Top Law Schools

How do you indicated on your resume that you graded on to law review? Just putting "Generic Law Review (graded on)" seems a little crass, but is that just how it's done? Is there a more tactful way? Or do you not indicate how you got on and just let your GPA do the talking?

EDIT: Poll added to accommodate hijack.

From what I understand, you only put something additional after the law review designation if you did not grade on (i.e. you write on through the competition). Otherwise, I think most recruiters have a pretty good idea of what GPA would get you on to law review.

You don't.

You put your GPA on your resume. Then, separately, you list your membership of the law review. The reader, who is not mentally deficient, puts the two together and figures it out.

Thanks for the responses everyone. Makes sense.

studebaker07 wrote:From what I understand, you only put something additional after the law review designation if you did not grade on (i.e. you write on through the competition). Otherwise, I think most recruiters have a pretty good idea of what GPA would get you on to law review.

You would signify that you wrote on?

Fuck that.

It really does not add anything that you graded on. If you straight wrote on, at least then it's saying something about your merits as a writer. That you graded on doesn't say anything beyond what's already reflected in your grades.

flcath wrote:

studebaker07 wrote:From what I understand, you only put something additional after the law review designation if you did not grade on (i.e. you write on through the competition). Otherwise, I think most recruiters have a pretty good idea of what GPA would get you on to law review.

You would signify that you wrote on?

Fuck that.

This is what I figured too. It seems like putting (wrote on) or similar just highlights that you did not grade on. And if you graded on it should be fairly obvious from either your GPA or class rank. However, what about mentioning that you wrote on in your cover letters along with mentioning good grades in writing etc? Sorry to hijack your thread OP.

Anonymous User wrote:How do you indicated on your resume that you graded on to law review? Just putting "Generic Law Review (graded on)" seems a little crass, but is that just how it's done? Is there a more tactful way? Or do you not indicate how you got on and just let your GPA do the talking?

Why would you want to even say that?

It would be better if they assumed you wrote on and thus have skills independent of exam taking (Which is already obvious if you have your GPA on there).

Bobby Dazzler wrote:Sorry to hijack your thread OP.

No worries, I got my answer. Hijack all you want.

Write on > Grade on

Helmholtz wrote:Write on > Grade on

Poll added.

Anonymous User wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:Write on > Grade on

Poll added.

The poll doesn't really make sense though. The point is, first and foremost, the best thing you can do 1L is get top grades. However, once you have the grades you have, grading on to law review says very little if anything that can't be gleaned from looking at your transcript. Writing on does say something new: it says you're not only one of the better test takers at the school, but you're also one of the better formal writers.

In the end, however, neither go on your resume. You just put Law Review on your resume.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:Write on > Grade on

I seriously do not understand this. Everyone ends up on the same law review. How you got there is irrelevant for any purpose I can think of.

Oh, yeah, I agree it's pretty irrelevant. I was just (maybe sloppily) making the point that getting a 3.9 and automatically grading onto law review is not as impressive as getting a 3.9 and writing onto law review separate from your grades. At least in my mind. And even then, you're on law review, it's not like I (or the vast number of others) are even in a position to say that it would have been more impressive if you would have attained your seat on law review by doing X instead of Y. And if you grade on, it's not like you had the chance to see if you could write on or not. Still, I don't see any particular reason why, after somebody sees your grades, you would feel the need to specify that you graded on as opposed to wrote on.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:Write on > Grade on

I seriously do not understand this. Everyone ends up on the same law review. How you got there is irrelevant for any purpose I can think of.

There should be a poll option for "this doesn't make any sense."

Grading on preempts writing on in most cases, no?

Obviously, the super-prestigious among us put "graded on, but I also talked to the EIC and he told me my write-on was easily badass enough for me to have written on"

Do not put either, just put LR. It sounds extremely douchey and insecure.

I would put "graded on to Law Review. Resigned. Then wrote on."

Renzo wrote:I would put "graded on to Law Review. Resigned. Then wrote on."

On the same day. While I had pneumonia.

Renzo wrote:I would put "graded on to Law Review. Resigned. Then wrote on."

That'd be some boss shit.

True bosses grade on then publish too

UCLA is basically pure write-on except they offer I think five spots to the top five in the class? And they have to do the write-on too. Otherwise I'm pretty sure grades don't count at all. Are other schools like that?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Real men don't do the writing comp, grade on, and then laugh at those who wasted two weeks of their summer. Of course this depends on whether your school allows you to grade onto law review, and if so, what the cutoff is.

blsingindisguise wrote:Do not put either, just put LR. It sounds extremely douchey and insecure.

Quoted for being correct, in case anyone still has ideas.

mmmadeli wrote:Are other schools like that?

Depends on the school/journal. Some schools/journals do mostly grade-on.