It's going to get interesting
In an effort to commemorate the annual passage known as the spring writeon, I will be publishing a series of posts on the UCLA Law Review over the next few days. These posts are a product of quite a bit of investigative probing, and contains many things that Law Review would rather you not know.
As part of what I consider to be my grand effort to put together a complete picture of Law Review, so that 1Ls get a complete picture of the organization that they are clamoring to join, I will present the following posts in my series:
Wednesday: "5 dirty little secrets"
Friday: "Law Review and diversity"
Monday: "A how-to-guide"
While most people, including me, will grant you that Law Review publishes some good legal scholarship, people still buy too much into its hype and aura, a notion I hope to dispel. These posts have been extensively researched and I have evidence to back up each claim I will make. (I also invite Law Review to respond to any of my claims it feels is inaccurate/unfair.)
Who were my sources? Maybe they were disgruntled Law Review members (there are more than a handful of them!). Or maybe it came from content Law Review members, but who dislike the secrecy of Law Review and believe in the freedom of information. Or maybe from all the Law Review members I slept with to get this info (look at all the things I do for my readers in the pursuit of truth!) Or maybe I hacked into Law Review office and computers at 3AM (you really need to get that weird Kozinski photo off the famous alumni board!). Or perhaps the most outlandish theory of them all--I'm really a Law Review member, and the whole "I'm just a carefree 2L surfer dude not on Law Review" image I try to portray is all just an elaborate shtick. The possibilities are as limitless as Law Review's paranoia.
But, don't worry Law Review. It's not as if anyone reads this piece of garbage, so you don't have to worry about this affecting your image. My blog has managed to get over 54,000 pageloads only because I have no social life and clicked "reload" 54,000 times as I sat alone in my dark room. Or, in the words of the AAA hotel reviewer in Ocean's 13, "I'm just a nobody."
Check back tomorrow for some feather-ruffling.
As part of what I consider to be my grand effort to put together a complete picture of Law Review, so that 1Ls get a complete picture of the organization that they are clamoring to join, I will present the following posts in my series:
Wednesday: "5 dirty little secrets"
Friday: "Law Review and diversity"
Monday: "A how-to-guide"
While most people, including me, will grant you that Law Review publishes some good legal scholarship, people still buy too much into its hype and aura, a notion I hope to dispel. These posts have been extensively researched and I have evidence to back up each claim I will make. (I also invite Law Review to respond to any of my claims it feels is inaccurate/unfair.)
Who were my sources? Maybe they were disgruntled Law Review members (there are more than a handful of them!). Or maybe it came from content Law Review members, but who dislike the secrecy of Law Review and believe in the freedom of information. Or maybe from all the Law Review members I slept with to get this info (look at all the things I do for my readers in the pursuit of truth!) Or maybe I hacked into Law Review office and computers at 3AM (you really need to get that weird Kozinski photo off the famous alumni board!). Or perhaps the most outlandish theory of them all--I'm really a Law Review member, and the whole "I'm just a carefree 2L surfer dude not on Law Review" image I try to portray is all just an elaborate shtick. The possibilities are as limitless as Law Review's paranoia.
But, don't worry Law Review. It's not as if anyone reads this piece of garbage, so you don't have to worry about this affecting your image. My blog has managed to get over 54,000 pageloads only because I have no social life and clicked "reload" 54,000 times as I sat alone in my dark room. Or, in the words of the AAA hotel reviewer in Ocean's 13, "I'm just a nobody."
Check back tomorrow for some feather-ruffling.
posted by The Fox at 6:12 AM
3 Comments:
As a non-law review member, this stuff is all very comforting to hear. Thank you for this post.
-LawSchoolBlogger
Only 54,000??
i don't know about you SB, but my fingers start to get tired after clicking the reload button tens of thousands of times. i'll put in another 10,000 clicks tomorrow.
Post a Comment
<< Home