Okay, Seriously? Michigan Law Wants You to Fight *With* AI in Your Admissions Essay
Let’s be honest – the idea of AI writing our essays felt like a dystopian fever dream a few years ago. Now, Michigan Law isn’t just acknowledging the rise of generative AI; they’re actively asking applicants to wrestle with it, and frankly, it’s a surprisingly fascinating development. The law school has quietly added a new supplemental essay prompt for this fall’s admissions cycle: “To be answered using generative AI: How much do you use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT right now? What’s your prediction for how much you will use them by the time you graduate from law school? Why?” It’s a move that feels…intentional, and honestly, a little bit like the future is arriving a *lot* faster than we anticipated.
The context here is crucial. Just two admissions cycles after banning AI-generated essays, Michigan is now mandating its use for *one* optional prompt. This isn’t some knee-jerk reaction to the latest tech trend. The law school’s rationale – driven by Sarah Zearfoss, senior assistant dean – stems from a very real shift happening within the legal profession. The ABA survey revealed that a staggering 30% of law firms are already utilizing AI tools, with that number climbing to 46% for firms with over 100 employees. And, let's be real, we've all seen the headlines: AI-generated legal filings riddled with fabricated cases and quotes. The risk isn't just about plagiarism; it’s about the potential for catastrophic errors in a field where precision is paramount.
But here’s where it gets genuinely interesting. Zearfoss believes evaluating an applicant’s ability to *effectively* use AI – rather than simply banning it – is now a critical skill. “That is now a skill that … probably not all legal employers, but big law firms, are looking for in their incoming associates,” she said. Attorney Melanie Green, specializing in AI and litigation, echoes this sentiment. Green predicts that the ability to manage and critically evaluate AI-generated evidence – think AI-analyzed physician notes – will be a core competency for lawyers. “I believe lawyers who use AI will replace lawyers who don’t,” she boldly stated. It's a slightly unsettling thought, isn’t it? We’re talking about potentially automating core legal functions, and a law school is asking applicants to demonstrate their proficiency in this emerging technology.
Now, I have to admit, the phrasing of the prompt does raise a red flag. As English professor Melanie Dusseau pointed out, there’s a risk of applicants gaming the system – either dramatically overstating their AI usage to impress, or conversely, downplaying it to avoid scrutiny. But even that potential manipulation highlights a larger trend: lawyers, and now law students, will need to become experts in prompting and interpreting AI. It’s not just about *using* the technology; it's about understanding its limitations, biases, and potential for misuse.
Looking ahead, I can’t help but wonder if this is just the beginning. Will other law schools follow suit? Will bar associations begin requiring AI literacy as part of the licensing process? Perhaps, in a decade, we’ll be evaluating legal arguments not just on their merits, but on the *quality* of the AI prompt that generated them. It’s a radical shift, and frankly, a little terrifying.
Ultimately, Michigan Law’s move isn’t just about admissions; it's a signal. It’s a signal that the legal profession is bracing for a future profoundly shaped by artificial intelligence. And that, my friends, is a conversation we all need to be having.
