I think you're missing the point about writing a note.But first, if someone didn't want to be on law review because that person didn't want to do the work, who would hire that person? As for the note - the note is not the reason that law review or law journals are so unrewarding. It's the the citation and review of other articles, written by professors who you will never meet, that's tedious and uninspiring. But the note is your own. It's the best thing you can get out of a law review/journal, and one of the rewarding things you can do in law school. Law review as the couth way to say you were at the top of your class? That's probably true. You can aim for a cum laude - you can put that on your bio forever, although I suppose it would not be couth to drop in conversation.
Do you think it would be better to get work experience instead of choosing law review? If two people interviewed and one person had done a lot of substantive legal work during school and had solid grades. While the other was on law review, but obtained little work experience during school, which would be more impressive? I don't know the answer, but I was just wondering what your thoughts were?
That makes sense. Honestly, I do not fully understand how law review works. I know I missed being automatically put on by 1% , but that is how it goes. I know it is good, but in reality I don't actually know what it does. Do you essentially choose a topic on anything you want and write on it? That is what I understand it to be and that would probably be good training. I just was not actually sure what it entailed. Probably a stupid question, but I truthfully don't know.