Hello, and welcome to Status Check with Spivey, where we talk about life, law school, law school admissions, a little bit of everything. My name is Anna Hicks-Jaco, and I am taking over the mic today as Spivey Consulting's Chief Operating Officer; I also just got off of a temporary law school dean of admissions position. And today we're going to be talking about AI-generated law school personal statements, specifically ChatGPT just because that's sort of the most common and most accessible one that people are talking about right now.
So, this is a hot topic in admissions, and I'm going to get a little bit "inside baseball" here, but this is something that has been on the minds and in the conversations of law school admissions officers for several months now. It's something that I would be surprised if there was a single law school Dean of Admissions out there who hasn't given it at least some thought. I would imagine the vast majority of law schools have had conversations about this in the admissions office, among senior leadership. There was a big session on it at the LSAC annual meeting—so every year LSAC hosts a big meeting where all law school admissions officers come together to discuss admissions topics, and ChatGPT was a big point of discussion at this past year's LSAC annual meeting. And now law schools are starting to come out with policies on it. So we've seen schools saying you have to certify on your application that you did not use AI to put together your application materials, and we have at least one school that is specifically saying that you are allowed to use tools like ChatGPT.
If you're coming to this podcast thinking you might want to use ChatGPT for parts of your application process, and you're looking for some background information about how that might be perceived, how that might go over, we're mainly going to be focusing on that latter category of schools that do allow you to use ChatGPT, or just don't say anything about it at all. We would never encourage you to use these types of tools for schools that specifically say you're not allowed to, schools where you have to certify that you did not use them. We're hoping to give you the insider perspective on all of this. And we can also give what I think is probably more objective advice than law schools may be able to give, and I don't mean that in a bad way at all, but law schools have their own motives, law schools have their own goals that they are furthering. But if I'm a law school that doesn't want you to use ChatGPT in your application, I'm going to talk about this topic differently from if I were a law school that was okay with it, if that makes sense. So we're going to try to be as objective as possible here.
We're going to be critiquing a few essays written by ChatGPT as sort of vehicles for discussing strategy for applicants and how law school admissions officers are actually going to be looking at these things. I'll start with one that was posted on Reddit. Mike posted about it and asked for folks to post some AI-generated personal statements. This first one is interesting. The poster put into ChatGPT basically just, “write me a law school personal statement that begins with an anecdote.” So that's super, super general. If you're listening to this, you're doing research on how to best navigate this process, you're trying to think about these things strategically—I would very much doubt that anyone in our audience would put this simple of a prompt into ChatGPT and just turn that in. Though I would almost guarantee you that at least a few people will just straight up do that this cycle. You'd be surprised at the sorts of things people submit in law school admissions.
So I'm going to read these essays. But we will include the full text in our blog post. There's a link to that in the show notes or description if you're not already on our blog post. So if you'd rather read them, you can just skip ahead, but I am going to read them out in full just so that we can all have the same context and the same understanding of what we're talking about.
So here's that first personal statement I talked about from the Redditor who put that really general prompt in there. And again, this is not what you would really be submitting, I think, if you were using ChatGPT in your application process. But I do think there's some interesting observations that we can get from it. So I'm going to jump into this first personal statement.
Saturdays at the farmer’s market were always filled with vibrant colors, enticing smells, and the rhythmic chatter of vendors hawking their wares. One particular Saturday, as I was purchasing fresh bell peppers, I overheard a terse exchange between a farmer named Mr. Ramirez and a customer. The customer, unsatisfied with the price, was demanding a discount, claiming the advertised price was deceptive.
"Your sign says $1.50 a pound, but you told me $3.00 for these two peppers. That's cheating," accused the customer.
Mr. Ramirez patiently explained, "The sign is right, but those peppers are heavier than a pound. Why don’t we weigh them again?" The scale reaffirmed his honesty. Rather than leaving, the customer continued to haggle, asserting his own sense of fairness over the clearly marked prices.
This altercation may have seemed trivial to many, but to me, it illuminated a fundamental principle: the undeniable importance of laws and regulations in our daily lives. In that marketplace, where dozens of transactions occurred every minute, the principles of contract law, however informally applied, guided each sale. It was the beginning of my appreciation for the legal frameworks that subtly govern even our simplest interactions.
As I continued my undergraduate studies in sociology, I found the interplay between law and society fascinating. My course on “Law and Social Order” explored how societies codify beliefs, set norms, and enforce rules through legal systems. I realized that law, at its core, is a delicate balance of serving the collective good while respecting individual rights. But like that altercation at the market, the application of the law isn’t always straightforward.
My interest in law led me to intern at the office of Attorney Lydia Mendoza. Lydia was a community lawyer who worked tirelessly for those without a voice, often representing marginalized communities. She once shared, “Law isn't just about understanding statutes; it’s about understanding people. Every clause, every precedent has a human story behind it.”
During my internship, I had the opportunity to assist on a case where a tenant, a single mother of two, was being wrongfully evicted from her apartment. The landlord claimed neglect on her part, citing damage to the property. But as we delved into the evidence, it became clear that the building’s disrepair was a result of the landlord’s own negligence. Here, contract law wasn’t just an academic concept; it was a lifeline for a family at risk of homelessness. We eventually secured the tenant's rights to stay, but this victory was more than just a legal triumph; it was a testament to the power of law to protect and ensure justice.
These experiences solidified my decision to attend law school. I believe that with a robust legal education, I can effectively serve individuals and communities who find themselves at the crossroads of life-altering legal issues. Whether it’s a dispute over a simple transaction or a complex contractual disagreement, I want to be the voice that advocates, mediates, and seeks justice.
In conclusion, that day at the farmer’s market was an unexpected lesson on the pervasive nature of law. It's everywhere - in the weighing of peppers, in the signs that advertise prices, and in the very fabric of our daily exchanges. I want to immerse myself in the intricacies of this discipline, not just for the love of jurisprudence but for the countless individuals whose lives are shaped by it. I am eager to embark on this journey and play my part in the evolving narrative of justice.
Okay, that's the first personal statement. My first thought when reading this was that it was almost a little bit uncanny valley for me. It reads a lot like a personal statement in some ways, if you sort of blur your eyes and turn off part of your brain. You know, like when you're reading a textbook, and you get to the end of the page, and your eyeballs have passed over every word and your brain has processed them in some way, but you just haven't learned anything at all. If you sort of read this essay with your brain half turned off, as I said, it feels a lot like a personal statement. It does. But when you start to look just a little bit closer to it, it doesn't feel right. There's something off about it. And that's because of the content, right? The content doesn't quite make sense. That farmers' market story is just incredibly boring. It's not differentiated at all. It starts with this sort of vivid description of the farmers' market that doesn't really make much sense—you know, you're wondering, why would this person remember this incident at a farmers market that they describe as pretty tame and pretty boring? You know, what about that anecdote that they described would stick out to someone and catalyze them to become interested in law? I think the essay says that it was "the beginning of their appreciation for the legal framework that governs even our simplest interactions." And none of that quite makes sense; none of that quite feels authentic. So that's why I say it feels uncanny valley to me. There are parts of it that do feel a lot like a personal statement, which makes sense, but overall, it does not strike me as something that a real person would write.
As I said before, I don't think that a lot of people are going to be submitting anything that looks like this. I think that they would at least be giving it their own personal prompt, their own personal topic. But as I said, there are a couple of things that I find particularly interesting about this personal statement. The first is that it talks about two different stories, the first being the farmers' market and the second being the wrongful eviction case. That wrongful eviction case is way more memorable, way more relevant. It's just better in every way, I think, than the farmer's market story, which again is just really boring. So I think that's interesting, that the essay includes two different stories but selects the wrong one to emphasize. That tells me that these tools, even if you give it strong stories, even if you give it good materials, it might have a difficult time discerning between what in a specific applicant’s profile and background makes sense to emphasize and what doesn't. It might be able to write something that sort of reads all right with decent writing, but I predict that strategic decision-making is going to be a big hindrance to AI tools’ effectiveness here.
The second observation I made, that I think is probably going to be pretty obvious, is that this essay is incredibly generic. Again, it does feel off if you really read it closely, but if you kind of skim it and don't pay too much attention to the details, this reads like a lot of personal statements I have read before. Especially the paragraphs about doing the undergraduate studies in sociology and taking a course on law and then the interest in law leading to an internship at an attorney's office, that all feels like stuff I have read hundreds of times before. And that kind of makes sense, doesn’t it? It is, by the very nature of AI, an amalgamation of hundreds or thousands of other personal statements, so it kind of makes sense that it's not differentiated at all, at least when you're not giving it a specific differentiated topic. But I just wanted to highlight that as a pitfall of using these types of tools. We talk a lot about "differentiation" at Spivey Consulting Group, if you read our book, our Spivey Consulting Law School Admissions Bible, it's part of the PowerScore series. We wrote it with Dave Killoran. And differentiation is a big point of emphasis there. And it makes sense that using AI tools will almost by definition trend toward becoming less differentiated, because it is being made up of other personal statements. Technologically, I know I'm not talking about this with any level of precision, so we're not going to get into the details of that, but it's something to watch out for, certainly, if you use these tools in any capacity.
If a real applicant came to me and gave me this essay, and it was all true stories, and asked for suggestions for what they could do to improve it, I think I would have a lot of suggestions. The first one would be, as I was saying earlier, to start with the story of the wrongful eviction, especially if the applicant had personal conversations with the client, saw the client's family, really worked on this case, it was important to them. I think that could be a strong start to a personal statement. I would probably cut the farmers' market story altogether unless there was some information that explains why it was more impactful than it comes across in this essay. But as it is presented here, I would just cut that entirely; I don't think it's helpful. I don't think it's differentiating, and it certainly doesn't make sense to start out with it vividly described as it is here.
Along those same lines, I would probably use fewer quotations. There's a lot of usage of quotations here and, sort of, dialogue presented as if these were the exact words being said. I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense in most personal statements, but it especially does not make sense here. It just makes it feel even more inauthentic, because why would you remember the precise words being used in this small dispute over a couple of bell peppers? Unless it was some big bombastic fight that's just not described in the personal statement, as I was saying.
I would also suggest cutting probably the whole paragraph on the undergraduate studies in sociology and the interplay between law and society, whatever. I think in general, it's not a great idea for applicants to spend time in their personal statement sort of opining about the importance of the law and what the law means and big philosophical questions like that. Unless you're talking about them in the context of a personal, important, impactful experience that you had, and then directly what that experience taught you about the law—that's different if it's personal. But if you're just talking about it as, “I took this class and based on that I started to understand XYZ,” and then you spend several sentences or a couple of paragraphs talking about your philosophical ideas about the law, that is typically wasted space. And it can come across a little bit naive even, especially to admissions officers who have practiced the law to be reading sort of strong statements being made about the law from someone who hasn't even taken a law school class yet. So I would avoid that. I would definitely cut it in this essay. And honestly, overall, the essay might benefit from just a different topic entirely. So that's a conversation that I would probably have with the applicant about whether there are other experiences that might make sense to highlight in a law school personal statement.
So let's talk about a more realistic use case, which is that you give ChatGPT not just a general prompt of “write me a law school personal statement,” because obviously the biggest problem that I didn't even talk about with that last personal statement is that, if you gave it that general prompt, those stories would not be true, which obviously is not a personal statement that you want to submit. The more likely use case, though, is an applicant going to ChatGPT, having a topic in mind, having a story in mind, giving it the basic facts of that story, and then ChatGPT turns your actual authentic story into an essay. So I did a little experiment on this. I worked backwards from one of my favorite personal statements of all time, and I actually have read this for the podcast before. So we'll link that in the show notes and in the blog. It is one of the absolute best personal statements I've ever read. And for this experiment, I decided to put the basic facts of that personal statement into ChatGPT and see what it gave me.
First, I do want to read the original, just so that you know sort of what we are working backward from. So here's the actual personal statement that the applicant wrote themselves and submitted to law schools. And I do want to give a quick disclaimer here that this personal statement does include mentions and themes of abuse and of illicit drug use. So if you don't want to listen to that, I would recommend skipping forward a little bit. Here's the personal statement.
I was eight years old when my older sister Maria handed me an envelope, put me on a city bus, and told me to bring it to my mother and not to look inside. Of course, I looked. Then I panicked. The envelope was full of heroin.
I ran to my other sister Jenny’s house—I am one of five siblings, with four sisters all between 10 and 15 years older than me—and asked her what to do. My first instinct had been to go to the police, as I had been taught in school, but I didn’t want my mom to get into trouble. Jenny calmed me down, then put me back on the bus, alone, and told me to do as I was told.
When I got to my mom’s house, she wasn’t home. Instead, I was greeted by her boyfriend, Charlie, who was furious that I’d made him wait for the drugs and became violent and abusive. When my mom got home, she was angry that I’d made Charlie angry, and more abuse followed. This was always how things happened between the three of us—I’d accidentally make Charlie mad, and that would make my mom mad. They both became violent when they were angry. When this dynamic became too much, I would show up at one of my older sister’s houses, but sooner or later I would be sent back to my mother. My father, for his part, had died of an overdose when I was four years old. I don’t remember him. My earliest memory is the day he died—the ambulance lights, the EMTs, then bits and pieces of the funeral.
At sixteen, I’d finally had enough. After a particularly violent outburst, I ran to my sister’s house, called the police, and reported Charlie for assault. My mother arrived in a rage, demanding I drop the charges. When I refused, she disowned me. I remember her eyes darkening, her face hardening. She told me, “I have no son.” That was the last time I saw her—three years later, she died.
After that night, I moved onto the couch in my sister Maria’s living room along with her husband and three children, then dropped out of high school so I could work full-time and pay rent. On my eighteenth birthday, I signed a lease for my own apartment, and I set out on my own. I got my GED and enrolled in community college, but my work schedule, constantly changing, made it difficult to ever consistently attend my classes. Professors sometimes gave assignments that required me to buy materials I couldn’t afford, or travel somewhere I wasn’t able to. When they asked me why I didn’t complete the assignment, I was too ashamed to explain why or to ask for help. I ended up leaving school after just two months.
The turning point for me came when I moved in with a new roommate and her three-year-old son Sammy. I care for children deeply, and Sammy grew to see me as a parent figure. I remember one day taking him to the park—I taught him how to swing, and we rolled down a hill, laughing and grass-stained at the bottom before sprinting back up to do it again. I ended up carrying him the six blocks home, his head on my shoulder as he slept in my arms. I knew then that I never wanted to raise my voice in anger towards Sammy, or hurt him in any way. I knew I could be different from my family—that I did not just have to be the product of my circumstances.
Over time, I managed to get some success in taking college courses, and it started to build on itself. I took it one step at a time, and before I knew it, I had finished my bachelor’s degree. This step had once seemed impossible to me, but now it was a reality. Today, anything seems possible. Just a few years ago, my world was so closed off, but now I have a wonderful support system of friendships, and my future seems limitless. After growing up in deeply unfair circumstances, I developed a strong sense of fairness, and I hope to take that into law school and into a career as a lawyer. As a child, I never would have imagined myself where I am today, but I know now that I have the ability to achieve my dreams, and becoming a lawyer is the next step in that pursuit.
When I was a kid living in La Habra, I sometimes spent my days collecting cans from dumpsters and bringing them to a recycling center, earning 90 cents per pound. Sometimes, I would earn enough to buy a massive Mexican bread cookie from the local bakery. A couple of years ago, I went back to my old neighborhood, seeing it all with new eyes. I stopped into the bakery and bought one of those bread cookies, but it seemed so much tinier than I remembered. I wasn’t sure if the cookie had gotten smaller, or if I had just gotten bigger. In so many ways, the neighborhood seemed just the same. It was me, I realized, who had changed.
So, that's the personal statement. As I said, I think it's one of the best personal statements I've ever read. It was paired, I should note, with a diversity statement that talked more about the applicant's Mexican heritage. It was accompanied by optional essays and short answers and other materials that conveyed his specific interests in law in a little bit more detail. But this particular essay talked about his background and his motivations in life in a way that was incredibly elevating for his applications. So, I put the facts of that personal statement into ChatGPT. I didn't put the essay itself. I just put, as plainly as I could state them, the various details and facts that were included in the personal statement that I just read. So here is the version that ChatGPT gave me.
In the early afternoon sun, the world seemed both vast and insignificant to my 8-year-old self as I clutched the envelope my sister had handed me. With strict instructions not to peek, I embarked on a mission to deliver it to our mother. However, curiosity gnawed at me, and I yielded to its temptation, revealing a shocking truth – the envelope contained a substance I would later understand to be heroin.
My immediate response was to seek help, a notion ingrained in me by elementary school lessons about right and wrong. I contemplated involving the authorities, but my young mind grasped the potential consequences this could inflict on my mother. The struggle between duty and loyalty was daunting for a child, and so I turned to my older sister for guidance.
Her counsel echoed with conflicting emotions, mirroring the complex dynamics of our family. "Give it to Mom," she advised, highlighting the intricate balance of love and responsibility that had shaped our lives. I followed her counsel, but destiny played a harsh hand, leading me to our mother's boyfriend – a man who had wielded both physical and emotional pain.
Growing up had forced me to confront realities that others my age could scarcely comprehend. My father's absence, lost when I was merely 4, had painted the canvas of my earliest memories. Those early brushstrokes had traced a life marked by hardship, yet they also carried the seeds of resilience that would guide me through the tumultuous journey ahead.
Leaving my mother's house at 16 was not an act of defiance but a desperate bid for self-preservation. With a high school education abandoned in the face of survival, I navigated life's stormy seas, finding refuge on my sister's couch as I paid rent through hard work. A GED, a beacon of second chances, led me to the doors of a community college, but internal battles thwarted my academic aspirations.
Amidst this turmoil, a new chapter began. Sharing a home with a roommate and her child illuminated a path of hope and transformation. The genuine connection forged with her child sparked a revelation – the power to break familial cycles of hardship and build a foundation for a brighter future.
Guided by this newfound purpose, I discovered an unwavering drive to rekindle my academic journey. Fueled by a desire to harness the law as a force for good, I secured a college degree against all odds. This journey, born from adversity, instilled within me an unshakable determination to pursue a legal education. The tenacity that saw me through tumultuous times now compels me to embrace the challenges of law school.
Through my experiences, I have glimpsed the power of advocacy and the transformative potential of the law. My journey from a child burdened with secrets to an adult empowered by the pursuit of justice drives my aspiration to become a lawyer. I am resolved to be a voice for those who are unheard, to advocate for justice in the face of adversity, and to forge a legacy that nurtures hope in the hearts of the next generation.
As I stand on the precipice of law school, I carry with me the stories of my past, woven into the fabric of my identity. These stories inform my commitment to justice, resilience, and the pursuit of a better tomorrow – not just for myself, but for the countless lives I hope to touch along the way.
Alright, that's it. That's the personal statement. I don't know what your reaction was listening to that, but from the perspective of an admissions officer reading that on the page, boy does it feel overwrought. It does not feel genuine or authentic at all. It sounds like it is trying to sound as deep and wise as it possibly can. The language was a lot more complex than the original. There were a lot more analogies, a lot more, sort of, stilted language. The original version, they used simpler language, the language that this applicant actually would have used in a conversation instead of all of these deep metaphors and things. That essay, written sincerely from the heart, was far better and far more differentiating than this version.
So if the real applicant came to me with this ChatGPT-written version of the personal statement and asked me for a critique or asked me for suggestions on how to improve it, I do think that the first thing I would suggest is toning down the language and simplifying the language. Especially having known this applicant, having spoken with this applicant, and knowing that his real-life communication style is much simpler and more straightforward. Step one, we would want the tone of this essay to be more aligned with his actual authentic voice. So I think that's the biggest thing, and I think that alone would make a huge difference, because this does have the bones of a strong personal statement—we know that it does; I gave it the bones of a strong personal statement.
Second, I think near the end, ChatGPT kind of turned it into a bit of a “why law,” which the original was less of a “why law.” This ChatGPT version, in the last couple of paragraphs, started talking about a "passion for the pursuit of justice" and aspirations of becoming a lawyer and resolving to be a voice for those who are unheard and advocating for justice. There’s certainly nothing inherently wrong with that, obviously, but I don't think it especially makes sense in this essay. The experiences as conveyed don't necessarily lead the applicant naturally to “and this is why I want to go to law school” being the conclusion. I think that's kind of shoehorned in, and I don't think it quite makes sense here. What I do think makes more sense is conveying those legal aspirations elsewhere in the application, which is what this applicant did, and I think that made more sense for him.
The other suggestions I would give would honestly just go toward getting it closer to the real version that the applicant submitted. So I won't get too into the weeds of that, but definitely the biggest one would be toning down the language and making it more authentic for this actual applicant and how he speaks and writes and communicates.
And this is a version working backward from an excellent personal statement. This is a topic, this is a story that we know can make a great personal statement. So I think it's interesting that it turned out a version that is far worse than the original. Moreover, I think if this were real life, if I were an applicant, actually, not working backwards from an essay, but talking about my real life, putting that into ChatGPT, I think I probably would have missed some of the details that were included in the original essay. And of course, it can't make up details it doesn't have, you know, you have to give it all the information that it's going to present in the essay if it's going to be true and authentic. And I think that the actual personal statement writing process allows applicants to flesh out your ideas and reflect on the experiences and what they mean to you in a way that, I think, that sort of just listing out facts to a robot does not. So I do think that if this were real life, the applicant probably would have missed some of the details that made the original essay shine.
Moreover, I think it probably would have included some extraneous details, some details that weren't in the original essay, which of course I did not do. I included only information from the original essay. And I think some of those details would make more sense to leave out. You know, when you're writing a personal statement, you have to make strategic decisions about what you include, what you don't. And it seems ChatGPT, at least at this point, does not have the ability to discern, as we were talking about earlier, what to highlight, what to not highlight, what to include, what to exclude. You are the one who's going to have to make those decisions. This is sort of a silly example, but I actually tried giving the ChatGPT the exact same prompt as I did for the essay I just read, but including the sort of useless facts, "My favorite food was spaghetti." I didn't emphasize that at all or say it was important at all; I just included that as one of the many facts that I listed. And ChatGPT gave me back an essay that included the sentence, “My favorite food, spaghetti, became a refuge of comfort in turbulent times.”
So you have to give it exactly the right information. You have to include all of the facts, all of the information that would make a strong essay, and you need to exclude all of the facts, all of the information that is not strategically sound to include. And by the time you've done all of that work, all of that research, all of that introspection and reflection, and potentially writing to sort of help you flesh out that introspection and reflection, you’ve probably already written basically a personal statement by that point. And that personal statement is probably a lot better than what ChatGPT would put together. Even if you're using super simple language, not using metaphors, you're not using analogies, I really think that something that you write authentically—even if your language is super simple, even if you're not talking about things in this sort of flowery way—that sincere essay is going to be far more effective than something that an AI language model spits out that is not based on your style, your voice, your authentic self at all. Your version is going to be stronger than that probably 99 times out of 100.
I think the most likely usage for ChatGPT and similar tools in law school personal statements is probably from applicants who just don't feel confident in their writing or English abilities, and they want to write something that sounds professional and well written, and they don't think they can do it on their own. As I've been talking about, you’d still have to do your own research on the strategy side, you'd still have to choose a strong topic yourself, you'd still have to do all that reflection, all that introspection, and give it every detail that would be valuable to include, and probably do a lot of editing. Again, that would probably be just as much work, if not more work, than just writing a personal statement yourself. You don't need to be a strong, beautiful, creative writer to write a great law school personal statement and really elevate your chances of getting into your goal schools. Creative writing is not a part of the law school curriculum; you need to be able to write clearly and concisely. Your essay does not need to be a beautiful piece of creative writing; it really, really does not, and aiming for that at the cost of authenticity, I think, is going to be to your detriment.
Number two, I do think more and more schools are going to start looking at the LSAT writing sample and the GRE writing section when they're trying to assess writing skills. So the LSAT writing sample, when I applied to law school, the advice was basically "no one reads them; as long as you don't draw a picture, you are fine." But that was when those essays were handwritten, and a big part I think of why basically nobody read them was because half or probably much more were almost incomprehensible; the handwriting issue honestly was a big part of it. Now that it is typed, I do think that more and more law school admissions folks are reading them. And with tools like ChatGPT becoming common and usable, I actually think the majority will start at least reading it, and especially if for some reason your writing skills are in question, I think they're going to be looking at that a lot more than your personal statement. Because again, ChatGPT is a huge topic in law school admissions, it is absolutely being discussed in law school admissions offices, this is something that is on folks' radar. So I do think that's going to become more common. And if your LSAT or GRE writing is drastically different in terms of writing ability relative to your personal statement, relative to the other elements of your application, that could hurt you.
So you're probably, in the vast majority of cases, going to come up with a stronger personal statement writing it yourself relative to one that an AI language model creates for you. And something that we talk about a ton when we talk about personal statements is authenticity and sincerity, and I've brought that up many times in this podcast because it is so important, and it is what makes for the most positively differentiating personal statements. And it is going to be very difficult to come up with something that is authentic and real using ChatGPT.
There was one other AI-generated personal statement that was posted on that Reddit thread that I mentioned that I actually thought was pretty decent, though it'd need some real editing before being submitted. The Redditor created a personal statement using ChatGPT based on a story from a TV show from a character who is a lawyer; the show is Community—great show by the way, if you haven't watched it, though we don't talk about Season 4, just skip that one. So the Redditor basically put in the main character Jeff Winger's backstory, and sort of that character's reasoning for wanting to go to law school, into ChatGPT, and asked it to write a personal statement based on that. And it put out one that was pretty okay. Again, it would need some editing, but it was pretty okay. And I think that sort of makes sense. The story was literally made for TV. It was written by professional writers who were trying to convey an interesting and effective backstory for a character who wanted to go to law school, who wanted to become a lawyer, right? So it makes sense that the story was interesting, and that put into ChatGPT was able to come up with a relatively interesting personal statement. I think it just comes back to the strategy question of, if you include all of the right details that would make a strong personal statement, if you make those strategic calls yourself and figure out a story that is effective and conveys aspects of your background that are positive for a law school application, you probably could create an okay personal statement—with some editing, with some reconfiguring. But it's not going to be as authentic as just what you could write yourself, and that's hindering you.
Let's talk about where I could see potentially recommending someone use AI language models like ChatGPT in their law school applications. Because if you haven't noticed, the thrust behind a lot of what we've been talking about is that using ChatGPT is more likely to create a worse personal statement than what you could create yourself. But there are cases where I could see using it. And this is where I think law schools probably aren't going to be as free and as open talking about this aspect of it. But I think where you could use it, and where frankly I think applicants are most likely to use it, is if you are writing your full personal statement by yourself, you have done that strategizing, you have done that introspecting, you have done that reflection and you've come up with this story, and maybe you hit a wall on one specific section. Or maybe you try to rewrite a sentence five times and just can't figure out how to word it correctly or phrase it correctly. That's the sort of situation where I could see, “Okay, I'm going to put this sentence or two into ChatGPT and ask it to rewrite it so that it sounds a little bit more professional or so that the structure is a little bit refined.” When you're hitting those walls, I could see using ChatGPT for specific, small parts of your personal statement where you are having trouble or where you think seeing a rephrasing of things could be helpful for you.
Again, I would not do even this limited amount of using it for schools that specifically tell you that you cannot use it or that require you to certify that you have not used it. I talked about that at the beginning. But for schools that don't give any specific guidelines or for schools that say specifically you can use these types of tools, I think that would be a very fair usage of it. I would just recommend being judicious in your usage of it. I would use it as little as possible, because the more you use it, the more you are using words that are not your own, and I think that your sincerity is just going to decrease the more that you use these sorts of tools. And law school admissions officers gain a really good radar for sincerity. You read enough personal statements, you meet enough applicants, you start to have a sense for what is genuine from an applicant and what is just writing down words that the applicant thinks that the admissions officers want to read, if that makes sense. So we emphasize sincerity hugely at the Spivey Consulting Group in terms of personal statements, in terms of your application elements. Long before there were AI language models that can write your personal statement for you, we have always emphasized sincerity. So that's still ultimately incredibly important and using these types of tools is getting away from being authentic.
Ultimately, it does seem to me that AI language models are able to create a personal statement that has decent writing, maybe it's super overwrought like that last one, but some of the other ones I've seen have been less overwrought. So I think you probably could come up with a decent personal statement, but you’d have to give it all of the right things. You’d have to do a ton of work on your own, and I think in the course of doing that work, in the course of writing out the various things that you want ChatGPT to use in your personal statement, what you create on your own is probably going to be better than what ChatGPT can give you. These AI tools can certainly generate competent writing, they can generate something that follows the basic structure of a personal statement, but as of right now, at least from everything that I have seen, it's not effective at making strategic decisions about what to write about, what to highlight, what to emphasize, what to de-emphasize, what to leave out. I think all of that is going to be decisions that you, the applicant, are going to have to make.
And in most cases, a plainly-written essay written sincerely by you is probably going to be a far better personal statement than an elaborate flowery essay from ChatGPT that's trying to sound smart and trying to sound wise, telling the exact same story. Again, your personal statement does not need to be a beautiful personal essay, it does not need to be an incredible piece of creative writing. It needs to authentically tell a story that is personal to you, that is important to you. And writing-wise, you just want it to be clear, you want it to be understandable, you want it to display that you are able to write in competent English.
So, I hope this was helpful. I hope it gave you some things to think about if you are considering using some of these tools in putting together your law school applications. It's certainly something that's on the minds of law school admissions officers, Mike and Dean Z, Sarah Zearfoss from the University of Michigan Law School, actually discussed it in our recent podcast interview with her in part two of that series. So we'll link that in the show notes. Feel free to listen to that one if you want her thoughts on it, and feel free to like and subscribe if you found this helpful, if you want more advice in the future on law school admissions, on legal education news, mental health and wellness. Thank you for listening, and best of luck.
.png)
![Header: Georgetown Law, William M. Treanor, Dean and Executive Vice President, Paul Regis Dean Leadership Chair, March 6, 2025, Addressed to: Edward R. Martin, Jr., Interim United States Attorney, District of Columbia Judiciary Center, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Contents of Letter: Dear Interim United States Attorney Martin: I write in response to your letter dated February 17, 2025, which you sent to me via email on March 3, 2025. As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown University was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical, and spiritual understanding. For us at Georgetown, this principle is a moral and educational imperative. It is a principle that defines our mission as a Catholic and Jesuit institution. Georgetown University also prohibits discrimination and harassment in its programs and activities and takes seriously its obligations to comply with all federal and local laws. Your letter challenges Georgetown’s ability to define our mission as an educational institution. It inquires about Georgetown Law’s curriculum and classroom teaching, asks whether diversity, equity, and inclusion is part of the curriculum, and asserts that your office will not hire individuals from schools where you find the curriculum “unacceptable.” The First Amendment, however, guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed that among the freedoms central to a university’s First Amendment rights are its abilities to determine, on academic grounds, who may teach, what to teach, and how to teach it. Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20001-2075 This is a bedrock principle of constitutional law – recognized not only by the courts, but by the administration in which you serve. The Department of Education confirmed last week that it cannot restrict First Amendment rights and that it is statutorily prohibited from “exercising control over the content of school curricula.” Your letter informs me that your office will deny our students and graduates government employment opportunities until you, as Interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, approve of our curriculum. Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution. Georgetown Law has one of the preeminent faculties in the country, fostering groundbreaking scholarship, educating students in a wide variety of perspectives, and thriving on the robust exchange of ideas. Georgetown Law faculty have educated world leaders, members of Congress, and Justice Department officials, from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. We pride ourselves on providing an excellent graduate and professional education, built upon the Catholic and Jesuit tradition. Georgetown-educated attorneys have, for decades, served this country capably and selflessly in offices such as yours, and we have confidence that tradition will continue. We look forward to your confirming that any Georgetown-affiliated candidates for employment with your office will receive full and fair consideration. Sincerely, [Signature] William M. Treanor Dean and Executive Vice President Paul Regis Dean Leadership Chair 2](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/683eb0792a2604c0663c55bc/68920faf57063b4458cf6cf2_Bill-Treanor-Georgetown-Letter-to-Ed-Martin.jpeg)
