(Photo by Alan Simpson/PA Images via Getty Images)
Maybe if *we* don’t mention it, law school applicants wont even know ChatGPT exists! That somewhat implausible sentiment is the only explanation for the results of the latest survey from Kaplan.
Kaplan asked law school admissions officers about the policies at their schools surrounding generative AI and the application process. The questions in the survey broke it down into the various ways applicants might use something like ChatGPT to improve their submission, and for each possible use, the most common answer is that the law schools just have no official policy on the emerging technology.
Writing: Of the admissions officers surveyed, only 1 percent say their law school has an official policy allowing applicants to use Generative AI programs such as ChatGPT to write their essay; 45 percent have an official policy prohibiting it; and 54 percent have no official policy at all.
Brainstorming: 16 percent of admissions officers say their law school has an official policy allowing applicants to use GenAI programs to brainstorm essay ideas; an identical 16 percent have an official policy banning it, while the remaining 68 percent have no official policy in place.
Feedback: 15 percent of admissions officers say their law school has an official policy allowing GenAI programs to provide feedback for essays that applicants independently draft; an identical 15 percent have an official policy against its use, while the remaining 70 percent have no existing official policy.
What the majority of law schools need to learn — and fast — is that “no official policy” is basically giving a green light to GenAI.
Despite the lack of an official policy at most schools, admissions officers definitely have some strong thoughts about the use of generative AI. One said, “I don’t believe there are effective ways to use Generative AI in the admissions process as I believe any use of it diminishes the applicant’s own voice. It also harms writing skills, which have already declined in recent years.”
Another said, “The point of the personal statement, for us, is to learn more about the applicant and evaluate their writing abilities. Applicants should be encouraged to submit something authentic in their application, in their own voice. I don’t believe using AI even for brainstorming encourages authenticity.”
Amit Schlesinger, executive director of legal and government programs at Kaplan, expressed surprise at the lack of an official policy at most law schools: “We’re somewhat surprised that more law schools don’t have official policies to provide pathways and guardrails on how applicants can use GenAI, given its rapidly growing adoption, but we don’t believe that’s a tenable position. As we see it, in a way, no policy at all may be understood by applicants as a de facto policy of allowing it, which only muddies the waters. Applicants may view official policies on the use of GenAI as crucial because they provide clear guidance and ethical boundaries, ensuring a level playing field. Transparent rules help applicants understand how they can responsibly leverage GenAI, while preserving the integrity of the admissions process and allowing them to showcase their genuine capabilities.”
GenAI is rapidly going to radically change the law school application game. Law schools need to reckon with that, and the sooner the better.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
