Kaplan Survey: Pre-Law Students Want Clarity from Law Schools on Using GenAI in Admissions Essays…Clarity That’s Currently Lacking
Kaplan's recent survey reveals that 83% of pre-law students want clear policies from law schools regarding the use of Generative AI in admissions essays. This comes as more than half of law schools currently lack official guidelines on GenAI usage in applications.
Key findings show that:
- 55% of pre-law students oppose allowing GenAI for admissions essays, while 27% support it
- 89% believe schools should disclose if they use AI tools in evaluating applications
- 75% would feel more comfortable applying to schools that don't use AI in admissions
- 80% express concern about AI potentially perpetuating unintentional biases
Amit Schlesinger, executive director of legal and government programs at Kaplan, advises applicants to directly consult admissions officials when schools lack clear policies, emphasizing the importance of integrity in the application process. The survey included responses from 306 LSAT students and prospective students in February 2025.
Il recente sondaggio di Kaplan rivela che l'83% degli studenti pre-giuridici desidera politiche chiare da parte delle scuole di legge riguardo all'uso dell'AI generativa nei saggi di ammissione. Questo avviene mentre più della metà delle scuole di legge attualmente non ha linee guida ufficiali sull'uso dell'AI generativa nelle domande.
I risultati chiave mostrano che:
- Il 55% degli studenti pre-giuridici si oppone all'uso dell'AI generativa per i saggi di ammissione, mentre il 27% lo supporta
- Il 89% crede che le scuole dovrebbero rivelare se utilizzano strumenti di AI nella valutazione delle domande
- Il 75% si sentirebbe più a suo agio a candidarsi a scuole che non utilizzano l'AI nelle ammissioni
- Il 80% esprime preoccupazione riguardo alla possibilità che l'AI perpetui pregiudizi involontari
Amit Schlesinger, direttore esecutivo dei programmi legali e governativi di Kaplan, consiglia ai candidati di consultare direttamente gli ufficiali delle ammissioni quando le scuole non hanno politiche chiare, sottolineando l'importanza dell'integrità nel processo di candidatura. Il sondaggio ha incluso risposte da 306 studenti LSAT e studenti potenziali nel febbraio 2025.
La reciente encuesta de Kaplan revela que el 83% de los estudiantes pre-jurídicos desean políticas claras por parte de las facultades de derecho respecto al uso de la IA generativa en los ensayos de admisión. Esto ocurre mientras que más de la mitad de las facultades de derecho actualmente carecen de pautas oficiales sobre el uso de la IA generativa en las aplicaciones.
Los hallazgos clave muestran que:
- El 55% de los estudiantes pre-jurídicos se opone a permitir la IA generativa para los ensayos de admisión, mientras que el 27% la apoya
- El 89% cree que las escuelas deberían revelar si utilizan herramientas de IA en la evaluación de las aplicaciones
- El 75% se sentiría más cómodo postulando a escuelas que no utilizan IA en las admisiones
- El 80% expresa preocupación sobre la posibilidad de que la IA perpetúe sesgos involuntarios
Amit Schlesinger, director ejecutivo de programas legales y gubernamentales en Kaplan, aconseja a los solicitantes que consulten directamente a los oficiales de admisión cuando las escuelas no tengan políticas claras, enfatizando la importancia de la integridad en el proceso de solicitud. La encuesta incluyó respuestas de 306 estudiantes LSAT y estudiantes potenciales en febrero de 2025.
Kaplan의 최근 설문조사에 따르면, 법학 전공 학생의 83%가 입학 에세이에 대한 생성 AI 사용에 대한 법대의 명확한 정책을 원한다고 합니다. 이는 현재 절반 이상의 법대가 지원서에서 생성 AI 사용에 대한 공식 지침이 없다는 사실과 관련이 있습니다.
주요 결과는 다음과 같습니다:
- 법학 전공 학생의 55%가 입학 에세이에 생성 AI 사용을 반대하며, 27%가 이를 지지합니다.
- 89%는 학교가 지원서 평가에 AI 도구를 사용하는 경우 이를 공개해야 한다고 믿습니다.
- 75%는 AI를 사용하지 않는 학교에 지원할 때 더 편안함을 느낍니다.
- 80%는 AI가 의도치 않은 편견을 지속시킬 가능성에 대해 우려를 표합니다.
Kaplan의 법률 및 정부 프로그램의 전무 이사인 Amit Schlesinger는 학교에 명확한 정책이 없는 경우 지원자들이 입학 담당자에게 직접 상담할 것을 권장하며, 지원 과정에서의 진실성의 중요성을 강조합니다. 이 설문조사는 2025년 2월에 306명의 LSAT 학생 및 예비 학생의 응답을 포함했습니다.
Le récent sondage de Kaplan révèle que 83 % des étudiants en pré-droit souhaitent des politiques claires de la part des écoles de droit concernant l'utilisation de l'IA générative dans les essais d'admission. Cela survient alors que plus de la moitié des écoles de droit n'ont actuellement pas de directives officielles sur l'utilisation de l'IA générative dans les candidatures.
Les résultats clés montrent que :
- 55 % des étudiants en pré-droit s'opposent à l'utilisation de l'IA générative pour les essais d'admission, tandis que 27 % la soutiennent
- 89 % estiment que les écoles devraient révéler si elles utilisent des outils d'IA pour évaluer les candidatures
- 75 % se sentiraient plus à l'aise de postuler dans des écoles qui n'utilisent pas l'IA dans les admissions
- 80 % expriment des inquiétudes quant à la possibilité que l'IA perpétue des biais involontaires
Amit Schlesinger, directeur exécutif des programmes juridiques et gouvernementaux chez Kaplan, conseille aux candidats de consulter directement les responsables des admissions lorsque les écoles n'ont pas de politiques claires, soulignant l'importance de l'intégrité dans le processus de candidature. L'enquête a inclus les réponses de 306 étudiants LSAT et d'étudiants potentiels en février 2025.
Die aktuelle Umfrage von Kaplan zeigt, dass 83 % der Jurastudenten klare Richtlinien von den Jurafakultäten hinsichtlich des Einsatzes von generativer KI in den Aufnahme Essays wünschen. Dies geschieht, während mehr als die Hälfte der Jurafakultäten derzeit keine offiziellen Richtlinien zur Nutzung von generativer KI in den Bewerbungen hat.
Wichtige Ergebnisse zeigen, dass:
- 55 % der Jurastudenten gegen die Verwendung von generativer KI für Aufnahme Essays sind, während 27 % dafür sind
- 89 % glauben, dass Schulen offenlegen sollten, ob sie KI-Tools zur Bewertung von Bewerbungen verwenden
- 75 % würden sich wohler fühlen, sich an Schulen zu bewerben, die keine KI bei den Zulassungen verwenden
- 80 % äußern Bedenken, dass KI unbeabsichtigte Vorurteile verstärken könnte
Amit Schlesinger, Geschäftsführer der rechtlichen und staatlichen Programme bei Kaplan, rät Bewerbern, sich direkt an die Zulassungsbeamten zu wenden, wenn Schulen keine klaren Richtlinien haben, und betont die Bedeutung von Integrität im Bewerbungsprozess. Die Umfrage umfasste Antworten von 306 LSAT-Studenten und potenziellen Studenten im Februar 2025.
- None.
- None.
- Majority Oppose GenAI: Only 27 percent of pre-law students surveyed believe that law schools should allow applicants to use GenAI to help them write their admissions essays; 55 percent say GenAI should not be allowed; the remaining 18 percent are unsure. According to Kaplan’s 2024 law school admissions officers survey, only one percent of law schools currently allow it.
- Transparency: Nearly nine in 10 (89 percent) of pre-law students say that schools should disclose if they are using AI tools in evaluating applications; three percent don’t think they need to disclose it; and eight percent are unsure.
- At Ease: 75 percent of respondents say they would feel more comfortable applying to a law school that does not use AI in its admissions process; eight percent said they wouldn’t; and 18 percent are unsure.
- Bias: 80 percent of pre-law students are concerned that AI used in admissions could unintentionally perpetuate biases; nine percent are not concerned; and the remaining 12 percent are unsure.
Amit Schlesinger, executive director of legal and government programs, Kaplan, said:
"Most law schools don’t yet have clear policies on using Generative AI for admissions essays, but our survey finds that future applicants overwhelmingly want that to change. In our opinion, it’s becoming too significant an issue for law schools to simply leave it to prospective students’ own devices. Our advice to applicants is that if a school doesn’t have spelled-out rules, the safest approach is to ask an admissions official directly. When in doubt, reach out. Law schools value integrity, and demonstrating that you sought guidance shows sound judgment. It’s better to get a clear answer now than face consequences later. You don’t want your application tossed on a technicality. You’ve worked too hard for that."
*Based on the results of a Kaplan survey of 306 of its LSAT® students and prospective students in February 2025. Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
LSAT® is a registered trademark of Law School Admission Council, Inc. which does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services.
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.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250318251601/en/
Press: Russell Schaffer, russell.schaffer@kaplan.com
Source: Kaplan, Inc.
FAQ
What percentage of pre-law students want clear GenAI policies for law school admissions essays?
How many law schools currently allow the use of GenAI in admissions essays?
What percentage of pre-law students are concerned about AI bias in law school admissions?
How many pre-law students prefer law schools that don't use AI in the admissions process?
What is Kaplan's advice for applicants regarding GenAI use in law school applications?
