AI uw schoolopdracht of sollicitatiebrief laten schrijven vs het zelf schrijven
Als je handelt
AI gebruiken om de opdracht te schrijven
11%
Als je niets doet
Het zelf schrijven
10%
Percentage dat later spijt heeft van elke keuze. De balken en het volledige overzicht staan hieronder.
Carrière
Laatst beoordeeld 2026-05-28
Kwaliteit van bewijs 4.0/5
Beoordelingsscore op acht dimensies volgens de
kwaliteitsrubriek
. Elke dimensie krijgt een score van 1 tot 5.
D1 Bronverificatie
5/5
D2 Autoriteit en onafhankelijkheid van bronnen
4/5
D3 Nauwkeurigheid van spijtcijfer
2/5
D4 Vergelijkbaarheid van bronnen
3/5
D5 Gilovich-patroon
4/5
D6 Prozakwaliteit
4/5
D7 Volledigheid van voorbehouden
5/5
D8 Steekproefkwaliteit
5/5
Gemiddelde4.0/5
Proxygegevens — er bestaat geen directe spijtenquête voor deze beslissing. De percentages zijn afgeleid van tevredenheidsscores en toegangsdrempelgegevens in plaats van vragen die direct naar spijt vroegen. Zie opmerkingen hieronder.
Spijt van handelen
AI gebruiken om de opdracht te schrijven
11%
Er bestaat geen directe spijtenquête: geen enkele studie vraagt studenten of ze spijt hebben van het gebruik van AI bij een opdracht. De 11% meet in plaats daarvan een concrete nadelige uitkomst — werkzoekenden die ChatGPT gebruikten en een baan werd geweigerd zodra de interviewer ontdekte dat AI de sollicitatie had geschreven (ResumeBuilder 2023). De vaak aangehaalde 60% van studentgebruikers van AI die het ermee eens is dat AI het kritisch denken schaadt (RAND dec 2025) is een overtuiging over een algemene schade, geen spijt over een specifieke beslissing, en wordt daarom bewust NIET als percentage gebruikt
Amerikaanse studenten van 12-29 jaar die AI gebruiken voor schoolwerk; afzonderlijk, Amerikaanse volwassen werkzoekenden die ChatGPT gebruikten voor cv's/sollicitatiebrieven
december 2025 (RAND); februari 2023 (ResumeBuilder)
Spijt van nalaten
Het zelf schrijven
10%
Geen enkele bron meet inactiespijt: geen enkele enquête vraagt studenten die hun opdrachten zelf schreven of ze daar spijt van hebben, en de aangehaalde studies geven er geen percentage voor. De grootste bachelorstudie (SERU) waarschuwt alleen kwalitatief dat wie AI niet gebruikt 'achterop kan raken', en RAND vindt dat 78% van de niet-gebruikers gelooft dat AI schadelijk is — dus het meeste niet-gebruik is principieel, niet betreurd. De ~10% die wordt getoond is een openbaar gemaakte conservatieve ondergrens voor de door toegang beperkte minderheid die SERU signaleert, afgeleid van geen enkele bronstatistiek; lees het als 'geen betrouwbare schatting', niet als een waargenomen percentage
Amerikaanse studenten van 12-29 jaar die geen AI gebruiken voor schoolwerk
2024-2026
% betreurt deze keuze
AI gebruiken om de opdracht te schrijvenHet zelf schrijven
11%10%
balanced — Ongeveer in balans — beide keuzes leveren vergelijkbare spijt op.
Gerelateerde keuzes
Semantisch vergelijkbare keuzes — zelfde terrein, andere afwegingen.
There is no survey that asks students whether they regret using AI on an assignment, so this side has no measured regret rate. The number used here — 11% — is the cleanest genuine adverse outcome on the action side: a ResumeBuilder survey of 1,000 US job seekers found that 78% got an interview after submitting ChatGPT-written application materials and 59% were hired, but 11% were denied a job once the interviewer realised AI had written the application. The figure most often quoted in this debate — 60% of student AI users (67% of all students) agreeing that AI for schoolwork harms critical thinking, in the RAND American Youth Panel’s December 2025 wave (n=1,214 youth ages 12–29) — is deliberately not used as the rate, because it measures a belief about a general harm, not regret about a specific decision. The tell is that usage kept climbing anyway, from 48% to 62% of students in seven months even as that concern rose from 54% to 67%: students who believe AI is harmful in the abstract overwhelmingly keep using it, which is the opposite of what a regret signal would predict.
The evidence base for actual harm is stronger than the evidence base for actual regret. A field RCT by Hamsa Bastani and colleagues at Wharton, conducted with about 1,000 Turkish high-school math students, found that students given unrestricted ChatGPT-4 access during practice solved 48% more problems correctly during sessions but then scored 17% lower than the control group on a subsequent no-AI exam. The crucial follow-up finding: students did not recognise that they had learned less. If the harm is invisible to the person doing it, self-report regret will systematically understate true regret on a skill-development axis — students who lost skill cannot regret a loss they cannot see. Surveys of college applicants (foundry10, 2024) found about a third had used AI for admissions essays, with 6% having AI write the final draft; 72% of student ChatGPT users in the Intelligent.com survey agreed that using ChatGPT to write college essays counts as cheating, indicating moral discomfort that runs alongside continued use.
The inaction side is genuinely thin, and no published survey gives any percentage for regret among students who wrote assignments themselves. The largest available undergraduate study — the SERU Consortium survey of 95,000+ undergraduates across 20 research universities, published in Science in May 2026 — found that roughly a third of undergraduates do not use AI and that non-use skews lower-income, female, and racially underrepresented, with the researchers warning only, qualitatively and without a number, that these students “may fall behind in college and eventually the workplace.” That framing makes retrospective regret possible among non-users whose abstention is access-constrained rather than principled, but the RAND finding that 78% of non-users believe AI for schoolwork is harmful pulls hard the other way: most students who don’t use AI think they are right not to, which is the opposite of a regret signal. The 10% shown here is therefore a disclosed conservative ceiling for that access-constrained minority, not a measured rate — and because both sides are now anchored on weak, non-equivalent proxies that land close together, the comparison should be read as “no reliable signal that one side dominates,” not as a finding that either choice generates more regret.
The 2023-to-2025 norm shift in this domain has been faster than any other decision in the dataset. ResumeBuilder’s hiring-manager survey in early 2023 found only 18% of hiring managers could identify a ChatGPT cover letter; by 2025, TopResume’s industry data show that roughly a third of hiring managers can spot AI-generated copy in under twenty seconds, 19.6% of recruiters would reject an AI application outright, and 52% accept proofreading or drafting support. Schools have shifted from blanket bans to acceptable-use policies. The figures cited here were taken in one short snapshot of a moving target; the directional finding (action generates more reported concern and concrete adverse outcomes than inaction) is robust, but the magnitudes will move again, plausibly within the next twelve months.
Bronnen: handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
2/7 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron
[1]RAND Corporation / Schwartz & Diliberti — More Students Use AI for Homework, and More Believe It Harms Critical Thinking: Selected Findings from the American Youth Panel
Gerenommeerde referentie
67% of students agreed AI for schoolwork harms critical thinking in Dec 2025 (up from 54% earlier in 2025); among actual AI users the share was 60%, vs 78% among non-users; 62% of students used AI for homework, up from 48% in May 2025
Fragment
“"67 percent of students said using AI for schoolwork harmed critical thinking… up from 54 percent earlier in the year. Non-AI users: 78 percent expressed concern vs. 60 percent among actual users. The percentage of middle school, high school, and college students using AI for homework rose from 48 percent to 62 percent. Female students: 75 percent believed AI harmed critical thinking; male students: 59 percent."
”
Brongegevens van
2025-12-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-28
Berekening
RAND American Youth Panel survey of 1,214 youth ages 12–29, fielded December 2025, results published March 2026. This is a BELIEF measure, not a regret measure, and is NOT used as the headline rate. The 67% headline (60% among actual users, 78% among non-users) records agreement with the statement that using AI for schoolwork harms critical thinking — a general attitude about a societal harm, not "I regret having used AI on my own assignment." A student can believe AI is harmful in the abstract and feel no personal regret about their own use; the 14% rise in usage (48→62%) even as concern climbed from 54% to 67% is direct revealed- preference evidence of exactly that gap. No survey has directly asked "do you regret having used AI for your schoolwork?", so this belief figure is retained only as context for why the action side is hard to measure, not as the regret rate. The headline rate is instead anchored on the ResumeBuilder 11% denied-a-job figure (a concrete adverse outcome) below.
[2]ResumeBuilder.com (Pollfish panel) — 3 in 4 Job Seekers Who Used ChatGPT to Write Their Resume Got an Interview
Geverifieerd
Gerenommeerde referentie
46% of job seekers used ChatGPT for resumes/cover letters; 78% got an interview; 59% were hired; 11% were denied a job when the interviewer discovered ChatGPT use; 88% said they were 'somewhat' or 'highly' likely to continue using it
Fragment
“"46% of job seekers are using ChatGPT to write their resumes and/or cover letters. 78% got an interview when using application materials written by ChatGPT. 59% were hired after applying to a job using materials written by ChatGPT. 11% were denied a job when the interviewer discovered they used ChatGPT. 88% of the total sample say they are 'somewhat' (41%) or 'highly' (47%) likely to continue using ChatGPT to write their job application materials in the future."
”
Brongegevens van
2023-02-07
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-28
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
ResumeBuilder.com online survey of 1,000 US job seekers, fielded February 2023 via Pollfish. Reputable-reference (industry panel) not peer-reviewed. The 11% denied-a-job figure is the strongest available concrete-consequence proxy on the action side for the job-application cohort: it is a hard adverse outcome rather than an attitude. The 88% continuation rate is a strong revealed- preference signal against high regret — most users would not report planning to repeat a behavior they regretted — but is consistent with regret being concentrated in the ~11% who paid a concrete cost. Not used as the headline rate because (a) sample is job seekers only, not the schoolwork cohort, and (b) the field date precedes mature employer detection norms. Used to anchor the lower bound of plausible action regret.
[3]Bastani, Bastani, Sungu, Ge, Kabakcı, Mariman — Wharton / SSRN working paper — Generative AI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning: Evidence from High School Mathematics
Primaire studie
Students with unrestricted ChatGPT-4 access during practice performed 17% worse on a subsequent no-AI exam than the control group; the AI-assisted group solved 48% more practice problems correctly but failed to retain the skill
Fragment
“"When access is subsequently taken away, students actually perform worse than those who never had access (17% reduction for GPT Base). Students with ChatGPT solved 48 percent more of the practice problems correctly, but they ultimately scored 17 percent worse on a test. Students said they did not think that ChatGPT caused them to learn less even though they had."
”
Brongegevens van
2024-07-15
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-28
Berekening
Field RCT with ~1,000 Turkish high-school math students across three grade levels, four 90-minute practice sessions, posted to SSRN July 2024 by Wharton researchers. Used as the mechanism evidence underpinning the action-side regret framing: the harm the RAND respondents fear (skill erosion) is empirically real, even though students themselves did not perceive it. This creates the gap that makes "regret" particularly hard to measure — students who lost skill did not realize they had lost it, so self-report regret rates probably understate true regret. Not a US sample; treat the 17% effect size as directional. The paper is a working paper, not yet peer-reviewed at last revision.
[4]Education Week (reporting on foundry10 research led by Jennifer Rubin) — 1 in 3 College Applicants Used AI for Essay Help. Did They Cheat?
Geverifieerd
Gerenommeerde referentie
About a third of 2023-24 college applicants used an AI tool for admissions-essay help; about 6% relied on AI to write the final draft
Fragment
“"About a third of high school seniors who applied to college in the 2023-24 school year acknowledged using an AI tool for help in writing admissions essays... About 6 percent of students overall relied on AI to write the final drafts of their essays instead of doing most of the writing themselves."
”
Brongegevens van
2024-07-15
Geraadpleegd
2026-07-03
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
foundry10 research led by Jennifer Rubin, reported by Education Week (July 2024). Added to ground the body-prose claim "Surveys of college applicants (foundry10, 2024) found about a third had used AI for admissions essays, with 6% having AI write the final draft," which cited foundry10 by name in the body text without a corresponding frontmatter source. Not a regret measure; used as contextual evidence for the scale of AI use in the action-side cohort.
[5]Intelligent.com — Intelligent.com Survey Finds 1 in 10 College Applicants Are Using ChatGPT to Write Their College Application Essays
Gerenommeerde referentie
72% of student ChatGPT users agree that using ChatGPT to write college application essays is cheating
Fragment
“"72 percent of student ChatGPT users agree that using ChatGPT to write college application essays is cheating."
”
Brongegevens van
2023-07-31
Geraadpleegd
2026-07-03
Berekening
Intelligent.com/Pollfish survey of 749 college-bound high school seniors and incoming college freshmen, fielded July 15-21, 2023; 303 respondents (41%) had used ChatGPT in the prior six months and answered the cheating-perception question. Added to ground the body-prose claim "72% of student ChatGPT users in the Intelligent.com survey agreed that using ChatGPT to write college essays counts as cheating," previously stated without a supporting frontmatter source. Not a regret measure; used as evidence of moral discomfort alongside continued use.
[6]ResumeBuilder.com (Pollfish panel) — 82% of Hiring Managers Unable to Identify Cover Letters Written by ChatGPT
Gerenommeerde referentie
Only 18% of hiring managers correctly identified all three cover letter introductions as human- or ChatGPT-written (82% could not)
Fragment
“"only 18% got all three right" when asked to identify which cover letter introductions were written by ChatGPT versus humans.
”
Brongegevens van
2023-04-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-07-03
Berekening
ResumeBuilder.com/Pollfish survey of 1,000 US hiring managers, fielded March 22-26, 2023 (screened for management roles at companies with 2+ employees, $50k+ salary, frequent application reviewers). This is a different ResumeBuilder survey than the job-seeker survey cited above (same publisher, distinct sample of hiring managers rather than applicants). Added to ground the body-prose claim "ResumeBuilder's hiring-manager survey in early 2023 found only 18% of hiring managers could identify a ChatGPT cover letter," previously stated without a supporting frontmatter source.
[7]TopResume — Survey: Where Employers Draw the Line on the Use of AI in Hiring
Gerenommeerde referentie
19.6% of recruiters would reject an AI-generated resume/cover letter outright; 33.5% of hiring managers can spot AI-generated copy in under 20 seconds; 52% accept AI for proofreading or drafting support
Fragment
“"One in five (19.6%) recruiters would reject a candidate with an AI-generated resume or cover letter." "Over a third (33.5%) of hiring managers can spot an AI-generated resume in under twenty seconds." "Just over half (52%) say using AI for proofreading or drafting support is acceptable."
”
Brongegevens van
2025-05-20
Geraadpleegd
2026-07-03
Berekening
TopResume/Pollfish survey of 600 US hiring managers, fielded May 15-16, 2025. Added to ground the body-prose claim "by 2025... TopResume's industry data show that roughly a third of hiring managers can spot AI-generated copy in under twenty seconds, 19.6% of recruiters would reject an AI application outright, and 52% accept proofreading or drafting support," previously stated without a supporting frontmatter source.
Bronnen: niet handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
[1]UC Berkeley News (reporting on SERU Consortium study published in Science) — The Largest Study of AI Use by Undergrads Is In, Revealing Disparities in Access — and in Cheating
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
Two-thirds of undergraduates used GenAI as of spring 2024; low-income, racially underrepresented, and female students used AI less, and researchers warned these students 'may fall behind in college and eventually the workplace'
Fragment
“"Low-income, racially underrepresented and female students using AI less, and these students may fall behind in college and eventually the workplace because of unequal access to or practice using AI. Students from wealthier families can access advanced AI tools… students who don't have resources may only… use free AI tools."
”
Brongegevens van
2024-04-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-28
Berekening
SERU Consortium survey of 95,000+ undergraduates at 20 research universities, fielded spring 2024, published in Science May 2026. Used only as a qualitative opportunity-cost signal: the published finding frames non-use as a possible future disadvantage ("may fall behind in college and eventually the workplace"), but states NO percentage for regret or for concern about falling behind. No direct survey asks non-users "do you regret not having used AI?", so there is no measured inaction-side regret rate. The 0.10 rate is not derived from any source statistic — it is a deliberately conservative ceiling for the access-constrained minority the SERU authors flag, set low because RAND shows 78% of non-users believe AI is harmful (i.e. most non-use is principled and unlikely to be regretted). This is the data-sparsest side of the entry; treat the number as a disclosed proxy floor, not an observed figure.
[2]RAND Corporation / Schwartz & Diliberti — More Students Use AI for Homework, and More Believe It Harms Critical Thinking: Selected Findings from the American Youth Panel
Gerenommeerde referentie
78% of non-AI-using students believed AI for schoolwork harms critical thinking (Dec 2025); 38% of students were not using AI for homework as of Dec 2025
Fragment
“"Non-AI users: 78 percent expressed concern vs. 60 percent among actual users. The percentage of middle school, high school, and college students using AI for homework rose from 48 percent to 62 percent."
”
Brongegevens van
2025-12-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-28
Berekening
Same RAND panel. The 78% concern rate among non-users is direct evidence that abstention from AI is mostly principled, not regretful: the modal non-user thinks AI use is harmful and is therefore unlikely to regret their non-use. This pulls the inaction-regret rate down sharply, and is the reason the disclosed 0.10 proxy floor is set well below the one-third non-use share — it reflects only the residual access-constrained minority the SERU demographic gap finding flags, not principled abstainers. The revealed-preference signal — total AI usage rising from 48% to 62% in seven months — is consistent with some inaction-side regret driving conversion, but cannot be cleanly decomposed from peer effects, capability improvements, or institutional normalization.
Kanttekeningen
Geen van beide kanten heeft een directe spijtenquête — geen enkele gepubliceerde studie vraagt "heb je spijt dat je AI voor je opdracht hebt gebruikt?" of "heb je spijt dat je het zelf hebt geschreven?" Beide getoonde percentages zijn openbaar gemaakte proxy's, geen gemeten spijt. De actiekant is verankerd aan de zuiverste beschikbare echte nadelige uitkomst: 11% van de werkzoekenden die ChatGPT gebruikten werd een baan geweigerd zodra de interviewer ontdekte dat AI de sollicitatie had geschreven (ResumeBuilder, feb 2023). Dat cijfer geldt alleen voor het cohort van volwassen werkzoekenden en dateert van vóór volwassen normen voor detectie door werkgevers — tegen 2025 was het veld verschoven naar het accepteren van AI als hulpmiddel voor het opstellen terwijl volledig door AI gegenereerde inzendingen werden bestraft (enquêtes onder aanwervingsmanagers van TopResume en ResumeBuilder) — dus het is een richtinggevende ondergrens, geen nauwkeurig percentage voor het cohort van schoolwerk. De vaak geciteerde 60% (aandeel van studentgebruikers van AI dat het ermee eens is dat AI het kritisch denken schaadt, RAND dec 2025) wordt bewust NIET als percentage gebruikt: het is een overtuiging over een algemene maatschappelijke schade, geen spijt over een specifieke beslissing, en de stijging van 14% in gebruik (48→62%) zelfs terwijl die zorg toenam (54→67%) is direct bewijs uit geopenbaarde voorkeur dat geloof-in-schade en persoonlijke spijt uiteenlopen. De RCT van Bastani et al. (nu gepubliceerd in PNAS, 2025) toont echte erosie van vaardigheden — studenten met onbeperkte ChatGPT scoorden 17% lager op een daaropvolgend examen zonder AI en herkenden het verlies niet — wat betekent dat elke zelfgerapporteerde spijt de werkelijke schade aan de vaardigheidsontwikkeling zou onderschatten; het is een uitkomst van derden uit een Turkse steekproef, gebruikt als bewijs voor het mechanisme, niet als een Amerikaans spijtpercentage. De inactiekant is de gegevensarmste van het paar: GEEN enkele bron geeft een percentage voor spijt onder studenten die hun opdrachten zelf schreven. De SERU-studie waarschuwt alleen kwalitatief dat wie AI niet gebruikt "achterop kan raken", en RAND toont dat 78% van de niet-gebruikers gelooft dat AI schadelijk is, dus de meeste onthouding is principieel en zal waarschijnlijk niet worden betreurd. De getoonde 0.10 is een openbaar gemaakte conservatieve bovengrens voor de door toegang beperkte minderheid die SERU signaleert, geen waargenomen cijfer. Omdat beide kanten nu verankerd zijn aan zwakke, niet-gelijkwaardige proxy's die dicht bij elkaar uitkomen, moet de regret_delta (0.01) worden gelezen als "geen betrouwbaar signaal dat één kant domineert", niet als een bevinding. Het samenvoegen van "schoolopdracht" en "sollicitatie" tot één beslissing verdoezelt bovendien echte verschillen in prikkels, detectienormen en belangen, en de normverschuiving van 2023→2025 in dit domein is sneller geweest dan bij enig ander item in de dataset, dus dit paar heeft een ongewoon korte houdbaarheid.
