Kaplan Survey: Law Schools Lag on Official Policies on How Applicants Can Use AI in Admissions Essays, Potentially Leaving Them in Limbo
Kaplan's 2024 law school admissions officers survey reveals that most law schools lack official policies on using AI in admissions essays. Key findings include:
- Only 1% allow AI for essay writing, 45% prohibit it, and 54% have no policy
- 16% allow AI for brainstorming, 16% ban it, and 68% have no policy
- 15% allow AI for feedback, 15% prohibit it, and 70% have no policy
Admissions officers express concerns about AI diminishing applicants' voices and authenticity. Amit Schlesinger, Kaplan's executive director of legal programs, suggests that clear policies are needed to provide guidance and ensure a level playing field for applicants.
Il sondaggio del 2024 sui responsabili delle ammissioni delle scuole di giurisprudenza di Kaplan rivela che la maggior parte delle scuole di giurisprudenza non ha politiche ufficiali sull'uso dell'IA nei saggi di ammissione. Tra i principali risultati figurano:
- Solo l'1% consente l'uso dell'IA per la scrittura di saggi, il 45% lo vieta e il 54% non ha alcuna politica
- Il 16% consente l'uso dell'IA per il brainstorming, il 16% lo vieta e il 68% non ha alcuna politica
- Il 15% consente l'uso dell'IA per il feedback, il 15% lo vieta e il 70% non ha alcuna politica
I responsabili delle ammissioni esprimono preoccupazioni riguardo al fatto che l'IA possa ridurre le voci e l'autenticità dei candidati. Amit Schlesinger, direttore esecutivo dei programmi legali di Kaplan, suggerisce che sono necessarie politiche chiare per fornire orientamenti e garantire condizioni di parità per i candidati.
La encuesta de 2024 de Kaplan sobre los responsables de admisiones de las facultades de derecho revela que la mayoría de las facultades de derecho no tienen políticas oficiales sobre el uso de IA en los ensayos de admisión. Los hallazgos clave incluyen:
- Solo el 1% permite el uso de IA para la escritura de ensayos, el 45% lo prohíbe y el 54% no tiene política
- El 16% permite el uso de IA para la lluvia de ideas, el 16% lo prohíbe y el 68% no tiene política
- El 15% permite el uso de IA para retroalimentación, el 15% lo prohíbe y el 70% no tiene política
Los responsables de admisiones expresan preocupaciones sobre cómo la IA puede disminuir las voces y la autenticidad de los solicitantes. Amit Schlesinger, director ejecutivo de programas legales de Kaplan, sugiere que se necesitan políticas claras para brindar orientación y garantizar igualdad de oportunidades para los solicitantes.
카플란의 2024 법대 입학 담당자 설문조사에 따르면 대부분의 법대가 입학 에세이에 AI 사용에 대한 공식적인 정책이 없다고 밝혔습니다. 주요 결과는 다음과 같습니다:
- 단 1%만 AI를 에세이 작성에 허용하고, 45%는 금지하며, 54%는 정책이 없습니다
- 16%는 아이디어 회의에 AI를 허용하고, 16%는 금지하며, 68%는 정책이 없습니다
- 15%는 피드백에 AI를 허용하고, 15%는 금지하며, 70%는 정책이 없습니다
입학 담당자들은 AI가 지원자의 목소리와 진정성을 감소시킬 수 있다는 우려를 표명하고 있습니다. 카플란의 법률 프로그램 담당 이사인 아미트 슐레싱거는 지원자들에게 지침을 제공하고 공정한 경쟁 환경을 보장하기 위해 명확한 정책이 필요하다고 제안합니다.
Le sondage 2024 de Kaplan sur les responsables des admissions des écoles de droit révèle que la plupart des écoles de droit n'ont pas de politiques officielles concernant l'utilisation de l'IA dans les essais d'admission. Les principales conclusions comprennent :
- Seulement 1 % autorise l'IA pour la rédaction d'essais, 45 % l'interdisent et 54 % n'ont pas de politique
- 16 % autorisent l'IA pour le brainstorming, 16 % l'interdisent et 68 % n'ont pas de politique
- 15 % autorisent l'IA pour les retours, 15 % l'interdisent et 70 % n'ont pas de politique
Les responsables des admissions expriment des préoccupations quant au fait que l'IA pourrait diminuer les voix et l'authenticité des candidats. Amit Schlesinger, directeur exécutif des programmes juridiques de Kaplan, suggère que des politiques claires sont nécessaires pour fournir des orientations et garantir l'égalité des chances pour les candidats.
Die Umfrage von Kaplan zum Thema Zulassungsbeauftragte von Jurastudenten für 2024 zeigt, dass die meisten Jurafakultäten keine offiziellen Richtlinien zur Verwendung von KI in Aufnahmeaufsätzen haben. Zu den wichtigsten Ergebnissen gehören:
- Nur 1% erlauben KI für das Schreiben von Aufsätzen, 45% verbieten es und 54% haben keine Richtlinie
- 16% erlauben KI für Brainstorming, 16% verbieten es und 68% haben keine Richtlinie
- 15% erlauben KI für Feedback, 15% verbieten es und 70% haben keine Richtlinie
Die Zulassungsbeauftragten äußern Bedenken, dass KI die Stimmen und die Authentizität der Bewerber beeinträchtigen könnte. Amit Schlesinger, der Geschäftsführer der juristischen Programme bei Kaplan, schlägt vor, dass klare Richtlinien benötigt werden, um Orientierung zu bieten und Chancengleichheit für die Bewerber sicherzustellen.
- None.
- None.
- 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.
Admissions officers shared the following opinions about the best practices of GenAI:
- “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.”
- “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.”
- “Applicants should disclose the use of Generative AI, then describe how they used it to complete their applications. Applicants should avoid using it to do the work of the application—instead, they should use it for grammar and revision purposes.”
Amit Schlesinger, executive director of legal and government programs, Kaplan, says:
“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.”
Contact russell.schaffer@kaplan.com for more information.
*Admissions officers from 97 of the nation’s 197 American Bar Association-accredited law schools were polled by email between July and September 2024. Among the 97 law schools that participated are 34 of the top 50, as ranked by
About Kaplan
Kaplan, Inc. is a global educational services company that helps individuals and institutions advance their goals in an ever-changing world. Our broad portfolio of solutions help students and professionals further their education and careers, universities and educational institutions attract and support students, and businesses maximize employee recruitment, retainment, and development. Stanley Kaplan founded our company in 1938 with a mission to expand educational opportunities for students of all backgrounds. Today, our thousands of employees working in 27 countries/regions continue Stanley’s mission as they serve about 1.2 million students and professionals, 15,000 corporate clients, and 3,300 schools, school districts, colleges, and universities worldwide. Kaplan is a subsidiary of the Graham Holdings Company (NYSE: GHC). Learn more at kaplan.com.
Note to editors: Kaplan is a subsidiary of the Graham Holdings Company (NYSE: GHC)
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241008571622/en/
Press: Russell Schaffer, russell.schaffer@kaplan.com
Source: Kaplan, Inc.
FAQ
What percentage of law schools have no official policy on using AI for admissions essays?
How many law schools allow AI for brainstorming essay ideas?
What concerns do admissions officers have about using AI in law school applications?
What does Kaplan's executive director suggest regarding AI policies for law school admissions?
How many top 50 law schools participated in Kaplan's 2024 admissions survey?
