Law Review, is it worth it? Forum

[Anonymous User]

How much bump does Law Review give you when trying to land a biglaw job. Would you rather be a 3.9 student with no law review or a 3.6 student with law review? How much advantage does each get you in getting a job offer. Assume this is a a T-20 school.

[Lincoln]

How much bump does Law Review give you when trying to land a biglaw job. Would you rather be a 3.9 student with no law review or a 3.6 student with law review? How much advantage does each get you in getting a job offer. Assume this is a a T-20 school.

In what world is this a choice?

[09042014]

How much bump does Law Review give you when trying to land a biglaw job. Would you rather be a 3.9 student with no law review or a 3.6 student with law review? How much advantage does each get you in getting a job offer. Assume this is a a T-20 school.

3.9 every day of the week and twice on sundays.

LR isn't that big of a deal. I'd still do it though.

[JuTMSY4]

How much bump does Law Review give you when trying to land a biglaw job. Would you rather be a 3.9 student with no law review or a 3.6 student with law review? How much advantage does each get you in getting a job offer. Assume this is a a T-20 school.

In what world is this a choice?

Yup. It's LR always because this choice doesn't exist. you've already got 1L grades, so a potential drop in your GPA wouldn't occur to 2L year, after at least fall OCI, which is the most important.

[Anonymous User]

My study partner is a 4.1 without LR and she's not having any issues (chose not to participate in the write on). It's not the "be all, end all" that this board makes it but I think people generally do it if they can. If you really don't want to be bothered though and have great grades, you certainly don't need it.

[Anonymous User]

if you're asking whether a 3.6 + LR is comparable to a 3.9 without during the selection process, the answer is absolutely not. If you're asking whether you should try for LR with a 3.6, then absolutely yes because you can use any bump you can get, no matter how marginal.

Though for a more nuanced answer (caveat: all I have is anecdotal evidence from last year's cycle at a T20 to go off of), I found that at around a 3.6 GPA, LR became drastically less useful in terms of a "GPA boost." I don't know whether its because 3.7 looks a lot more impressive or something, but a 3.6 + LR didn't seem to provide a significant boost in the sense that a 3.6 + LR would not automatically mean that person is on equal footing with even a 3.7 GPA (obviously though it can only help if you're up against people with a 3.6 minus LR), while LR helped a lot of people with a 3.4 or 3.5 come out ahead of their peers and even pushed some of those kids to be similarly regarded as those with a 3.6 without LR.

My only guess at an explanation for this is because people with a 3.6 didn't outperform their numbers much when competing against those with 3.7s and above at the more grade-selective firms, and their success at less grade-selective firms was simply because they were at the higher end (GPA-wise) compared to the others bidding on those firms anyways; on the other hand, those same less-selective firms generally had an excess of people at or slightly above median bidding on them, and LR was useful to differentiate between those interviewees, and they ended up picking out a lot of 3.4, 3.5's with LR along with those 3.6 and above bidders.

Once again, no idea how accurate this assessment is, and it might not be accurate at all in other markets/at other schools, but it seemed to be the case at least where I am. Also my general sense of "how things went" based on classmates talking about theirs/eachother's cycles could also just be straight wrong, so there's that.

[MoonDreamer]

if you're asking whether a 3.6 + LR is comparable to a 3.9 without during the selection process, the answer is absolutely not. If you're asking whether you should try for LR with a 3.6, then absolutely yes because you can use any bump you can get, no matter how marginal.

Though for a more nuanced answer (caveat: all I have is anecdotal evidence from last year's cycle at a T20 to go off of), I found that at around a 3.6 GPA, LR became drastically less useful in terms of a "GPA boost." I don't know whether its because 3.7 looks a lot more impressive or something, but a 3.6 + LR didn't seem to provide a significant boost in the sense that a 3.6 + LR would not automatically mean that person is on equal footing with even a 3.7 GPA (obviously though it can only help if you're up against people with a 3.6 minus LR), while LR helped a lot of people with a 3.4 or 3.5 come out ahead of their peers and even pushed some of those kids to be similarly regarded as those with a 3.6 without LR.

My only guess at an explanation for this is because people with a 3.6 didn't outperform their numbers much when competing against those with 3.7s and above at the more grade-selective firms, and their success at less grade-selective firms was simply because they were at the higher end (GPA-wise) compared to the others bidding on those firms anyways; on the other hand, those same less-selective firms generally had an excess of people at or slightly above median bidding on them, and LR was useful to differentiate between those interviewees, and they ended up picking out a lot of 3.4, 3.5's with LR along with those 3.6 and above bidders.

Once again, no idea how accurate this assessment is, and it might not be accurate at all in other markets/at other schools, but it seemed to be the case at least where I am. Also my general sense of "how things went" based on classmates talking about theirs/eachother's cycles could also just be straight wrong, so there's that.

Law Review is key. It's another thing a firm can put on your profile about you. But then again you're not getting biglaw with just law review but you can get it with just a great GPA.

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring the prestige factor, there are some practical skills that you gain. As a summer associate, I got three Bluebooking assignments. I can't imagine being able to do those assignments well and efficiently without Law Review practice.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Based on talking to many people involved in hiring at large firms, yes, yes it is worth it. I would take 3.6 with LR over 3.9, but based on one assumption: that a 3.9 would automatically grade you on. If I was looking at your resume and I know you were offered a spot automatically on Law Review, and you turned it down, AND I don't see a compelling reason right in your resume, it would prejudice my opinion of you.

[09042014]

Ignoring the prestige factor, there are some practical skills that you gain. As a summer associate, I got three Bluebooking assignments. I can't imagine being able to do those assignments well and efficiently without Law Review practice.

lol

[TheFactor]

Based on talking to many people involved in hiring at large firms, yes, yes it is worth it. I would take 3.6 with LR over 3.9, but based on one assumption: that a 3.9 would automatically grade you on. If I was looking at your resume and I know you were offered a spot automatically on Law Review, and you turned it down, AND I don't see a compelling reason right in your resume, it would prejudice my opinion of you.

No

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Based on talking to many people involved in hiring at large firms, yes, yes it is worth it. I would take 3.6 with LR over 3.9, but based on one assumption: that a 3.9 would automatically grade you on. If I was looking at your resume and I know you were offered a spot automatically on Law Review, and you turned it down, AND I don't see a compelling reason right in your resume, it would prejudice my opinion of you.

No

Yes.


Aren't arguments fun! I made an opinion based on my experience, and even made sure to insert "compelling reason" not to be on Law Review. Anything substantive would alleviate the issue for me, but if the reason is, "oh I was just too lazy," then I really don't care how smart the kid is; I would prefer someone who works harder.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Also, this argument is difficult to substantiate because we don't have imaginary cutoffs to go with the hypothetical.

If 3.6 bounces you out of the top 10%, forget it. And, if 3.9 makes you the #1-2 student, that is going to make it really difficult to say no to.

[Nightrunner]

Man, 65-year-old partners still list Law Review on their firm bio. The "trade-off" is spending, like, six months as a cite-checking bitch. That's an easy call for 95% of people.

[Magnifique1908]

I have a kid. Wasn't worth it to me. Don't really care that some law student thinks that it's "lazy". Lol.

This board is crazy lol. No, you don't need it. With that said, if you have to question it, you should probably just be someone's "cite-checking bitch" and get it put in your law firm profile.

Getting Biglaw hasn't been an issue for me. YMMV.

[Anonymous User]

Also, this argument is difficult to substantiate because we don't have imaginary cutoffs to go with the hypothetical.

If 3.6 bounces you out of the top 10%, forget it. And, if 3.9 makes you the #1-2 student, that is going to make it really difficult to say no to.

Ah, yeah, I'm the previous anon who talked about 3.6 + LR not being a substantial difference at my T20. To clarify, 3.7 is top 10% so yes, 3.6 does put you down to the next percentile bracket, whereas 3.9 puts you comfortably in the top 3%. I imagine if 3.6 was top 10% then LR could make much more of a difference.

And our LR is all write-on, no grade-on, so the 3.9 without LR wouldn't necessarily have to explain that they didn't want to do the work of LR, or why they turned in a lackluster competition comment (would be relevant if our competition was one of those where everyone competes but people with grades get a significant boost and the only way to not get on is to do terribly, but it's not, it's optional).

I know a couple people who merely said they had other engagements that made them unable to compete at all (i.e. travelling to work in another region for the summer) and firms seemed to understand accept that. Slight caveat though: they both had secondary journals which might have softened the "I didn't do LR because I didn't want to do extra work" impression a bit because at least it looked like they were willing to take on some additional work. Regardless I think they would have gotten plenty of job offers either way.

[hephaestus]

This hypothetical is ridiculous. You should strive to get law review and accept if offered.

[hoos89]

/

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Your hypo totally misses the point. The relevant question is: will a firm be more likely to take a person with YOUR gpa and law review over someone with YOUR gpa and no law review? You're not bumping your GPA 0.3 over the summer...

Hypo was definitely a very roundabout question. Just ask what you want to ask OP! Anyway, assuming you both get an interview, your personality and fit with the firm is probably the most controlling. If for some reason the person in charge has a huge hard-on for Law Review then it might really sway the decision. Otherwise it is just about selling yourself.

You have a 3.7 (top 10%) at a good school with Law Review in your back pocket. If the 3.9 kid gets the job over you, I would blame you, not his .2 edge.

[Anonymous User]

I'm only freshly out of law school but Law Review up to this point has actually proven pretty beneficial in terms of networking and connections.

I'm sure I would have done well in OCI without it, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think it's kind of stupid to say, "Oh yeah, I didn't do Law Review when I could have and I'm fine." That doesn't prove that things couldn't have been better off by doing it. You don't need it just like you don't need fantastic grades at a top school to get you biglaw (e.g. plenty of people have gotten biglaw with mediocre grades from top schools).

Sure, it's a pain in the ass while you're in law school, but I would definitely have regretted not doing it.

[Magnifique1908]

I'm only freshly out of law school but Law Review up to this point has actually proven pretty beneficial in terms of networking and connections.

I'm sure I would have done well in OCI without it, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think it's kind of stupid to say, "Oh yeah, I didn't do Law Review when I could have and I'm fine." That doesn't prove that things couldn't have been better off by doing it. You don't need it just like you don't need fantastic grades at a top school to get you biglaw (e.g. plenty of people have gotten biglaw with mediocre grades from top schools).

Sure, it's a pain in the ass while you're in law school, but I would definitely have regretted not doing it.

How is it stupid? No it doesn't prove that things couldn't have been "better", but if you have a biglaw job and that's what you were after, who cares if by "better" it means that your law firm profile would have had one more sentence?

LR is an honor for those who want it (and those who do will seek after it). But it's not stupid to decide against it either, even if you do have great grades. Not everyone feels the need to do it. Just because it worked out for you (that's nice...really), doesn't make it stupid that it's not at the top of the priority list for everyone else.

[Anonymous User]

I'm only freshly out of law school but Law Review up to this point has actually proven pretty beneficial in terms of networking and connections.

I'm sure I would have done well in OCI without it, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think it's kind of stupid to say, "Oh yeah, I didn't do Law Review when I could have and I'm fine." That doesn't prove that things couldn't have been better off by doing it. You don't need it just like you don't need fantastic grades at a top school to get you biglaw (e.g. plenty of people have gotten biglaw with mediocre grades from top schools).

Sure, it's a pain in the ass while you're in law school, but I would definitely have regretted not doing it.

How is it stupid? No it doesn't prove that things couldn't have been "better", but if you have a biglaw job and that's what you were after, who cares if by "better" it means that your law firm profile would have had one more sentence?

LR is an honor for those who want it (and those who do will seek after it). But it's not stupid to decide against it either, even if you do have great grades. Not everyone feels the need to do it. Just because it worked out for you (that's nice...really), doesn't make it stupid that it's not at the top of the priority list for everyone else.

I think you're misunderstanding—I don't necessarily think it's stupid to turn down Law Review, I think it's stupid to say, "I didn't do Law Review and I'm fine" as a point against Law Review potentially helping out with your career.

If all you're after is just some biglaw job out of OCI, then I guess it probably doesn't matter. But there are varying degrees of biglaw firms, and most people would enjoy having the best shot at the best firms (for example, a lot of people would rather work at Williams & Connolly than DLA Piper). I also think that it helps with networking and connections both in law school and later on down the road, but I guess that doesn't matter if all you're after is getting any biglaw out of OCI.

I feel like you're saying, "lol, can't believe some people feel like they need to do Law Review." Did I need to do Law Review to get a biglaw job? No. I didn't feel the need to do it. But I thought it might help. There are probably some people out there who it wouldn't help, but I think these people are special and rare.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

I'm only freshly out of law school but Law Review up to this point has actually proven pretty beneficial in terms of networking and connections.

I'm sure I would have done well in OCI without it, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think it's kind of stupid to say, "Oh yeah, I didn't do Law Review when I could have and I'm fine." That doesn't prove that things couldn't have been better off by doing it. You don't need it just like you don't need fantastic grades at a top school to get you biglaw (e.g. plenty of people have gotten biglaw with mediocre grades from top schools).

Sure, it's a pain in the ass while you're in law school, but I would definitely have regretted not doing it.

How is it stupid? No it doesn't prove that things couldn't have been "better", but if you have a biglaw job and that's what you were after, who cares if by "better" it means that your law firm profile would have had one more sentence?

LR is an honor for those who want it (and those who do will seek after it). But it's not stupid to decide against it either, even if you do have great grades. Not everyone feels the need to do it. Just because it worked out for you (that's nice...really), doesn't make it stupid that it's not at the top of the priority list for everyone else.

Why are you even arguing? You already admitted that you had a child and it affected your choice. Not all of us have kids.

[Magnifique1908]

I'm only freshly out of law school but Law Review up to this point has actually proven pretty beneficial in terms of networking and connections.

I'm sure I would have done well in OCI without it, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think it's kind of stupid to say, "Oh yeah, I didn't do Law Review when I could have and I'm fine." That doesn't prove that things couldn't have been better off by doing it. You don't need it just like you don't need fantastic grades at a top school to get you biglaw (e.g. plenty of people have gotten biglaw with mediocre grades from top schools).

Sure, it's a pain in the ass while you're in law school, but I would definitely have regretted not doing it.

How is it stupid? No it doesn't prove that things couldn't have been "better", but if you have a biglaw job and that's what you were after, who cares if by "better" it means that your law firm profile would have had one more sentence?

LR is an honor for those who want it (and those who do will seek after it). But it's not stupid to decide against it either, even if you do have great grades. Not everyone feels the need to do it. Just because it worked out for you (that's nice...really), doesn't make it stupid that it's not at the top of the priority list for everyone else.

I think you're misunderstanding—I don't necessarily think it's stupid to turn down Law Review, I think it's stupid to say, "I didn't do Law Review and I'm fine" as a point against Law Review potentially helping out with your career.

If all you're after is just some biglaw job out of OCI, then I guess it probably doesn't matter. But there are varying degrees of biglaw firms, and most people would enjoy having the best shot at the best firms (for example, a lot of people would rather work at Williams & Connolly than DLA Piper). I also think that it helps with networking and connections both in law school and later on down the road, but I guess that doesn't matter if all you're after is getting any biglaw out of OCI.

I feel like you're saying, "lol, can't believe some people feel like they need to do Law Review." Did I need to do Law Review to get a biglaw job? No. I didn't feel the need to do it. But I thought it might help. There are probably some people out there who it wouldn't help, but I think these people are special and rare.

Again, I'm sure it helps and some people enjoy the benefits they get from being a member, but so does a ton of other things that you can do in law school. Especially when it comes to networking and connections. LR is only one way of achieving those benefits, but it most certainly isn't the only way. The point isn't that it doesn't potentially help out with your career, it's that you can still do well (not just any ol' biglaw job). Of course there are some clerkships and things like that where it's best to have LR, but generally people who have those types of plans are people who actively seek out LR. OP wanted to know if it was worth it. It probably is for the people who do it, but it there are tons of others who got equal opportunities without it. That is my point.

OP needs to do what works for him/her. All we can give is anecdotes. I didn't feel the need to do it and I'm doing fine thus far. Granted I have tons of other things that assist me in enjoying the best shot at the best firms.

[Magnifique1908]

I'm only freshly out of law school but Law Review up to this point has actually proven pretty beneficial in terms of networking and connections.

I'm sure I would have done well in OCI without it, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think it's kind of stupid to say, "Oh yeah, I didn't do Law Review when I could have and I'm fine." That doesn't prove that things couldn't have been better off by doing it. You don't need it just like you don't need fantastic grades at a top school to get you biglaw (e.g. plenty of people have gotten biglaw with mediocre grades from top schools).

Sure, it's a pain in the ass while you're in law school, but I would definitely have regretted not doing it.

How is it stupid? No it doesn't prove that things couldn't have been "better", but if you have a biglaw job and that's what you were after, who cares if by "better" it means that your law firm profile would have had one more sentence?

LR is an honor for those who want it (and those who do will seek after it). But it's not stupid to decide against it either, even if you do have great grades. Not everyone feels the need to do it. Just because it worked out for you (that's nice...really), doesn't make it stupid that it's not at the top of the priority list for everyone else.

Why are you even arguing? You already admitted that you had a child and it affected your choice. Not all of us have kids.

Cause it's a message board. Next question? Lol.

Seriously, just because I have a child doesn't mean it only applies to people with kids. There are quite a few people that I know with grades higher than mine, with no personal obligations or responsibilities, that didn't want LR and are doing quite well. I'm just giving the alternate view for the OP's benefit. My having a child has nothing to do with my point.