When applying to law school in today’s technology-driven world, artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT have become the subject of debate. According to a recent survey of prospective law school students conducted by Kaplan, 66% believe that the use of generative AI (GenAI) in the admissions process, such as for writing personal statements, should be prohibited. Only 14% of respondents were amenable to this use of technology, while the remaining 20% were unsure about where they stood on the issue. The survey findings can be accessed at this link.
Why are they advocating against the use of AI? The responses seem to centre around the themes of authenticity, fairness, and merit:
- One respondent held the view that AI use in personal statements renders them disingenuous and amounts to plagiarism, as the work is not truly the student’s own.
- Another respondent felt that AI usage undercuts other applicants who invest time and effort into their writing and research, comparing its use to cheating.
- An additional reason put forth was that using GenAI negates the purpose of writing a personal statement, which is believed to be a short, impactful expression of one’s personal identity.
The executive director of legal and government programs at Kaplan, Amit Schlesinger, commented on these results. He expressed the lack of surprise that students, who have taken their admission exams without the aide of GenAI and have maintained their GPAs without it as well, would be against its use in the admissions process. Most schools, facing the starting cycle of 2023-2024 applications, still do not have a policy in response to GenAI use, likely leaving these applicants feeling unsupported and uncertain.
There’s currently no consensus among law schools about the use of GenAI in admissions. While the University of Michigan Law School has outlawed its use, Arizona State allows it. Ultimately, many law schools have yet to establish an official policy – a critical issue they should address without delay.