We enjoy pain, don't we?
Today there was a meeting that lots of 1Ls flocked to as if our futures depended on it. No, it was not a career services meeting. Nor was it a big firm reception. Nor was it a workshop on outlining.
It was the introductory meeting for Law Review.
I went out of sheer curiosity, but left resolved not to do it. Today we were introduced to the write on competition, the general way of attaining law review membership [There's a weird limited grade on, but only if you do decently on the write on]. The entire atmosphere was just a little too stuffy for my taste, and the room was filled with lots of high achieving gunner types. The editors there also gave off a sense of "look at me, I'm a demi-God" feel that I have no desire to emulate. Meanwhile, I was there waiting for the free pizza.
Law review write on also occurs during our spring break, and there's no way I am going to give up my spring break and my beach time for the chance/punishment to work as a cite checking slave my 2L year. The law review hopefuls should be glad that I will be spending spring break drunk on a beach and not suffering in the library, as there will be one less person competing for a coveted law review slot.
Today, the editors talked about the benefits of law review (research, writing, and working to shape the direction of the law). Being the person who enjoys disposing of pretense and asking questions that make others squirm, I so wanted to ask the following question: What makes law review more desirable or valuable than membership in any of the other 12 journals here?
The response I would have heard would have been something about serious intellectual exposure and unparalleled academic experiences. The real answer that the editors would likely not give, but every editor and 1L in the room knew, was that law review is more prestigious. And it helps a lot when vying for a job with White, Male, and Rich, LLP.
It was the introductory meeting for Law Review.
I went out of sheer curiosity, but left resolved not to do it. Today we were introduced to the write on competition, the general way of attaining law review membership [There's a weird limited grade on, but only if you do decently on the write on]. The entire atmosphere was just a little too stuffy for my taste, and the room was filled with lots of high achieving gunner types. The editors there also gave off a sense of "look at me, I'm a demi-God" feel that I have no desire to emulate. Meanwhile, I was there waiting for the free pizza.
Law review write on also occurs during our spring break, and there's no way I am going to give up my spring break and my beach time for the chance/punishment to work as a cite checking slave my 2L year. The law review hopefuls should be glad that I will be spending spring break drunk on a beach and not suffering in the library, as there will be one less person competing for a coveted law review slot.
Today, the editors talked about the benefits of law review (research, writing, and working to shape the direction of the law). Being the person who enjoys disposing of pretense and asking questions that make others squirm, I so wanted to ask the following question: What makes law review more desirable or valuable than membership in any of the other 12 journals here?
The response I would have heard would have been something about serious intellectual exposure and unparalleled academic experiences. The real answer that the editors would likely not give, but every editor and 1L in the room knew, was that law review is more prestigious. And it helps a lot when vying for a job with White, Male, and Rich, LLP.
posted by The Fox at 12:02 AM
4 Comments:
I have some 2&3L friends on law review, and after hearing all their horror stories about it (as well as doing my own research), I've decided to stay far, far away from it. I enjoy having the bare minimum of a social life that law school leaves me with as it is. No need to sacrifice that for extra work.
I more or less don't have a choice. I don't have a Tier 1 school next to my name. That is the *only* reason I regret going to my school -- it pretty much guarantees I gotta do Law Review.
Just to note, most law reviews are "more prestigious" than secondary journals because they are "generalist" journals--they publish the best material on whatever topic.
In contrast, secondary journals usually have a niche and so are limited in what material they can accept by what is being written in that area.
In that sense, being on a law review really does help you "shape the law"--but I'd agree that you should only do it if you REALLY want to do it. I know a lot of people who are unhappy on law review b/c they don't enjoy it. (I enjoy it, so I'm not miserable.)
Does it really matter for getting a job at a law firm?
I tend to think of it as similar to an honor society in undergrad - the ones that had only GPA requirements (which were worthless). Why do you need law review to tell everyone you're smart when your GPA can do it just fine?
Post a Comment
<< Home