Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-2026
Abstract
This article challenges the assumption that AI inevitably leads to the de-skilling of law students. Some faculty understandably fear that students will use AI to bypass critical thinking and avoid meaningful effort. This article reframes AI as a potential catalyst for improving legal education rather than inherently a threat.
Concerns about de-skilling generally are based on the assumption that faculty will not change traditional writing assignments. This article analyzes why these assignments often fail to help students develop strong analytical and writing skills. These include limited instruction in basic writing skills, poor design, lack of feedback, and faculty inertia in the face of rapid technological change.
This article recommends replacing long, end-of-semester papers with a sequence of short assignments culminating in concise papers modeled on bar association journal articles. This approach should improve student analytical and writing skills, reduce incentives to misuse AI, and prepare students for the writing tasks they are likely to do in practice. Faculty can use this assignment with or without allowing students to use AI. If faculty teach students to use AI responsibly, both students and faculty can become more "AI literate."
Recommended Citation
John Lande,
De-Skilling or Re-Skilling? The Case for Smarter Writing AssignmentsUniversity of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-57
(2026).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/1367