« on: August 26, 2009, 08:20:51 AM »
I don't know that it's selfish, but they're going to know that they rejected you previously, so you'll probably have to knock the interview out of the park to get a callback.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Thanks for all the replies, but I mean in terms of how hard do they grade the paper. Anyone have to do bluebook critiques as well?
Anyone here who tried and failed?
I was pretty harsh when I graded in terms of substance, and if something was poorly written or filled with typos, it pissed me off. The more I had to work to read a paper the closer I looked at substance, and the fewer points I gave. While reading papers, I would perhaps skim the footnotes. If I noted blatantly wrong citations or a TON of errors, I made not of it and gave fewer of the "discretionary" points we were allowed. That all being said, harsh graders tend to be harsh with everyone, and the managing boards should get a sense of who tends to give high and low scores, and everything tends to equal out.
I never graded any bluebook exercises; the managing editors of all 3 journals all split them up and did them (our write on is for all the journals, so all 3 managing boards are involved in creating the write on).