Law Review Managing Editor - worth the time or not?

[amityjo]

Law Review Board elections are coming up. I'm batting around the idea of running. But I'm debating whether or not it will be worth my time. I have a job already. I'm probably going to be published. Good grades. So do I really need it? Can anyone give me a good reason for taking on a managing editor position? Thanks.

[Lenny]

If you have a shot at ed board of your law review, you're a fool not to take it.  First, it is one of the very few things that follows you from law school.  Second, though you may have a job now, you never know where life will take you.  Having ed board on your resume will stick out the whole way through.  It is also almost a necessity for clerkships or high end DOJ jobs.  Plus, working with the people on ed board was actually quite enjoyable, even if the actual work left something to be desired.

[brewha]

Law Review Board elections are coming up. I'm batting around the idea of running. But I'm debating whether or not it will be worth my time. I have a job already. I'm probably going to be published. Good grades. So do I really need it? Can anyone give me a good reason for taking on a managing editor position? Thanks.

I wouldn't vote for you.  Hope this helps.

[dorsia]

"Needing it" is not a great reason to be managing editor.  You should run because you want that position, because you like others on the editorial board or on law review, and perhaps because you want to help your law review become better. 

Lenny makes good points.  Most associates' bios state honors earned (including book awards or Order of the Coif or both), law reviews or journals, positions on law review, and articles published.  A place on the editorial board stays with you. 

Also, positions usually pay.  Managing editor is not too much work--at least on mine--but has a nice ring to it. 

[Lenny]

Agreed.  It is awful, and a terrible waste of a coveted position, when an editor of the law review is there just to punch a ticket and not to actually do the work.

[jsh26]

Law Review Board elections are coming up. I'm batting around the idea of running. But I'm debating whether or not it will be worth my time. I have a job already. I'm probably going to be published. Good grades. So do I really need it? Can anyone give me a good reason for taking on a managing editor position? Thanks.

I wouldn't vote for you.  Hope this helps.

Ha!

[amityjo]

Agreed.  It is awful, and a terrible waste of a coveted position, when an editor of the law review is there just to punch a ticket and not to actually do the work.

Not sure why you assume I would not be willing to do the work. It is legitimate to explore what such a "coveted position" provides in terms of experience and future opportunities, considering the amount of time and committment that the position entails. I refuse to take something on merely because it looks good on my resume or it is "coveted" by others - it has to be rewarding in and of itself. The arguments I have heard AGAINST being managing editor or editor in chief (from partners at firms) have been the following: if you have good grades and a 2L summer associate position already, there is really no point in stressing yourself out that much unless your ego needs that much stroking. I don't need my ego stroked. And I've already commented on the other two. So I am merely looking for other reasons that it might be a good experience.

Otherwise, to the posters who have given me some things to think about, thanks.

[slacker]

I think the assumption that you wouldn't do the work comes from the fact that the tone of your post about the position seems ambivalent, at best. If you're getting advice from partners to not do it, you already have your life set, and you're not exactly gung ho on the whole thing...what's the question again?

[midjeep]

I agree with everyone else...you don't seem to even want the position, save for the resume bullet. Now if you think you will benefit yourself by using the position as a learning experience or will be applying to some clerkship/academic position in the future, then go for it.

Remember, there might be others on the Journal that aren't as set jobwise and others who would actually WANT the position.

[amityjo]

I agree with everyone else...you don't seem to even want the position, save for the resume bullet. Now if you think you will benefit yourself by using the position as a learning experience or will be applying to some clerkship/academic position in the future, then go for it.

Remember, there might be others on the Journal that aren't as set jobwise and others who would actually WANT the position.

Hm. How would I know if I WANT the position without hearing about all of the benefits? If I don't know if I want it yet, I'm not exactly sure how anyone else could come to the conclusion that I don't. And I thought I made it clear that it would absolutely NOT be for the resume bullet. I've got 15 years of work experience - I don't "need" another bullet. BUT if I could help shape the reputation of the school, do something of value for my fellow-students, continue to hone my leadership skills, it may be entirely worth it. If editor in chief is not a good opportunity to do those types of things (and it's been debated among my fellow staff members as to whether the position can actually accomplish these things), then is there a point, BESIDES having another bullet on my resume, to hold the position? I was just looking for a laundry list of benefits.

The issue is this - I'm tired. It's been a rough year for me. I've been through a lot personally, and I have to decide if really want a rest next year before I go head first into my career, or if I want to keep my foot on the gas pedal. I am sorry if I have not been clear, but I would be doing this for reasons entirely unrelated to building my resume. But if having the position cannot do something for me other than that, I really have to think twice about it.