Law Review Question Forum

[vamedic03]

Well, yes and no. One of the professors at my school is a recognized expert in alternative dispute recognition. He gave a lecture to my legal scholarship seminar last week, and we read a couple of his law review articles. After reading the articles and listening to his lecture, I thought to myself, "Who the hell cares? This article is going to affect like four people in the entire universe, with the professor being one of the four." But the professor seemed to think that the article had deep implications for the future of law practice in America. I think I'm a reasonably smart law student, but the importance of that article was over my head. Although I understand his arguments, I don't have the proper context to evaluate them thoroughly.

Yeah but if your article is only important to like four people and has absolutely no relevance/bearing on practice and can't even make the case of its own importance to an interested generalist audience, how important is your insight, really?

You've highlighted my point. I have no way to know how relevant the article is. It seemed irrelevant to me, but then again, many people think ADR is the way of the future. The professor's peers are in a much better position to evaluate the article's significance than I am. I could be completely off base in thinking it is only important for a few people. How the hell would I know?

Likely the only professors who would appreciate that are other ADR specialists. That's why specialized pieces like that belong in specialized journals.

[JazzOne]

Well, yes and no. One of the professors at my school is a recognized expert in alternative dispute recognition. He gave a lecture to my legal scholarship seminar last week, and we read a couple of his law review articles. After reading the articles and listening to his lecture, I thought to myself, "Who the hell cares? This article is going to affect like four people in the entire universe, with the professor being one of the four." But the professor seemed to think that the article had deep implications for the future of law practice in America. I think I'm a reasonably smart law student, but the importance of that article was over my head. Although I understand his arguments, I don't have the proper context to evaluate them thoroughly.

Yeah but if your article is only important to like four people and has absolutely no relevance/bearing on practice and can't even make the case of its own importance to an interested generalist audience, how important is your insight, really?

You've highlighted my point. I have no way to know how relevant the article is. It seemed irrelevant to me, but then again, many people think ADR is the way of the future. The professor's peers are in a much better position to evaluate the article's significance than I am. I could be completely off base in thinking it is only important for a few people. How the hell would I know?

Likely the only professors who would appreciate that are other ADR specialists. That's why specialized pieces like that belong in specialized journals.

Like I said on the previous page, you make some fair points, and I will have to reflect on this further.

However, I still think that much of what goes on in LR is glorified hazing and serves a VERY limited scholarly purpose.

[vamedic03]

It's also worth noting that the Law Review approach to legal academia has existed for over 100 years. Not to be a smart ass, but law professors who don't like the Law Review system knew what they were getting into when they chose to enter legal academia. (and probably have Law Reviews to thank for their success in academia)

[JazzOne]

It's also worth noting that the Law Review approach to legal academia has existed for over 100 years. Not to be a smart ass, but law professors who don't like the Law Review system knew what they were getting into when they chose to enter legal academia. (and probably have Law Reviews to thank for their success in academia)

That may cut against your argument. It's quite possible that legal academia has outgrown the model of scholarship developed a century ago.

[rupert.pupkin]

lol at humanities grad programs being rigorous

[chup]

lol at humanities grad programs being rigorous

Cool story, bro.

[thesealocust]

I don't agree with everything he has to say on it, but Judge / Professor / Man Willing To Write About His Strong Opinions About Most Things Posner covered this one pretty thoroughly:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/Nove ... vdec04.msp

TL;DR Posner was whining about the LR process back in '04 before it was cool.

[Esc]

I don't agree with everything he has to say on it, but Judge / Professor / Man Willing To Write About His Strong Opinions About Most Things Posner covered this one pretty thoroughly:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/Nove ... vdec04.msp

TL;DR Posner was whining about the LR process back in '04 before it was cool.

Shorter Posner: "These subhuman riff-raff are editing me! ME! How dare the editors of a generalized, non-subject specific journal not be specialists in my particular field!"

[Blindmelon]

The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.

[JazzOne]

The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.

Damn bro, much better than I put it.

[Anonymous Loser]

The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.

Bear in mind that Step 7 takes roughly 2 months for the author to complete.

[Esc]

The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.

Fuck. Truth.

/thread

[chup]

The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.

You forgot:

7a). Author finds like-minded faculty at other schools and makes rumblings about starting a peer-review journal to do away with all this student-edited nonsense.
7b). Author realizes that such an endeavor is a metric fuckton of work and that we all do this crap work for free, rethinks step 7a).

[A'nold]

Does anyone have any links to good bluebook tutorials?

[A'nold]

Does anyone have any links to good bluebook tutorials?

--LinkRemoved--

Thanks drunken sheriff. I still feel honored to have been there live when that phrase was coined and destined for eternal greatness.

[A'nold]

Does anyone have any links to good bluebook tutorials?

--LinkRemoved--

Thanks drunken sheriff. I still feel honored to have been there live when that phrase was coined and destined for eternal greatness.

If people wouldn't have been fucking talking about getting grades before me, they wouldn't have gotten what they had coming.

Amen to that brother.