Scott Dodson at LawPrawfs writes about whether there are too many law reviews. Like there’s a question? But Scott offers a justification for the proliferation of nuclear weapons law reviews that caught my eye. He asks, “does law review experience actually make better law students and lawyers . . . ?”
His answer? Yes! Yes, yes, yes. Of course, Scott inserts that “I was on two journals at Duke (yes, I was not very bright back then).” Notice the deft self-deprecation while simultaneously smacking those of you who weren’t invited to be on even one law journal? Sweet.
His reasoning for elevating his own experience into a rationale for more law reviews, and hence more law review articles, than anyone could possibly read or want goes like this:
I think journal experience is beneficial. Journal members learn at least two skills: how to Bluebook and how to edit. Granted, journal Bluebooking is different than brief Bluebooking, and scholarly editing is different than brief editing, but there are also similarities, and I think those similarities end up enhancing lawyerly skills . . . A third skill that many journal members develop is writing, if they have the opportunity to publish a student note or comment. Not every journal member does that, but those that do usually gain valuable writing experience.
That’s it? That’s the best he can say about students on law review? And Biglaw pays big bucks for this? Anyone want to consider the impact of in-breeding?
The learn to use the Bluebook (kinda). Doesn’t every student? And Scott, it’s really not that hard to learn citation form, nor all that critical. You can always look it up if you’ve got a question.
They learn to edit (kinda). I’ve always found it curious that students edit lawprofs’ work. What does this tell you about the lawprofs? Proofread, I understand, but edit? If they removed every use of the words “normative pedagogy,” I would be behind you 100%. Otherwise, so what.
They learn to write a note or comment (maybe). I completely agree that too many students leave law school unable to write a cogent sentence. But I fail to see the connection between writing a law review comment and writing a cogent sentence that a lawyer might ever need.
The best reason that I can think of appears nowhere in Scott Dodson’s post. The reason for so many law reviews is that it allows that many more students to be on them, thus assuring them jobs with Biglaw and starting salaries equivalent with Supreme Court Justices. Cut the number of law reviews and how would Biglaw know who to invite to the picnic?
As for lawprofs, what would you do without a bunch of law journals begging for articles? You would have all this extra time to spend preparing for class, conceiving of brilliant discussion topics for your students, enlightening young minds to the mystery of the law. God forbid.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“A third skill that many journal members develop is writing, if they have the opportunity to publish a student note or comment. Not every journal member does that, but those that do usually gain valuable writing experience.”
Am I the only one who thinks those two sentences– not to mention the rest of the quoted text — need the attention of someone with writing and editing skills or, as Dodson might write, “the skills of how to edit and writing”?
Yeah, yeah, I was on a journal. I edited and learned about cites. It hasn’t helped my career any.
But I think you’re right in that it’s all about BigLaw. Working for a Law Review requires ditching your life (and often your classes) to make sure you can meet crazy deadlines. It means putting your current law review assignment above all other things. And it means that after your 2nd year of school, you need to do a lot of brown-nosing to try and get a prime spot on the editorial staff for your 3rd year.
It’s a perfect fit for BigLaw. It shows them which students have the willingness to completely forego a life in favor of working crazy hours and shuffling a lot of paper. Those in high positions show the appropriate political savvy to someday make a run for partner. It’s basically a microcosm of BigLaw.
Now there’s a strong reason argument.