Top Law Schools

Urban legend or myth:

• Law Review rules.
• Moot Court is second most desirable.
• It is a pick and choose decision. No time to do both.
• All of the above.

My understanding is, on a resume Law Review is self-explanatory, as opposed to noting a prestigious moot court award. Because of time restraints there is no possible way to do both.


Thoughts.

It's possible to do both, but from the friends I know who did it, it's a grind. If you're litigation oriented and emphasizing that during OCI, I can't see why you shouldn't want moot court on your resume unless you're planning on dominating the competitions as a non-moot court member. Some firms mandate moot court and/or law review so I think there is some parity as far as prestige goes between both. The amount of prestige and how that's viewed also varies by school. At some schools, moot court is more difficult to make than law review although I believe the majority is the reverse.

That is one of the worst poll questions I have ever seen; it makes absolutely no sense.

But: law review.

I voted "all of the above". I think that you understand based on the poll options.

P.S. Because of the time demands, it is quite difficult to do both well & maintain a high class rank. Most firms prefer law review editors--which assumes dedication as a 2L staffer on law review.

get it to x wrote:It's possible to do both, but from the friends I know who did it, it's a grind.

I find that interesting because I was advised that doing both was absolutely unmanageable. Thx.

5ky wrote:That is one of the worst poll questions I have ever seen; it makes absolutely no sense.

But: law review.

Sorry about that. If I had a 'do-over" I would ask what was second to stellar grades, Law Review or Moot Court. I made the assumption Law Review would have easily come in first.

Law Review.

Dumb question. Law Review is significantly better; Moot Court really doesn't matter (unless you can add winner, [quarter/semi]finalist, best brief, or best oralist, but even then Law Review is still a lot better). You should certainly have time to do both though.

The thing about Law Review is that it conveys the message "I was in the top of my class gradewise, or I was one of the strongest writers in my class" whereas Moot Court is an activity that anyone can do (generally speaking, so even if a particular competition is exclusive, no one will know or care). Moot Court doesn't signify academic success. If you do well in Moot Court then you can show you were among the best in the competition, which is a plus.

lolwut? This poll makes absolutely no sense. Where is the "None of the above" option?

get it to x wrote:Some firms mandate moot court and/or law review

Ignore that bullshit on symplicity. That's not how firm hiring works.

A partner at the firm I work for told me once:

"I hire law review editors because they are smart, and I hire winning moot court competitors because they have balls."

I tend to agree with the general consensus of the replies. Law review is respected accepted everywhere. Moot court has to be quantified by a win of some kind.

If appellant arguments are your thing definitely do moot court, but if you just want resume candy, do law review. I know people who did both but most people'd grades dropped. I only know 2/3 people who did moot court, law review, and still graduated with stellar grades.