LetsGoMets wrote:Just to clarify here, I think the current students are talking about secondary journals, not Stanford Law Review, which I'm pretty sure is still a great idea to get on if you can, as it is at any school.
Maybe they do mean that! Is that what you mean, current students? I think if you take the criticisms seriously (which encompass more than a signal to prospective employers--it's also what you learn by working with a primarily student-run publication unit) then it would also apply to Law Reviews, which are also primarily student run. Stanford's, in particular, "is operated entirely by Stanford Law School students and is fully independent of faculty and administration review or supervision."
The Hoffman article says:
If you polled a large and representative sample of law faculty and administrators, you’d observe the following rough consensus about the “flagship” law reviews and secondary journals at the typical law school.
Student editors do a mediocre job of picking good articles, of training each other in writing, and in producing notes and comments which matter to the world;
This isn’t the students’ fault: law faculty play almost no role in journal operations at most schools;
Law journal membership is useful primarily as a resume & signaling credential;
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the worth of the credential is in decline; and consequently,
Most members of most journals are demoralized by the experience.
I'm not saying I'm now against working to get on a law review--it's the first organization I'll look into joining. But until today I never heard that it was not a great idea. It might be worth considering whether any other opportunities can send an equally strong or stronger signal and be more worthwhile than both the secondary journals and the primary law reviews.