Law Review, is it worth it? Forum

[Anonymous User]

LR is only one way of achieving those benefits, but it most certainly isn't the only way.

Can you explain a little further?

It probably is for the people who do it, but it there are tons of others who got equal opportunities without it.

How do you know if they're getting equal opportunities? You know that even if they had Law Review, they would have equal opportunities not only at OCI, but beyond?

[Magnifique1908]

LR is only one way of achieving those benefits, but it most certainly isn't the only way.

Can you explain a little further?

It probably is for the people who do it, but it there are tons of others who got equal opportunities without it.

How do you know if they're getting equal opportunities? You know that even if they had Law Review, they would have equal opportunities not only at OCI, but beyond?

Explain what? Networking and connections from LR is based on commonalities right? You're talking about having a connection with people who also did LR? Correct me if I misunderstood. You can also network and form connections with the same caliber of attorneys based on undergrad institutions, work experience, choice in practice area, other extracurricular organizations (such as affinity groups).

One would have to give examples of the opportunities on both sides of the argument. I can only give a sample of people that I know that went to certain prestigious firms, made partner, made a zillion bucks, went in-house, etc. that weren't on LR and you can only give your personal sample of people who did the same, better, or worse who were on LR. That's futile in my opinion. The fact is that there are people from both groups who have great opportunities and hit the upper echelon of our profession. Of course no one can prove how life would have panned out had they turned down LR or accepted it. It's just that we both can find people doing the same things in both groups. No?

[Scotusnerd]

This varies by firm. The people who know probably won't give you a straight answer, unfortunately. I'd ask contacts within firms and career services. Students don't know the answer to this because they don't hire people.

At least in my neck of the woods, the impression I have is that the local powers that be are more impressed with someone who is top 15%, on law review, moot court and working than with someone who is top 1 or 2 without any of those things. I have heard words thrown around like 'time management' and 'ability to handle pressure' as the deciding factors.

I have no idea about other firms, but I strongly suspect they all have differing focuses.

If I were you, I'd do law review, unless you are 100% certain that you can best every single one of your classmates every time in every class.

Edit: also, all of this stuff gets you the interview. Making a good impression gets you the job. Don't think that people will hire a wet mop just because that mop is the EIC of the law review.

[Anonymous User]

Explain what? Networking and connections from LR is based on commonalities right? You're talking about having a connection with people who also did LR? Correct me if I misunderstood. You can also network and form connections with the same caliber of attorneys based on undergrad institutions, work experience, choice in practice area, other extracurricular organizations (such as affinity groups).

Commonality is part of it. So why would you throw away that network? It's not like it means you can't have all the others—it just gives you something else to work with. Law Review also made me work side-by-side a lot of the smartest people at my school. It definitely helped grow some friendships with people who are probably going to go on to do some incredible things.

One would have to give examples of the opportunities on both sides of the argument. I can only give a sample of people that I know that went to certain prestigious firms, made partner, made a zillion bucks, went in-house, etc. that weren't on LR and you can only give your personal sample of people who did the same, better, or worse who were on LR. That's futile in my opinion. The fact is that there are people from both groups who have great opportunities and hit the upper echelon of our profession. Of course no one can prove how life would have panned out had they turned down LR or accepted it.

And I can show how well off some TTT graduates are.

You made a claim that some people have equal opportunities, whether they do Law Review or not. I was just curious how you could confidently make that claim.

In the end, I think it makes sense for the vast, vast majority of people. In the broad view of things, it's really not that much more work. There is pretty much no chance that it will actually hurt your career, and there is a decent chance that it could end up really helping. You, personally, didn't think the extra work was worth the potential career benefits. That's fine and your choice.

[Magnifique1908]

Explain what? Networking and connections from LR is based on commonalities right? You're talking about having a connection with people who also did LR? Correct me if I misunderstood. You can also network and form connections with the same caliber of attorneys based on undergrad institutions, work experience, choice in practice area, other extracurricular organizations (such as affinity groups).

Commonality is part of it. So why would you throw away that network? It's not like it means you can't have all the others—it just gives you something else to work with. Law Review also made me work side-by-side a lot of the smartest people at my school. It definitely helped grow some friendships with people who are probably going to go on to do some incredible things.

One would have to give examples of the opportunities on both sides of the argument. I can only give a sample of people that I know that went to certain prestigious firms, made partner, made a zillion bucks, went in-house, etc. that weren't on LR and you can only give your personal sample of people who did the same, better, or worse who were on LR. That's futile in my opinion. The fact is that there are people from both groups who have great opportunities and hit the upper echelon of our profession. Of course no one can prove how life would have panned out had they turned down LR or accepted it.

And I can show how well off some TTT graduates are.

You made a claim that some people have equal opportunities, whether they do Law Review or not. I was just curious how you could confidently make that claim.

In the end, I think it makes sense for the vast, vast majority of people. In the broad view of things, it's really not that much more work. There is pretty much no chance that it will actually hurt your career, and there is a decent chance that it could end up really helping. You, personally, didn't think the extra work was worth the potential career benefits. That's fine and your choice.

We can agree to disagree. I don't see it as throwing away a network. I also don't see it as missing an opportunity to work with the movers and shakers in my class. But that's also just me I guess. If I end up coming into your office in a few years to sweep your floor and empty your trash after deciding against LR, feel free to exact your revenge. Your choice to do LR for the reasons you stated is great for you. My reason for posting was to show that there are other reasons for choosing otherwise. I'm not advocating that people with great grades don't need to do anything else. I'm sure that could come across kinda strange for some employers. I'm just saying that they don't all necessarily need LR on their resume to be competitive.

[Anonymous User]

I would rather be what I am, a 3.8 student with law review. But to address your question, I think it's a pretty tough hypo. Things like LR, your GPA, moot court, and your school's pedigree all signal certain things to a potential employer. You obviously want to maximize your positive signals and minimize any negative signals you might send.

Let me play employer for a minute. If I see a 3.9 from a top school, I'm obviously going to take this candidate seriously unless there are serious flaws with her résumé. When I don't see LR, a yellow flag raises in my mind; I want to know why a top student didn't a) make LR or b) turned it down. Are they a poor writer? Are they lazy? Do they not want the extra work? How will not having LR affect their clerkship chances, when LR seems to be highly valued by judges? Despite your (awesome) GPA, it raises questions that you should probably have answers for.

Then I see the 3.6 LR student. Positive that they are on LR (which signals either top grades, top writing, or both). It may also signal a willingness to take on a lot of work. If I'm a top firm, however, I know that there are students who outperformed this guy, and those students are on LR, but overall, he's probably a strong candidate assuming a good résumé.

So who do I prefer? Obviously that will vary firm to firm, but I don't think it's clear cut. Both students will get jobs somewhere, but it will probably come down to interview skills.

[Lwoods]

I think for many people, the pros of LR will outweigh the cons, particularly outside the T14. Some firms require it...not so much that they're impressed by LR but rather that it is "conspicuous in its absence," as one hiring partner put it. And that's just for OCI.

Then you have the long-term networking gains. Not only is it a commonality with many of the most powerful alumni, but it also provides a link to many of your most impressive classmates.

Beyond jobs, there are other benefits. Your skills sharpen (though I suppose it's just best in that it improves your attention to detail; the specific skills are unlikely to prove vital in practice), and you gain exposure to emerging legal topics.

It's also a great way to build friendships. Outside the networking potential, you really get to bond and suffer through cite checking together with classmates you might not know as well. I know it sounds super cheesy, but I was heavily involved in 4 student orgs including LR, a club I was president of, and another I helped re establish on campus. LR was hands down my favorite activity because it was the only one that provided me with a community in LS.

The downside...you spend maybe 150 hours over the course of 9 months on editing assignment, and you write a note. There's a time commitment. Meh. Worth it.

...and if you hate it 2L year, I'm sure you can quit or take a slack position 3L.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3L on a CCN law review and I do generally like it, but if all you want is a biglaw SA you definitely don't need it. All my friends with high grades who chose not to apply for LR still did as well as you would expect at OCI.

But then again, I'm of the mind that in this legal hiring market, you may as well take every credential you can get.

[Anonymous User]

Explain what? Networking and connections from LR is based on commonalities right? You're talking about having a connection with people who also did LR? Correct me if I misunderstood. You can also network and form connections with the same caliber of attorneys based on undergrad institutions, work experience, choice in practice area, other extracurricular organizations (such as affinity groups).

Commonality is part of it. So why would you throw away that network? It's not like it means you can't have all the others—it just gives you something else to work with. Law Review also made me work side-by-side a lot of the smartest people at my school. It definitely helped grow some friendships with people who are probably going to go on to do some incredible things.

One would have to give examples of the opportunities on both sides of the argument. I can only give a sample of people that I know that went to certain prestigious firms, made partner, made a zillion bucks, went in-house, etc. that weren't on LR and you can only give your personal sample of people who did the same, better, or worse who were on LR. That's futile in my opinion. The fact is that there are people from both groups who have great opportunities and hit the upper echelon of our profession. Of course no one can prove how life would have panned out had they turned down LR or accepted it.

And I can show how well off some TTT graduates are.

You made a claim that some people have equal opportunities, whether they do Law Review or not. I was just curious how you could confidently make that claim.

In the end, I think it makes sense for the vast, vast majority of people. In the broad view of things, it's really not that much more work. There is pretty much no chance that it will actually hurt your career, and there is a decent chance that it could end up really helping. You, personally, didn't think the extra work was worth the potential career benefits. That's fine and your choice.

We can agree to disagree. I don't see it as throwing away a network. I also don't see it as missing an opportunity to work with the movers and shakers in my class. But that's also just me I guess. If I end up coming into your office in a few years to sweep your floor and empty your trash after deciding against LR, feel free to exact your revenge. Your choice to do LR for the reasons you stated is great for you. My reason for posting was to show that there are other reasons for choosing otherwise. I'm not advocating that people with great grades don't need to do anything else. I'm sure that could come across kinda strange for some employers. I'm just saying that they don't all necessarily need LR on their resume to be competitive.

Competitive for what? Not all biglaw is the same. I'm sure there are certain firms that won't care either way about law review and others that will absolutely care.

The year I was a summer associate, we had four or five UT students in my office. All of them were on Texas Law Review. That can't possibly be a coincidence, right?

FWIW, my second kid was born while I was on law review. I think there were at least five or six parents on law review in my class year at my school and we all graded on. I'm not really sure why you are saying that having a kid justified forgoing LR.

My opinion: Over the years, I've heard a handful of hiring partners and hiring committee members privately mock students who intentionally forgo law review. I'm not sure that view is widespread, but I still wouldn't pass up the credential.

[Anonymous User]

I think the better question actually would be
"When a partner is deciding who to extend offers to, will it be to a guy with 3.6+LR, or a 3.9 no LR"

Does a 3.6+LR bump the guy to equal footing with 3.9? I don't think so. If the partner is deciding between these two, the partner with pick a 3.9 with no LR over 3.6+LR.
The question becomes much closer dealing with 3.6+LR with a 3.7. In this case, it may just depend on the interview skills of the two people.

I think LR gives you an psuedo gpa bump of 0.1

[UnderrateOverachieve]

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.

Nothing to do with your point? You took evidence I presume. Seems to be evidence of a witness's bias. You made the decision it wasn't worth it for your particular needs and now are creating a fantastic piece of backwards logic. I would love to hear the next turn in your reasoning.

I seem to always hear why something isn't important from people that didn't do it. I love much rather hear from people that were in Law Review and had negative experiences, and could speak credibility that they got no benefits from it and it wasn't just because they didn't utilize the resource.

[hoos89]

/

[kingjoffrey]

It is worth it. People rarely turn down an offer to law review. Obviously, it happens, but it is rare.

All things equal (GPA, interviewing ability, etc.), the person at OCI with law review on their resume has a slight edge. And there are judges who care about law review, and firms that care as well. Truth: it sucks to do and you don't really learn anything that valuable. But LR does show judges/firms that you're willing to put the time in, it gives you leadership opportunities, and also shows that you can balance another time commitment (LR) with school.

In the end, the answer is - yes, it is worth it. Aside from a high GPA, it is the single best credential a law student can put on his resume (asides from maybe winning a moot court or something along those lines).

It's not the be all end all. Plenty of firms don't care, and in your hypothetical it's better to be the 3.9 student without LR, than a 3.6 student with LR. But why disadvantage yourself by not doing it if you have the opportunity?

EDIT: There are reasons for some to forego LR (having a kid is an excellent reason). But the majority of us have no such excuse, and the benefits >> costs.

[Magnifique1908]

Explain what? Networking and connections from LR is based on commonalities right? You're talking about having a connection with people who also did LR? Correct me if I misunderstood. You can also network and form connections with the same caliber of attorneys based on undergrad institutions, work experience, choice in practice area, other extracurricular organizations (such as affinity groups).

Commonality is part of it. So why would you throw away that network? It's not like it means you can't have all the others—it just gives you something else to work with. Law Review also made me work side-by-side a lot of the smartest people at my school. It definitely helped grow some friendships with people who are probably going to go on to do some incredible things.

One would have to give examples of the opportunities on both sides of the argument. I can only give a sample of people that I know that went to certain prestigious firms, made partner, made a zillion bucks, went in-house, etc. that weren't on LR and you can only give your personal sample of people who did the same, better, or worse who were on LR. That's futile in my opinion. The fact is that there are people from both groups who have great opportunities and hit the upper echelon of our profession. Of course no one can prove how life would have panned out had they turned down LR or accepted it.

And I can show how well off some TTT graduates are.

You made a claim that some people have equal opportunities, whether they do Law Review or not. I was just curious how you could confidently make that claim.

In the end, I think it makes sense for the vast, vast majority of people. In the broad view of things, it's really not that much more work. There is pretty much no chance that it will actually hurt your career, and there is a decent chance that it could end up really helping. You, personally, didn't think the extra work was worth the potential career benefits. That's fine and your choice.

We can agree to disagree. I don't see it as throwing away a network. I also don't see it as missing an opportunity to work with the movers and shakers in my class. But that's also just me I guess. If I end up coming into your office in a few years to sweep your floor and empty your trash after deciding against LR, feel free to exact your revenge. Your choice to do LR for the reasons you stated is great for you. My reason for posting was to show that there are other reasons for choosing otherwise. I'm not advocating that people with great grades don't need to do anything else. I'm sure that could come across kinda strange for some employers. I'm just saying that they don't all necessarily need LR on their resume to be competitive.

Competitive for what? Not all biglaw is the same. I'm sure there are certain firms that won't care either way about law review and others that will absolutely care.

The year I was a summer associate, we had four or five UT students in my office. All of them were on Texas Law Review. That can't possibly be a coincidence, right?

FWIW, my second kid was born while I was on law review. I think there were at least five or six parents on law review in my class year at my school and we all graded on. I'm not really sure why you are saying that having a kid justified forgoing LR.

My opinion: Over the years, I've heard a handful of hiring partners and hiring committee members privately mock students who intentionally forgo law review. I'm not sure that view is widespread, but I still wouldn't pass up the credential.

Wait....what?

I never said having a kid JUSTIFIED foregoing LR. I said that was part of my personal experience. It most certainly wasn't my only reason. Seriously....get a grip. (I get really pissed when it comes to my baby, let's just not go there mkay ) It worked out for you great. That's your personal experience right? Yeah, for me, it wasn't really needed or worth it. I don't care if some hiring partners privately mock students who decide against LR, nor do I care that you had all TLR students at your office. I'm sure I had quite a bit in my office. And?

If YOU wouldn't pass it up, that's great. My post was providing the other side.

[hyakku]

Explain what? Networking and connections from LR is based on commonalities right? You're talking about having a connection with people who also did LR? Correct me if I misunderstood. You can also network and form connections with the same caliber of attorneys based on undergrad institutions, work experience, choice in practice area, other extracurricular organizations (such as affinity groups).

Commonality is part of it. So why would you throw away that network? It's not like it means you can't have all the others—it just gives you something else to work with. Law Review also made me work side-by-side a lot of the smartest people at my school. It definitely helped grow some friendships with people who are probably going to go on to do some incredible things.

One would have to give examples of the opportunities on both sides of the argument. I can only give a sample of people that I know that went to certain prestigious firms, made partner, made a zillion bucks, went in-house, etc. that weren't on LR and you can only give your personal sample of people who did the same, better, or worse who were on LR. That's futile in my opinion. The fact is that there are people from both groups who have great opportunities and hit the upper echelon of our profession. Of course no one can prove how life would have panned out had they turned down LR or accepted it.

And I can show how well off some TTT graduates are.

You made a claim that some people have equal opportunities, whether they do Law Review or not. I was just curious how you could confidently make that claim.

In the end, I think it makes sense for the vast, vast majority of people. In the broad view of things, it's really not that much more work. There is pretty much no chance that it will actually hurt your career, and there is a decent chance that it could end up really helping. You, personally, didn't think the extra work was worth the potential career benefits. That's fine and your choice.

We can agree to disagree. I don't see it as throwing away a network. I also don't see it as missing an opportunity to work with the movers and shakers in my class. But that's also just me I guess. If I end up coming into your office in a few years to sweep your floor and empty your trash after deciding against LR, feel free to exact your revenge. Your choice to do LR for the reasons you stated is great for you. My reason for posting was to show that there are other reasons for choosing otherwise. I'm not advocating that people with great grades don't need to do anything else. I'm sure that could come across kinda strange for some employers. I'm just saying that they don't all necessarily need LR on their resume to be competitive.

Competitive for what? Not all biglaw is the same. I'm sure there are certain firms that won't care either way about law review and others that will absolutely care.

The year I was a summer associate, we had four or five UT students in my office. All of them were on Texas Law Review. That can't possibly be a coincidence, right?

FWIW, my second kid was born while I was on law review. I think there were at least five or six parents on law review in my class year at my school and we all graded on. I'm not really sure why you are saying that having a kid justified forgoing LR.

My opinion: Over the years, I've heard a handful of hiring partners and hiring committee members privately mock students who intentionally forgo law review. I'm not sure that view is widespread, but I still wouldn't pass up the credential.

Yea....mind PMing me what firm that was so I cancel my interview there if I have them on my bid list? This sounds like the most stereotypical lawyer mindset I want to avoid.

Edit: also, I now see why people get pissed at random Anon abuse. Its impossible to ask someone something private when people just randomly anon.

[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.

Nothing to do with your point? You took evidence I presume. Seems to be evidence of a witness's bias. You made the decision it wasn't worth it for your particular needs and now are creating a fantastic piece of backwards logic. I would love to hear the next turn in your reasoning.

I seem to always hear why something isn't important from people that didn't do it. I love much rather hear from people that were in Law Review and had negative experiences, and could speak credibility that they got no benefits from it and it wasn't just because they didn't utilize the resource.

No I didn't take evidence.

Backwards logic? Really? Because I provided the OP with my personal anecdotes? Just like you all are doing now?

Having a kid was part of the reason that I didn't feel the need to take on an additional responsibility, but having a kid has nothing to do with my point that LR isn't always needed to do well in the profession. Yes there are benefits, yes it's great for some people (seriously...didn't I say all of this already?) but is it the be all end all that some students make it (students who are on LR apparently)? No. Of course I'm going to say it wasn't important if I chose not to do it. For someone who didn't get it but really wanted it, if they say it isn't important they may be honest or simply butthurt, who knows. Aren't people who are on LR going to do the exact opposite and say how great and significant it is and how one must be an idiot to pass on it? Of course....

[A. Nony Mouse]

Magnifique1908, is your info box just made up? Are you a rising 2L or 3L?

[Magnifique1908]

Magnifique1908, is your info box just made up? Are you a rising 2L or 3L?

Ah, not sure what it even says. I haven't checked that thing in ages.

I'm a lowly 2L. Worked for a gazillion years for attorneys before I decided to go to law school. Actually worked in recruiting for a few years too

Oh yeah, just checked....it is correct.

[hoos89]

/

[Magnifique1908]

Magnifique1908, is your info box just made up? Are you a rising 2L or 3L?

Ah, not sure what it even says. I haven't checked that thing in ages.

I'm a lowly 2L. Worked for a gazillion years for attorneys before I decided to go to law school. Actually worked in recruiting for a few years too

Oh yeah, just checked....it is correct.

So do you already have an offer or something?

I do. I had two 1L SAs. Still going to do a few OCI interviews though.

[Anonymous User]

Magnifique1908, is your info box just made up? Are you a rising 2L or 3L?

Ah, not sure what it even says. I haven't checked that thing in ages.

I'm a lowly 2L. Worked for a gazillion years for attorneys before I decided to go to law school. Actually worked in recruiting for a few years too

Oh yeah, just checked....it is correct.

So do you already have an offer or something?

I do. I had two 1L SAs. Still going to do a few OCI interviews though.

If you got an offer from one or more of your 1L SAs then law review is largely irrelevant to you (unless you want clerkships). The decision to take on a 1L SA generally occurs before write-on; therefore, your experience is irrelevant to someone who is seeking a 2L SA without an offer from a 1L SA.

[Blessedassurance]

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...sealocust, is that you?

[Magnifique1908]

If you got an offer from one or more of your 1L SAs then law review is largely irrelevant to you (unless you want clerkships).

I know. I get that my personal experience is different. I just wanted to give OP the other side of the story, considering quite a few of my even higher ranked classmates did the same (for different reasons I suppose, they don't have kids but they may have other things in common with me).

I'm still mulling the clerkship thing, where obviously LR is a bigger deal. Not sure if I want to do it but if I do, I'm sure it will be more of an issue. I knew that though in making my decision. I've taken other networking avenues (including with former LR types who clerked) that have been working out though.

As to your edited portion, the decision to make an offer to that SA is determined after the write-on so I'm sure if a firm was really not fond of non-LR types, they could no-offer me. I guess I'll see how my bid list fared tomorrow and then I'll know definitively if foregoing LR ruined my life lol.

[Anonymous User]

I was EIC of a T-50 school, so take this FWIW. I'd say Law Review is worth it in that it looks great on your resume, gives you something in common with 90% of the people you'll interview with, and is an honor that you're always going to be able to bring up (kinda goes along with the first one). That said, the only practical thing you'll learn on LR is if you're on the Board. Board members deal with authors, make sure they hit deadlines, etc., so you get some "management" experience. As EIC, I handled all the financial/budget stuff, dealt with all of the faculty/staff issues, had to back up my other board members dealing with authors, etc. If you got all of these experiences before coming to law school, it isn't going to do much for you from an experience perspective, but it still looks good.

If you're just on the staff, you're not going to learn anything as a 2L or 3L. It'll help you with Bluebook practice, but that's about it. Most people are too lazy to even care whether citations are right or not anyway, so it's not like you'll have to do tons of work on that.

I don't know of anyone who regrets doing LR, but I know plenty of people who wish they could have (didn't write-on/grade-on). It takes up some of your time, but it's not as bad as a lot of people claim. There's really no reason not to do it. It can only help and can't really hurt.

[Anonymous User]

I was very close to grading on at my schools, and all my friends who graded on said I'm the luckiest because my grades are high but I do not need to do any work. I would much rather have gotten on - everyone knows you did well if you're on, and more importantly it seems at top firms having the LR on the website bio helps.