Impact of EIC Role for Clerkships? Forum

[Anonymous User]

To what extent do you guys think being EIC on a flagship journal at a T6/T14 impacts your application for clerkships? Especially if the applicant has otherwise average stats (as in, top third/top 25% of class).

[Anonymous User]

EIC of main law review - major positive impact
EIC of secondary journal - meh

[Anonymous User]

For main journal, I bump the grade up in my head by about .15ish on the GPA scale or 5% on the class ranking scale.

Usually it doesn't matter though. It's very rare to see a EiC of a main LR who also is magna or better and frankly I've never seen it (though i'm sure they exist). It's probably because LR is just such a massive time suck that takes people away from studying and/or the type of people who would run for that position usually don't have academic pursuits as their number one priority.

[Anonymous User]

For main journal, I bump the grade up in my head by about .15ish on the GPA scale or 5% on the class ranking scale.

Usually it doesn't matter though. It's very rare to see a EiC of a main LR who also is magna or better and frankly I've never seen it (though i'm sure they exist). It's probably because LR is just such a massive time suck that takes people away from studying and/or the type of people who would run for that position usually don't have academic pursuits as their number one priority.

EIC of flagship can help on the margins, but doesn't necessarily move the needle by itself. The type of people who become EIC are often the kind of people who have the relationships to get great professor LORs, have the institutional backing to get the dean to call chambers for them, will probably have published a decent note, have a polished writing sample, etc.

But competitive clerkships ultimately come down to grades. I'd second the the observation that EICs who graduate summa/magna/top 10% are exceptionally rare because of the sheer amount of time the role takes. If you're already top of the class, it's rarely worth the tradeoff and potential impact on grades. That said, you will see the occasional EIC who also graduated top of class, and that's far more impressive than someone who got good grades but without the LR time suck.

If you're EIC + top 25%, it's unlikely to get you anything with a judge looking for top 10% candidates. But it can mean that you're a more competitive applicant for judges who are screening for top 25% candidates.

[Anonymous User]

For main journal, I bump the grade up in my head by about .15ish on the GPA scale or 5% on the class ranking scale.

Usually it doesn't matter though. It's very rare to see a EiC of a main LR who also is magna or better and frankly I've never seen it (though i'm sure they exist). It's probably because LR is just such a massive time suck that takes people away from studying and/or the type of people who would run for that position usually don't have academic pursuits as their number one priority.

Or the EIC shirked their leadership responsibilities after getting the title through a highly arbitrary and political process. YMMV.

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if this varies depending on the school. I went to a low-ranked law school where the top performers in the class, usually the #1 or #2 students, became EICs. I suppose at a low-ranked school it behooved those students to gather as many achievements as they could, since they faced an uphill battle in getting a clerkship regardless.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if this varies depending on the school. I went to a low-ranked law school where the top performers in the class, usually the #1 or #2 students, became EICs. I suppose at a low-ranked school it behooved those students to gather as many achievements as they could, since they faced an uphill battle in getting a clerkship regardless.

Yes, definitely more common at lower-ranked schools, also because it’s less unusual at them for that #1 person to be academically a significant step over even top 5-10% students (e.g. booking tons of classes) in a way you don’t really see at T14s. My impression is that the right tail of the academic distribution can get very long at T100s.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if this varies depending on the school. I went to a low-ranked law school where the top performers in the class, usually the #1 or #2 students, became EICs. I suppose at a low-ranked school it behooved those students to gather as many achievements as they could, since they faced an uphill battle in getting a clerkship regardless.

Yes, definitely more common at lower-ranked schools, also because it’s less unusual at them for that #1 person to be academically a significant step over even top 5-10% students (e.g. booking tons of classes) in a way you don’t really see at T14s. My impression is that the right tail of the academic distribution can get very long at T100s.

I also think that LR selection processes are somewhat less politicized at lower-ranked schools, in part for the same reason. My LR didn’t have a personal essay component or similar when I was there, though I think they do now, but there were pretty clear divides in the write-on process between good and bad submissions in a way that may not be as much the case at top schools.

And the EIC/board selection was also really not politicized (again, at least when I was there). In part, the school wasn’t preparing future elites in a way that made being EIC any kind of political role - the main concern was finding someone who would do a good job and be able to get along with people. Yes, within the context of my school, EIC was a boost; but no one is going to be getting a boost from their position as EIC from my school as part of their run for Congress or something.

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

no dog in the politicized fight here lol, but isn't RBG top 5 students?

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

no dog in the politicized fight here lol, but isn't RBG top 5 students?

There were 35 her year

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

no dog in the politicized fight here lol, but isn't RBG top 5 students?

There were 35 her year

RBG = top 5% at graduation from Columbia.

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

no dog in the politicized fight here lol, but isn't RBG top 5 students?

There were 35 her year

RBG = top 5% at graduation from Columbia.

I don’t know anything about this person, but that’s still pretty impressive.

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

Very impressive. And the original OP linking to the linkedin seems to have gone awfully quiet now hahaha. I bet they just shifted their focus to posting on the other TLS threads expressing saltiness about LR, feeder judges, and diversity. Keep coping, OP.

[Anonymous User]

Well, you're guaranteed a clerkship of some sort.

But I was under the impression that all EIC appointments these days are political. Perhaps they always were.

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

Very impressive. And the original OP linking to the linkedin seems to have gone awfully quiet now hahaha. I bet they just shifted their focus to posting on the other TLS threads expressing saltiness about LR, feeder judges, and diversity. Keep coping, OP.

I'm the OP. I haven't commented on any other threads, nor did I even bother looking at the EIC's LinkedIn page. If she really graduated in the top 5%, good for her. I linked to the statement because it was disgraceful and dishonest, and it explains why the EIC and the Law Review's status have fallen so far.

CLR has every right to publish what it wants, and many have criticized the shoddy nature of the piece. If CLR wants to endorse a statement as bonkers as, "For the West, Palestine is not only a nuisance but also an enigma, one that defies the solutions of power and embarrassingly turns Joe Biden into 'Genocide Joe,'" so be it. But they should be open about the process of how they did it.

The articles committee has never solicited an article from an author before. Regular articles are blind-selected by the articles editors. Only symposium editions and some essays are solicited. That alone breaks normal procedure, making this statement a lie: "was selected through a process approved democratically by our governing body and matching that employed for other solicited pieces." You cannot have a democratic vote by hiding the existence of the vote from anyone you think would disagree with you.

Secondly, "underwent precisely the same editorial review as every CLR piece" is a complete lie. Regular CLR articles are reviewed by a randomly selected group of staffers and uploaded to a Google Drive for all staff to review if they want. Not one article has ever been hidden from members of the Review, let alone had a hand-selected group of staffers undertake the editorial process.

This sordid affair, where the head of a Law Review broke their own rules and openly discriminated against their Jewish members to publish political drivel, is a prime example of why Law Reviews have declined so significantly.

[Anonymous User]

Being an Editor-in-Chief used to hold much more significance, but the process of even joining Law Reviews, let alone being EIC has become so overtly politicized that it carries very little weight. One only needs to glance at the smoldering wreckage of the Columbia Law Review and the statements made by their Editor-in-Chief to see an example: https://tinyurl.com/542bmftr

It is a bit ironic to link to her LinkedIn profile in this discussion, given that it notes she graduated at the tippy top of her class (RBG scholar).

Very impressive. And the original OP linking to the linkedin seems to have gone awfully quiet now hahaha. I bet they just shifted their focus to posting on the other TLS threads expressing saltiness about LR, feeder judges, and diversity. Keep coping, OP.

I'm the OP. I haven't commented on any other threads, nor did I even bother looking at the EIC's LinkedIn page. If she really graduated in the top 5%, good for her. I linked to the statement because it was disgraceful and dishonest, and it explains why the EIC and the Law Review's status have fallen so far.

CLR has every right to publish what it wants, and many have criticized the shoddy nature of the piece. If CLR wants to endorse a statement as bonkers as, "For the West, Palestine is not only a nuisance but also an enigma, one that defies the solutions of power and embarrassingly turns Joe Biden into 'Genocide Joe,'" so be it. But they should be open about the process of how they did it.

The articles committee has never solicited an article from an author before. Regular articles are blind-selected by the articles editors. Only symposium editions and some essays are solicited. That alone breaks normal procedure, making this statement a lie: "was selected through a process approved democratically by our governing body and matching that employed for other solicited pieces." You cannot have a democratic vote by hiding the existence of the vote from anyone you think would disagree with you.

Secondly, "underwent precisely the same editorial review as every CLR piece" is a complete lie. Regular CLR articles are reviewed by a randomly selected group of staffers and uploaded to a Google Drive for all staff to review if they want. Not one article has ever been hidden from members of the Review, let alone had a hand-selected group of staffers undertake the editorial process.

This sordid affair, where the head of a Law Review broke their own rules and openly discriminated against their Jewish members to publish political drivel, is a prime example of why Law Reviews have declined so significantly.

You say that the piece was solicited and so it is false to say the process "match[ed] that employed for other solicited pieces," and suggest a process cannot be "approved democratically by our governing body" if it is not shared with the entire 2L/3L journal membership. Previous reporting suggested that most of the exec board voted to institute this process. Similarly, letting students opt-in to the group editing an article does not change the steps of the editing process. Is anyone alleging that an articles editor was left out of the selection process due to political beliefs, or that the articles committee would not have selected it and that's why it went through a special process?

The fact that the alumni/faculty board keeps highlighting that not all students on CLR had the chance to read and give feedback on the article is what makes the average observer think that this is a manufactured controversy over process when the real objection is to the content of the article. It is not normal at any journal I know of for a 2L editor to have the expectation that she should be able to review and give substantive feedback on any piece selected for publication. Articles are not normally selected or substantively edited in a "democratic" fashion involving the entire membership.

Now, if you want to talk about how CLR put out a statement calling for exams to be cancelled, I'd agree that CLR is a prime example of what has gone wrong within law schools.

[Anonymous User]

Well, you're guaranteed a clerkship of some sort.

But I was under the impression that all EIC appointments these days are political. Perhaps they always were.

But what does “political” even mean? Your use of “appointment” makes it sound like a conspiracy where the role is inherently rigged or hand-chosen. Sure, it might actually work that way at schools where the selection process isn’t an open vote, but those are by far the minority.

Even then, for the schools that do use a black-box selection method, I think you’re vastly underappreciating how self-protective people can do. No one who spends the time to serve on a LR executive role wants their successors to be incompetent people who will embarrass whatever “legacy” they might think they have. In other words, students are fundamentally selfish and will want to select leaders who are competent enough to actually get things do and done properly.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the OP. I haven't commented on any other threads, nor did I even bother looking at the EIC's LinkedIn page. If she really graduated in the top 5%, good for her. I linked to the statement because it was disgraceful and dishonest, and it explains why the EIC and the Law Review's status have fallen so far.

CLR has every right to publish what it wants, and many have criticized the shoddy nature of the piece. If CLR wants to endorse a statement as bonkers as, "For the West, Palestine is not only a nuisance but also an enigma, one that defies the solutions of power and embarrassingly turns Joe Biden into 'Genocide Joe,'" so be it. But they should be open about the process of how they did it.

The articles committee has never solicited an article from an author before. Regular articles are blind-selected by the articles editors. Only symposium editions and some essays are solicited. That alone breaks normal procedure, making this statement a lie: "was selected through a process approved democratically by our governing body and matching that employed for other solicited pieces." You cannot have a democratic vote by hiding the existence of the vote from anyone you think would disagree with you.

Secondly, "underwent precisely the same editorial review as every CLR piece" is a complete lie. Regular CLR articles are reviewed by a randomly selected group of staffers and uploaded to a Google Drive for all staff to review if they want. Not one article has ever been hidden from members of the Review, let alone had a hand-selected group of staffers undertake the editorial process.

This sordid affair, where the head of a Law Review broke their own rules and openly discriminated against their Jewish members to publish political drivel, is a prime example of why Law Reviews have declined so significantly.

You say that the piece was solicited and so it is false to say the process "match[ed] that employed for other solicited pieces," and suggest a process cannot be "approved democratically by our governing body" if it is not shared with the entire 2L/3L journal membership. Previous reporting suggested that most of the exec board voted to institute this process. Similarly, letting students opt-in to the group editing an article does not change the steps of the editing process. Is anyone alleging that an articles editor was left out of the selection process due to political beliefs, or that the articles committee would not have selected it and that's why it went through a special process?

The fact that the alumni/faculty board keeps highlighting that not all students on CLR had the chance to read and give feedback on the article is what makes the average observer think that this is a manufactured controversy over process when the real objection is to the content of the article. It is not normal at any journal I know of for a 2L editor to have the expectation that she should be able to review and give substantive feedback on any piece selected for publication. Articles are not normally selected or substantively edited in a "democratic" fashion involving the entire membership.

Now, if you want to talk about how CLR put out a statement calling for exams to be cancelled, I'd agree that CLR is a prime example of what has gone wrong within law schools.

The procedure for selecting articles for CLR involves a blind review process where the entire articles committee votes. This procedure was not followed in this case.

"Is there an allegation that an articles editor was excluded from the selection process due to political beliefs, or that the article bypassed the usual process because the committee might not have approved it?"
Yes, several articles editors only learned about the piece when the Board of Directors did.

Furthermore, the EIC deliberately kept the article hidden from anyone she suspected might object to its content or the act of soliciting it (which CLR typically does not do). Any vote by the "exec board" is compromised because those the EIC suspected might object to the piece, or inform the Jewish staff members, were not informed and thus could not participate in the selection process. Democracy is great when you selectively choose the voting base.

Additionally, every member of CLR usually has the opportunity to comment on any article, as they are all accessible on their Google Drive. There is no precedent for a hidden article being edited by a select group of staff.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the OP. I haven't commented on any other threads, nor did I even bother looking at the EIC's LinkedIn page. If she really graduated in the top 5%, good for her. I linked to the statement because it was disgraceful and dishonest, and it explains why the EIC and the Law Review's status have fallen so far.

CLR has every right to publish what it wants, and many have criticized the shoddy nature of the piece. If CLR wants to endorse a statement as bonkers as, "For the West, Palestine is not only a nuisance but also an enigma, one that defies the solutions of power and embarrassingly turns Joe Biden into 'Genocide Joe,'" so be it. But they should be open about the process of how they did it.

The articles committee has never solicited an article from an author before. Regular articles are blind-selected by the articles editors. Only symposium editions and some essays are solicited. That alone breaks normal procedure, making this statement a lie: "was selected through a process approved democratically by our governing body and matching that employed for other solicited pieces." You cannot have a democratic vote by hiding the existence of the vote from anyone you think would disagree with you.

Secondly, "underwent precisely the same editorial review as every CLR piece" is a complete lie. Regular CLR articles are reviewed by a randomly selected group of staffers and uploaded to a Google Drive for all staff to review if they want. Not one article has ever been hidden from members of the Review, let alone had a hand-selected group of staffers undertake the editorial process.

This sordid affair, where the head of a Law Review broke their own rules and openly discriminated against their Jewish members to publish political drivel, is a prime example of why Law Reviews have declined so significantly.

You say that the piece was solicited and so it is false to say the process "match[ed] that employed for other solicited pieces," and suggest a process cannot be "approved democratically by our governing body" if it is not shared with the entire 2L/3L journal membership. Previous reporting suggested that most of the exec board voted to institute this process. Similarly, letting students opt-in to the group editing an article does not change the steps of the editing process. Is anyone alleging that an articles editor was left out of the selection process due to political beliefs, or that the articles committee would not have selected it and that's why it went through a special process?

The fact that the alumni/faculty board keeps highlighting that not all students on CLR had the chance to read and give feedback on the article is what makes the average observer think that this is a manufactured controversy over process when the real objection is to the content of the article. It is not normal at any journal I know of for a 2L editor to have the expectation that she should be able to review and give substantive feedback on any piece selected for publication. Articles are not normally selected or substantively edited in a "democratic" fashion involving the entire membership.

Now, if you want to talk about how CLR put out a statement calling for exams to be cancelled, I'd agree that CLR is a prime example of what has gone wrong within law schools.

The procedure for selecting articles for CLR involves a blind review process where the entire articles committee votes. This procedure was not followed in this case.

"Is there an allegation that an articles editor was excluded from the selection process due to political beliefs, or that the article bypassed the usual process because the committee might not have approved it?"
Yes, several articles editors only learned about the piece when the Board of Directors did.

Furthermore, the EIC deliberately kept the article hidden from anyone she suspected might object to its content or the act of soliciting it (which CLR typically does not do). Any vote by the "exec board" is compromised because those the EIC suspected might object to the piece, or inform the Jewish staff members, were not informed and thus could not participate in the selection process. Democracy is great when you selectively choose the voting base.

Additionally, every member of CLR usually has the opportunity to comment on any article, as they are all accessible on their Google Drive. There is no precedent for a hidden article being edited by a select group of staff.

Normally when you put something in quotes, you're not supposed rewrite the quoted material to better suit your argument. That's not what that punctuation mark means.