My alma mater, the University of Michigan Law School, announced that applicants are not permitted to use generative AI in their law school applications. In direct contrast, Arizona State University Law School said that applicants CAN use such tools on their applications - as long as they disclose its use.
Is using ChatGPT (or some other tool) any different than using a paid coach or your uncle Fred to help with the application? Does Michigan Law think that its students will not use every tool they have to better understand cases or statutes? Does Michigan Law think that its graduates will avoid using one of the most transformative technologies ever in their legal practices?
Something of the announcement feels like a solution looking for a problem. I wonder if Michigan Law used any of the various AI detection tools on recent applications and found that applicants are using ChatGPT instead of their own words? Is this really a problem?
To me, using ChatGPT to write what is often called the "personal statement" is not very smart in the first place. Generative AI does not write "personal" essays. It does not write the types of essays that Michigan Law should be looking for. It does not write essays that reveal the type of person that is applying, providing an insight into an applicant's unique background or an applicant's problem solving skills or communication abilities.
Perhaps instead of Michigan Law "banning" its use, the school can instead point out that generative AI tools are more likely to hurt than help applicants in their efforts to be in the selective 10% or 12% that are offered admission.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
