Law School Discussion

Law Students => Job Search => Topic started by: OK Law on July 07, 2008, 01:42:32 PM

Title: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: OK Law on July 07, 2008, 01:42:32 PM
I just found out that I am in the 1st quartile (although just barely) at the University of Minnesota after my first year and was wondering how stupid it was to not petition for law review. I really did not even want to be on the journal and really did not want to go through the process, but am now thinking that I may have really hampered my chances for future employment. I will be going through OCI in the fall, how big of a mistake did I make(assuming I would have made law review, which is a rather large assumption)?

Any advice on how I can make myself more competitive or if you just want to call me an idiot, that is ok too.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: dsetterl on July 07, 2008, 02:06:40 PM
Why would you not want to be on Law Review? I think is one of the greatest acedemic honors you can achieve in LS, besides Top Graduating Senior/ Editor-in-Chief of law review.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: goaliechica on July 07, 2008, 02:37:38 PM
Why would you not want to be on Law Review? I think is one of the greatest acedemic honors you can achieve in LS, besides Top Graduating Senior/ Editor-in-Chief of law review.

Because it's a huge pain in the arse?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 07, 2008, 03:29:54 PM
Why would you not want to be on Law Review? I think is one of the greatest acedemic honors you can achieve in LS, besides Top Graduating Senior/ Editor-in-Chief of law review.

Because it's a huge pain in the arse?

Seconded, and all you do is edit someone else's crappy writing, fill in thier balnk cites when you could write it yourself and try and get publsihed

Don't join a journal if your hearts not in it, its a ton of time consuming mundane work for the most part. If you are not really in to it but for the resume boost, you will likely hate it, and likley not want or be able to run for editor. Find other ways to boost your resume, moot court, other stuff, if journals don't intrest you. Otherwise just join a secondary journal. Or try and publish your own stuff in journals.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: skeeball on July 07, 2008, 05:08:41 PM
I didn't do it.

I tried to get onto the Journal for the kind of law I want to do but didn't make it. To get on the regular journals you have to be in the top half of the class, and I didn't try b/c at the end of 1st semester I was bottom 1/3. I thought that was a lot of work for not even being able to have a spot unless I had a huge improvement in my grade. I ended up making it into the top 1/2 by the skin of my teeth anyway but still don't regret it.

I'm dual degree, so I figure I'm distinguishing myself by spending an extra year getting a Masters in the field. Plus, I can try to get on next year if I want. I'll have talked to friends who are on journals and hear about whether or not they like it.

I like reading law review articles for research. The idea of cite-checking one makes me want to poke my eyes out.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: yongsoo on July 13, 2008, 11:45:22 AM
while it's nothing special to be on a journal, I think many law firms view it as a rite of passage, somewhat. THEY had to do all that stupid cite checking, and so should you, sort of thing.

Moreover, while being on Law Review or any other journal, may not distinguish you in the eyes of recruiters, its omission on your resume may be questioned. I know several people who were asked about this during their interviews.

You may have to go a bit further in your job hunt or participate in something a little out of the ordinary, as opposed to your classmates on a journal.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: pretetmanger on July 13, 2008, 06:30:03 PM
yongsoo - you say "it's nothing special to be on a journal" -  and that being on review/journal doesn't distinguish you from other job applicants.

Is that true?  I kind of thought it was pretty special.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 13, 2008, 07:01:33 PM
i just met with a federal judge and asked if not having law review was a disqualification in his eyes.  he said basically the same thing matthies said -- that lr doesnt guarantee that you are a good writer or researcher....only that the person who was checking your note was.  he said what was more important to him was that you have something published if possible, or have won some kind of writing award....a moot court best brief or something like that.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 13, 2008, 07:49:56 PM
I think it's a big mistake. When employers look at resumes, they know that the only real reason not to try for law review/journals is, "Ehhh. Seems like a lot of work. I don't feel like it." It evidences a certain level of lazyness. They of course do not want those types of people.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Special Agent Dana Scully on July 13, 2008, 07:54:30 PM
I think it's a big mistake. When employers look at resumes, they know that the only real reason not to try for law review/journals is, "Ehhh. Seems like a lot of work. I don't feel like it." It evidences a certain level of lazyness. They of course do not want those types of people.




that is simply wrong.

pretty much.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: wustl3l on July 13, 2008, 10:41:16 PM

Don't join a journal if your hearts not in it, its a ton of time consuming mundane work for the most part.

You do know that virtually no one's does the journal because they love it? Virtually all people do it for the resume boost. It's a proxy for having excelled in law school, right or wrong.

Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: ferbear on July 14, 2008, 05:15:31 AM
I think it's a big mistake. When employers look at resumes, they know that the only real reason not to try for law review/journals is, "Ehhh. Seems like a lot of work. I don't feel like it." It evidences a certain level of lazyness. They of course do not want those types of people.




that is simply wrong.

pretty much.

Yeah, good lord. So wrong.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: jimmyjohn on July 14, 2008, 06:00:17 AM
Yes, it was pretty stupid not to even petition to be on law review. 
Are you on moot court/mock trial?  Doing a clinic?  The people you'll be up against in OCI are the people who are at your school.  If you are all roughly equal and some of them have journals or other extracurriculars, who would you call back?

It also may affect where you apply at all.  Some employers don't want to hire anyone who isn't on a journal. 

I would call back the person who I thought had the best interview.  I know that most of the OCI firms are full of lifeless drones and all they care about is whether you can regularly do mind numbing work for 70 hours every week. Thus, ability to carry on a conversation isn't as important as whether you have done similiar mind numbing work (e.g. cite checking) in law school. 

If some employer doesn't want to look at my resume or refuses to consider me for a position because I chose not to be on a journal in law school, then I don't want to work there anyway.  That type of attitude towards prospective associates is pretty much indicative of what is wrong with biglaw in the first place.   

Don't get me wrong, I would do a bit of screening prior to the interview.  But if two candidates have similar grades from similar schools, I'm not going to refuse an interview or refuse to hire because a person who is otherwise qualified was not a member of the law review or the space law journal.  It simply doesn't make one bit of difference in practice and does not make you a more qualified attorney. 
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: jacy85 on July 14, 2008, 06:25:22 AM
Yes, it was pretty stupid not to even petition to be on law review. 
Are you on moot court/mock trial?  Doing a clinic?  The people you'll be up against in OCI are the people who are at your school.  If you are all roughly equal and some of them have journals or other extracurriculars, who would you call back?

It also may affect where you apply at all.  Some employers don't want to hire anyone who isn't on a journal. 

I would call back the person who I thought had the best interview.  I know that most of the OCI firms are full of lifeless drones and all they care about is whether you can regularly do mind numbing work for 70 hours every week. Thus, ability to carry on a conversation isn't as important as whether you have done similiar mind numbing work (e.g. cite checking) in law school. 

If some employer doesn't want to look at my resume or refuses to consider me for a position because I chose not to be on a journal in law school, then I don't want to work there anyway.  That type of attitude towards prospective associates is pretty much indicative of what is wrong with biglaw in the first place.   

Don't get me wrong, I would do a bit of screening prior to the interview.  But if two candidates have similar grades from similar schools, I'm not going to refuse an interview or refuse to hire because a person who is otherwise qualified was not a member of the law review or the space law journal.  It simply doesn't make one bit of difference in practice and does not make you a more qualified attorney. 

I agree in principle, but unfortunately many legal employers don't think this way.  Really, what it amounts to is that setting high GPA/rank requirements as well as jettisoning any resume that doesn't have journal listed is an easy (perhaps lazy in some cases?) way to narrow down applicants.

Happens everywhere.  Law schools w/ auto-admit and auto-reject piles based on LSAT/GPA index.  Clerkship applications w/ federal judges where law clerks will toss out a great applicant because there was a missing period in their resume.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: wustl3l on July 14, 2008, 07:59:49 PM

Don't join a journal if your hearts not in it, its a ton of time consuming mundane work for the most part.

You do know that virtually everyone on the LR does it for the resume boost? Right or wrong, it is a proxy for excelling in law school.

I don't know anyone that did it because they just really loved academic writing although I'm sure there are a handful out there.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: wustl3l on July 14, 2008, 08:05:51 PM

Don't get me wrong, I would do a bit of screening prior to the interview.  But if two candidates have similar grades from similar schools, I'm not going to refuse an interview or refuse to hire because a person who is otherwise qualified was not a member of the law review or the space law journal.  It simply doesn't make one bit of difference in practice and does not make you a more qualified attorney. 

I wouldn't insta-ding a candidate bc they didn't have LR over someone with similar grades but you would definitely have to do some explaining. If I wasn't convinced that you weren't on LR bc you just didn't want the hassle then I would probably ding you unless there was something ultra-compelling about you.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 14, 2008, 08:11:59 PM

Don't join a journal if your hearts not in it, its a ton of time consuming mundane work for the most part.

You do know that virtually everyone on the LR does it for the resume boost? Right or wrong, it is a proxy for excelling in law school.

I don't know anyone that did it because they just really loved academic writing although I'm sure there are a handful out there.

Yea, but if you hate and suck at you can get kicked off, if you can't turn in your cites ontime or right ect. If your not going to put in the effort don't join up. I did it becuase I liked acdemic writing.  ;D
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Sell Out on July 14, 2008, 08:27:35 PM
Are you interested in clinics, moot court, or mock trial?  These help tremendously.  Also, do you work outside of school?  Smaller firm work during the school year can really help, or so I've heard.  I would rather take someone who's been drafting MSJs or writing briefs for two years over the kid from the International Law of Hot Dog Vending and General Snack-Dog Practices Journal any day of the week.  Possibly they'll know what they are doing when they get there.

I'm going the clinic route.  I had an easy decision in front of me though.  I don't want to do big law and would like to study in Canada for a semester.  Journals at my school are a two year commitment.  Thus, I'm no longer eligible.  So long as you look like you did something, you should be fine.  I wouldn't rule out a successful career just yet.  Employers are going to care about grades more than anything else.  Boost the GPA, but that's standard advice regardless of the circumstances.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: wustl3l on July 14, 2008, 08:40:32 PM
Are you interested in clinics, moot court, or mock trial?  These help tremendously.  Also, do you work outside of school?  Smaller firm work during the school year can really help, or so I've heard.  I would rather take someone who's been drafting MSJs or writing briefs for two years over the kid from the International Law of Hot Dog Vending and General Snack-Dog Practices Journal any day of the week.  Possibly they'll know what they are doing when they get there.

I'm going the clinic route.  I had an easy decision in front of me though.  I don't want to do big law and would like to study in Canada for a semester.  Journals at my school are a two year commitment.  Thus, I'm no longer eligible.  So long as you look like you did something, you should be fine.  I wouldn't rule out a successful career just yet.  Employers are going to care about grades more than anything else.  Boost the GPA, but that's standard advice regardless of the circumstances.

I should clarify that I don't care about secondary journals, I'm only referring to the primary journal.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: goaliechica on July 14, 2008, 08:57:03 PM

Don't get me wrong, I would do a bit of screening prior to the interview.  But if two candidates have similar grades from similar schools, I'm not going to refuse an interview or refuse to hire because a person who is otherwise qualified was not a member of the law review or the space law journal.  It simply doesn't make one bit of difference in practice and does not make you a more qualified attorney. 

I wouldn't insta-ding a candidate bc they didn't have LR over someone with similar grades but you would definitely have to do some explaining. If I wasn't convinced that you weren't on LR bc you just didn't want the hassle then I would probably ding you unless there was something ultra-compelling about you.

So what reason for not doing law review beyond "I tried but failed" would you find compelling?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: wustl3l on July 14, 2008, 09:22:15 PM


So what reason for not doing law review beyond "I tried but failed" would you find compelling?

Probably something like needing the time to do significant pro bono work. It'd obvious be a case-by-case basis.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: jimmyjohn on July 14, 2008, 09:52:13 PM
If all jobs just picked the person with the best interview, there'd just be a lot of friendly but incompetent people. 

Besides, as wonderful as you think you are in an interview, you're probably on par with just most people.  That's encompassed in my "roughly equal." 

Actually, rather than waste my time with a journal I took jobs as a research assistant and a law clerk during my 2nd and 3rd years.  I learned a lot more about how to research/write and about the practice of law than any journal or law review would have taught me. 

Since you are advocating giving out jobs based on tiebreakers such as journal membership, you must also believe that such membership is in part indicative of competency as an attorney. 

Perhaps you didn't read my post, but I said that I would pre-screen for competency prior to the interview. I would look at grades, reputation of school and experience in similar legal environments.  Membership on the law review honestly wouldn't mean much to me because I don't think it teaches you how to do much of anything related to the actual practice of law.  I'm sorry to deflate your inflated sense of self-worth. 
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: goaliechica on July 15, 2008, 05:12:09 AM
I find that, despite the many rationalizations, most people who didn't apply for journals just didn't think they'd get on.

 ::) ::) ::)

ETA:

Look, at the very real risk of evoking sour grapes, I just want to say that while law review is a tremendous honor and will stay with you throughout your career like few other things you have the opportunity to do in law school, I cannot tell you how many people - people at my current job, where I would love to end up working, professors, people I know with clerkships that I would love to get, others I know in the profession - have told me that law review is not the be-all-end-all and counseled me not to bother with it. I honestly was at a career panel last week where a guy from a large prestigious law firm said he'd almost rather not see law review on a resume, because everyone he knew who'd done it hated it. Now I'm not saying that's the prevailing opinion, and I recognize that for many employers and judges it's just something they expect of the "best" students, but there are plenty of employers out there who feel differently. You never know how much it's going to matter, and erring on the side of having it rather than not having it is always going to be your best bet, but I think the idea that only a long commute or family obligations would "excuse" a top student from not doing law review is absurd.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: flyaway on July 15, 2008, 05:37:22 AM

I find that, despite the many rationalizations, most people who didn't apply for journals just didn't think they'd get on.

That might be true to some degree, but it's also way too black and white. 

If I had somehow known that if I tried for law review I would definitely make it, would I have done the competition?  Yes, because it is an important honor to have, and if it's there for the taking, you should take it. 

If I had really wanted to be on it, would I have tried?  Yes, for the chance to have the experience.

But (1) I knew that odds were that I wouldn't, AND (2) I didn't particularly want to be on it (time commitment much larger than that for other journals) or to do the competition (was about to leave country for 2.5 months, and wanted to spend time with husband).

At a certain point, you have to make the choices that are going to make you happy.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 05:45:43 AM
"Perhaps you didn't read my post, but I said that I would pre-screen for competency prior to the interview. I would look at grades, reputation of school and experience in similar legal environments."

Well then the OP is clearly fine. I mean, if you wouldn't care about law review/ journal, then nobody would. It's basically the biggest honor you can have in law school, but if you aren't interested, then I'm sure it doesn't actually matter.

Get over yourself. Your decision not to try for law review is TTT and stupid. Clinic, moot court, etc DO NOT carry as much weight. If you don't try out for it, it is because you are being lazy and immature. You are simply saying, "I don't think that'd be fun, so I'm not doing it." HTH. End of thread.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: jimmyjohn on July 15, 2008, 07:08:40 AM
No offense, but it doesn't really matter what "you'd do." Lots of employers, particularly big firms, want to see law review. They value it much more than they value any of the things you listed.

I don't think YBR has an inflated sense of self worth as much as you are hypersensitive about the fact that you weren't on law review. Just my two cents.

No, unlike most of the people posting on this thread, I have finished law school and I no longer give a rat's ass about any of the shallow, self-perpetuating hierarchies  created by law review and journal membership.  I have never once regretted my decision not to do the write on competition after my 2L year. 

Most of you probably secretly hate your life on a journal but you are doing it anyway because someone told you that joe blow at the biglaw office in the primary market might spare you 15 minutes of his precious time for an OCI if he sees that you have law review on your resume.   

Oh, and if YBR doesn't have an inflated sense of self-worth, then I don't know who does.  Read some prior posts and you will see that there is absolutely nothing that YBR does does not know about 1. law school, 2. job interviewing, and 3. the practice of law. 
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: OK Law on July 15, 2008, 11:34:26 AM
Thanks for all the feedback. I appreciate the insights and what I am reading is about what I expected. I am adding a few things to my resume, such as a research assistant, a good summer job where I am doing a lot of writing and will be on a moot court team next year as well. However, I definitely understand the draw to LR and the importance that employers and clerkship opportunities put on it. I agree that just being able to interview well is not good enough to land you a job and it shouldn't be, however, being on law review should not either, but then again what do I know? and more importantly, what I think is right, really doesn't matter.


 
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 11:38:41 AM
If you don't try out for it, it is because you are being lazy and immature. You are simply saying, "I don't think that'd be fun, so I'm not doing it." HTH. End of thread.


thats idiotic
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 12:52:48 PM
Brilliant response. Thanks for the insight.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 01:07:34 PM
Brilliant response. Thanks for the insight.

yawn
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 01:10:03 PM
Exactly. You have nothing. Go back to sleep.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 01:15:21 PM
Exactly. You have nothing. Go back to sleep.

no, your infantile commentary was just that boring.

now go back to momma's basement with your national geographics and don't bother the adults.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Sell Out on July 15, 2008, 02:06:31 PM
I find that, despite the many rationalizations, most people who didn't apply for journals just didn't think they'd get on.

Fighting... urge... to... make... remark... about... ignorant... over... generalization...

Ok, the moment has passed.

Who's up for streaking through the quad up to the gymnasium?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 02:19:08 PM
Exactly. You have nothing. Go back to sleep.

no, your infantile commentary was just that boring.

now go back to momma's basement with your national geographics and don't bother the adults.
Nah. Instead I'll just finish studying for the Bar, take my vacation, and then go to work at my COA clerkship. But I mean you are clearly the expert of all that is law school.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 02:23:38 PM
Exactly. You have nothing. Go back to sleep.

no, your infantile commentary was just that boring.

now go back to momma's basement with your national geographics and don't bother the adults.
Nah. Instead I'll just finish studying for the Bar, take my vacation, and then go to work at my COA clerkship. But I mean you are clearly the expert of all that is law school.


of course you will.   ::)
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 02:27:15 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 15, 2008, 02:29:56 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 02:30:59 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Sell Out on July 15, 2008, 02:42:26 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?

Matthies is everywhere.  He's in the birds, the trees, even the air.  Sometimes you'll see him, sometimes you won't, but he's always watching you.

Btw, was that the "You want some too?" comment I just saw?  Way to break it off old school... didn't think I'd see that here.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 02:44:04 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!


no, the rolly-eyes --  ::) -- is indicative of disbelief.

so you have a history of making things up.  that proves what again?   ???



ps.  the  ??? is indicative of questioning.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 15, 2008, 02:45:27 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?

Matthies is everywhere.  He's in the birds, the trees, even the air.  Sometimes you'll see him, sometimes you won't, but he's always watching you.


<--- is omnipresent
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 02:47:03 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?

Matthies is everywhere.  He's in the birds, the trees, even the air.  Sometimes you'll see him, sometimes you won't, but he's always watching you.


<--- is omnipresent


wait.  i thought you were omnipotent.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: mugatu on July 15, 2008, 02:48:15 PM
this got pretty funny.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Sell Out on July 15, 2008, 02:50:12 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?

Matthies is everywhere.  He's in the birds, the trees, even the air.  Sometimes you'll see him, sometimes you won't, but he's always watching you.


<--- is omnipresent


wait.  i thought you were omnipotent.

Can't it be both?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: T2Loser on July 15, 2008, 03:00:03 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!


no, the rolly-eyes --  ::) -- is indicative of disbelief.

so you have a history of making things up.  that proves what again?   ???



ps.  the  ??? is indicative of questioning.
I understood what the rolly-eyes meant. My point was that I shut you up & you had no real response. All you could say is, "I bet you don't!"

Feel free to question me all you want. It's just because you can't stand to be beaten. I've engaged in real discussions on here about the clerkship application process & my experience with it. You can call me a liar, but it is only because you feel intimidated. Bye!
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 03:03:19 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!


no, the rolly-eyes --  ::) -- is indicative of disbelief.

so you have a history of making things up.  that proves what again?   ???



ps.  the  ??? is indicative of questioning.
I understood what the rolly-eyes meant. My point was that I shut you up & you had no real response. All you could say is, "I bet you don't!"

Feel free to question me all you want. It's just because you can't stand to be beaten.


beat me?  you cant even properly quote me.

I've engaged in real discussions on here about the clerkship application process & my experience with it. You can call me a liar, but it is only because you feel intimidated.

of course i do.


Bye!


promise?




Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 15, 2008, 03:10:58 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?

Matthies is everywhere.  He's in the birds, the trees, even the air.  Sometimes you'll see him, sometimes you won't, but he's always watching you.


<--- is omnipresent


wait.  i thought you were omnipotent.

Can't it be both?

Agreed. I mean would not my omnipresence by its nature infer that I am omnipotent? I mean if I can be everywhere all the time then am I not also part of everything, thus having dominion over it all? The question then becomes if one posts a lameass comeback in a thread thatís not funny, and I do not laugh, was it really a comeback at all? Did that tree falling make any noise if I was not there to hear it. I think not.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 03:13:58 PM
Haha. Do I sense some jealousy? Or have you just learned when to shut your mouth? Check my past posts. I haven't been on here long, but I've discussed clerkships before. Thanks for playing!

Wait is this where I'm supposed to be impressed? Cuase I'm not feeling it for some reason.
Who are you?... Just feeling lonely and wanted to join?

Matthies is everywhere.  He's in the birds, the trees, even the air.  Sometimes you'll see him, sometimes you won't, but he's always watching you.


<--- is omnipresent


wait.  i thought you were omnipotent.

Can't it be both?

Agreed. I mean would not my omnipresence by its nature infer that I am omnipotent? I mean if I can be everywhere all the time then am I not also part of everything, thus having dominion over it all? The question then becomes if one posts a lameass comeback in a thread thatís not funny, and I do not laugh, was it really a comeback at all? Did that tree falling make any noise if I was not there to hear it. I think not.


i prefer to think of it this way:  if a man says something in the forest, and there's no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Private David Lewis on July 15, 2008, 05:12:08 PM
I always figured the reason judges and employers liked people on Law Review or other journals was because they figure those people are willing to undergo excessive unpleasantness in the name of ambition? 
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 15, 2008, 05:17:06 PM
I always figured the reason judges and employers liked people on Law Review or other journals was because they figure those people are willing to undergo excessive unpleasantness in the name of ambition? 

I think it shows a mindless devotion to tradition for traditionís sake thus firms are assured that you wonít think for yourself, youíll just follow the herd and do as youíre told. Breaking the mold or being original is bad for firm culture.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 15, 2008, 05:21:32 PM
I always figured the reason judges and employers liked people on Law Review or other journals was because they figure those people are willing to undergo excessive unpleasantness in the name of ambition? 

I think it shows a mindless devotion to tradition for traditionís sake thus firms are assured that you wonít think for yourself, youíll just follow the herd and do as youíre told. Breaking the mold or being original is bad for firm culture.

Right.  There ya go.  I think ambition + intelligence + mindlessness = success! 

I can haz big lawl job now?
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 05:50:00 PM
I always figured the reason judges and employers liked people on Law Review or other journals was because they figure those people are willing to undergo excessive unpleasantness in the name of ambition? 

I think it shows a mindless devotion to tradition for traditionís sake thus firms are assured that you wonít think for yourself, youíll just follow the herd and do as youíre told. Breaking the mold or being original is bad for firm culture.

Right.  There ya go.  I think ambition + intelligence + mindlessness = success! 

I can haz big lawl job now?

Is that what you want?


god forbid  :P
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Matthies on July 15, 2008, 05:50:15 PM
I always figured the reason judges and employers liked people on Law Review or other journals was because they figure those people are willing to undergo excessive unpleasantness in the name of ambition? 

I think it shows a mindless devotion to tradition for traditionís sake thus firms are assured that you wonít think for yourself, youíll just follow the herd and do as youíre told. Breaking the mold or being original is bad for firm culture.

Right.  There ya go.  I think ambition + intelligence + mindlessness = success! 

I can haz big lawl job now?

Is that what you want?

Ack don't ask me to think, that's not fair.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 06:12:19 PM
i heard two federal circuit court judges say that LAST WEEK; so its not just "some story"

and they also said that the judiciary as a whole is fairly split, at least in our circuit.
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Thistle on July 15, 2008, 06:24:15 PM
Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of employers to see it. Do you really think the opposite is the case?

And, no offense, but it's still just "some story." Two judges isn't exactly a trend. And, more importantly, law review is going to be less important to federal circuit judges, and even federal district court judges to an extent, because the vast majority of the serious candidates were on law review. Those judges need something else to help make their determinations, so law review becomes "less important" relatively. But if we're talking about most clerkships, or most medium/larger law firms, it's pretty much indisputable that it's a great thing to have on one's resume.

What will they look at?  Grades?  Sheeeeet. 


yeah, god forbid
Title: Re: Law Review - How stupid was it not to petition for law review?
Post by: Private David Lewis on July 15, 2008, 06:27:20 PM
Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of employers to see it. Do you really think the opposite is the case?

And, no offense, but it's still just "some story." Two judges isn't exactly a trend. And, more importantly, law review is going to be less important to federal circuit judges, and even federal district court judges to an extent, because the vast majority of the serious candidates were on law review. Those judges need something else to help make their determinations, so law review becomes "less important" relatively. But if we're talking about most clerkships, or most medium/larger law firms, it's pretty much indisputable that it's a great thing to have on one's resume.

What will they look at?  Grades?  Sheeeeet. 

I'm sure it depends on the judge. One judge on the 6th Circuit supposedly looks for as much extracurricular involvement as possible. His philosophy is it's "easy" to get awesome grades if you didn't do any other activities in law school.

Is Law Review a good EC?