College students are embracing artificial intelligence for schoolwork, but many remain wary of relying on it too heavily—and aspiring lawyers appear especially skeptical, according to a new report from the Blickstein Group.

[“The College Student AI Reality Check”](https://blicksteingroup.com/resources/the-student-ai-report/) draws on responses from students at 37 colleges and universities and five in-depth interviews. It offers a view of how a generation preparing to enter the workforce uses AI as law firms invest heavily in tools intended to handle increasingly complex assignments.

The report was conceived and led by Vera Grabow, a Blickstein Group intern and college junior studying history and political science. She developed the questionnaire, coordinated outreach, analyzed the results and drafted the report, according to CEO Brad Blickstein.

Among respondents, 71% said they used AI for schoolwork several times a week or more. When trying to understand a new concept, 27.8% said an AI tool was their first stop, narrowly ahead of Google at 25.3%. Just 3.8% turned first to professors or teaching assistants.

Students reported using AI for tasks including research, proofreading, flashcards and brainstorming. But regular use did not necessarily translate into confidence that the technology was deepening their understanding.

“I think it’s improved my performance,” a Stanford Earth Systems senior told the researchers. “I don’t think it has improved my own knowledge.”

The time savings students described were often modest. The most common answer, selected by 32.4%, was that AI saved them 10% to 24% of the time spent on a typical assignment. Another 28.2% estimated savings of 25% to 49%, while 8.5% said they saved at least 75%.

Concerns about dependence were widespread: 72.1% believed heavy reliance on AI makes people somewhat or much less capable at their jobs. At the same time, 46.5% said they used AI to summarize readings, illustrating the tension between convenience and concern about lost skills.

Pre-law respondents used AI as often as other students but expressed greater reservations. Two-thirds said AI was acceptable for brainstorming only, compared with 38% of the full sample. The same share believed heavy reliance would leave them much less capable, versus 31.6% overall.

Pre-law students also reported greater confidence in working without AI: 83.3%, compared with 62% overall. All pre-law respondents expressed interest in a collective AI-free semester, versus 80.3% of the broader sample.

The findings concern college students, not practicing lawyers or law students as a whole, and the source material does not specify the size of the pre-law subgroup. Still, they suggest that familiarity with AI among potential future recruits may not translate into the trust needed to hand it substantial drafting responsibilities.