Bluebook of crap
I officially hate the Bluebook. I hate everything about it. And this is surprising coming from a former English major, someone you think would be concerned with style.
I'm on one of the dozen journals here at UCLA and I have had to learn it for my job as a 1L cite checking slave. I personally don't mind the finding and pulling the reporters from the shelves. What I can't stand is the cite-checking bit. I really don't understand how the authors who get published in the UCLA journals (basically law school professors around the country, and one of the requirements to be a law professor I hear is to have been on law review while in law school, and hence you would think they would know the Bluebook inside and out) actually don't know how to cite. They now rely on us the cite-checking drones to so their dirty work for them.
And then, we have to use the Bluebook for our legal memos. Points are deducted if you cite cases wrong. Points deducted if you don't use supra correctly. Points if you have only one space instead of two. Do I really want to join a profession where people are way too anal-retentive that they care about how many spaces I use and the appropriateness of a comma versus a colon?
Bluebook is another reason why Harvard is evil. It's published by the Harvard Law Review and my $24.95 I paid for my Bluebook goes right into their already fat pockets.
And here's the kicker: the Bluebook is at times inconsistent and will say something in one part and then say something else in another part. When I told my writing teacher this, I was told that people who find errors write a note to the people over at Harvard, and for my efforts, I would be rewarded with a free Bluebook when the next edition comes out. Excuse me while I go ahead and jump for joy.
OK, that's my rant. I figured I haven't written about "real" law school for a while.
I'm on one of the dozen journals here at UCLA and I have had to learn it for my job as a 1L cite checking slave. I personally don't mind the finding and pulling the reporters from the shelves. What I can't stand is the cite-checking bit. I really don't understand how the authors who get published in the UCLA journals (basically law school professors around the country, and one of the requirements to be a law professor I hear is to have been on law review while in law school, and hence you would think they would know the Bluebook inside and out) actually don't know how to cite. They now rely on us the cite-checking drones to so their dirty work for them.
And then, we have to use the Bluebook for our legal memos. Points are deducted if you cite cases wrong. Points deducted if you don't use supra correctly. Points if you have only one space instead of two. Do I really want to join a profession where people are way too anal-retentive that they care about how many spaces I use and the appropriateness of a comma versus a colon?
Bluebook is another reason why Harvard is evil. It's published by the Harvard Law Review and my $24.95 I paid for my Bluebook goes right into their already fat pockets.
And here's the kicker: the Bluebook is at times inconsistent and will say something in one part and then say something else in another part. When I told my writing teacher this, I was told that people who find errors write a note to the people over at Harvard, and for my efforts, I would be rewarded with a free Bluebook when the next edition comes out. Excuse me while I go ahead and jump for joy.
OK, that's my rant. I figured I haven't written about "real" law school for a while.
posted by The Fox at 11:16 PM
4 Comments:
"1L cute checking slave"
a) your unconscious has a pretty high opionion of itself
b) i am actually jealous you have the opportunity to work for a journal as a 1L. But then, I'm a lawdork.
sorry, typo. or was it...
I think law professors don't Bluebook their footnotes because they don't have to, not because they don't know how to.
Just opening the Bluebook makes me need to drink, let alone using it.
Post a Comment
<< Home