams with deadlines in February/March.
• Allow two months for professional school applications. Requests may begin after spring midterms. Writing letters should occur after spring finals (May/June).

Conferencing Times

• Meet at least twice during your month(s) of preparation.
• FERPA waiver (signed document required from registrar and/or application service/graduate program form)
• Technology (instructions to upload, add more time for unfamiliar portals)
• Confirm that the student has set up letter receipt into the application portal.

In your letter, show your credentials

• Explain any letterhead preferences/policies
• Apply a signature

State how you know the student (drop-down questions in AADSAS)

• Role (I am the student’s professor.)
• Length (I have taught the student for Organic 1 and 2.)
• Relationship (We have not met outside of class before.)

Who needs the recommendation (i.e., Who is the Audience)?

• “Dear Selection Committee” is a typical greeting.
• Refer to the internship, scholarship, or job description.
• Leverage insights from the application drafts the student gave you.

My observations about the student (refer to the rubric)

• What stories highlight the candidate’s excellence?
• What context has the student provided that shapes your impressions?
• Which responsibilities do you trust the candidate with?
• How does the candidate stand out among other students you have taught, supervised, or advised?
• How will this candidate inspire the audience/community? How will the program help the candidate?

Checklist: Using AI Responsibly in Letters of Recommendation

Here are suggestions for maintaining your voice as an author and recommender without allowing genAI tools to dilute your evaluation or support.

• I formed my own independent evaluation of the student.
• AI was used only for organization/clarity/polish, not to invent or exaggerate content.
• I protected student confidentiality and followed institutional policy.
• The letter includes specific examples I can personally attest to.
• The voice and judgments in the letter are truly mine, and I stand by every word.

Acknowledgments

This article was peer-reviewed by and includes suggestions by Nancy Lorenzon, Teaching Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Director of Pre-Health Education and Advising, University of Denver.

Heather Brod’s Writing Effective External Evaluation Letters inspired this article.¹⁰

Conflict of interest disclosure

No conflict of interest reported.

AI use

Generative AI tools were used to support this manuscript in the following ways:

• Documenting and summarizing private conference notes and proceedings from the 2026 Conference of the National Association for Advisors of the Health Professions (Otter.ai).
• Drafting and suggesting checklists to aid authors of letters of recommendation (Otter.ai, Gemini in-browser).
• Spelling, grammar, punctuation, and wordsmithing (Grammarly and Microsoft Copilot).
• Implementing the standard formatting for publication (ChatGPT).

References

1. Guidelines for Writing a Letter of Evaluation for a Medical School Applicant, Students & Residents, AAMC website. This longstanding resource provides some tools to help authors write effective evaluation letters for applicants to medical school and residency.
2. Thacker, N. (2026, revised June 19). Can You Use ChatGPT for Your Medical School Application? AMCAS, AACOMAS, CASPA, and TMDSAS Policies Compared. GradPilot. https://gradpilot.com/news/can-you-use-chatgpt-medical-school-application-policies. Accessed June 30, 2026.
3. Thacker, N. (2026, April 13). PA program AI policies — 10 programs with real rules. GradPilot. https://gradpilot.com/news/pa-program-ai-policies-aggregator-2026. Accessed June 30, 2026.
4. Coraor Fried, J., Johnson, N.R., Pelletier, A., Landman, A., Bartz, D. (2025). Using Generative Artificial Intelligence When Writing Letters of Recommendation, Academic Medicine 100 (7): 769–775. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006047. Accessed June 30, 2026.
5. AADSAS Letters of Evaluation FAQs (2026-2027 changes), ADEA. Also, “Preparing for ADEA AADSAS 2026” webinar, ADEA, April 21, 2026. It describes the additional characteristics questions that evaluators are asked to address.
6. Chuck, E.T. How to Assess Your Academic Competencies, Student Doctor Network Review. This includes an example academic competency rubric following AAMC definitions.
7. FERPA, Protecting Student Privacy, US Department of Education.
8. FERPA Release for Letters of Recommendation & References at Towson University. This guidance helps faculty navigate requests for letters of recommendation.
9. Writing High-Quality Evaluations of Student Performance:: Best Practices and Examples (PDF), Office of Medical Education, University of California San Francisco. Guidance for clinical faculty when documenting student performance for clerkship evaluations. It includes examples of strong recommendations.
10. Brod, H. Writing Effective External Evaluation Letters, LinkedIn (2021). The inspiration for this article.