Law Review Write-on how hard?

[jacy85]

Thanks for all the replies, but I mean in terms of how hard do they grade the paper. Anyone have to do bluebook critiques as well?

Anyone here who tried and failed?

I was pretty harsh when I graded in terms of substance, and if something was poorly written or filled with typos, it pissed me off.  The more I had to work to read a paper the closer I looked at substance, and the fewer points I gave.  While reading papers, I would perhaps skim the footnotes.  If I noted blatantly wrong citations or a TON of errors, I made not of it and gave fewer of the "discretionary" points we were allowed.  That all being said, harsh graders tend to be harsh with everyone, and the managing boards should get a sense of who tends to give high and low scores, and everything tends to equal out.

I never graded any bluebook exercises; the managing editors of all 3 journals all split them up and did them (our write on is for all the journals, so all 3 managing boards are involved in creating the write on).

[HippieLawChick]

Ours works a bit differently.  We give the top 10 people (not top 10%) a boost for their write on portion, whereby their packets only need to be in the top 2/3 of all of them, and they get on.  The Sr. Board said that outside of those 10 people and another 10 who wrote really good notes, the other 20 spots were decided by hundreths of a point. There were also about 50 people who took packets but didn't complete them. At my school, 180 turned in packets, and only 40 people got on. (out of a class of 280)

We don't allow just "grade on"

[Dwigt]

Thanks for all the replies, but I mean in terms of how hard do they grade the paper. Anyone have to do bluebook critiques as well?

Anyone here who tried and failed?

I was pretty harsh when I graded in terms of substance, and if something was poorly written or filled with typos, it pissed me off.  The more I had to work to read a paper the closer I looked at substance, and the fewer points I gave.  While reading papers, I would perhaps skim the footnotes.  If I noted blatantly wrong citations or a TON of errors, I made not of it and gave fewer of the "discretionary" points we were allowed.  That all being said, harsh graders tend to be harsh with everyone, and the managing boards should get a sense of who tends to give high and low scores, and everything tends to equal out.

I never graded any bluebook exercises; the managing editors of all 3 journals all split them up and did them (our write on is for all the journals, so all 3 managing boards are involved in creating the write on).

Just as an aside for those who have reviewed submissions, how different is the grading standard for those looking to grade on vs write on?  My school has a "good faith effort/passing" requirement for people who meet the grade cutoff.  I guess I'm curious as to how often someone has the grades but doesn't put forth a good enough effort to get on.

[HippieLawChick]

As far as I know, very few don't make the cut writing wise. 

Frankly, I am shocked I made ours, as I didn't spend nearly the time I should have, but I also did a perfect job on citation (we had to cite in our note, and in a separate citation exercise), which I am sure helped.

[ionisnotme]

Good idea to try law review at current school if you have a decent chance at transferring?

[Gwar301]

I tried and failed to write on to law review.
However, my school does 50% grades and 50% write on, so i suspect it was the grades that kept me off.
Ended up doing a secondary journal and moot court and got a great summer associate job anyhow.
Law review is nice, but I believe it's not the be-all-end-all.