Grades v. Moot Court/Law Review

[lincolnsgrandson]

First of all, I repeat: the appeal of Law Review is that it's Law Review.  Not that you gain valuable research and writing skills blah blah. You can get that same type of experience and knowledge on any journal - more if you're a senior editor on a journal than if you're a low-level position at Law Review.  But that doesn't really matter to BigAss Law Firm or a federal judge.  Because Law Review is Law Review.

Second, if you get onto Law Review you will join it.  Turning it down is generally an option exercisable by people who are not accepted.  Would someone actually want to look a potential employer in the face and say "I decided not to be on Law Review because it was too much work"?

Third - as to how to approach the writing competition.  See if you can talk to the editors of your Law Review or law journal and perhaps one will give you somes genuine insight.  They're the ones who graded the entries.

[Bored 3L]

As others have said, employers don't value law review b/c of the skills you develop on the journal, they value it as a credential b/c they know it's very competitive, and law review members generally out performed the majority of their classmates.

As far as writing a good piece, from a 3L editor who graded some of the submissions at my school, there really aren't any secrets.  I would say that generally, don't worry about making a ground-breaking point, but instead focus on your writing and bluebooking.  Due to time pressure and exhaustion from exams, the writing isn't particularly good.  So if you can produce a submission that is essentially error free, that reads well, and has a well substantiatd thesis (however modest), I think that will put you in a good position.

[zaphod]

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2004/review_posner_novdec04.msp

37 UCDLR 1135