Once both parties are irrevocably convinced of the others decency, and only if both parties are exceptionally dispassionate. In other words, right before the abortion discussion.
right before the abortion discussion But still after the sex, right?
Interesting article, though. The skimming effect at the undergrad level gets talked about a lot in AA discussions, but I hadn't known about the law firm hiring case.
Some of the responses to Sanders' 2004 article have led law reviews to be far warier of publishing articles which rely heavily on statistics without a careful independent review of the statistics.
Does the quality/reputation of law reviews correlate with the quality/reputation of law schools? It doesn't seem like the faculty at law schools have much to do with their schools' publications.
8 is interesting, but I don't really have time to go into it right now.
My understanding is that everything about law reviews is a hopeless mess, and the system only exists anymore out of a mixture of conservatism and idiocy.
the system only exists anymore out of a mixture of conservatism and idiocy
In systems theory, this is known as the w-lfs-n Principle.
It also applies to the English subjunctive.
Jesus, Lobofilho, that's true of everything.
12 -- No, it's a good resume entry. I definitely notice it in the resumes sent to me. There are very good reasons for valuing this particular experience, but I'll omit them for fear of scaring whatever law students might be lurking.
I saw a law review article one of my friends wrote. The footnoting "standards" are such that only a braindead moron could think they serve any useful purpose whatsoever.
yes, the man is getting me down.
Oh wait, probably not what you were asking.
Good things about law reviews as opposed to other academic journals from personal experience: simultaneous submission makes trying to get published less excruciating. You know, one way or the other, pretty soon. You don't have to wait months or years and try journals one by one, and you don't have to choose between reaching for a good publication and just getting it in somewhere.
Bad things about law reviews: it's on your resume, or not, for good. Law reviews beget clerkships beget professorships...so if you don't make it, you can't teach. Pretty much the only way around this is to publish multiple articles anyway, but it's incredibly difficult to find time to write 'em if you have a full time job, and you only have a few years to do so before you're considered "stale."
Admission to law review is based on your first year grades, your anal footnoting abilities, and your writing--but it's a certain very specific KIND of writing they want. As far as your ideas, and doing original or thorough research--it just is not one of the selection criteria. So in a way I think it makes more sense as a credential for a firm or a judge than for being a law prof.
Are my frustrations visible here? I did not make law review, but was fully prepared to turn it down if I did--not knowing then just how impossible it is to get clerkships without it. Only discovered second or third year that I actually like writing articles, got my thesis published, have a bunch of other ideas including one that I could write in a few weeks that I think would be genuinely useful...but there. is. just. no. time. Hell, there's not even a Westlaw subscription I can use, for crying out loud
17 is insufficiently cynical. Following them demonstrates a willingness and ability to follow arbitrary and complicated rules.
There are also many true stories of articles being rejected everywhere, the author being told by someone wiser in the ways of the world to change the formatting, draw more attention to the fancy college they went to, and thank/name-check a few prominent law professors in the introduction, after which modifications are made various law reviews fall over themselves to publish the piece.
That seems like a harsh way to avoid the repugnant conclusion.
change the formatting, draw more attention to the fancy college they went to, and thank/name-check a few prominent law professors in the introduction
I could easily imagine that changing the formatting and resubmitting would have an effect. The second, and especially the third, strike me as wildly unlikely. But it could be that other law reviews operate differently than mine, or that I'm in denial/being misled about how mine operates.
I agree with all the good and bad things Katherine lists, and have more of both I could add.
Simultaneous submission must rule. I hate this one-journal-at-a-time thing.
Back on the subject of the article; I'm speaking from my prejudices here, of course, but it strikes me as transparent bullshit. The missing control is whether white associates with grades similar to those of the average black associate report experiences similar to those of the average black associate, and I'd bet money that they don't -- that there's not a good correlation between law school GPA and law firm success (mentorship, opportunities).
It's not that the qualities that get you good grades in law school and those that make you a successful practitioner are entirely unconnected -- being generally intelligent is useful for both -- but they're as close to unconnected as two sets of intellectual qualities could be. To do well on a law school exam you need a good memory for substantive law and the ability to regurgitate it swiftly and coherently without a chance for reflection or revision. To be a good associate, knowing much about substantive law is really very low on the list of things you need -- you don't do that sort of thing from memory, you research it case by case. A good associate needs to be diligent, and a sensible problem solver for practical problems, and a detail person who doesn't drop or forget minor tasks, because there are a million of them and usually all important and time-sensitive. Being a good, fluent writer is helpful for both, but you can be an awfully useful associate without being remarkable for your briefwriting skills.
The idea of a correlation that strong between law school grades and merited success as a practitioner strikes me as just unlikely.
23: Yes. My husband is an ass't prof, stuck in journal purgatory and wondering how high to aim
Sometimes Ben w-lfs-n goes and writes something like 17, and one is drawn, inexplicably, to kiss him on the mouth.
There are a fair number of people who get clerkships without being on law review.
Katherine, are we married? It's very, very frustrating to wait four, six, ten months just to get a rejection letter and a reviewer's comments that strongly suggest he read the paper once quickly, took the least charitable reading available, and went snide on it. Back to square one.
Not that I'm bitter.
I actually get a lot out of good rejections when the reviewers say interesting and helpful things. But some of the sloppiness I've seen is really awful. It's not like my health insurance is on the line or anything.
There are a fair number of people who get clerkships without being on law review.
Raises hand...I'm not sure there is a worse way to convey information than the "law review" writing style. Not to mention the rather severe quality of life issues attendant upon being a LR staffer.
I actually had decided not to do it in the middle of the application process because the required 'spec' article was so painful to write yet so uninteresting in every imaginable way.
Anyway, I feel that doing moot court type stuff was infinitely more valuable to what I actually do on the day to day then any high falutin' Law Review BS. Plus, if you are really into the more academic/theoretical side of stuff, there are tons of outlets. One of my good friends in LS got to sit on various IP panels at conferences during his second and third years based on independent research during his first summer. Of course being a technical genius in a certain sub-field probably helps there...
Really? I don't know a single person who got a clerkship who wasn't either on Law Review or had a connection. Though my impression was that that was a recent thing....Law grads are pretty fungible.
I went to a fancy school, too.
I'd probably never make it in academia anyway. Lots of ideas but they're relentlessly prosaic.
Law review is like student politics. I'm baffled to think of a use for it other than resumes.
Ever dip into law reviews in an attempt to research a legal question? That's one of those things you do once then never do again.
To 31 - Seriously, though I think the planting of absurdities into LR articles is a well established FedSoc tactic for doing fun things like offering support to King In Wartime theories.
To 29 - Probably depends on the clerkship to a degree, but of the other clerks in my building during mine, my guess is that only about half had been on LR, if that. But then I'm from a legally podunk state. (Do you know that there is only one state in the union without a law school?)