Best secondary journals at HLS? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can we talk about how rigged board selection was for Law Review at Penn this past year?

??

[Anonymous User]

I would only recommend Penn to someone who wants to do transactional work

More damning for Penn?
a) Everything the students are saying on here about it.
b) The obnoxious way the Penn students keep taking over threads.

[Anonymous User]

Another argument no one made. They’re admitted because it’s a numbers game for US News rankings.

And you really think that there’s a significant number of people who have a 4.0 from ASU who are getting into T14 schools without having competitive LSAT scores? If it’s so easy to get a 4.0, why aren’t all the stupid people who undeservedly get them and benefit from ASU’s inability actually to evaluate student work eliminating themselves by being too stupid to succeed on the LSAT?

Yeah the kids that end up at tippy top law schools mostly do well on the LSAT but the LSAT is extremely learnable and there’s plenty of students at better colleges who will kill the LSAT with minimal effort but got 3.6s at Cornell and so won’t get into HLS

This is objectively wrong. LSAC used to publish data on this; iirc the schools with the highest LSATs were HYP and Chicago, where the average was “only” a 167. I went to one of those and know many people who did reasonably well academically (say 3.7-3.8 ) but scored in the mid-160s. Remember that the median LSAT score overall is only 150; when you’re in an elite law school environment with people who mostly found the LSAT easy, it’s easy to underestimate how hard it is for most people. Jeff Sutton bombed the LSAT.

The LSAT is a very different test now than when Jeff Sutton took it. There are also other issues with Malcom Gladwell's takedown of the LSAT featuring Sutton. For starters, Sutton apparently only applied to Michigan and Ohio State, and its entirely possible Michigan's admissions staff was just incompetent or yield-protected him. We don't know for sure, hence why anecdotes aren't terribly persuasive. Regardless, the LSAT today is not a difficult exam, is easily learnable, and remains the number 1 predictor of 1L grades. There is a reason there is basically a one to one correlation with average LSAT score and the difficulty of one's college major.

The correlation between major and LSAT seems to be evidence *against* the thesis that the LSAT is easily learnable. It's obviously learnable to an extent, but the majors that have the highest LSATs are also the majors with the highest-IQ students on average. Plus even math majors have an average of 162-163, and I dunno about you but I've rarely if ever met a dumb math major.

[Anonymous User]

This is objectively wrong. LSAC used to publish data on this; iirc the schools with the highest LSATs were HYP and Chicago, where the average was “only” a 167. I went to one of those and know many people who did reasonably well academically (say 3.7-3.8 ) but scored in the mid-160s. Remember that the median LSAT score overall is only 150; when you’re in an elite law school environment with people who mostly found the LSAT easy, it’s easy to underestimate how hard it is for most people. Jeff Sutton bombed the LSAT.

The LSAT is a very different test now than when Jeff Sutton took it. There are also other issues with Malcom Gladwell's takedown of the LSAT featuring Sutton. For starters, Sutton apparently only applied to Michigan and Ohio State, and its entirely possible Michigan's admissions staff was just incompetent or yield-protected him. We don't know for sure, hence why anecdotes aren't terribly persuasive. Regardless, the LSAT today is not a difficult exam, is easily learnable, and remains the number 1 predictor of 1L grades. There is a reason there is basically a one to one correlation with average LSAT score and the difficulty of one's college major.

The correlation between major and LSAT seems to be evidence *against* the thesis that the LSAT is easily learnable. It's obviously learnable to an extent, but the majors that have the highest LSATs are also the majors with the highest-IQ students on average. Plus even math majors have an average of 162-163, and I dunno about you but I've rarely if ever met a dumb math major.

The LSAT is easily learnable for people who are already smart and just need to get accustomed to the format. Easily learnable means that it's not like the MCAT, you don't need to take any college classes or have any knowledge before studying in order to do well.

If you have a 3.2 at ASU but are actually intelligent, you can easily get a 170+ with some effort. If you are a failson at Harvard with a 4.0, you will still likely do poorly without some baseline intellect.

[Anonymous User]

Another argument no one made. They’re admitted because it’s a numbers game for US News rankings.

And you really think that there’s a significant number of people who have a 4.0 from ASU who are getting into T14 schools without having competitive LSAT scores? If it’s so easy to get a 4.0, why aren’t all the stupid people who undeservedly get them and benefit from ASU’s inability actually to evaluate student work eliminating themselves by being too stupid to succeed on the LSAT?

Yeah the kids that end up at tippy top law schools mostly do well on the LSAT but the LSAT is extremely learnable and there’s plenty of students at better colleges who will kill the LSAT with minimal effort but got 3.6s at Cornell and so won’t get into HLS

This is objectively wrong. LSAC used to publish data on this; iirc the schools with the highest LSATs were HYP and Chicago, where the average was “only” a 167. I went to one of those and know many people who did reasonably well academically (say 3.7-3.8 ) but scored in the mid-160s. Remember that the median LSAT score overall is only 150; when you’re in an elite law school environment with people who mostly found the LSAT easy, it’s easy to underestimate how hard it is for most people. Jeff Sutton bombed the LSAT.

The LSAT is a very different test now than when Jeff Sutton took it. There are also other issues with Malcom Gladwell's takedown of the LSAT featuring Sutton. For starters, Sutton apparently only applied to Michigan and Ohio State, and its entirely possible Michigan's admissions staff was just incompetent or yield-protected him. We don't know for sure, hence why anecdotes aren't terribly persuasive. Regardless, the LSAT today is not a difficult exam, is easily learnable, and remains the number 1 predictor of 1L grades. There is a reason there is basically a one to one correlation with average LSAT score and the difficulty of one's college major.

Seems like this person is going to great lengths to conclude that people who went to ivies are just inherently better than those who didnt and distinguishing any marker to the contrary.

Undergrad admissions are not purely meritocratic anymore. They are heavily tinged by socioeconomic class, among other things. Maintaining that one group is inherently better than another group because of that difference is so willfully ignorant of how the current system operates lmao

[Anonymous User]

Which secondary journal is best at Penn?

JCL is the highest ranked by a significant margin, but that only matters if you’re on a journal board and doing articles selection and the like. JBL is also pretty highly ranked. Those two are also generally well run. They’re also slightly more work. Do ALR, JIL, or JLPA if you want to be a journal EIC because they’re small. JLASC, JLI, and Reg Review offer non traditional experiences. Reg Review editor work seems quite tedious, and you can also just take the seminar to write for it and get published.

Do not do reg review and do not take that seminar. Tons of work for no bump. JCL is basically law review amount of work so idk if it’s worth it either.

JCL seems more organized than some other journals which helps… you know when the next edits are coming. Reg review was a huge huge mistake for me

Yeah JCL is run like a law review. It’s very well organized. I’m just saying that it also is about the same work as law review too. You can decide whether that’s worth it. I think you also might need to make JCL too if enough people pick that as their number two.

JCL is simply nowhere near as much work as law review. I never spent more than 2.5 hours on a first edit and my friends on law review spent multiples of that on each one. You have about the same number of edits (6 JCL, 7 LR) but expectations are way lower and the citations are less annoying. You do need to rank it second, I think.

Crazy to suggest JCL is anywhere near as much work as Law Review

LR isn't really that much work if you learn how to appropriately brush off nerds on the board. It's an art.

[Anonymous User]

Agreed. I worked really hard and didn’t get board. In retrospect, my friends who worked much much less than me and barely put in effort were in the same place. So if you don’t want board just phone it in. You have it on your resume forever.

[Anonymous User]

Another argument no one made. They’re admitted because it’s a numbers game for US News rankings.

And you really think that there’s a significant number of people who have a 4.0 from ASU who are getting into T14 schools without having competitive LSAT scores? If it’s so easy to get a 4.0, why aren’t all the stupid people who undeservedly get them and benefit from ASU’s inability actually to evaluate student work eliminating themselves by being too stupid to succeed on the LSAT?

Yeah the kids that end up at tippy top law schools mostly do well on the LSAT but the LSAT is extremely learnable and there’s plenty of students at better colleges who will kill the LSAT with minimal effort but got 3.6s at Cornell and so won’t get into HLS

This is objectively wrong. LSAC used to publish data on this; iirc the schools with the highest LSATs were HYP and Chicago, where the average was “only” a 167. I went to one of those and know many people who did reasonably well academically (say 3.7-3.8 ) but scored in the mid-160s. Remember that the median LSAT score overall is only 150; when you’re in an elite law school environment with people who mostly found the LSAT easy, it’s easy to underestimate how hard it is for most people. Jeff Sutton bombed the LSAT.

The LSAT is a very different test now than when Jeff Sutton took it. There are also other issues with Malcom Gladwell's takedown of the LSAT featuring Sutton. For starters, Sutton apparently only applied to Michigan and Ohio State, and its entirely possible Michigan's admissions staff was just incompetent or yield-protected him. We don't know for sure, hence why anecdotes aren't terribly persuasive. Regardless, the LSAT today is not a difficult exam, is easily learnable, and remains the number 1 predictor of 1L grades. There is a reason there is basically a one to one correlation with average LSAT score and the difficulty of one's college major.

Seems like this person is going to great lengths to conclude that people who went to ivies are just inherently better than those who didnt and distinguishing any marker to the contrary.

Undergrad admissions are not purely meritocratic anymore. They are heavily tinged by socioeconomic class, among other things. Maintaining that one group is inherently better than another group because of that difference is so willfully ignorant of how the current system operates lmao

Correlation isn’t causation, buddy

(They are better)

[Anonymous User]

Agreed. I worked really hard and didn’t get board. In retrospect, my friends who worked much much less than me and barely put in effort were in the same place. So if you don’t want board just phone it in. You have it on your resume forever.

I thought the vast majority of people who applied for board got it? I get complaints about EIC being political/relationships-based but general board?

[Anonymous User]

Agreed. I worked really hard and didn’t get board. In retrospect, my friends who worked much much less than me and barely put in effort were in the same place. So if you don’t want board just phone it in. You have it on your resume forever.

I thought the vast majority of people who applied for board got it? I get complaints about EIC being political/relationships-based but general board?

The AE positions are pretty much entirely political/relationship based. I don’t have any problem with that. It’s how most of the world works. But I also think Law Reviews are a racket and I have almost no respect for legal academia. The overwhelming majority of publications are utterly useless dribble. Most are also shoddily researched and entirely unpersuasive. It’s often clear that the sources are miserably cherry-picked and misrepresented in an attempt to shore up some bogus but “novel” thesis. This type of garbage research doesn’t cut it in real academic disciplines with blind peer review standards.

[not2spicy4]

Agreed. I worked really hard and didn’t get board. In retrospect, my friends who worked much much less than me and barely put in effort were in the same place. So if you don’t want board just phone it in. You have it on your resume forever.

I thought the vast majority of people who applied for board got it? I get complaints about EIC being political/relationships-based but general board?

The AE positions are pretty much entirely political/relationship based. I don’t have any problem with that. It’s how most of the world works. But I also think Law Reviews are a racket and I have almost no respect for legal academia. The overwhelming majority of publications are utterly useless dribble. Most are also shoddily researched and entirely unpersuasive. It’s often clear that the sources are miserably cherry-picked and misrepresented in an attempt to shore up some bogus but “novel” thesis. This type of garbage research doesn’t cut it in real academic disciplines with blind peer review standards.

Judging by what I've heard/read about other disciplines, I don't think blind peer review would be a noticeable improvement. I think a few top journals already do it, and I don't notice a difference in publication quality between those journals and their non-peer review top journals. And the journals that are non-student-edited (like Constitutional Commentary) tend to be less strict about citation practices than those that are student-run.

Yes, most law review publications are useless drivel, but I think that is consistent with most academic scholarship in all fields. If anything, I think law is probably one of the more practical academic fields, given how important some articles have been in shaping legal doctrine.

[Anonymous User]

Yup. I have to agree -- Penn is in disarray. The old dean was basically MIA so I won't hold that on the new dean. But things need to change.

OCS let so many people strike out. If you want to clerk outside of Philly, you're out of luck. Ditto for unicorn public interest jobs.

The clinics are a disaster too and the only good ones are basically glorified externships.

And that's all ignoring the Wax situation.

I’m glad people are acknowledging that people struck out, if only on TLS. So unacceptable.

[Anonymous User]

Another argument no one made. They’re admitted because it’s a numbers game for US News rankings.

And you really think that there’s a significant number of people who have a 4.0 from ASU who are getting into T14 schools without having competitive LSAT scores? If it’s so easy to get a 4.0, why aren’t all the stupid people who undeservedly get them and benefit from ASU’s inability actually to evaluate student work eliminating themselves by being too stupid to succeed on the LSAT?

Yeah the kids that end up at tippy top law schools mostly do well on the LSAT but the LSAT is extremely learnable and there’s plenty of students at better colleges who will kill the LSAT with minimal effort but got 3.6s at Cornell and so won’t get into HLS

This is objectively wrong. LSAC used to publish data on this; iirc the schools with the highest LSATs were HYP and Chicago, where the average was “only” a 167. I went to one of those and know many people who did reasonably well academically (say 3.7-3.8 ) but scored in the mid-160s. Remember that the median LSAT score overall is only 150; when you’re in an elite law school environment with people who mostly found the LSAT easy, it’s easy to underestimate how hard it is for most people. Jeff Sutton bombed the LSAT.

The LSAT is a very different test now than when Jeff Sutton took it. There are also other issues with Malcom Gladwell's takedown of the LSAT featuring Sutton. For starters, Sutton apparently only applied to Michigan and Ohio State, and its entirely possible Michigan's admissions staff was just incompetent or yield-protected him. We don't know for sure, hence why anecdotes aren't terribly persuasive. Regardless, the LSAT today is not a difficult exam, is easily learnable, and remains the number 1 predictor of 1L grades. There is a reason there is basically a one to one correlation with average LSAT score and the difficulty of one's college major.

Seems like this person is going to great lengths to conclude that people who went to ivies are just inherently better than those who didnt and distinguishing any marker to the contrary.

Undergrad admissions are not purely meritocratic anymore. They are heavily tinged by socioeconomic class, among other things. Maintaining that one group is inherently better than another group because of that difference is so willfully ignorant of how the current system operates lmao

Correlation isn’t causation, buddy

(They are better)

Your entire premise is correlation absent evidence of causation in the face of contrary evidence lol

[Anonymous User]

Can we talk about how rigged board selection was for Law Review at Penn this past year?

??

Still confused what this is about as an incoming 2L on LR

[Anonymous User]

Resurrecting this. What do people think are the most well-run secondaries at HLS? Do you think they help for clerkships -- and is it worth the effort? I do really like mine.

[Anonymous User]

From the hiring side, the only secondary journals we really cared about were JLPP and CRCL, but from a signaling perspective more than anything. I didn't get the sense that there's a really strong secondary comparable to YJReg, though I understand that JLPP is very strong in its niche.

[Anonymous User]

From the hiring side, the only secondary journals we really cared about were JLPP and CRCL, but from a signaling perspective more than anything. I didn't get the sense that there's a really strong secondary comparable to YJReg, though I understand that JLPP is very strong in its niche.

Recent grad, I think this accurately reflects perception on campus. Outside of HLR, it's really just a question of signaling potential, who caters the best food to their subcites and if you are interested in the subject matter.

I think JOLT is as well funded/well run as JLPP and CRCL, but I doubt it actually helps with clerkship hiring, just means its a bit more organized and the food/merch is good (SO free embroidered crewnecks twice a year and the branded lulu/patagonia backpacks)

[Anonymous User]

If you have any interests I would do the journal best corresponding to them. As other posters have noted, there is little prestige difference among the non-HLR journals. But judges and other people doing hiring sometimes appreciate candidates who have demonstrated interest in things. So ILJ, HELR, JOLT can all be fine.