Law Review Derailment Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Without questioning your personal experiences, I share the previous poster's curiosity. I've never met an employer who didn't care about HYS flagship notes, and the notion that an article in a T25 flagship "might" matter only if "it was in a somewhat related field" is totally inconceivable. Any publication in a T25 law journal by a law student is exponentially more impressive than any law review accolade.

I'd also challenge you on some points of fact. It's no longer true that journal membership is an "actual or de facto requirement for publishing a note." Of the T6, only HLS requires law review membership. Publishing as a non-journal member is common at YLS, for example. Clerking for SCOTUS and being EIC of a HYS law review are no longer the most important "things you can control" when it comes to academia. The most important thing is getting an elite PhD. Law review is far down the list. Finally, students targeting academia do not try to become EIC at HYS. They usually run for articles selection jobs instead.

I agree with you that notes should matter more, but I've met few employers outside of academia (and the one federal judge) who cared. There's a lot of contempt for academia in practice, and a general perception that getting a note published -- especially in YLJ -- isn't particularly competitive. I agree with you also that landing a T25 or T50 or honestly probably T100 flagship article placement as a student should matter, especially if it's in a related field. In my experience, though, most employers outside of some judges don't really know what to make of this and don't place that much weight on this sort of endeavor. (This is a somewhat moot point because I think it is probably harder to place an article in a T50 journal as a current student than to do pretty much anything else we're discussing, including make law review and be elected to EIC or Articles Chair.)

Re journal membership, that would be news to me if law reviews are regularly publishing notes from non-members who didn't write on (therefore becoming a member). If I'm wrong about that, I apologize -- it doesn't significantly impact any of my other points.

Finally, I strongly disagree with your point about a PhD and academia, although this is now taking us down a path that's mostly irrelevant to the broader discussion. (Hiring committees are going to select a candidate who has published well over a candidate who has an elite PhD, all else equal, 9 times out of 10.) Note: I've never claimed that law review is a particularly helpful credential for getting a tenure-track non-clinical position.

I'm the quoted poster and I agree with the bolded parts of your post. I especially agree publication history is the most important part of academic hiring. I was only arguing that elite PhDs matter more for tenure track jobs than law review membership.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think that’s quite right re: publishing at the T6 journals—at Chicago, the very small group of non-editor students (1-2 per year) who submit publishable notes get to become LR members, but in general those notes don’t actually get published (and even if they do the authors would also be editors at that point, and thus would have both credentials).

Is that an option for 3Ls or only for 2Ls? At my T14 you could "note on" the law review but only if you submitted during 2L year.

Both—there are people who join LR within months of graduation, so the membership is meaningless for practical purposes, but gets you the credential (though the noting on process can take like a year so it’s not like they did nothing).

[Anonymous User]

Without questioning your personal experiences, I share the previous poster's curiosity. I've never met an employer who didn't care about HYS flagship notes, and the notion that an article in a T25 flagship "might" matter only if "it was in a somewhat related field" is totally inconceivable. Any publication in a T25 law journal by a law student is exponentially more impressive than any law review accolade.

I'd also challenge you on some points of fact. It's no longer true that journal membership is an "actual or de facto requirement for publishing a note." Of the T6, only HLS requires law review membership. Publishing as a non-journal member is common at YLS, for example. Clerking for SCOTUS and being EIC of a HYS law review are no longer the most important "things you can control" when it comes to academia. The most important thing is getting an elite PhD. Law review is far down the list. Finally, students targeting academia do not try to become EIC at HYS. They usually run for articles selection jobs instead.

I agree with you that notes should matter more, but I've met few employers outside of academia (and the one federal judge) who cared. There's a lot of contempt for academia in practice, and a general perception that getting a note published -- especially in YLJ -- isn't particularly competitive. I agree with you also that landing a T25 or T50 or honestly probably T100 flagship article placement as a student should matter, especially if it's in a related field. In my experience, though, most employers outside of some judges don't really know what to make of this and don't place that much weight on this sort of endeavor. (This is a somewhat moot point because I think it is probably harder to place an article in a T50 journal as a current student than to do pretty much anything else we're discussing, including make law review and be elected to EIC or Articles Chair.)

Re journal membership, that would be news to me if law reviews are regularly publishing notes from non-members who didn't write on (therefore becoming a member). If I'm wrong about that, I apologize -- it doesn't significantly impact any of my other points.

Finally, I strongly disagree with your point about a PhD and academia, although this is now taking us down a path that's mostly irrelevant to the broader discussion. (Hiring committees are going to select a candidate who has published well over a candidate who has an elite PhD, all else equal, 9 times out of 10.) Note: I've never claimed that law review is a particularly helpful credential for getting a tenure-track non-clinical position.

I'm the quoted poster and I agree with the bolded parts of your post. I especially agree publication history is the most important part of academic hiring. I was only arguing that elite PhDs matter more for tenure track jobs than law review membership.

I agree with the bolded bits as well. I’ll just note that all else equal, publications > fancy PhD, but in practice, a fancy PhD is going to give you a lot more time and ability to publish than your average JD. (Not that the fancy PhD is the only path to publication, but it’s a pretty decent one.)

[Anonymous User]

Some? Sure, that happens even at grade-on schools for whatever reason. Most? No way.

Most, yes. Feel free to disprove or share your special insight into my unspecified school.

Also, lol @ the idea that feeders don’t care about LR/journal or (especially non-note) publications. Again, some? Sure, especially conservative ones. Most? No way. A lot of wishful thinking ITT.

Again, feel free to explain the factual basis for your position when it conflicts with the direct knowledge of many other people, including clerks and former clerks ITT.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, no one in this thread has a basis for making any statistical claim about how many judges/employers do or don’t care about LR. Everyone’s arguing from their own anecdotal experience, so getting pissy about “most” or “many” seems kind of pointless.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, no one in this thread has a basis for making any statistical claim about how many judges/employers do or don’t care about LR. Everyone’s arguing from their own anecdotal experience, so getting pissy about “most” or “many” seems kind of pointless.

Less so when there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences that all corroborate one another and one person making a universal claim to the contrary.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, no one in this thread has a basis for making any statistical claim about how many judges/employers do or don’t care about LR. Everyone’s arguing from their own anecdotal experience, so getting pissy about “most” or “many” seems kind of pointless.

Less so when there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences that all corroborate one another and one person making a universal claim to the contrary.

Are you claiming that a (not overwhelming) majority of people commenting on a thread on TLS has some statistical value? Even in this thread, it’s not an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences. There are a number of people (who particularly seem to lean conservative) who say judges/employers don’t care about LR anymore. There are a few others saying that’s not true. It’s such a tiny percentage of the total number of judges and employers out there that it’s impossible really to generalize, regardless of how strongly some unknown number of anonymous commenters on either side feel about the subject.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, no one in this thread has a basis for making any statistical claim about how many judges/employers do or don’t care about LR. Everyone’s arguing from their own anecdotal experience, so getting pissy about “most” or “many” seems kind of pointless.

Less so when there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences that all corroborate one another and one person making a universal claim to the contrary.

Are you claiming that a (not overwhelming) majority of people commenting on a thread on TLS has some statistical value? Even in this thread, it’s not an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences. There are a number of people (who particularly seem to lean conservative) who say judges/employers don’t care about LR anymore. There are a few others saying that’s not true. It’s such a tiny percentage of the total number of judges and employers out there that it’s impossible really to generalize, regardless of how strongly some unknown number of anonymous commenters on either side feel about the subject.

Different poster than the one you're responding to. The fact that this thread even exists says something about the state of legal hiring. Two decades ago, this wouldn't be a serious discussion. Now it absolutely is. Posters can and will disagree about how much law review continues to matter to specific employers, but no one can disagree that law review isn't what it once was. That's the real story.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, no one in this thread has a basis for making any statistical claim about how many judges/employers do or don’t care about LR. Everyone’s arguing from their own anecdotal experience, so getting pissy about “most” or “many” seems kind of pointless.

Less so when there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences that all corroborate one another and one person making a universal claim to the contrary.

Are you claiming that a (not overwhelming) majority of people commenting on a thread on TLS has some statistical value? Even in this thread, it’s not an overwhelming majority of anecdotal experiences. There are a number of people (who particularly seem to lean conservative) who say judges/employers don’t care about LR anymore. There are a few others saying that’s not true. It’s such a tiny percentage of the total number of judges and employers out there that it’s impossible really to generalize, regardless of how strongly some unknown number of anonymous commenters on either side feel about the subject.

Different poster than the one you're responding to. The fact that this thread even exists says something about the state of legal hiring. Two decades ago, this wouldn't be a serious discussion. Now it absolutely is. Posters can and will disagree about how much law review continues to matter to specific employers, but no one can disagree that law review isn't what it once was. That's the real story.

Yeah, that’s fair. I was responding more to the idea that there’s clear evidence that “most” judges feel a certain way, which is a lot more definitive than “the significance of LR has changed.”

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, that’s fair. I was responding more to the idea that there’s clear evidence that “most” judges feel a certain way, which is a lot more definitive than “the significance of LR has changed.”

But did anyone even make that claim in the first place?

[Anonymous User]

Some? Sure, that happens even at grade-on schools for whatever reason. Most? No way.

Most, yes. Feel free to disprove or share your special insight into my unspecified school.

Also, lol @ the idea that feeders don’t care about LR/journal or (especially non-note) publications. Again, some? Sure, especially conservative ones. Most? No way. A lot of wishful thinking ITT.

Again, feel free to explain the factual basis for your position when it conflicts with the direct knowledge of many other people, including clerks and former clerks ITT.

Re who made what claims about “most” judges, I was responding mostly to the above pissing match, which was part of a longer theme within this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, students targeting academia do not try to become EIC at HYS. They usually run for articles selection jobs instead.

This is new to me, can someone expand on the reasoning? I'd imagine EIC is still very prestigious (albeit a lot of work).

[Anonymous User]

AE is much closer to the work you do as an academic - editing academic writing to create a final article. It gives you information about how the publication process works for the author. It also involves reviewing a ton of articles so you get good exposure to what law review publications look like and to some extent the current trends in scholarship.

(At least, that’s what AEs did at my school and how it would relate to academia. The EIC was obviously involved in that process, but their job was more big picture management of everything, which is great experience for most people but not as directly applicable to academia.)

[Anonymous User]

AE is much closer to the work you do as an academic - editing academic writing to create a final article. It gives you information about how the publication process works for the author. It also involves reviewing a ton of articles so you get good exposure to what law review publications look like and to some extent the current trends in scholarship.

(At least, that’s what AEs did at my school and how it would relate to academia. The EIC was obviously involved in that process, but their job was more big picture management of everything, which is great experience for most people but not as directly applicable to academia.)

This. AEs also have the most direct contact with authors (usually professors at other schools).

[BigLawBigTX175]

I was on law review at my law school (HYS). It was a colossal waste of time, and I wish I had never done it. Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research." Law review was probably the worst thing I ever did in law school...and that's saying a lot.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research."

+1. What you said can be generalized to pretty much all non-STEM publications.

[nixy]

Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research."

+1. What you said can be generalized to pretty much all non-STEM publications.

lol okay

[Anonymous User]

I was on law review at my law school (HYS). It was a colossal waste of time, and I wish I had never done it. Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research." Law review was probably the worst thing I ever did in law school...and that's saying a lot.

An article I was editing as a 2L had clearly misread the data which negate the entire point the article was making. Hopefully just dumb lawyer math, not intent to fraud, but who knows. I pointed it out in a comment, have no idea what ended up happing with the piece. Most likely the E-Board ppl just said w/e that's a content mater and we trust the4 authors.

[Anonymous User]

AE is much closer to the work you do as an academic - editing academic writing to create a final article. It gives you information about how the publication process works for the author. It also involves reviewing a ton of articles so you get good exposure to what law review publications look like and to some extent the current trends in scholarship.

(At least, that’s what AEs did at my school and how it would relate to academia. The EIC was obviously involved in that process, but their job was more big picture management of everything, which is great experience for most people but not as directly applicable to academia.)

This. AEs also have the most direct contact with authors (usually professors at other schools).

AE is incredibly helpful experience for academia because it exposes you to a ton of legal research and gives you a good window into what's good and what's not (and maybe more importantly, what the AE committee thinks is good and what's not). I still think that EIC is a significantly more helpful credential, but neither really matters unless you're EIC of HLR or YLJ or SLS.

[Anonymous User]

Law review, at least at HYS, is pretty useless and waste of time. Far better off focusing on grades + connections (e.g. RA jobs) with your 20 hours a week. This is, of course, all anecdotal. But I went to HYS, decided not to do LR write-on, and made it to a feeder clerkship pretty easily. Most of my friends who did the write-on and made LR struggled considerably more with the clerkship plan and didn't feel like LR gave them any edge. A few judges I interviewed with asked about LR, and I candidly told them I thought it was a waste of time; not one of them seemed to push back in any way.

Another huge thing: a lot of the people who do LR, at least at my school, truly and utterly sucked. Some of the worst, most snakey and intellectually insecure people. Half of them cheated on the write-on together (e.g. tag-teaming the subcite with an XLS spreadsheet etc). It was also, of course, well known that many of the "holistic review" folks had laughably poor grades and credentials. Everyone on LR, once they made it, began instantly talking about it as though I was supposed to give a shit. For two years, nearly every one of them never shut up about it. After I got my clerkship, someone on LR actually had the gall to suggest that was unjust because I wasn't on LR--as though the institution had some sort of feudal entitlement to feeder clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

I was on law review at my law school (HYS). It was a colossal waste of time, and I wish I had never done it. Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research." Law review was probably the worst thing I ever did in law school...and that's saying a lot.

yeah the fact that it's students reviewing articles is just pure clownery. i pretty much readily admit this to any friend who asks about my job. even if it were other professors reviewing, there would still be problems but that just makes it worse. i absolutely love writing academic articles, but im not surprised and think it's probably a good thing even that 99% of people who go to law school would hate it

[Anonymous User]

I was on law review at my law school (HYS). It was a colossal waste of time, and I wish I had never done it. Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research." Law review was probably the worst thing I ever did in law school...and that's saying a lot.

yeah the fact that it's students reviewing articles is just pure clownery. i pretty much readily admit this to any friend who asks about my job. even if it were other professors reviewing, there would still be problems but that just makes it worse. i absolutely love writing academic articles, but im not surprised and think it's probably a good thing even that 99% of people who go to law school would hate it

Nah, it's not because it's students. I was in a seminar that was a series of presentations of papers by profs, with a bunch of guest profs sitting in. Some of these papers were really bad but the profs never uttered a word of criticism, "wow how interesting, what a novel idea". Students would ask more substantive questions and point out flaws. It's just not a very academically rigorous field.

[Anonymous User]

I was on law review at my law school (HYS). It was a colossal waste of time, and I wish I had never done it. Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research." Law review was probably the worst thing I ever did in law school...and that's saying a lot.

yeah the fact that it's students reviewing articles is just pure clownery. i pretty much readily admit this to any friend who asks about my job. even if it were other professors reviewing, there would still be problems but that just makes it worse. i absolutely love writing academic articles, but im not surprised and think it's probably a good thing even that 99% of people who go to law school would hate it

Nah, it's not because it's students. I was in a seminar that was a series of presentations of papers by profs, with a bunch of guest profs sitting in. Some of these papers were really bad but the profs never uttered a word of criticism, "wow how interesting, what a novel idea". Students would ask more substantive questions and point out flaws. It's just not a very academically rigorous field.

Yeah, I think there is good and interesting work out there (after all, if you give an infinite number of monkeys typewriters…), but it’s really despite the authors having JDs rather than because of it. There are some people with advanced degrees in other fields, others with other kinds of relevant training, and others who are just brilliant. But law doesn’t really have an academic grounding or identity - there isn’t really a law methodology or theoretical framework. So there is a lot of awful work, as well.

[Anonymous User]

I was on law review at my law school (HYS). It was a colossal waste of time, and I wish I had never done it. Also, legal "academia" is a complete joke. Coming from a STEM background, I can't believe what passes as "research." Law review was probably the worst thing I ever did in law school...and that's saying a lot.

yeah the fact that it's students reviewing articles is just pure clownery. i pretty much readily admit this to any friend who asks about my job. even if it were other professors reviewing, there would still be problems but that just makes it worse. i absolutely love writing academic articles, but im not surprised and think it's probably a good thing even that 99% of people who go to law school would hate it

Nah, it's not because it's students. I was in a seminar that was a series of presentations of papers by profs, with a bunch of guest profs sitting in. Some of these papers were really bad but the profs never uttered a word of criticism, "wow how interesting, what a novel idea". Students would ask more substantive questions and point out flaws. It's just not a very academically rigorous field.

The seminar thing is law school/seminar-dependent, and also isn't unique to law. Chicago's can be brutal, a culture that I assumed rubbed off from the econ department's seminars, which are infamous.

Also, if you're talking about a seminar with many profs presenting papers, that's unusual and probably part of why it was shallow. Visiting work in progress talks are more typically one paper for an hour or so.