{"id":234715,"date":"2025-05-10T13:41:42","date_gmt":"2025-05-10T13:41:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/ucl-law-school-takes-on-ai-slop-with-assessment-overhaul\/"},"modified":"2025-05-10T13:41:42","modified_gmt":"2025-05-10T13:41:42","slug":"ucl-law-school-takes-on-ai-slop-with-assessment-overhaul","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=234715","title":{"rendered":"UCL law school takes on ‘AI slop’ with assessment overhaul"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

University College London will ensure most law assessments are artificial intelligence-proof<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo by Surya Prasad on Unsplash<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

UCL law school has stated its intention to \u201csecure\u201d assessments against artificial intelligence (AI), declaring the shift a \u201cresponse to the future\u201d in upholding trust and integrity amid \u201cAI slop\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a chunky paper published by the top law school, leading academics analyse AI in legal education \u2014 the main message being that they will ensure more than half of assessments they run cannot be completed with AI assistance. Two main reasons underpin the shift:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cOur task as a law faculty is to ensure that our degrees are, and continue to be, both transformative educational journeys and powerful, internationally recognised and durable signals of our students\u2019 achievements. AI does not change the core of that\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The paper<\/a> defines a \u201csecure assessment\u201d as one which guarantees that \u201cAI does not substitute for the skills or knowledge acquisition being evaluated.\u201d This includes written and oral in-person examinations.<\/p>\n

UCL\u2019s regulations for all departments already prohibit AI to \u201ccreate or alter content\u201d including in assessments, like coursework, \u201cunless explicitly authorised\u2026for a valid pedagogical reason\u201d. However, the move by the law school to actively \u201csecure\u201d assessments is a new development which will affect undergrad and postgrad studies. The law school claims shifting to 50% or more AI-proof assessments is a return to how things were done before the covid pandemic, which since made coursework more common.<\/p>\n

During the course of their legal careers, students may find themselves working with clients or in jurisdictions which are \u201cstill at the earliest stages of the digitisation of law, let alone the use of AI\u201d and need to be prepared for this, the law school claims. Key skills like thinking on your feet in cross-examination and learning the ethical standards for working with sensitive evidence cannot be substituted by AI use, they argue.<\/p>\n

The 2025\u00a0Legal Cheek<\/em> Chambers Most List<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n

The law school\u2019s new approach is a response to AI tools which are continually improving. Assessors were wowed when chatbots scraped a pass mark in a 2022 Watson Glaser test<\/a> and a contract exam<\/a> in 2023.<\/p>\n

Now, educators have to contend with the rise of \u201cAI agents\u201d who can perform certain tasks independently and proactively. ChatGPT\u2019s recently-launched \u201cdeep research\u201d function, which can take a research question and spend as long as half an hour scanning the web to generate a lengthier, more accurate essay-style product, is a further challenge.<\/p>\n

The academics liken AI uptake to for-profit legal databases being sold cheaply to universities decades ago. The idea, the paper says, was for universities to train students to rely on the tools to \u201censure a pipeline of future customers\u201d. Universities like UCL tried to resist by setting up free case database BAILII, for example. Now, these academics suggest, AI companies are at the same trick, encouraging students to rely on their products rather than develop independent skills.<\/p>\n

Microsoft\u2019s AI, Copilot, is particularly interesting as the company have \u201cembedded\u201d it into their ubiquitous office suite, as the paper points out \u2014 making it obviously available to users. Shoosmiths<\/a> recently announced a \u00a31 million bonus pot<\/a> if lawyers enter one million prompts into Copilot, showing inroads this tool has already made in the legal sector.<\/p>\n

The 2025\u00a0Legal Cheek<\/em> Firms Most List<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n

The paper acknowledges that lawyers can and are using AI tools, but emphasises that education is different. Lawyers are in part \u201ccontent creators\u201d the paper says, whilst students, it argues, are not. The paper says their \u201ctrusted\u201d degrees should test \u201cunderlying skills\u201d rather than the ability to produce content. The paper goes further, saying plentiful AI-generated media makes text \u201ccheap\u201d \u2014 calling it \u201cAI slop\u201d \u2014 so that \u201ccreativity and critical thinking\u201d will be needed for students to use AI \u201cmasterfully\u201d.<\/p>\n

Educators around the world have been wrangling with AI. Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand, have this week announced handwritten exams will return this trimester. UCL laws use their paper as a call to action:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c[C]onscious decisions must sit at the heart of universities\u2019 approaches to AI and education. Universities must not be passive rule-takers. We must not simply \u2018adjust to\u2019 speculative educational and professional visions of the future marketed by technology firms in order to sell more cloud computing and increase reliance on tools with questionable and uncertain utility. Universities must steer, and if necessary, themselves create, the technology they need for their missions.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The 2025\u00a0Legal Cheek<\/em> Solicitor Apprenticeships Most List<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n

Elsewhere, the legal profession has made historic moves to embrace AI. This month, the SRA approved Garfield.Law<\/a> \u2014 a regulated law firm driven entirely by AI, a first for England and Wales. Over in the judiciary, judges recently received refreshed guidance<\/a> on using tools like Copilot as well as identifying AI-generated submissions. <\/p>\n

Meanwhile, this year the pupillage gateway prohibited AI use<\/a> in applications while some law firms offered tips<\/a> on how to use the technology in applications.<\/p>\n

The somewhat mixed messaging from regulators, universities, and professional recruitment has at times made it difficult for students to know where they stand. Legal Cheek<\/em>\u2018s latest podcast<\/a> engages this issue from aspiring lawyers\u2019 perspectives, reflecting on personal experience, and asking whether students should use AI to potentially gain skills or ignore it and risk falling behind.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n