Pre-Law Students Divided on Using GenAI Tools in Law School Admissions Essays

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...

Survey Reveals Divergent Opinions Among Pre-Law Students

In a recent survey by global educational services provider Kaplan, pre-law students weighed in on whether law school applicants should be allowed to utilize AI tools like ChatGPT to craft their admissions essays. The verdict: a division of opinions among respondents.

The Verdict: A Divided Opinion

Of the 389 aspiring lawyers surveyed in September 2023, 66 percent believed that law school applicants should not be permitted to use ChatGPT or similar GenAI tools for their admissions essays. In contrast, 14 percent of respondents thought applicants should be free to utilize these AI tools, while the remaining 20 percent were uncertain about their stance.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

School-Specific Policies Emerge

A few JD programs have started unveiling school-specific policies as the debate continues. For instance, the University of Michigan Law School has explicitly prohibited the use of GenAI in admissions essays. At the same time, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University has chosen to allow it. However, most law schools have yet to implement policies regarding the role that GenAI can or cannot play in applicants’ admissions essays, according to preliminary results from Kaplan’s 2023 law school admissions officers survey.

Arguments Against GenAI Use in Admissions Essays

Pre-law students who oppose the use of GenAI tools in admissions essays cited several reasons for their stance:

1. Disingenuous Personal Statements: They argue that using AI in personal statements makes them appear dishonest, as the work is not entirely the student’s own.
2. Unfair Advantage: Some students believe that allowing GenAI use would provide an unfair advantage to applicants who lack strong writing and research skills, effectively cheating others out of a fair chance.
3. Undermining the Purpose of Personal Statements: Critics assert that utilizing GenAI would undermine the very purpose of a personal statement, which is to authentically express a key part of one’s identity in a concise yet impactful manner.

Advocates for GenAI Integration

In contrast, one student favoring allowing GenAI in admissions essays argued, “Banning AI in personal statements does nothing but penalize students willing to play by the rules. We need to learn to work with AI instead of against it.”

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Concerns for the Future

Amit Schlesinger, Executive Director of Legal and Government Programs at Kaplan, commented on the survey results, saying, “Pre-law students took their admissions exams on Test Day without the use of GenAI and built up their GPAs without using it either, so it’s not entirely surprising that they think it shouldn’t be a part of the admissions process either. One common thread in the survey results is the concern that it would unfairly level the playing field for applicants who are not strong writers and permit inauthenticity. Preliminary results from Kaplan’s law school admissions officers survey show that as the 2023-2024 application cycle begins, most schools have no policy. Still, we don’t believe that’s a tenable position, as they will get more and more questions from prospective students who want guidance and guardrails.”

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.