It makes me happy when I hear about the success of others here (except for when I hear about a gunner douchebag or two). I don't really care if people already have offers yet or not...good for them if they do, and represent the school well when you graduate.
But the entire system makes no sense. There's no way you can convince me that arbitrary and subjective scores on a timed, 3-hour exam format that is a century old really says much about each individual's ability. Big firms themselves admit that grades have little predictive power over an associates' success at a firm. In the 100 years since the law school exam was developed, testing science has moved forward leaps and bounds. We've found out that tests where the main constraint is time (rather than the difficulty of the material) are some of the worst tests you can give. Tests with severe time constraints are extremely poor measures of knowledge, skill, ability, retention, and application. And the subjective nature of how you accumulate points on these tests (a nature that varies heavily depending on what professor you happen to have) makes them even worse. Why law schools and law firms continue to use and rely on outdated and obsolete testing methods is beyond me. You might as well have a school-wide timed crossword-puzzle-solving contest, and say whoever solves the crossword puzzles the fastest gets the only jobs out there.
The two things law school grades do give firms are plausible deniability and marketability. Even if grades don't mean anything, clients have the impression that they do, and firms don't really have a better way of sorting out who will be good from who won't, so they just use grades because they have no other options or methods to whittle down the list of 1,000 applicants they get for 3 positions. Plus, if someone from the top 10% screws up, you can be like, "we did our due diligence on this guy/gal...he/she got great grades."
That's not to say that it doesn't take talent and hard work to score highly, but I'm pretty sure that bad or average grades in law school are not proof of the reverse, either. And there's some really dumb people that end up in the top 10%. Some people have superior typing skills, some are just mentally more predisposed to answer in a fashion that impresses law school professors, some just luck out and happen to think like the professor, some got a fantastic outline from a 2L and just copied it down on their exam, and others are simply better at thinking under severe time constraints. When you can basically spot all the issues on an exam but get a median grade because you didn't rack up "analysis" points due to lack of words used in explaining the problem, it really signifies a problem. And when the professors themselves don't even believe in the grades they give, but are forced to due to the law school format, it's another good sign that the system is out of control.
In the real world you don't have only three hours to prepare a brief or answer a legal question. In fact, you are encouraged to be thorough and complete, and think things through overnight, and revise and edit things.
So if you're on law review, congratulations, and I hope you get a great job. I really do. You're no better or worse than your classmates, but I'd rather you get that job than someone from another school, because, after all, you're part of the WUSTL family. But if you brag about it, I'm not going to be impressed with your skill or think that you're a better person or really smarter than anyone else. You just happened to be one of those lucky people for whom law school exams come naturally.
The test is not over once 1L is complete. The real world is the next test, and plenty of people will get laid off or fired from Biglaw firms, some won't be able to hack the hours, and plenty of people will start their career in shitlaw and be awesome at it and later lateral in to biglaw firms with only a few years before they make partner. Some people who start out in shitlaw will become successful plaintiff's attorneys and get richer a lot quicker and with less work than you do with biglaw. You have much better chances if you're in the former group, but the attrition rate for biglaw is extremely high. If you can hack it for 3-4 years and live like a college student, maybe you can pay off that mountain of debt that the rest of us will have to live under for the next 30 years. Even if you do, maybe you'll marry some hot chick that only loves you for your money and prestige, and she'll cheat on you and divorce you in 5 years because you're never at home to give her attention and you're always get called in to do work on the weekends. Or maybe you'll marry someone awesome who can't take your lifestyle and divorces you anyway.
Getting a good job out of school is a significant step, and congrats to you if you can do it. But it's not a coronation. So if you act like it is (instead of acting like it's nothing more than a significant step), then you're a douchebag. And if you base your entire self-esteem on this one little step, you're probably going to have problems down the road. But if you can talk about your offer without acting like it's a coronation, than I'd love to hear about it.