Why Law Review Is A Waste Of Time

As usual I know nothing about this. I wasn't on law review -- at least not for more than a week -- so I don't know much about it's true merits. Surely, surely there must be some, because otherwise it is nearly inconceivable that so many otherwise bright people would waste so many precious hours doing thankless and completely tedious work, enduring what amounts to hazing for a year only to arrive at a place where they get to inflict the colossal drudgery on others. (Although there might be some cynics who note that some really smart people in our profession do that when they get out of law school too....)

I was just talking to a friend of mine, a 1L at a law school alas way too far away. She's already got law school way more figured out than I ever did, and besides that she's naturally brilliant, so her path will be a piece of cake. But we got to talking about law review for a while.

I found law review to be the worst combination of the following: mediocre student minds and overweening pride at the "prestige" of being on law review; stubborn and mindless adherence to antiquated editing processes (involving precious red pencils and a TYPIST, of all things) because "this is how it's always been done, and we don't really have the time to innovate"; a lack of passion, intellectual curiousity, or insight into a particular subject matter of the law; extraordinarily well-developed sense of heirarchy, pecking order, and status.

If I had been a little more clued in I would have educated myself about law review before I joined up, so I wouldn't have had to quit when I figured out what a silly endeavor it was. But I'm sorry to say I didn't question the "honor" of being selected (and it didn't occur to the editors that anyone who graded on would refuse, or need to know any more than that they made it on -- so it's not like there was full disclosure of what law review even meant) so I didn't get a chance to do the cost benefit analysis until I was on the damn staff.

Cost: Extraordinary amounts of time, doing cite checking of articles. You're assigned pages of the articles and sent around the library to get books and check that every citation is spot on, every quote exact, every period conforming to Bluebook Rules. Benefit: You learn a little about the Bluebook, which is not information that seems to me worth knowing except as a means to getting something else done. But you don't really learn much about the article you're cite checking because you've got a tiny fragment of it -- you're not really "reading" it so much as crawling around it with a feather duster making it pretty. You get to write an article, but at my school if you weren't on a journal you still had a writing requirement, so that "opportunity" was still available to you if you wanted it. And if you weren't on a journal you had a lot more available time to pursue something you were genuinely curious about. Another "benefit" -- the bond of shared drudgery, countless late nights, with other students so eager to get the prestige points of being on law review they were willing to ignore the fact that the emperor had no clothes. And lots of time with the unimaginative and somewhat sadistic editors aggrandized with their impressive titles and gleeful about the fact that finally someone else was doing the huge volumes of tedious work that had made them so miserable the year before. These were not the people at the law school I found most captivating or original.

Cost: I would have had to give up a fascinating job at a venture capital firm, where each day I was around real innovators and real smart business people and lawyers, learning cool new stuff, in order to have the honor of having some book-smart ego-inflated 25-year-old journal editor telling me why "cf." was not appropriate in this particular citation, and how the mark I should have made with my red pencil looked a little different. Absurd. For the "benefit" of a line on my resume that would show potential employers that I was somehow more worthy? WHY does the profession buy this idea that people who are on law review are somehow better than people who are not? I argue that, while there must be benefits of being on law review, it is SURELY a rational decision, at least some of the time, for some law students to use their time elsewhere. And yet it seems to remain this talisman of worthiness to so many folks. Cripes, poor JCA, who one would think would have settled any question of whether she's "good enough" by her terrific blog writing and, of course, her happy transfer to a law school way up high on the pecking order, is busting her butt to write on to law review now that she's arrived.

Clearly, I have missed the point of law review. Maybe there are passionately happy law students out there staffing journals because they dig it? Could you guys speak up? Practicing lawyers who discovered on law review something they could have gotten nowhere else? Please no "It's a good experience -- I survived it, so should everyone else" war stories. The law has enough stupid hazing experiences. I'm interested in positive law review stories that are not about the institution of law review but about the day-to-day experience of what it really is.

[UPDATE: Please check out Evan Schaeffer's cogent response. He liked law review, for some pretty good reasons, and writes about it here. Exactly what I was looking for. And Tung Yin, who also dug it, chimes in here. Beldarblog liked it too.]

Comments

[Dedman]

At the risk of sounding really nerdy, I'll say that I really did enjoy putting together my own law review article.

[Mary Lee Fowler]

I like the passion in this post. Makes sense to me.

Sounds like, from the comment above, there are some in law review who experienced getting to shape a whole article, rather than just a fragment or some polishing job.

To change the subject, Dad and I will call you tomorrow to see if we could get together. It's Sunday and we'll be around.

[Mithras]

Hi, practicing lawyer here.

Law review is primarily a credential. You do it so you can put it on a resume and get a good clerkship or summer slot. Substantively, you're right. But law school is largely about credentialing, not about substance.

[Carolyn Elefant]

What most students don't realize is that it's incredibly easy to get published in a law review. Those who waste time checking cites for others and possibly never having their note selected for publication would be better off writing their own article and sending it out for other drones to review. I wasn't on law review but had an article published in a law journal within a year after my graduation. Ditto for a friend of mine, also published right after he graduated. Had I known it was so easy to get published, I'd have done it in law school and had it as a resume credential for interviews.

[ambimb]

You wonder why legal employers seem to think that the "law review" line on the resume means the applicant is more qualified for a job. But I wonder if it works this way: In order to try to get on law review in the first place, you have to value the sorts of "credentialling" that law review gives you, which is the same kind of credentialling that going to a top law school gives -- name recognition, etc.; not necessarily anything substantive. I think of it as the "aura" of prestige. To survive and succeed at law review, you have to have an exceptionally high tolerance for hazing, and an exceptional willingness to sacrifice all other things in your life in order to work on mind-numbingly boring stuff. Therefore, when you apply for jobs, employers see that you've already proven you're idea for firm work, which sounds like it often involves exceptionally large amounts of hazing and mind-numbingly boring work.

But I don't know anything. It's just a theory. I'm probably going to try to write on to law review mysellf. Mabye. I don't know. It's one thing to reject it once you've been chosen; it's another to always wonder if you could have made it. Isn't it?

[C.E. Petit]

Law review isn't for everyone, and I suspect that its value depends largely upon the quality of the journal and the willingness of the board of editors to say "no" to crap from "big names."

I had a positive law review experience; much of that is because I am rather academically minded. Not everyone is; and I suspect that those not of an academic bent (which is not meant as an insult, just an explanation of a different mindset, like the difference between those who prefer basketball to baseball) will not enjoy law review.

[atticrocker]

I'm on law review right now and I agree with the substance of your post. At my school it seems the people who are most insecure about their ability tend to be the ones who apply for the editorial board spots. I appreciate the post on the values of learning some management skills, but I think anyone who's worked in a real job for any length of time will recognize that any type of management skills obtained on law review are overstated at best.
As an exapmle, here's a real note from an editor sent to the 2L's at my school. I think this probably represents the management "skill" of most people I've encountered on law journal:

"Deadlines are made for a reason. Apparently, however, some of you failed to
closely read my memo that I sent you via e-mail regarding the 3rd citecheck.
If you would have clearly read it, you would have seen that the citechecks
were due at NINE AM TODAY, not whenever you felt like turning it in today.

This deadline was made for a reason. We are on a tight schedule, and I
needed to get the editor review out today. Unfortunately, this is not going
to happen because I need EVERYONE'S citecheck in order to put out the editor
review.

Following are those who I have not yet received the citecheck from:

XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX

I DO NOT want to hear as a excuse that you did not know that it was due b/c
as you will see from the attached memo (a copy of the e-mail I sent to you
when the citecheck went out), it CLEARLY says that it is due at nine am.
(P.S. Employers would not take this as an excuse either).

Editor in Chief, I am recommending that these staff members receive extra admin time as
a result of this. It has put the schedule behind. This creates
ramifications for us, and so there should be ramifications for them as well.

For those of you who have not turned it it, FINISH IT--DON'T RUSH AND TURN
IN CRAPPY RUSHED WORK! I am not coming back here tonight to finish putting
the citecheck together (b/c I have deadlines for other things that I need to
get done), so it is going to have to wait until tomorrow anyway.

If you guys don't do your job, I cannot do mine!

-XXXXX"

Keep in mind that this was sent to all the members of law journal and that no deadline before had been respected.

[Ellen]

3L at SMU who couldn't care less about law review, and its so refreshing to see that I'm not the only one who thinks it is overblown. Certainly it can provide leadership and management experience, but so can lots of things that don't have that prestige. Certainly the type of work you do there might be helpful at some jobs, but not all or even most. I suspect it best prepares you to be a new associate at a big firm, which some of us have zero interest in. Preach on!

[tex]

Oh wow, you rock for quitting law review! I didn't have the fortitude. While I have learned a few useful things (a few stray ideas, an improved eye for copyediting, value of rigorous fact checking) I'm not sure it was worth it. At some point, you've got to quit doing things you don't want to do to get to where you think you want to be -- otherwise, you'll end up somewhere you *don't* want to be...

The thing I most resent about law school how people say (and accept) that it's all about credentialling. For $150k and three years, I'd like a little learning, please.

[japhy]

this post made me incredibly happy. the writing competition just finished at my school, a competition i did not participate in. i completely agree with the substance of your post. i have no interest in mindless work. perhaps it is that i am an older student and doing something for no other reason than an extra line on my resume seems silly, if not downright stupid.

of course, i felt that i had to justify my decision having alternate research and publication opportunites in the fall. most students were jealous they could not overcome the hype surrounding law review and do something more valuable. good for you for figuring this out and sharing with the rest of us.

[stepintoreality,buddy]

C'mon, how long have you been in school? Don't you get it yet? (hint: it's ALL Bullsh!t)

And have you ever given it a thought that the exact reason why Law Review students are valued so much more is PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO DO SO MUCH MORE WORK AND PUT UP WITH SO MUCH MORE CRAP, however meaningless, all while maintaining superior grades? Anyone can quit or not try at all. This sounds like a giant bitch session for disgruntled lawyers who got passed over for partner. (things to come???)