Law Review is secretarial work; zero relation to practice Forum

[09042014]

To the extent law review is secretarial work it is actually a pretty good preview of your first year in firm life. Also, you might be surprised at how much developing the ability to pay attention to minute details when going through something incredibly long and boring (and seemingly insignificant) will help you moving forward. The substance is different, but not as much as you might think.

I don't do anything resembling secretarial work.

[DELG]

To the extent law review is secretarial work it is actually a pretty good preview of your first year in firm life. Also, you might be surprised at how much developing the ability to pay attention to minute details when going through something incredibly long and boring (and seemingly insignificant) will help you moving forward. The substance is different, but not as much as you might think.

I don't do anything resembling secretarial work.

Well. I do. Lots.

[reasonable_man]

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

[kaiser]

Lets not forget the fact that essentially no one reads law review articles to begin with. That being said, I've done quite a bit of bluebooking thus far in my first year at my firm, and I'd say I developed a really good eye for it through my journal work.

[09042014]

Lets not forget the fact that essentially no one reads law review articles to begin with. That being said, I've done quite a bit of bluebooking thus far in my first year at my firm, and I'd say I developed a really good eye for it through my journal work.

What are you bluebooking?

[DELG]

I actually do read articles relevant to my practice. I'm as shocked as anyone.

[Micdiddy]

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

Sounds like you had some awful Professors.

[reasonable_man]

I actually do read articles relevant to my practice. I'm as shocked as anyone.

What do you practice and what law review articles would you read that relate to it? I can only assume that your practice centers on saving rare species of whales. Because we all know that no law review articles cover real actual areas of legal practice.

[DELG]

I actually do read articles relevant to my practice. I'm as shocked as anyone.

What do you practice and what law review articles would you read that relate to it? I can only assume that your practice centers on saving rare species of whales. Because we all know that no law review articles cover real actual areas of legal practice.

Bankruptcy

[UVAIce]

What is even better is when your Law Review has its own style guide that changes enough of the Blue Book rules that your new cite checking skills are close to useless.

[reasonable_man]

I actually do read articles relevant to my practice. I'm as shocked as anyone.

What do you practice and what law review articles would you read that relate to it? I can only assume that your practice centers on saving rare species of whales. Because we all know that no law review articles cover real actual areas of legal practice.

Bankruptcy

I'm at a bit of a loss. What in the hell would a law professor know about a practical area of law like bankruptcy?

[DELG]

I've been reading some stuff about anti-alienation provisions that's got my attention. Stern v Marshall/core/jx stuff is still interesting. Just... stuff.

[rad lulz]

is DELG actually IAFG

[rad lulz]

A good compromise is to do LR but do a piss poor job

[DELG]

Seems pretty likely based on the evidence.

[SnakySalmon]

is DELG actually IAFG

She was complaining about not being able to change her name in the mod complaint thread a while ago, so probably.

[El Pollito]

is DELG actually IAFG

She was complaining about not being able to change her name in the mod complaint thread a while ago, so probably.

You guys are smart!

[Blindmelon]

A good compromise is to do LR but do a piss poor job

Wish I did this. I did a board position - biggest mistake in law school by far.

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

Sounds like you had some awful Professors.

Most law professors are awful. I almost lost it when one tried to explain to me that teaching was public service. Really? You make well over six figures, teach two classes for like 8 hours a week and you have RAs the school pays to do your research and write your crappy articles that get submitted to law reviews who do all the grunt work. Cushiest job ever, and professors act like they are doing the world a favor.

[Paul Campos]

A good compromise is to do LR but do a piss poor job

Wish I did this. I did a board position - biggest mistake in law school by far.

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

Sounds like you had some awful Professors.

Most law professors are awful. I almost lost it when one tried to explain to me that teaching was public service. Really? You make well over six figures, teach two classes for like 8 hours a week and you have RAs the school pays to do your research and write your crappy articles that get submitted to law reviews who do all the grunt work. Cushiest job ever, and professors act like they are doing the world a favor.

Eight hours of teaching per week? More like four -- and believe me lots of people still bitch about their teaching loads, since there's always some dean's favorite who hasn't been inside a classroom in 18 months after dovetailing a sabbatical and a research leave.

[DELG]

A good compromise is to do LR but do a piss poor job

Wish I did this. I did a board position - biggest mistake in law school by far.

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

Sounds like you had some awful Professors.

Most law professors are awful. I almost lost it when one tried to explain to me that teaching was public service. Really? You make well over six figures, teach two classes for like 8 hours a week and you have RAs the school pays to do your research and write your crappy articles that get submitted to law reviews who do all the grunt work. Cushiest job ever, and professors act like they are doing the world a favor.

Your mistake is thinking that's a good salary. As Robert C. Illig said, "I feel that having given up the change at a seven-figure annual income is charity enough for the students."

Nevermind that he was only ever an associate, he really, truly believes he was going to make share partner. And that going into academia was a fabulous and selfless gift he is giving society.

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/04/law-prof ... graduates/

[JusticeHarlan]

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

Sounds like you had some awful Professors.

You can have great professors and still not have the slightest clue how to practice law. A fantastic 1L property section doesn't prepare you to be a real estate lawyer - no matter how well you understand the rule against perpetuities, regulatory takings, and the various ways to extinguish and easement, you still don't know how to draft a purchase and sale agreement.

And that's even assuming your professors are good instructors. The selection process for law professors emphasizes worthless scholarship over actual teaching.

RM is right, the institution is broken. I'm not sure it was ever not broken, but with tuition costs the way they are and the percentage of students not finding that first job that can actually teach them how to practice, the situation is worse. I'm sure this is news to absolutely no one, but hey, #dfthread #bitterlawyerera

[First Offense]

Most law professors are awful. I almost lost it when one tried to explain to me that teaching was public service. Really? You make well over six figures, teach two classes for like 8 hours a week and you have RAs the school pays to do your research and write your crappy articles that get submitted to law reviews who do all the grunt work. Cushiest job ever, and professors act like they are doing the world a favor.

Last semester I kind of mocked my small section professor for his two years of lawyering, followed by a career in academia about how little he works. He wasn't amused.

[Blindmelon]

A good compromise is to do LR but do a piss poor job

Wish I did this. I did a board position - biggest mistake in law school by far.

The only thing as useless as Law Review is probably the rest of law school itself. The institution is broken. In Medical school, doctors that practice teach students to be doctors. In law school, hacks that clerked for one year and had really high LSAT scores espouse on topics that in truth, they know nothing about. I would pay -- good money -- to watch any one of the dolts that taught at my law school try to handle even the simplest of status conferences. Oh what a joy that would be.

Law review is a waste of time, but so is the rest of law school. Any lawyer will tell you that you learn nearly everything you need to know about practice at your firm, from other REAL lawyers.

Sounds like you had some awful Professors.

Most law professors are awful. I almost lost it when one tried to explain to me that teaching was public service. Really? You make well over six figures, teach two classes for like 8 hours a week and you have RAs the school pays to do your research and write your crappy articles that get submitted to law reviews who do all the grunt work. Cushiest job ever, and professors act like they are doing the world a favor.

Your mistake is thinking that's a good salary. As Robert C. Illig said, "I feel that having given up the change at a seven-figure annual income is charity enough for the students."

Nevermind that he was only ever an associate, he really, truly believes he was going to make share partner. And that going into academia was a fabulous and selfless gift he is giving society.

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/04/law-prof ... graduates/

Just wow. But I'm glad he exists - it gives an example of how entitled and out of touch with reality these people are.

There is a BU law professor who on the first day of his 1L class projects a chart of partners' salaries of where he used to be a partner. Then he tells the class that he gave up that salary to help people. He taught a 1L class and a seminar and likely made 250k a year paid for by students, only 30% of which have any chance of paying off their loans.

[Elston Gunn]

A good compromise is to do LR but do a piss poor job

Credited.

[worldtraveler]

I don't think I remember how to bluebook. I just kind of make it up when I cite something and hope someone else checks it.