Top Law Schools

...

This has the markings of a troll post, but I'll bite anyway: Why not just become a professor's research assistant? In addition to substantive research, I'm sure that the professor would be thrilled to have you line edit and cite check whatever half-baked article he or she is writing at the moment. There's no need to create a special "independent study" just so you can simulate the unpleasantness of law review.

rpupkin wrote:Why not just become a professor's research assistant? In addition to substantive research, I'm sure that the professor would be thrilled to have you line edit and cite check whatever half-baked article he or she is writing at the moment. There's no need to create a special "independent study" just so you can simulate the unpleasantness of law review.

Thanks for your feedback.

rpupkin wrote:This has the markings of a troll post, but I'll bite anyway: Why not just become a professor's research assistant? In addition to substantive research, I'm sure that the professor would be thrilled to have you line edit and cite check whatever half-baked article he or she is writing at the moment. There's no need to create a special "independent study" just so you can simulate the unpleasantness of law review.

Not sure what the standard for trolling is on this site but no trolling happening on my end. Just interested in hearing others opinions.

Why are you so anxious to do the worst part of law review without getting the one benefit of law review - a resume line item?

kalvano wrote:Why are you so anxious to do the worst part of law review without getting the one benefit of law review - a resume line item?

Idk I actually do see a potential benefit if you care about your future work product and aren't cofident in your basic grammar and punctuation skills. That said, there probably are less painful way of improving upon those skills. Also, an RA isn't law review but it could bump off some non-relevant WE from your resume.

I agree that being an RA would make a lot more sense. Or if you have a subject that you'd like to research/write a note on, find a prof who'd be willing to supervise that, and try to shop it around for publication when you're done. There is no point in trying to otherwise artificially create the law review experience. If you really really want journal experience I know some secondaries will take 3Ls.

kalvano wrote:Why are you so anxious to do the worst part of law review without getting the one benefit of law review - a resume line item?

Most people on law review don't get published, but they build skills employers look for.

...

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I agree that being an RA would make a lot more sense. Or if you have a subject that you'd like to research/write a note on, find a prof who'd be willing to supervise that, and try to shop it around for publication when you're done. There is no point in trying to otherwise artificially create the law review experience. If you really really want journal experience I know some secondaries will take 3Ls.

Isn't law school education largely artificial? Half the stuff they teach here won't prepare us for the first day on the job. Law review is also artificial and the process for choosing students can be arbitrary (you can apply only as a 1L, and this clearly benefits those who do well their 1L year. Those who did good and are getting better have no legitimate alternative and that's what I'm trying to create).

What secondaries are there? My school's review/journals don't take anyone beyond 1L.

If your goal is to improve your legal writing, I would think you'd be better served being an RA and taking upper level writing courses, if your school offers them. If your goal is to try to get employers to view you as having been on LR even though you weren't by creating some kind of Shadow Law Review, then....

Checkout1 wrote:

kalvano wrote:Why are you so anxious to do the worst part of law review without getting the one benefit of law review - a resume line item?

Most people on law review don't get published, but they build skills employers look for.

Not really. Law review signals good grades/academic success and can (sometimes) impress clients. Trust me, being really good at citechecks isn't worth much as an associate.

Be an RA. Don't create some strange shadow LR.

Checkout1 wrote:

kalvano wrote:Why are you so anxious to do the worst part of law review without getting the one benefit of law review - a resume line item?

Most people on law review don't get published, but they build skills employers look for.

LOL

Checkout1 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I agree that being an RA would make a lot more sense. Or if you have a subject that you'd like to research/write a note on, find a prof who'd be willing to supervise that, and try to shop it around for publication when you're done. There is no point in trying to otherwise artificially create the law review experience. If you really really want journal experience I know some secondaries will take 3Ls.

Isn't law school education largely artificial? Half the stuff they teach here won't prepare us for the first day on the job. Law review is also artificial and the process for choosing students can be arbitrary (you can apply only as a 1L, and this clearly benefits those who do well their 1L year. Those who did good and are getting better have no legitimate alternative and that's what I'm trying to create).

What secondaries are there? My school's review/journals don't take anyone beyond 1L.

Law review (in theory) teaches attention to detail, bluebooking, and improves your writing. There are tons of other ways to improve your writing. RA, do an independent study that lets you write what is basically a note, take advanced legal writing and research classes (which will probably also teach bluebooking), get internships and have your supervisors be able to say good things about your writing and attention to detail. Even if law school is largely artificial, creating something artificial even by law school standards just compounds that problem.

There just isn't any way anything you create will serve the same purpose as law review because law review is basically 5% skill building, 95% signaling. The boat has sailed. Look for other means of transportation to the same destination, rather than trying to build your own boat. Go get internships with actual legal employers.

And DF right that good LR writing is academic, and not what lawyers want to see in practice.

TheSpanishMain wrote:If your goal is to improve your legal writing, I would think you'd be better served being an RA and taking upper level writing courses, if your school offers them. If your goal is to try to get employers to view you as having been on LR even though you weren't by creating some kind of Shadow Law Review, then....

You make a good point. It probably will viewed by many as a Shadow Law Review and if so it would defeat the purpose. RA seems to be the best next option. Thanks for your comment.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Checkout1 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I agree that being an RA would make a lot more sense. Or if you have a subject that you'd like to research/write a note on, find a prof who'd be willing to supervise that, and try to shop it around for publication when you're done. There is no point in trying to otherwise artificially create the law review experience. If you really really want journal experience I know some secondaries will take 3Ls.

Isn't law school education largely artificial? Half the stuff they teach here won't prepare us for the first day on the job. Law review is also artificial and the process for choosing students can be arbitrary (you can apply only as a 1L, and this clearly benefits those who do well their 1L year. Those who did good and are getting better have no legitimate alternative and that's what I'm trying to create).

What secondaries are there? My school's review/journals don't take anyone beyond 1L.

Law review (in theory) teaches attention to detail, bluebooking, and improves your writing. There are tons of other ways to improve your writing. RA, do an independent study that lets you write what is basically a note, take advanced legal writing and research classes (which will probably also teach bluebooking), get internships and have your supervisors be able to say good things about your writing and attention to detail. Even if law school is largely artificial, creating something artificial even by law school standards just compounds that problem.

There just isn't any way anything you create will serve the same purpose as law review because law review is basically 5% skill building, 95% signaling. The boat has sailed. Look for other means of transportation to the same destination, rather than trying to build your own boat. Go get internships with actual legal employers.

And DF right that good LR writing is academic, and not what lawyers want to see in practice.

Thanks, all great points. I'll probably go the RA + more leg writing and research path instead.

RA's get paid, LR staffers don't.

Catch 22 though, why would a prof want to take OP on as an RA if he/she didn't make LR or Journal?

pancakes3 wrote:Catch 22 though, why would a prof want to take OP on as an RA if he/she didn't make LR or Journal?

Plenty do. Usually they take someone who did really well
In their class. And LR people don't all want to be RAs.