Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Once you are on law review  (Read 2625 times)

CU1989

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Once you are on law review
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2007, 09:54:09 AM »
Okay, let me explain to you retards how this is. 

Being a mere senior staff is not as advantageous as being an editor on LR, just like going to Chicago is not as advantageous as going to Stanford. 

If you think being on LR is good enough for you, then editorial position is good to have, but not necessary.  If you are eying something ultra competitive, like CoA clerkship, then maybe you will need every edge you can get.  Almost no one gets kick of LR, and most rising 3L do not become editors. 


KrazyNazi,
  Why are you giving Law Review advice?  I am still skeptical as to whether you actually attend Yale.  I am, however, certain that you are not a member of the Yale Law Journal.  You might ask "How do I know this?" I'll give you a clue:  It is not because your posts are well-written. 

tacojohn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • "I voted. P. Diddy told us to vote"
    • ICQ Messenger - 176834534
    • MSN Messenger - tacojohniu@msn.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - TacoJohnIU
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - tacojohniu@yahoo.com
    • View Profile
    • Fearfully Optimistic
    • Email
Re: Once you are on law review
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2007, 10:51:38 AM »
I think one of the biggest problems is the terminology is different for 3L positions.  There's basically like four levels:
  • Editor-In-Cheif (at some schools there's another staffer who is right there in prestige with the EIC)
  • Executive Editors (like the person in charge of articles, the person in charge of notes/comments, the person in charge of production, etc.)
  • Normal 3L staff (supervise 2Ls, part of articles team, part of the notes/comments team, etc.)
  • Special Positions (like those for people who barely did not get kicked off, or those who are studying abroad part of the year, or who cannot guarantee the time commitment)
That's pretty much how I think the order goes.  There's a big drop-off after EIC.  Even if you have a position that's almost as good as the EIC within your law review, outside of the review it probably will be treated like any other sort of elected/selected "executive" position.

Of all the things you do on law review, the thing you can do to help job prospects the most is to get published.  It'll never be easier than when you're on the review.  Other than that, what you actually do on the review won't really matter to a job search, it's great experience in and of itself.

KrazyNazi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Once you are on law review
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2007, 11:49:43 AM »
Okay, let me explain to you retards how this is. 

Being a mere senior staff is not as advantageous as being an editor on LR, just like going to Chicago is not as advantageous as going to Stanford. 

If you think being on LR is good enough for you, then editorial position is good to have, but not necessary.  If you are eying something ultra competitive, like CoA clerkship, then maybe you will need every edge you can get.  Almost no one gets kick of LR, and most rising 3L do not become editors. 



KrazyNazi,
  Why are you giving Law Review advice?  I am still skeptical as to whether you actually attend Yale.  I am, however, certain that you are not a member of the Yale Law Journal.  You might ask "How do I know this?" I'll give you a clue:  It is not because your posts are well-written. 

I wonder how you were able to score above a 120 on the LSAT, given your weak analytic ability (only a person with mental retardation can have such low ability to reason), but I would leave it to yourself to figure that out.  Now I have re-read my post, it indeed contained numerous spelling mistake and gramatical errors. 
Yale Law School - Class of 09

CU1989

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Once you are on law review
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2007, 12:37:43 PM »

I wonder how you were able to score above a 120 on the LSAT, given your weak analytic ability (only a person with mental retardation can have such low ability to reason), but I would leave it to yourself to figure that out.  Now I have re-read my post, it indeed contained numerous spelling mistake and gramatical errors. 
[/quote]

Let's unpack my reasoning a bit, shall we?  1.  You are a bad writer.  2. To give sound LR advice, one should be on his/her LR.  3.  If you are on the Yale Law Journal, you are not a bad writer.   From the above premises I concluded the following: Since you are a bad writer, you are not on the Yale Law Journal.  Because you are not on the Yale Law Journal (see previous deduction), You cannot give sound LR advice.  Do you understand?  If not, send me a personal message and I'll gladly explain it again.  As you suggested, however, "I would leave it to yourself to figure it out." 

Jumboshrimps

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
Re: Once you are on law review
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2007, 04:59:45 PM »
In other words, is it enough to just be on law review, or is it important to do well at whatever I'm asked to do?

You should work hard on your law journal because you are working on publishing a professional journal with your name, and the name of your friends (and your school) on it. Period.

p i n e

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Once you are on law review
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2008, 11:35:43 AM »


KrazyNazi,

Why are you giving Law Review advice?  I am still skeptical as to whether you actually attend Yale.  I am, however, certain that you are not a member of the Yale Law Journal.  You might ask "How do I know this?" I'll give you a clue:  It is not because your posts are well-written. 


I wonder how you were able to score above a 120 on the LSAT, given your weak analytic ability (only a person with mental retardation can have such low ability to reason), but I would leave it to yourself to figure that out.  Now I have re-read my post, it indeed contained numerous spelling mistake and gramatical errors. 


Krazy, a person with mental retardation wouldn't score even 120 on LSAT -- s/he just would not sit for LSAT at all :) Mental retardation is classified in this manner:



Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by the term profound mental retardation.
 
Imbecile indicated an intellectual disability less extreme than idiocy and not necessarily inherited. It is now usually subdivided into two categories, known as severe mental retardation and moderate mental retardation.

Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild mental retardation is now the term for this condition. Alternative definitions of these terms based on IQ were also used. This group was known in UK law from 1911 to 1959/60 as "feeble-minded."

An idiot, imbecile, or a moron couldn't possibly think about going to law school and taking LSATs.