What's so great about Law Review? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm actually serious. Do employers want to see that you work on a journal, or just when you're applying for clerkships? If you're not interested in biglaw, does being on a journal even matter?

[kalvano]

For one thing, it teaches you how to read:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=170603

The anonymous post feature is meant for serious, legal employment-related questions that could reveal something about the poster to future employers. This can include information about grades, where a person has interviewed/received job offers, and other information that might identify them to future employers. The anonymous feature is not meant to be used as a shield for voicing unpopular opinions, demeaning others, sock puppetry, or otherwise being a jerk.

And it also teaches you how to do research:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=178470

[buckilaw]

I've heard that MoFo litigators talk about their glory days cite-checking when absolutely crushing the San-Francisco bar scene.

[dixiecupdrinking]

The answer, like every other bullshit thing in law school, is signaling. Getting on law review means, to a casual observer, you are the cream of the crop. Just like people will hire someone from Harvard over someone from BU because someone else previously thought the Harvard kid was better, someone will hire a BU Law Review kid over someone without it because they have been deemed better than their peers. As far as I can tell that's all there is to it.

You learn shit that is helpful to law practice (bluebooking, attention to detail, etc.) but you can learn that just as well on a secondary journal.

[thesealocust]

Nothing. It's terrible and a waste of time. It teaches you nothing.

Anyone who says otherwise has let their bias get the best of them.

[shock259]

I've heard that MoFo litigators talk about their glory days cite-checking when absolutely crushing the San-Francisco bar scene.

Shit. I just mass mailed them and I didn't include anything bro-ey. Autoding

[lolwat]

Nothing. It's terrible and a waste of time. It teaches you nothing.

Anyone who says otherwise has let their bias get the best of them.

In terms of experience, it doesn't teach you terribly much, but I wouldn't say it's a total waste of time compared to anything else you could be doing in law school. It's a slightly different style of editing, but you still edit. When you draft memos and briefs and the like later on, the editing goes much faster.

For employment and other purposes though, it's pretty important. Everyone knows law review exists and how you get onto it, so if you aren't on it, there will be a natural question of "why not?" If your answer is something like "I did two clinics, two moot court competitions, and was an extern at the DA's office for 2L and 3L" that's probably cool, if your answer is just "it's a waste of time and I didn't feel like doing it," you'll have some problems.

[RPK34]

Nothing. It's terrible and a waste of time. It teaches you nothing.

Anyone who says otherwise has let their bias get the best of them.

While this definitely seems true from talking to 2Ls, there are tons of firms in my schools market (BU/BC) that pretty much demand law review for an SA.

[Ludo!]

Law review sucks but if you are at a lower ranked school it can be the difference between getting a job and not

[TTH]

For one thing, it teaches you how to read:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=170603

The anonymous post feature is meant for serious, legal employment-related questions that could reveal something about the poster to future employers. This can include information about grades, where a person has interviewed/received job offers, and other information that might identify them to future employers. The anonymous feature is not meant to be used as a shield for voicing unpopular opinions, demeaning others, sock puppetry, or otherwise being a jerk.

And it also teaches you how to do research:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=178470

180

[09042014]

People who write on don't seem to pwn the job market, I assume that Law Review isn't as important as the grades that get you onto Law Review are important.

Thesealocust is right. Journals are a huge waste of time. It's secretarial work.

[Anonymous User]

Nothing. It's terrible and a waste of time. It teaches you nothing.

Anyone who says otherwise has let their bias get the best of them.

While this definitely seems true from talking to 2Ls, there are tons of firms in my schools market (BU/BC) that pretty much demand law review for an SA.

Then there are the 1L SA positions that are offered without as much as the first grade in, much less LR.

[damno vitando]

It is a line on your resume. If you are up for a job against someone who has the resume line you are less likely to get the job.

[CanadianWolf]

Although law review involves a lot of menial work such as cite-checking, it offers the opportunity to work with an editor & get published. Unfortunately, the more valuable experience occurs during one's third year of law school when serving as an editor. Editing sharpens the writing skills of both the writer & the editor.

[Anonymous User]

If you're at a top school, then it really only matters at a handful of firms. A good number of judges take it into consideration, though, and it is a huge benefit if you're on the editorial board. If you're at a lower-ranked school, then it could be a necessary condition for biglaw.

You also get the benefit of not enjoying your 2L or 3L year.

[lolwat]

LR's only really a time-consuming commitment if you're EIC. Though, of course, I can't speak for every LR out there.

No reason why you can't enjoy 2L/3L unless you're also doing moot court/clinic and taking every substantive/difficult class those years.

[bjsesq]

People who write on don't seem to pwn the job market, I assume that Law Review isn't as important as the grades that get you onto Law Review are important.

Thesealocust is right. Journals are a huge waste of time. It's secretarial work.

This is my weekly reminder to you that, at least in this particular area, me>you.

[09042014]

People who write on don't seem to pwn the job market, I assume that Law Review isn't as important as the grades that get you onto Law Review are important.

Thesealocust is right. Journals are a huge waste of time. It's secretarial work.

This is my weekly reminder to you that, at least in this particular area, me>you.

No joke, I should have done trial team.

[bjsesq]

People who write on don't seem to pwn the job market, I assume that Law Review isn't as important as the grades that get you onto Law Review are important.

Thesealocust is right. Journals are a huge waste of time. It's secretarial work.

This is my weekly reminder to you that, at least in this particular area, me>you.

No joke, I should have done trial team.

People tend to love you. You would do fine at trial, I think.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Anonymous because I'm pretty much outed, and because I expected douchey/judgmental responses. Looks like it was a good call.

For one thing, it teaches you how to read:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=170603

The anonymous post feature is meant for serious, legal employment-related questions that could reveal something about the poster to future employers. This can include information about grades, where a person has interviewed/received job offers, and other information that might identify them to future employers. The anonymous feature is not meant to be used as a shield for voicing unpopular opinions, demeaning others, sock puppetry, or otherwise being a jerk.

And it also teaches you how to do research:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=178470

Thank you for your assistance. The answers in that thread range from LR being a waste of time to LR being absolutely necessary to any kind of career. I had specific questions that were not adequately addressed in that thread. Perhaps you could try answering them instead of pointing me to a thread that doesn't.

Also note:

Do NOT post in the thread itself about whether or not something violates the anon abuse policy; this is considered thread derailment and may get you banned as well.

[glitter178]

OP here. Anonymous because I'm pretty much outed, and because I expected douchey/judgmental responses. Looks like it was a good call.

For one thing, it teaches you how to read:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=170603

The anonymous post feature is meant for serious, legal employment-related questions that could reveal something about the poster to future employers. This can include information about grades, where a person has interviewed/received job offers, and other information that might identify them to future employers. The anonymous feature is not meant to be used as a shield for voicing unpopular opinions, demeaning others, sock puppetry, or otherwise being a jerk.

And it also teaches you how to do research:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=178470

Thank you for your assistance. The answers in that thread range from LR being a waste of time to LR being absolutely necessary to any kind of career. I had specific questions that were not adequately addressed in that thread. Perhaps you could try answering them instead of pointing me to a thread that doesn't.

It's just one more tie breaker. If you have a bunch of good candidates with similar grades from the same or similar schools but you don't have enough offers, when it's finally time to wittle the candidate list down, the LR person will get an offer before the non-LR person.

[vanwinkle]

Well, this thread was dumb.