(Photo
by
Alan
Simpson/PA
Images
via
Getty
Images)
Maybe
if
*we*
don’t
mention
it,
law
school
applicants
wont
even
know
ChatGPT
exists!
That
somewhat
implausible
sentiment
is
the
only
explanation
for
the
results
of
the
latest
survey
from
Kaplan.
Kaplan
asked
law
school
admissions
officers
about
the
policies
at
their
schools
surrounding
generative
AI
and
the
application
process.
The
questions
in
the
survey
broke
it
down
into
the
various
ways
applicants
might
use
something
like
ChatGPT
to
improve
their
submission,
and
for
each
possible
use,
the
most
common
answer
is
that
the
law
schools
just
have
no
official
policy
on
the
emerging
technology.
Writing:
Of
the
admissions
officers
surveyed,
only
1
percent
say
their
law
school
has
an
official
policy
allowing
applicants
to
use
Generative
AI
programs
such
as
ChatGPT
to
write
their
essay;
45
percent
have
an
official
policy
prohibiting
it;
and
54
percent
have
no
official
policy
at
all.Brainstorming:
16
percent
of
admissions
officers
say
their
law
school
has
an
official
policy
allowing
applicants
to
use
GenAI
programs
to
brainstorm
essay
ideas;
an
identical
16
percent
have
an
official
policy
banning
it,
while
the
remaining
68
percent
have
no
official
policy
in
place.Feedback:
15
percent
of
admissions
officers
say
their
law
school
has
an
official
policy
allowing
GenAI
programs
to
provide
feedback
for
essays
that
applicants
independently
draft;
an
identical
15
percent
have
an
official
policy
against
its
use,
while
the
remaining
70
percent
have
no
existing
official
policy.
What
the
majority
of
law
schools
need
to
learn
—
and
fast
—
is
that
“no
official
policy”
is
basically
giving
a
green
light
to
GenAI.
Despite
the
lack
of
an
official
policy
at
most
schools,
admissions
officers
definitely
have
some
strong
thoughts
about
the
use
of
generative
AI.
One
said,
“I
don’t
believe
there
are
effective
ways
to
use
Generative
AI
in
the
admissions
process
as
I
believe
any
use
of
it
diminishes
the
applicant’s
own
voice.
It
also
harms
writing
skills,
which
have
already
declined
in
recent
years.”
Another
said,
“The
point
of
the
personal
statement,
for
us,
is
to
learn
more
about
the
applicant
and
evaluate
their
writing
abilities.
Applicants
should
be
encouraged
to
submit
something
authentic
in
their
application,
in
their
own
voice.
I
don’t
believe
using
AI
even
for
brainstorming
encourages
authenticity.”
Amit
Schlesinger,
executive
director
of
legal
and
government
programs
at
Kaplan,
expressed
surprise
at
the
lack
of
an
official
policy
at
most
law
schools:
“We’re
somewhat
surprised
that
more
law
schools
don’t
have
official
policies
to
provide
pathways
and
guardrails
on
how
applicants
can
use
GenAI,
given
its
rapidly
growing
adoption,
but
we
don’t
believe
that’s
a
tenable
position.
As
we
see
it,
in
a
way,
no
policy
at
all
may
be
understood
by
applicants
as
a
de
facto
policy
of
allowing
it,
which
only
muddies
the
waters.
Applicants
may
view
official
policies
on
the
use
of
GenAI
as
crucial
because
they
provide
clear
guidance
and
ethical
boundaries,
ensuring
a
level
playing
field.
Transparent
rules
help
applicants
understand
how
they
can
responsibly
leverage
GenAI,
while
preserving
the
integrity
of
the
admissions
process
and
allowing
them
to
showcase
their
genuine
capabilities.”
GenAI
is
rapidly
going
to
radically
change
the
law
school
application
game.
Law
schools
need
to
reckon
with
that,
and
the
sooner
the
better.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].