Title: University of Michigan Law School Bans ChatGPT from Admissions Process, Prompting Debate
The University of Michigan Law School has recently made a controversial decision to ban the use of generative AI, specifically ChatGPT, in the personal statement section of their admissions process. The aim is to ensure that applicants’ written materials reflect their own traits and writing abilities, as stated by Reuters. However, upon closer examination, this policy seems to raise more questions than it answers.
Applicants are given ample time to craft their personal statements, often seeking input from multiple editors to refine their work. This process closely mirrors the way attorneys write. So why should the use of a large language model for a first draft be considered any less authentic?
The main goal is to assess the candidate’s individual traits, right? Yet, applicants still provide all the relevant personal information to the AI. If the AI happens to generate false information beyond those confines, it’s the responsibility of the applicant, not the AI itself. It’s no different from blaming AI for attorneys who submitted fake cases because they failed to fact-check the AI’s draft.
Personal statements have gained significant importance, particularly after the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action initiatives in higher education this term. While the majority opinion allows admissions officers to consider personal statements that discuss race, ChatGPT struggles to effectively convey its experiences with race. Therefore, any applicant who sought to stand out by discussing diversity-related issues would still need to extensively revise the AI’s outputs.
Just like a skilled partner would revise a junior associate’s draft.
Moreover, if socioeconomic status or being a first-generation graduate serve as indicators of diversity, these AI offerings might actually substitute for the rounds of editing that more privileged students receive from their general counsel aunt or Biglaw partner neighbor.
Consumer-facing AI applications like ChatGPT and Bing are not currently capable of matching the hype surrounding their potential. However, advancements are on the horizon. By the end of the decade, prohibiting students from using generative AI in their writing workflow may seem as outdated as math teachers berating students for relying on calculators.
Contrastingly, the University of California, Berkeley School of Law has taken a different approach. Although being the first to adopt a formal policy on the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom, they have not specifically banned ChatGPT from their application process. According to the assistant dean of admissions, Kristin Theis-Alvarez, they believe that requiring applicants to attest that all essays and statements are my original work already covers the use of generative AI like ChatGPT, at least for now.
From a different perspective, this seems reasonable.
The debate surrounding the use of AI in the admissions process continues. While the University of Michigan Law School seeks to ensure authenticity and assess individual traits, other schools are taking a more relaxed approach. Whether this ban will remain in place or be revisited in the future is uncertain. However, it is clear that AI technology will continue to evolve, and its role in various fields, including legal education, will be an ongoing topic of discussion.
It remains to be seen how institutions will adapt to the advancements of AI without compromising the integrity of their admissions processes. For now, students applying to the University of Michigan Law School must set aside generative AI and rely on their own writing abilities to convey their unique traits and aspirations.
