Write-On Support Group Forum

[You Gotta Have Faith]

MBW is working on about 900 pages of reading.

How did you guys survive this? It's insane

My guess is that some of the reading is irrelevant to what you are being asked to do. At least at my school, and I imagine a number of them, only half (or even less than half) of the reading is the sort of thing you might use. After you get an idea of what the paper's theme is, you can sift through most of the packet and determine what's worth reading. Then again, that might not be the case at every school.

[samiseaborn]

^This. or not even irrelevant, but just unnecessary to successfully form an argument. I didn't even use half the materials given, and the rules didn't require you to use all of them. Part of the game is knowing what is the right amount of precedent to be persuasive. Especially dealing with page limits.

[Locke N. Lawded]

Having been on the receiving end of write-on entries, I can give you the following tips for improving your odds of success:

1) The E-board will most likely be inundated with dozens of entries, and the first thing we always did was to flip straight to the endnotes to check the quality and accuracy of the Blue Book cites. Remember, your job as a 2L on the writing staff of law review or any journal will be cite-checking. Your editors are the ones who will have to correct your cite-checking assignments--which is tedious and thankless work--so if you don't take the time to get your cites 100% correct, it's highly unlikely that you'll write on. Make sure you understand simple rules, like the correct use of supra and infra, make sure you don't use Id. more than five times in a row, and please, for the love of Bob, get your case cites right!

2) Spellcheck, spellcheck, spellcheck. If you can't write typo-free now, you won't get the chance to later. Again, most of the work we do is correcting other authors' work...we don't want to have to spend a ton of time correcting yours, too.

3) After the endnotes, we always went straight to the analysis portion of the note. If the argument sucked, that entry would be chucked.

Writing on is hard largely because most 1Ls have never had to write a law review article before, let alone in a week or ten days with no assistance. I suggest you take some time to look at the last few issues of your school's law review so you will be able to get a sense of how a note or comment is formatted.

I also strongly suggest that you write and edit your endnotes as you go...don't wait until a couple hours before the submission is due, because that is how so many folks blow it. People always underestimate how long it takes to input and correct their cites...so don't make that mistake!

It's the little things that will get you, remember that.

The year I was on E-board, we had over 60 submissions and we ultimately invited only five students to join the journal. Why, you ask? Because it was clear that most of the applicants had not taken the competition seriously and just threw something together. I guess they assumed that we'd read each and every entry from start to finish and that endnotes were an afterthought, when it was completely the opposite.

All you do your first year on law review is pull sources and correct footnotes for cite-checking assignments and write your own note or comment. And you have to write on a subject that has not been preempted, which often means that you end up laboring over a topic that is of little interest to you, and you have to juggle all this with a full courseload (and in the old days, OCI).

Hope this helps!

[mbw]

Two days left, and I am still not happy with my argument. Sigh. Hoping the ghost of Brennan shows up to provide guidance. Although I suspect that would be an honor code violation.

[dbt]

can anyone give an idea of the breakdown between the comment and the bluebooking exercise? I saw HLS does 60/40 (comment/bb). I'm feeling really great about the Comment, but I realized now that I've made a decent number of mistakes on the BB exercise (forgot to small caps something; 2 wrong order of authorities; etc.), and that has me worried. on the other hand, the bluebooking for my Comment is correct, I believe.

alternatively, what is the grading process like for the Comment and BB exercise for those that have been on that end? (e.g., objectivity, etc.)

[thesealocust]

edited / never mind

[dbt]

can anyone give an idea of the breakdown between the comment and the bluebooking exercise? I saw HLS does 60/40 (comment/bb). I'm feeling really great about the Comment, but I realized now that I've made a decent number of mistakes on the BB exercise (forgot to small caps something; 2 wrong order of authorities; etc.), and that has me worried. on the other hand, the bluebooking for my Comment is correct, I believe.

alternatively, what is the grading process like for the Comment and BB exercise for those that have been on that end? (e.g., objectivity, etc.)

At UVA the writing portion is worth much, much more for getting on to VLR but the bluebooking portion is worth much, much more for getting onto most of the other journals.

thanks that is awesome news. hopefully it's the same here.

[Rotor]

can anyone give an idea of the breakdown between the comment and the bluebooking exercise? I saw HLS does 60/40 (comment/bb). I'm feeling really great about the Comment, but I realized now that I've made a decent number of mistakes on the BB exercise (forgot to small caps something; 2 wrong order of authorities; etc.), and that has me worried. on the other hand, the bluebooking for my Comment is correct, I believe.

alternatively, what is the grading process like for the Comment and BB exercise for those that have been on that end? (e.g., objectivity, etc.)

At Boalt it's 50% note, 30% BB exercise and 20% personal statement.

Each gets read by multiple people and assigned a score. Those scores are normalized (so tough/easy graders are leveled out. Top/bottom score thrown out like in ice skating. And voilà the top X scores get offers. About as scientific as an inherently subjective operation can be.

[jrs12]

, make sure you don't use Id. more than five times in a row,

I'd like to quibble with this. Maybe it's your journal's policy, but The Bluebook does not require this.THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION R. 10.9(a), at 97 (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 18th ed. 2005)("In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including "id.") in a manner such that it can be readily found in one of the preceding five footnotes.”).
Granted, there has been some confusion about what it means to be cited “in a manner such that it can be readily found in one of the preceding five footnotes.” This is why the nineteenth edition of The Bluebook has changed the formulation so that a case need only be “cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes.” THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION R. 10.9(a), at 107 (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 19th ed. 2010).

Of course, if there is any doubt as to whether a reader will be able to identify the material, you should go with a long-form citation. Generally, if you’ve got 10 id.s in a row, you’re probably in the middle of a detailed discussion of a specific case, and it’s highly unlikely that any reader could be confused.

[sanpiero]

, make sure you don't use Id. more than five times in a row,

I'd like to quibble with this. Maybe it's your journal's policy, but The Bluebook does not require this.THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION R. 10.9(a), at 97 (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 18th ed. 2005)("In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including "id.") in a manner such that it can be readily found in one of the preceding five footnotes.”).
Granted, there has been some confusion about what it means to be cited “in a manner such that it can be readily found in one of the preceding five footnotes.” This is why the nineteenth edition of The Bluebook has changed the formulation so that a case need only be “cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes.” THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION R. 10.9(a), at 107 (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 19th ed. 2010).

Of course, if there is any doubt as to whether a reader will be able to identify the material, you should go with a long-form citation. Generally, if you’ve got 10 id.s in a row, you’re probably in the middle of a detailed discussion of a specific case, and it’s highly unlikely that any reader could be confused.

--ImageRemoved--

[ObLaDiObLaDa]

I've spent far too much time not concentrating on my Writing Competition. It's time to buckle down and get to work. I finally feel motivated to get to work on this. It's go-time!

[98234872348]

La la la drowning in case law.

[You Gotta Have Faith]

Re two posters above me... surprised some schools are still going at it. Thought most people would be done by now. But apparently some schools really want to bring on the pain. Hang in there! (unless you're done already)

[sanpiero]

figured i'd revisit this thread to report that the grueling 33-hour competition was worthwhile. just got the call last night

[truthypants]

Made my school's top secondary journal Good luck to you guys still waiting on results.

[bcb1986]

At last --- write-on was the week after finals, and offer phone calls went out today from all 3 SMU law review assoc's! E-mails with official offers coming tomorrow. Good luck / congrats!

[sk95]

made law review!!!!!!!!!!

models and bottles for me !!!!!!!!!!!!

--ImageRemoved--

[IzziesGal]

made law review!!!!!!!!!!

models and bottles for me !!!!!!!!!!!!

--ImageRemoved--

Ha! Congrats!!! Have a drink (or three) to celebrate!!!!

[mikeytwoshoes]

WOO HOO! I got onto our Gender Race and Jailai Law Review. However, since I still have two years after this next year, and did not complete the L. Rev. packet, I can compete for the regular L. Rev. next spring. I assume that's an advantage.

[prezidentv8]

Well, our school sent us a teaser e-mail about law review results coming out soon. And thus, we wait.

[Rotor]

Well, our school sent us a teaser e-mail about law review results coming out soon. And thus, we wait.

That sucks. Did you get to watch the Dodgers-Giants game tonight? Craziness, but should make you feel better about that lousy email!

[prezidentv8]

Well, our school sent us a teaser e-mail about law review results coming out soon. And thus, we wait.

That sucks. Did you get to watch the Dodgers-Giants game tonight? Craziness, but should make you feel better about that lousy email!

That was one of the most awesome baseball games I've ever seen, for about 12 reasons.

[BobSacamano]

Lexis or Westlaw have sent out two e-mails this month with "Law Review" in the subject line. They should probably not do that.

I think my school sends out invites later than any other I've heard of. We could be waiting until early August. I just hope I find out before I have to submit my OCI bids.

[Warhawk]

Our school sent out the invites the other day... and I made Law Review.

I really couldn't believe it.

[pehaigllleises]

Our school sent out the invites the other day... and I made Law Review.

I really couldn't believe it.

Congratulations!!