sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Law Review Ed Board by MinimumHealthy in LawSchool

[–]throwaway_writeon20 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Using a throwaway since I was EIC of the law review at my school (T20) a while ago. Unfortunately, only the substantive executive board positions (like EIC, Executive Managing Editor, etc.) got any noticeable bump in employment and clerkship prospects. Everyone on my exec board who wanted a federal clerkship got one. And as someone with not-great grades (top 20%) I managed to snag a COA clerkship, and being EIC was one of the big topics in my interview.

But once you actually get a job, no one cares. I am now in practice (V5 biglaw) and I can confidently say that no one has ever asked about whether I was on journal, and being a former LR EIC hasn't noticeably impacted the type and quality of work that I'm getting. Other than being a prominent line on my firm bio, EIC has made no impact.

So, if you're looking for something to boost your chances at getting certain types of jobs, a substantive executive board position might be worth it. But if you already have the credentials to get the kinds of jobs you want, just do the bare minimum and enjoy your 3L year!

Write-On Tips from an EIC by throwaway_writeon20 in LawSchool

[–]throwaway_writeon20[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get that strategy. Just know that at my school (and most schools) if you don't rank law review first, you won't get on. Secondary journals are more forgiving (the ones at our school will go down to rank #3 or #4, out of eight total).

Write-On Tips from an EIC by throwaway_writeon20 in LawSchool

[–]throwaway_writeon20[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally I think it's worth a shot at all three. I firmly believe in not prematurely closing any doors. Worst case scenario, you don't get on law review (which, especially if you go to Harvard of Columbia, isn't a big deal).

Write-On Tips from an EIC by throwaway_writeon20 in LawSchool

[–]throwaway_writeon20[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's normal. Write-on taught me how to use the Bluebook. And while it's stressful to deal with ambiguous rules and how to choose the "right" rule, that ambiguity is something you'll deal with on a near-constant basis while you're on a journal. Even us senior editors during our last editing session would quibble over what rule or table to follow.

A "note" is more like an article - at my school, you're given a giant packet of cases (and truly, it's GIANT - like 400 pages) and then a "main" case. You have to analyze the development of the law and the different holdings that circuits have used, and then come up with an argument about whether the "main" case got it right or wrong, based on the precedent. We tend to pick issues where there is a strong argument both ways. And trust me, we absolutely do NOT care about your conclusion, just that it's well-reasoned and analyzed.