Law School Applicants Call for Transparent AI Policies in the Admissions Process
With the widespread use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, aspiring law students are seeking clarity on what’s acceptable—and what isn’t—when applying to law school. According to a new survey released by Kaplan, 83% of pre-law students believe that law schools should provide official policies on the use of AI in admissions essays.
The survey, conducted in February and released on March 18, underscores the growing unease among applicants who face inconsistent policies across institutions. Without clear guidance, many students fear unintentionally violating application rules or being disadvantaged by others who use AI tools more freely.
Law Schools Are Behind the Curve on AI Policy Development
Despite the strong demand from applicants, law schools have been slow to respond. An earlier Kaplan survey from October 2023 found that 54% of law schools had no official policy on AI usage in admissions materials. With law school applications up 20% year over year, according to the Law School Admission Council, the stakes for fairness and transparency have never been higher.
“Law schools need to catch up and have some enforceable and transparent policies,” said Amit Schlesinger, executive director of legal and government programs at Kaplan.
Applicants Want to Showcase Their Authentic Voice, Not AI-Generated Content
The majority of pre-law students aren’t in favor of using AI to help write their personal statements. Only 27% support the use of generative AI in admissions essays, highlighting a preference for authenticity and originality.
“Without clear guidance from law schools, students are likely to assume using AI is completely acceptable,” Schlesinger added, warning that the ambiguity may lead to ethical missteps or even application withdrawals.
Law Schools’ Policies on AI: A Patchwork Approach
In the absence of a unified stance from accrediting bodies like the American Bar Association or guidance from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), law schools are crafting their own varied AI policies.
Schools Allowing AI (with Restrictions):
- Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law was the first to announce it would allow applicants to use AI tools in application essays—as long as they disclose and certify its use.
- Washington University in St. Louis permits AI usage during essay drafting but relies heavily on other writing samples, like LSAT essays, to evaluate a student’s writing abilities.
Schools Prohibiting AI Use:
- Columbia Law School has banned AI use altogether and warns applicants that violating this policy could lead to rescinded offers or disciplinary action.
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School does not explicitly mention AI but requires applicants to certify that their work is “sole and original,” implying zero tolerance for AI-generated content.
“If a school hasn’t explicitly stated its rules, the safest approach is to ask directly,” Schlesinger advised.
Students Also Oppose Law Schools Using AI to Evaluate Applications
Applicants aren’t just worried about their own use of AI—they’re equally concerned about how schools might use it to evaluate them.
According to the Kaplan survey:
- 75% of students said they would feel more comfortable applying to law schools that don’t use AI in admissions decisions.
- 89% want schools to disclose if AI is used to evaluate any part of their application.
These findings point to a broader trust issue: students are wary of algorithms playing a significant role in determining their legal education future.
Advisers Urge Students to Showcase Their Own Voice
Advisers and admissions professionals are encouraging applicants to rely on their own voice and judgment when submitting application materials.
“Generative AI may change some aspects of the legal profession, but clear and quick communication will be critical as a law student and lawyer,” said Kristy Lamb, assistant dean of preprofessional advising at NYU. “Let law schools see your potential in this area by showcasing your own work in your application.”
What Comes Next: A Call for Consistency and Leadership
As AI tools become more integrated into education and professional life, the need for consistent and transparent admissions policies will only grow.
Law schools, accrediting bodies, and testing organizations must work together to:
- Define appropriate uses of AI in applications
- Educate applicants on ethical boundaries
- Ensure fairness in the evaluation process
Until then, applicants are left to navigate a confusing and high-stakes landscape without a clear map.
