Top Law Schools

I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

2011Law wrote:I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

I was about to create a thread just like this when I read yours.

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

3|ink wrote:

2011Law wrote:I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

I was about to create a thread just like this when I read yours.

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

That is a pretty good reason to do it though

3|ink wrote:

2011Law wrote:I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

I was about to create a thread just like this when I read yours.

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

It's not a full-time job. There are some bad weeks, ones that feel like a full-time job, but mostly it's a manageable workload, with more light and do-nothing weeks than bad weeks.

AreJay711 wrote:

3|ink wrote:

2011Law wrote:I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

I was about to create a thread just like this when I read yours.

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

That is a pretty good reason to do it though

True. Especially in this market.

spondee wrote:

3|ink wrote:

2011Law wrote:I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

I was about to create a thread just like this when I read yours.

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

It's not a full-time job. There are some bad weeks, ones that feel like a full-time job, but mostly it's a manageable workload, with more light and do-nothing weeks than bad weeks.

Does it depend on the school? He went to Penn. in the 80's.

2011Law wrote:I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class . . . .

Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

As a 3L on LR, I can tell you that although the workload on a school's primary law review is typically greater than on a secondary journal, no employers care about anything you have done on law review. Cite-checking some WSTUL professor's uninspired and derivative article for law review is no different than doing the same for a secondary journal: both are largely exercises in simplistic menial tasks that any 1L can accomplish after their first semester. It is difficult for some students to juggle the demands of journal work with their other class work while interviewing, but, to be fair, these same students would likely struggle with time management on a secondary journal as well. For any reasonably capable student, it's just not that difficult to look for split infinitives or misused typefaces. Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

Anonymous Loser wrote:

2011Law wrote:I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class . . . .

Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

As a 3L on LR, I can tell you that although the workload on a school's primary law review is typically greater than on a secondary journal, no employers care about anything you have done on law review. Cite-checking some WSTUL professor's uninspired and derivative article for law review is no different than doing the same for a secondary journal: both are largely exercises in simplistic menial tasks that any 1L can accomplish after their first semester. It is difficult for some students to juggle the demands of journal work with their other class work while interviewing, but, to be fair, these same students would likely struggle with time management on a secondary journal as well. For any reasonably capable student, it's just not that difficult to look for split infinitives or misused typefaces. Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

yeah that's what I was thinking, but why do they need to see you were on law review to indicate class rank when they see your class rank anyway?

Anonymous Loser wrote:Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

Not quite (you can write-on nowadays), but either way it's still a badge of honor that you can keep on your resume for years and years under the education section.

Anonymous Loser wrote:Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

This. Its increased value isn't the experience, but the prestige, like so much in law school.

vanwinkle wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

Not quite (you can write-on nowadays), but either way it's still a badge of honor that you can keep on your resume for years and years under the education section.

Anonymous Loser wrote:Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

This. Its increased value isn't the experience, but the prestige, like so much in law school.

lol, how gay. I wonder if employers would be impressed with my 10th prestige in MW2.

2011Law wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

Not quite (you can write-on nowadays), but either way it's still a badge of honor that you can keep on your resume for years and years under the education section.

Anonymous Loser wrote:Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

This. Its increased value isn't the experience, but the prestige, like so much in law school.

lol, how gay. I wonder if employers would be impressed with my 10th prestige in MW2.

They'd probably be more impressed that you still call stuff gay.

Thanks all. Assuming I manage to qualify for law review, I'll definitely go for it. It sure seems like a valuable addition to a resume.

spondee wrote:

3|ink wrote:

2011Law wrote:I'm just wondering why being on law review is so much more prestigious than being on a secondary journal. I understand that to get on the journal itself is the hard part just cause you have to be at the top of the class, but does being on law review take so much more effort than being on another journal? Wouldn't they both help you develop the same skills (if that's what employers care about)?

I was about to create a thread just like this when I read yours.

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

It's not a full-time job. There are some bad weeks, ones that feel like a full-time job, but mostly it's a manageable workload, with more light and do-nothing weeks than bad weeks.

+1. Most of the work is pretty mindless stuff (like cite checking) and your school likely has a note or comment requirement which is a bit of work (a lot of research/writing) but it's probably worth doing to have a publishable piece of writing under your belt.

2011Law wrote:lol, how gay.

And OP earns a timeout, and a warning.

mistergoft wrote:

spondee wrote: It's not a full-time job. There are some bad weeks, ones that feel like a full-time job, but mostly it's a manageable workload, with more light and do-nothing weeks than bad weeks.

+1. Most of the work is pretty mindless stuff (like cite checking) and your school likely has a note or comment requirement which is a bit of work (a lot of research/writing) but it's probably worth doing to have a publishable piece of writing under your belt.

+1 to both. It's not ALL-consuming. I was able to intern part time with a judge, do LR, and a fairly full interview schedule this semester. Cite checking was a pain, and took up time, but it's nothing that you can't overcome with dedication, a lack of procrastination and some caffeine. Check with your school's editorial board, but my school lets you do the bulk of your writing requirement over the break.

Two other things on long-term benefits. First, if you look at firm websites, the only extracurricular activity listed for a VAST majority of attorneys from law school is LR. Second, if you want to clerk or teach, I understand it's a universal prerequisite that you do LR and get published.

vanwinkle wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

Not quite (you can write-on nowadays), but either way it's still a badge of honor that you can keep on your resume for years and years under the education section.

Anonymous Loser wrote:Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

This. Its increased value isn't the experience, but the prestige, like so much in law school.

What if the time demands of Law Review start to eat into your subsequent grades substantially? Is that an important trade-off to consider? Or by that point are your grades a non-issue anyway?

Is it totally blasphemous to not want to do Law Review?

Well i am completely satisfy with the answer of patrickd139.
http://www.spam.com/

Secondary Journal sounds like the worst thing of all time. A lot of work and you get no benefit. All you get is negative attention if you don't. Terrible.

Esspweb wrote:Well i am completely satisfy with the answer of patrickd139.
http://www.spam.com/

Are people really creating new alts to troll the on topic fora now? What a waste of effort.

tgir wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:Law Review is simply a proxy for high class rank. High class ranking= prestige.

Not quite (you can write-on nowadays), but either way it's still a badge of honor that you can keep on your resume for years and years under the education section.

Anonymous Loser wrote:Being on law review in and of itself has no greater value than being on a secondary journal: law review's value is that it signals to others in the legal industry that you have a high class ranking.

This. Its increased value isn't the experience, but the prestige, like so much in law school.

What if the time demands of Law Review start to eat into your subsequent grades substantially? Is that an important trade-off to consider? Or by that point are your grades a non-issue anyway?

My grades didn't change, although I felt that less prepared for exams than I would have liked. This was true for most of my classmates on LR, and, from what I understand, was the experience of the preceding class as well: for the most part, class rankings have been static among members of my LR. You've already figured out how to write a quality exam answer, which is a skill many of your fellow students will never pick up. Additionally, you have likely found some sort of study routine that is effective, which, again, is something that others will continue to struggle with. Finally, you should at this point have a good sense of what types of classes you do well in (i.e., rules-based subjects, or vague "where do we draw the line" con-law type classes), and can tailor your schedule to play to your strenghts. And again, it's a lot of work, but there isn't any reason why a good law student can't handle it. You'll probably cite-check half a dozen articles at most, and then coast through your 3L year: why wouldn't you jump at this chance?

I'm about to start law school, and an attorney I work with advised "Don't do law review. At best, it may help you land your first job out of school." He said it was like taking on a full-time job. Does anyone concur with that?

That dude doesn't get it. Getting your first job out of law school is absolutely crucial. The biggest problem new law grads have is not getting a high-paying job, it's getting a job with an organization that will TRAIN THEM properly. If you can't get good training, your legal career will never advance.

Back in the day, this wasn't as much of a problem. There was less over-saturation in the field and more senior attorneys were willing to train junior ones.

patrickd139 wrote:

Esspweb wrote:Well i am completely satisfy with the answer of patrickd139.
http://www.spam.com/

Are people really creating new alts to troll the on topic fora now? What a waste of effort.

This is a form of spamming we've been seeing more of lately. And every time I see it, I edit the URL to be useless, and ban the spammer.

To get back to the topic, I think it's at least a little crazy to turn down LR.

LR >>>> Secondary Journal, e.g, Journal of Poverty Law and Urban Horse-Training. It is a lot of work, but I think it is definitely worth it. Totally anecdotal, but I'm right outside the top 1/3rd at BC/BU and got multiple callbacks/offers with firms way out of my grade-range, including 2 fed. gov. positions.
I obviously wrote on to LR, and I think its been a pretty substantial boost. Unlike what other people said, I generally enjoy the work. Writing papers now, the BB citations are a breeze, and I think reading and correcting tons of shitty professor submission helps me see the crap in my own writing. It is a huge time crunch, but honestly, its not so bad.
Obviously great grades > writing on LR w/out great grades, but friends of mine with similar or better grades on a secondary struck out. At least here, secondary journals aren't a big deal, I think something like 40% of students are on some journal.

If the secondary law journal focuses on your targeted area of practice, e.g. criminal law, tax law, patent law, health law, then it can be very valuable experience. Becoming an editor on a secondary journal may be more worthwhile & prestigious than simply being a law review staff member who never becomes an editorial board member.