University of Michigan Law School Bans Use of Generative AI in Applications, While Arizona State Law School Approves with Disclosure
In a recent announcement, the University of Michigan Law School has stated that applicants are no longer permitted to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in their law school applications. In stark contrast, Arizona State University Law School has taken a different approach and allows applicants to use such tools on their applications, on the condition that they disclose its use.
This divergence in policies raises questions about the role of generative AI in the application process and its impact on the admissions decisions. Is using a tool like ChatGPT any different than seeking help from a paid coach or a relative? Does Michigan Law believe its students will refrain from utilizing every available resource to better understand cases or statutes? Does the school expect its graduates to overlook one of the most transformative technologies in their legal practices?
Although the Michigan Law’s decision may appear to be a solution in search of a problem, it is possible that the school has identified a trend of applicants relying on ChatGPT or similar tools instead of expressing themselves in their own words. Nonetheless, this poses the question of whether this is truly a problem.
Critically, using generative AI tools like ChatGPT to draft what is often referred to as the personal statement may not be the wisest choice. Such tools do not possess the ability to produce truly personalized essays, nor can they capture the essence of an applicant. These essays, expected to reveal an individual’s unique background, problem-solving skills, and communication abilities, are not adequately represented by generative AI.
Instead of prohibiting the use of generative AI tools outright, Michigan Law could consider highlighting that these tools are more likely to hinder rather than help applicants in their pursuit of securing a spot in the highly selective 10% or 12% admitted pool.
It is essential to strike a balance between harnessing technological advancements and ensuring the authenticity of law school applications. While generative AI tools may offer assistance in various tasks, their utility in personal expression is questionable. As the admissions process seeks to identify individuals’ unique qualities, a reliance on AI-generated content may undermine the goals of law schools.
This disparity in approach between the University of Michigan and Arizona State University Law Schools demonstrates the ongoing debate surrounding the integration of technology in the application process. While Michigan Law chooses to discourage the use of generative AI, Arizona State Law acknowledges its potential and allows applicants to embrace the technology, as long as they clarify its involvement.
Ultimately, the decision lies with individual applicants and the schools they choose to apply to. It is vital for applicants to consider the authenticity and impact of their application materials, whether that involves utilizing generative AI tools or seeking guidance from mentors. As the legal profession evolves, it will be interesting to observe how generative AI continues to shape the landscape of law school applications and legal practices as a whole.
In an effort to provide equal representation to both sides of the debate, it is essential to present the perspectives of admissions offices, applicants, and legal professionals to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The goal of law schools remains to select candidates who demonstrate not only academic excellence but also possess the qualities that make them promising future legal professionals.
