Likely the only professors who would appreciate that are other ADR specialists. That's why specialized pieces like that belong in specialized journals.JazzOne wrote:You've highlighted my point. I have no way to know how relevant the article is. It seemed irrelevant to me, but then again, many people think ADR is the way of the future. The professor's peers are in a much better position to evaluate the article's significance than I am. I could be completely off base in thinking it is only important for a few people. How the hell would I know?aschup wrote:Yeah but if your article is only important to like four people and has absolutely no relevance/bearing on practice and can't even make the case of its own importance to an interested generalist audience, how important is your insight, really?JazzOne wrote:Well, yes and no. One of the professors at my school is a recognized expert in alternative dispute recognition. He gave a lecture to my legal scholarship seminar last week, and we read a couple of his law review articles. After reading the articles and listening to his lecture, I thought to myself, "Who the hell cares? This article is going to affect like four people in the entire universe, with the professor being one of the four." But the professor seemed to think that the article had deep implications for the future of law practice in America. I think I'm a reasonably smart law student, but the importance of that article was over my head. Although I understand his arguments, I don't have the proper context to evaluate them thoroughly.
Law Review Question Forum
- vamedic03
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am
Re: Law Review Question
- JazzOne
- Posts: 2979
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am
Re: Law Review Question
Like I said on the previous page, you make some fair points, and I will have to reflect on this further.vamedic03 wrote:Likely the only professors who would appreciate that are other ADR specialists. That's why specialized pieces like that belong in specialized journals.JazzOne wrote:You've highlighted my point. I have no way to know how relevant the article is. It seemed irrelevant to me, but then again, many people think ADR is the way of the future. The professor's peers are in a much better position to evaluate the article's significance than I am. I could be completely off base in thinking it is only important for a few people. How the hell would I know?aschup wrote:Yeah but if your article is only important to like four people and has absolutely no relevance/bearing on practice and can't even make the case of its own importance to an interested generalist audience, how important is your insight, really?JazzOne wrote:Well, yes and no. One of the professors at my school is a recognized expert in alternative dispute recognition. He gave a lecture to my legal scholarship seminar last week, and we read a couple of his law review articles. After reading the articles and listening to his lecture, I thought to myself, "Who the hell cares? This article is going to affect like four people in the entire universe, with the professor being one of the four." But the professor seemed to think that the article had deep implications for the future of law practice in America. I think I'm a reasonably smart law student, but the importance of that article was over my head. Although I understand his arguments, I don't have the proper context to evaluate them thoroughly.
However, I still think that much of what goes on in LR is glorified hazing and serves a VERY limited scholarly purpose.
- vamedic03
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am
Re: Law Review Question
It's also worth noting that the Law Review approach to legal academia has existed for over 100 years. Not to be a smart ass, but law professors who don't like the Law Review system knew what they were getting into when they chose to enter legal academia. (and probably have Law Reviews to thank for their success in academia)
- JazzOne
- Posts: 2979
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am
Re: Law Review Question
That may cut against your argument. It's quite possible that legal academia has outgrown the model of scholarship developed a century ago.vamedic03 wrote:It's also worth noting that the Law Review approach to legal academia has existed for over 100 years. Not to be a smart ass, but law professors who don't like the Law Review system knew what they were getting into when they chose to enter legal academia. (and probably have Law Reviews to thank for their success in academia)
- rupert.pupkin
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:07 pm
Re: Law Review Question
lol at humanities grad programs being rigorous
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- chup
- Posts: 22942
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm
Re: Law Review Question
Cool story, bro.rupert.pupkin wrote:lol at humanities grad programs being rigorous
- thesealocust
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm
Re: Law Review Question
I don't agree with everything he has to say on it, but Judge / Professor / Man Willing To Write About His Strong Opinions About Most Things Posner covered this one pretty thoroughly:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/Nove ... vdec04.msp
TL;DR Posner was whining about the LR process back in '04 before it was cool.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/Nove ... vdec04.msp
TL;DR Posner was whining about the LR process back in '04 before it was cool.
-
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm
Re: Law Review Question
Shorter Posner: "These subhuman riff-raff are editing me! ME! How dare the editors of a generalized, non-subject specific journal not be specialists in my particular field!"thesealocust wrote:I don't agree with everything he has to say on it, but Judge / Professor / Man Willing To Write About His Strong Opinions About Most Things Posner covered this one pretty thoroughly:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/Nove ... vdec04.msp
TL;DR Posner was whining about the LR process back in '04 before it was cool.
- Blindmelon
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am
Re: Law Review Question
The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.
- JazzOne
- Posts: 2979
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am
Re: Law Review Question
Damn bro, much better than I put it.Blindmelon wrote:The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.
-
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:17 am
Re: Law Review Question
Bear in mind that Step 7 takes roughly 2 months for the author to complete.Blindmelon wrote:The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.
-
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm
Re: Law Review Question
/threadbetasteve wrote:Fuck. Truth.Blindmelon wrote:The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.
- chup
- Posts: 22942
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm
Re: Law Review Question
You forgot:Blindmelon wrote:The law review system basically works like this:
1). Prominent professor submits shitty article that was worked on by an RA who clearly blew off editing it.
2). LR board decides to publish article based mostly off of Professor's prestige
3). Professor uses that to leverage to get on a "better journal"
4). Professor fails, bitterly decides to just let the LR re-write and make his/her article decent.
5). LR spends an exorbitant amount of time fixing everything, checking his research, adding footnotes, generally bashing head into desk when you realize it probably took him/her 3 hours to write the article (as evidenced by statements that are blatantly wrong, or FNs that consist of "cite here").
6). Article editor makes changes, sends to author.
7). Author bitches about some stupid minuscule thing - adds 20+ irrelevant citations to his own works to up his citation count.
. Article looks great, gets published.
9). LR gets basically no credit for doing about 90% of professors work.
10). Repeat 1-9.
7a). Author finds like-minded faculty at other schools and makes rumblings about starting a peer-review journal to do away with all this student-edited nonsense.
7b). Author realizes that such an endeavor is a metric fuckton of work and that we all do this crap work for free, rethinks step 7a).
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Law Review Question
Does anyone have any links to good bluebook tutorials?
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Law Review Question
Thanks drunken sheriff. I still feel honored to have been there live when that phrase was coined and destined for eternal greatness.betasteve wrote:--LinkRemoved--A'nold wrote:Does anyone have any links to good bluebook tutorials?
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Law Review Question
Amen to that brother.betasteve wrote:If people wouldn't have been fucking talking about getting grades before me, they wouldn't have gotten what they had coming.A'nold wrote:Thanks drunken sheriff. I still feel honored to have been there live when that phrase was coined and destined for eternal greatness.betasteve wrote:--LinkRemoved--A'nold wrote:Does anyone have any links to good bluebook tutorials?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login