Is law review really worth it?

[jacy85]

I actually agree with RB too.  Many good writers seriously struggled in legal writing this year, and had no idea why.

[CoxlessPair]

Yeah, legal writing runs contrary to everything I learned in HS and undergrad. Training in English and History was about the worst thing I could have done in terms of being succinct. English profs encouraged use of a varied vocabulary whereas my legal writing prof would circle any SAT level word with TCW (throat clearing word) in the margin.

We had a guy in my legal writing section with a Ph.D in English and who had taught high school English and Latin for a few years. He managed to miss out on the CALI both semesters.

[Budlaw]

Yeah, legal writing runs contrary to everything I learned in HS and undergrad. Training in English and History was about the worst thing I could have done in terms of being succinct. English profs encouraged use of a varied vocabulary whereas my legal writing prof would circle any SAT level word with TCW (throat clearing word) in the margin.

We had a guy in my legal writing section with a Ph.D in English and who had taught high school English and Latin for a few years. He managed to miss out on the CALI both semesters.

Speaking of legal writing (which totally screwed me over) and "TCW's". Isn't it funny how legal writing instrutor's always speak of being succinct, and then whenever you read a Supreme Court opionion there are always throat clearing words and sometimes just fictitous words all over the place? 

I guess all pompus judges did horribly in legal writing as well. I feel better now at least.

[racheles05]

That's true, but read the SCOTUS briefs. Now those are very well-written. I don't think it matters how the Justices write; it's the people who convince the Justices to find for them who really know how to write. You taking Con Law II with Gey? I was in his Con Law I class and he's awesome.

[Budlaw]

That's true, but read the SCOTUS briefs. Now those are very well-written. I don't think it matters how the Justices write; it's the people who convince the Justices to find for them who really know how to write. You taking Con Law II with Gey? I was in his Con Law I class and he's awesome.

Nah. I think I might throw up if I was in Gey's class. He's waaaaay too liberal for me. I'm waiting until Spring and will take Stern for Con Law II. From what I've heard, Gey doesn't even bother to hide what his Political affiliation is. I took Stern for Con Law I, and after a whole semester I have no idea if he's a Republican, Democrat or Martian. Which is a good thing.

[eray01]

Lincoln brings up a good point.

I recall some professor/author, in talking about the benefits law review, noting that it is the couth way to publicly let everyone know that you were at the top of your law class.
For example, you would sound like an ENORMOUS d-bag if you mentioned "top 20% of my class" in conversation (though I would not put it past some people on this board to do that). But if you casually mention law review, everyone knows you were near the top and/or were a great writer.

Yeah, that would be a d-bag thing to say. That's about as d-bag as if the police were to show up on a noise complaint to a post-exams party, and someone were to yell at them when they get out of the car, "Hey, were law students!" That's textbook law school d-bag.

[U2]

Nah. I think I might throw up if I was in Gey's class. He's waaaaay too liberal for me. I'm waiting until Spring and will take Stern for Con Law II. From what I've heard, Gey doesn't even bother to hide what his Political affiliation is. I took Stern for Con Law I, and after a whole semester I have no idea if he's a Republican, Democrat or Martian. Which is a good thing.

So you go to Florida State, Budlaw?

[klinex]

It's definitely worth it ... I mean, it's complete bull, but it's bull that's valued by employers ... just like law is valued by the society

[tacojohn]

I'm a different, but related situation now.  I was totally uninterested in law review, and it really does not help me with my chosen ideal career.  I was so uninterested in it that I refused to do the writing competition.  I had zero motivation to put that much effort into an assignment that had such little effect on me right now.  Then I somehow graded on.

My scholarship requires me to do research with a professor on a topic of mutual interest.  I'm fairly confident that will not present a huge time management issue, as I'm fairly certain that most of the professors I would work with would cut me some slack if I was on law review.  I think it will be significantly less of an issue than trying to do both journal and law review, and I wouldn't necessarily be killing myself doing both.  In fact, there could be a lot of benefits to doing both, especially if I'm allowed to get a little help on my note.

Anyway, I'm fully aware of the short-term costs (long hours, tedious assignments, more time with the Bluebook than is healthy), and the long-term benefits (countless doors opened, prestige for life, oppertunities that simply are not otherwise obtainable).  What I want to know is, what are the short-term benefits and the long-term costs?  Basically, aside from looking good on a resume, what benefits do you get out of law review?  What skills do you learn?  Maybe it's because I'm fresh out of undergrad, but doing something because it "looks good on a resume" has such a negative connotation.  To me that means the job has no redeaming qualities and the people that do it really don't care what happens to the organization.  And how does law review hinder you, if it all?  Earlier someone mentioned that smaller firms might sort of yield-protect you, and assume you're not seriously interested.

[jippyjappa]

short term benefits- there are none! Long term costs- there are none!

In terms of what you learn, you learn to do academic writing- completely different than exam or LRW writing. You also learn to put in a huge amount of work on tedious things (techchecking) that come in handy professionally (especially at appellate clerkships - where you essentially techcheck the judge's opinions and big firms- where tedious work will be you life for a couple years). I see those as long term things though- they probably won't hugely help you in the next year or two of law school.

Long term costs- I can't see how there are any unless you completely burn out because of the workload or something... I don't think employers will really consider you overqualified because of LR or that doing academic writing will really screw with how you write a motion or an exam answer...