Top Law Schools

Hey Guys.
I am a 2L on Law Review. Next month, we have elections for 3L placement. 1 person, obviously, is picked to be Editor-in-Chief, while 4 are chosen as "Executive" Board members (i.e. Managing Editor, Executive Editor, etc.). After the E in C and E Board are chosen, they assign everyone else to positions (i.e Note and Comment Editor, etc). Everyone who wants a position can get one.

My question is this: Is it valuable to employers to be on the "Executive" Board. I know that Editor in Chief is extremely valuable, but I have heard different opinions concerning the other E Board positions. Moreover, those positions, especially Managing Editor, are considered by some to require more work that the Editor in Chief. Should I only run for E in C, or would it be beneficial to run for the other E Board positions. All 3L members, E in C included, receive the same amount of credits for their involvement. Thanks guys.

If you can't get EIC, then go for whatever job requires the least work.

Only EIC is a boost.

That's what I figured...anyone have a contrasting thought?

I really enjoy my position on the managing board. If there is a position that would allow you to develop some useful skills, or would require you to use some skills that you enjoy, I would recommend you run for that one. Some board positions also allow you to work with/have contact with some pretty interesting and/or influential people in the academic legal world. Some hiring partners I have spoken with value managing positions other than EIC, some, probably most, don't favor a managing position over others.

I have found lots of benefits from having a managing board position, not all of them expected when I ran. The only drawbacks I can think of are the time commitment, which isn't as bad as I expected, and occasional aggravation.

I agree with kalvano. Everyone knows what EIC means, but no one outside of your law review's alums will understand the significance of the other positions because every law review operates differently. For example, some journals have one "managing editor" and/or "executive editor," whereas others have three or five or more. Assuming the title of your position sounds somewhat serious (e.g. "articles editor" or "notes editor" as opposed to "party planner") then you should go for whatever sounds interesting and involves the least work.

Thanks for the replies, guys.

I'm a notes editor, and I really like my job. It's not a senior board position, but it isn't that bad in terms of work. I work with an adjunct and help a group of 2Ls develop their notes over this year, which has been really interesting so far--I like helping people polish their work into something that will hopefully get published. I've also done three article-level edits on student work.

For me, the biggest benefit to being an editor is that I don't have to do cite checking assignments anymore.

For the most part, I agree that EIC or slacker are the credited options. But there can be benefits to some of the other board positions depending on your goals. JAG applicants, for example, are never going to be hurt because they take on leadership positions. Positions like the notes editor mentioned above where you have a lot of involvement in developing others' writing could have small payoffs later - either directly or indirectly. But for the traditional prestige-based jobs, there will be little to no help in being in a non-EIC position on the board.

You can also learn skills that might make your life easier later. I have learned more than I expected about managing other people while serving on the board.

A bit off topic here, but has there ever been any discussion of having some kind of law review forum on TLS? It seems that most people on law review boards are thrust into those positions and learn the jobs as they go. There are several times during this year where it would have been helpful to hear how other law reviews handle certain issues.

To give you some perspective, I didn't get EIC, and I ended up getting the least work position available. I got credits out of the class both semesters, and the only thing I had to do was cite check 200-300 cites in the summer before 3L. Took me like 3 days of casual work. Meanwhile, friends on LR and other journals had steady work almost every week and bitched constantly. Remember, by 3L you usually realize what a huge joke journal is and how useless and pointless the whole thing is

BunkMoreland wrote:Remember, by 3L you usually realize what a huge joke journal is and how useless and pointless the whole thing is

That's not true at all. Law reviews publish extremely important scholarship that will shape the legal world for decades to come, and the work you do as an editor will have a profound impact.

Cavalier wrote:

BunkMoreland wrote:Remember, by 3L you usually realize what a huge joke journal is and how useless and pointless the whole thing is

That's not true at all. Law reviews publish extremely important scholarship that will shape the legal world for decades to come, and the work you do as an editor will have a profound impact.

I've always seen it as EIC or bust. EIC is probably the one thing in law school that is comparable to being #1, whereas other executive positions seem like a ton of work with little prestige.

Everyone on my journal gets some sort of editor position. Which is precisely why EIC is all that matters...every journal is different. But EIC is impressive across the board.

EIC = obviously worth it, if you can swing it

E-board = supposedly helpful in clerkships

Position not on E-board that's "higher on the masthead" than an easier position = fucking stupid, IMO

My personal opinion is that you should shoot for something low on the masthead that sounds respectable/comprehensible, since it'll be on your firm bio for the rest of your career: I personally think "Article Editor" and "Note Editor" sound cleaner and better than the (higher-ranked) positions of "Symposium Editor," "Production Editor," and "Federal Courts & Practice Editor" on our LR.

EIC!