Top Law Schools

Which is better/more helpful in the grand scheme of things in your opinion?

I am trying to get on law review next year (my 2L) year but I'm also considering moot court. From my understanding, Moot Court is good for giving you practice at thinking on your feet while in a courtroom setting and being able to formulate arguments and present them in front of an audience etc. Whereas Law Review looks much better on a resume. But my information has been unreliable because the people who know anything about it are either all about moot court, or all about law review. I'm looking for an objective opinion on which one will be better. From what I've gathered so far, law review seems like the better option because it will strenghthen your resume increasing your chances of being hired. And given the economy, every little thing I can add to my resume will be great.

I have to register for classes tomorrow. Although most of the classes I have to take are already decided by the curriculum, I have a choice between Appellate Advocacy or Alternative Dispute Resolution. App. Ad. is a requirement for moot court and, from what I've heard, will basically ruin your life for the entire semester. Whereas A.D.R. isn't nearly as demanding and makes for a less stressful semester. I'm just trying to decide which route I should go when picking one of those classes tomorrow. My first choice is Law Review if I get accepted, but it's hard for me to decide what to do because if I don't get in then I don't know if it would be a better decision to look to moot court or if I should just try to get on Law Review again going into my 3L year.

Usually law review, especially especially if you want biglaw. If you want to work on the criminal side, there is an argument to be made that moot court is better.

As one attorney who came to speak at my school put it: "When you have Law Review on your resume, that stays with you throughout your entire career. No other extracurricular activities can come close to that."

The only peoples' opinions who really mater are those of recruiters/hiring partners. I've actually asked this question, and without exception everyone loves law review. Moot can be useful, but I really think its much more specialized. Some might like moot, and some wont care. If your choice is mutually exclusive, the answer is always law review.

.

If the job requires a lot of trial work, I can't see why such an employer would prefer Law Review over moot court. Law Review doesn't indicate anything about the student's grades that can't be seen from looking at the actual grades. Law Review could indicate writing ability, but trial lawyers understand that academic writing is different from practical writing, and moot court also involves writing.

Law Review indicates that you're good at doing tedious work, which is a valuable trait to some employers like biglaw, but maybe not so in other situations.

Law Review also has per se prestige in many instances (Clerkship, biglaw, academia). This is the other value for law review. But your particularly employer might not recognize this per se prestige.

On the other hand, moot court indicates skill in the courtroom, which is always valuable for positions that entail lots of trial work.

Black-Blue wrote:If the job requires a lot of trial work, I can't see why such an employer would prefer Law Review over moot court. Law Review doesn't indicate anything about the student's grades that can't be seen from looking at the actual grades. Law Review could indicate writing ability, but trial lawyers understand that academic writing is different from practical writing, and moot court also involves writing.

Law Review indicates that you're good at doing tedious work, which is a valuable trait to some employers like biglaw, but maybe not so in other situations.

Law Review also has per se prestige in many instances (Clerkship, biglaw, academia). This is the other value for law review. But your particularly employer might not recognize this per se prestige.

On the other hand, moot court indicates skill in the courtroom, which is always valuable for positions that entail lots of trial work.

You can rail against it all you want, but there's Law Review and then there's everything else.

If you are able to get onto Law Review and choose not to, then you have closed many doors in your career. No other activity is like this.

is it not possible to do both law review and moot court? just unadvisable timewise?

vamedic03 wrote:

Black-Blue wrote:If the job requires a lot of trial work, I can't see why such an employer would prefer Law Review over moot court. Law Review doesn't indicate anything about the student's grades that can't be seen from looking at the actual grades. Law Review could indicate writing ability, but trial lawyers understand that academic writing is different from practical writing, and moot court also involves writing.

Law Review indicates that you're good at doing tedious work, which is a valuable trait to some employers like biglaw, but maybe not so in other situations.

Law Review also has per se prestige in many instances (Clerkship, biglaw, academia). This is the other value for law review. But your particularly employer might not recognize this per se prestige.

On the other hand, moot court indicates skill in the courtroom, which is always valuable for positions that entail lots of trial work.

You can rail against it all you want, but there's Law Review and then there's everything else.

If you are able to get onto Law Review and choose not to, then you have closed many doors in your career. No other activity is like this.

I disagree...I think it depends a lot on what you want to do. I sought out hiring partners and career services when I made the decision for myself and if you want to do litigation, like I do, moot court is the way to do. Big law and clerkships are entirely different but if you are looking to do litigation, hiring partners want to see the ability to think on your feet, public speaking skills and experience in front of a judge. You don't get that from law review.

That being said, law review looks great on a resume and a lot of jobs won't look at you without it. But it depends entirely on your career goals.

stewie27 wrote:is it not possible to do both law review and moot court? just unadvisable timewise?

I know some people doing a journal and moot court. I would advise against it - in part because your grades will suffer and in part because you don't really need both.

Law Review looks great on the firm's website. This matters more than you might think. It very likely matters more to a firm hiring you than any experience you gained in moot court.

bluebird22 wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

Black-Blue wrote:If the job requires a lot of trial work, I can't see why such an employer would prefer Law Review over moot court. Law Review doesn't indicate anything about the student's grades that can't be seen from looking at the actual grades. Law Review could indicate writing ability, but trial lawyers understand that academic writing is different from practical writing, and moot court also involves writing.

Law Review indicates that you're good at doing tedious work, which is a valuable trait to some employers like biglaw, but maybe not so in other situations.

Law Review also has per se prestige in many instances (Clerkship, biglaw, academia). This is the other value for law review. But your particularly employer might not recognize this per se prestige.

On the other hand, moot court indicates skill in the courtroom, which is always valuable for positions that entail lots of trial work.

You can rail against it all you want, but there's Law Review and then there's everything else.

If you are able to get onto Law Review and choose not to, then you have closed many doors in your career. No other activity is like this.

I disagree...I think it depends a lot on what you want to do. I sought out hiring partners and career services when I made the decision for myself and if you want to do litigation, like I do, moot court is the way to do. Big law and clerkships are entirely different but if you are looking to do litigation, hiring partners want to see the ability to think on your feet, public speaking skills and experience in front of a judge. You don't get that from law review.

That being said, law review looks great on a resume and a lot of jobs won't look at you without it. But it depends entirely on your career goals.

You're really not disputing the crux of his argument though. Law Review gives your career much more flexibility than moot court can ever offer. Even if I accept your contention that moot is more useful for a student that wants to litigate, which is reasonable, law review is still tremendously more useful for those who want big law, clerkships, and most other lofty goals that the students that visit tls strive for.

Another thing you need to realize is that most students, even in their 2l year, still have no f'ing idea what they want to do with their law degree. The amount of people who know with certainty what area of law they want to practice early in their 2l year is small. So yea, unless you know for sure you want to go into litigation, law review is always the better choice.

Lucidity wrote:You're really not disputing the crux of his argument though. Law Review gives your career much more flexibility than moot court can ever offer. Even if I accept your contention that moot is more useful for a student that wants to litigate, which is reasonable, law review is still tremendously more useful for those who want big law, clerkships, and most other lofty goals that the students that visit tls strive for.

Another thing you need to realize is that most students, even in their 2l year, still have no f'ing idea what they want to do with their law degree. The amount of people who know with certainty what area of law they want to practice early in their 2l year is small. So yea, unless you know for sure you want to go into litigation, law review is always the better choice.

This is true. But I think his point that some employers, like state prosecutor's offices for example, will value moot court and trial ad over law review. Now for the type of jobs that most people on this site/most who attend law schools are going for, law review is definitely more valued by employers.

BruceWayne wrote:

Lucidity wrote:You're really not disputing the crux of his argument though. Law Review gives your career much more flexibility than moot court can ever offer. Even if I accept your contention that moot is more useful for a student that wants to litigate, which is reasonable, law review is still tremendously more useful for those who want big law, clerkships, and most other lofty goals that the students that visit tls strive for.

Another thing you need to realize is that most students, even in their 2l year, still have no f'ing idea what they want to do with their law degree. The amount of people who know with certainty what area of law they want to practice early in their 2l year is small. So yea, unless you know for sure you want to go into litigation, law review is always the better choice.

This is true. But I think his point that some employers, like state prosecutor's offices for example, will value moot court and trial ad over law review. Now for the type of jobs that most people on this site/most who attend law schools are going for, law review is definitely more valued by employers.

I get that, but the OP never stated that he wanted to specifically do litigation. Therefore, i can only assume that he wants to know which activity makes you more marketable in general to employers. When viewed in this context, it isn't even close - Law review all the way.

I do both. If you have make a choice, Law Review by miles.

If you have to choose and you are absolutely certain you want a job that you think Moot Court would help with, do Law Review and then add on other activities/classes to get similar experiences.

bluebird22 wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

Black-Blue wrote:If the job requires a lot of trial work, I can't see why such an employer would prefer Law Review over moot court. Law Review doesn't indicate anything about the student's grades that can't be seen from looking at the actual grades. Law Review could indicate writing ability, but trial lawyers understand that academic writing is different from practical writing, and moot court also involves writing.

Law Review indicates that you're good at doing tedious work, which is a valuable trait to some employers like biglaw, but maybe not so in other situations.

Law Review also has per se prestige in many instances (Clerkship, biglaw, academia). This is the other value for law review. But your particularly employer might not recognize this per se prestige.

On the other hand, moot court indicates skill in the courtroom, which is always valuable for positions that entail lots of trial work.

You can rail against it all you want, but there's Law Review and then there's everything else.

If you are able to get onto Law Review and choose not to, then you have closed many doors in your career. No other activity is like this.

I disagree...I think it depends a lot on what you want to do. I sought out hiring partners and career services when I made the decision for myself and if you want to do litigation, like I do, moot court is the way to do. Big law and clerkships are entirely different but if you are looking to do litigation, hiring partners want to see the ability to think on your feet, public speaking skills and experience in front of a judge. You don't get that from law review.

That being said, law review looks great on a resume and a lot of jobs won't look at you without it. But it depends entirely on your career goals.

Litigating is still about writing. Law review demonstrates (theoretically) writing ability.

I'll go ahead and say: neither. If you have good enough grades for law review, you'll do just fine.

Lucidity wrote: I get that, but the OP never stated that he wanted to specifically do litigation. Therefore, i can only assume that he wants to know which activity makes you more marketable in general to employers. When viewed in this context, it isn't even close - Law review all the way.

True. I was more responding to the other guy. Nothing even comes close to touching law review when it comes to firms. Although I often wonder if they like it more because it's a sign of having a really high class rank. I'm curious how those with mediocre (or worse) grades who write on to law review do at firms.

bjsesq wrote:I'll go ahead and say: neither. If you have good enough grades for law review, you'll do just fine.

And that's exactly why I wonder about this. I mean honestly, with as much work as law review entitles if you have the grades to "grade on" why not just turn it down if it's more about the grades? Some say that for clerkships you need it, but I've seen enough people with even COA clerkships who didn't do law review to make me question that. I'm sure it's a must for SCOTUS but that's such a narrow consideration that that shouldn't factor into one's decision making.

If I can get law review, then I'm doing that over moot court competition

BruceWayne wrote:And that's exactly why I wonder about this. I mean honestly, with as much work as law review entitles if you have the grades to "grade on" why not just turn it down if it's more about the grades? Some say that for clerkships you need it, but I've seen enough people with even COA clerkships who didn't do law review to make me question that. I'm sure it's a must for SCOTUS but that's such a narrow consideration that that shouldn't factor into one's decision making.

I tend to agree. Most of the law review kids I know fucking hate that shit and could have gotten the jobs they had anyway because of their grades. Why subject yourself to that shit? Just not worth it, IMO.

--LinkRemoved--

"Moot court programs teach the wrong lessons and create the wrong incentives, and thus help develop the wrong skills."

Just curious, but whats the grade on cutoff for you guys? Mine is top 5%. My grades are good, but not that good If you're not top 5%, it doesn't matter what your grades are, top 15% has the same chance at law review as the bottom 50%. It all depends on how well you do on the write on competition.

Lucidity wrote:Just curious, but whats the grade on cutoff for you guys? Mine is top 5%. My grades are good, but not that good If you're not top 5%, it doesn't matter what your grades are, top 15% has the same chance at law review as the bottom 50%. It all depends on how well you do on the grade on.

Wow, thats really rough. My school bases law review invitations 50% on grades and 50% on the writing competition. That gives students who don't have tip-top grades a chance to make it on. The law review website says that they will take approximately 10% of 1L students, though not necessarily the top 10%.

BruceWayne wrote: And that's exactly why I wonder about this. I mean honestly, with as much work as law review entitles if you have the grades to "grade on" why not just turn it down if it's more about the grades? Some say that for clerkships you need it, but I've seen enough people with even COA clerkships who didn't do law review to make me question that. I'm sure it's a must for SCOTUS but that's such a narrow consideration that that shouldn't factor into one's decision making.

As I alluded to before, Law Review is about more than getting your first job. It's a status symbol that sticks with your throughout your career. It's appealing to prospective clients. It's appealing to future employers because it's appealing to prospective clients.

Moot court is undoubtedly a great experience. Law Review offers... well, a decent-ish amount of legal research (and Bluebook! seriously) experience. They are both helpful in a practical sense, and I don't doubt moot court is more helpful at the outset of your legal career. However, moot court doesn't "stick" with you like Law Review does, and it doesn't confer any sense of status. I don't know if that's fair but that's just the way it is. That's the perception of practicing lawyers and that's the perception of your clients.

BruceWayne wrote:

Lucidity wrote: I get that, but the OP never stated that he wanted to specifically do litigation. Therefore, i can only assume that he wants to know which activity makes you more marketable in general to employers. When viewed in this context, it isn't even close - Law review all the way.

True. I was more responding to the other guy. Nothing even comes close to touching law review when it comes to firms. Although I often wonder if they like it more because it's a sign of having a really high class rank. I'm curious how those with mediocre (or worse) grades who write on to law review do at firms.

bjsesq wrote:I'll go ahead and say: neither. If you have good enough grades for law review, you'll do just fine.

And that's exactly why I wonder about this. I mean honestly, with as much work as law review entitles if you have the grades to "grade on" why not just turn it down if it's more about the grades? Some say that for clerkships you need it, but I've seen enough people with even COA clerkships who didn't do law review to make me question that. I'm sure it's a must for SCOTUS but that's such a narrow consideration that that shouldn't factor into one's decision making.

(1) Getting COA clerkships has become much, much more competitive in the past 5 years. Unless you're top 10 (students, not percent; and exactly within top 10, not #11 or 12) at a T10 with LR + managing board, there's no sure thing COA clerkship wise.

(2) Assuming your applying to the same top DC and NYC firms as the rest of the top of the class, you're giving the employer a reason not to take you over a classmate with LR.

(3) 5 years from graduation when you're lateralling or trying to get into government or in-house, you'll have one less qualification than your peers.

(4) Do you really want to ask yourself every time you don't get a callback or an offer (and even the #1 person in the class will rack up rejections) whether the reason you didn't get it is because you didn't have LR on your resume.

(5) In the grand scheme of things, LR really isn't that much extra work.