New Space Deathmatch: AALJ v. BTLJ
Please note: this thread is not intended as an attack on AALJ, identity journals, Asian American jurisprudence, or anyone else. Nor does it mean to question any students’ work or dedication. As it points out, fewer citations are a consequence of focusing on an under-served topic. AALJ was chosen solely because it has fewer members than BTLJ and because it publishes annually—which arguably requires less working space (though not necessarily less work) for source collecting and article editing.
The second in my series examining winners and losers of the Boalt Hall space reconfiguration.
Winner: Asian American Law Journal
The new basement has an egalitarian design, with each journal allocated a nearly identical space. (Four journal offices are slightly larger.) Having all journals together promotes collaboration and fosters an esprit de corps among journals. It also allows efficient common areas, such as the kitchen and conference room. For smaller journals like AALJ, the new offices place them centrally within the heart of student organizations; proximity to larger journals also lets them borrow or share resources--whether in terms of editing tips or paper clips.
Loser: Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Intellectual property may be Berkeley's specialty, but BTLJ--like Rodney Dangerfield--don't get no respect. A quick look at the numbers shows why.
* Including 5 "semester members"
** Citations and rankings for student-edited journals here. "Specialized" includes all disciplines.
Now, one can argue that the last section (academic impact) should be disregarded. After all, IP is an established area of law, and journals like AALJ were founded to promote scholarship in an under-served discipline. (Actually, so was BTLJ, originally.) And a parent should love all her children equally--not just the ones who get top grades.
But still. Roughly speaking, BTLJ has four times the output of AALJ, and three times the membership. (Actual student participation may be higher, since BTLJ has strict rules regarding the hours required for masthead credit.) Academic reputation aside, it deserves at least twice the amount of office. Or to put it another way: if AALJ is 1/4th the size of BTLJ, why does it get 80% of BTLJ's space?
This is the demerit of the basement's egalitarian design: large successful journals are punished, and small, struggling journals are rewarded. Taken together, BTLJ, ELQ, and BJIL probably account for the majority of journal work at Boalt (in terms of membership and output), but receive very little space. Instead, most journal space is allocated to small, infrequently publishing groups. Ultimately, the basement space's egalitarian design has deeply disproportionate effects.
The second in my series examining winners and losers of the Boalt Hall space reconfiguration.
Winner: Asian American Law Journal
The new basement has an egalitarian design, with each journal allocated a nearly identical space. (Four journal offices are slightly larger.) Having all journals together promotes collaboration and fosters an esprit de corps among journals. It also allows efficient common areas, such as the kitchen and conference room. For smaller journals like AALJ, the new offices place them centrally within the heart of student organizations; proximity to larger journals also lets them borrow or share resources--whether in terms of editing tips or paper clips.
Loser: Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Intellectual property may be Berkeley's specialty, but BTLJ--like Rodney Dangerfield--don't get no respect. A quick look at the numbers shows why.
| Asian American Law Journal | Berkeley Technology Law Journal | |
| Issues Per Year | 1 | 4 |
| Pages Per Year | 282 | 1696 |
| Editors | 18 | 30 |
| Asst./Assoc. Editors | 2 | 18 |
| Members | 17* | 45 |
| Total Students | 37 | 93 |
| Citations: Academic** | 326 | 2145 |
| Citations: Case | 2 | 45 |
| Rank: Specialized | 137th | 1st |
| Rank: All | 289th | 26th |
* Including 5 "semester members"
** Citations and rankings for student-edited journals here. "Specialized" includes all disciplines.
Now, one can argue that the last section (academic impact) should be disregarded. After all, IP is an established area of law, and journals like AALJ were founded to promote scholarship in an under-served discipline. (Actually, so was BTLJ, originally.) And a parent should love all her children equally--not just the ones who get top grades.
But still. Roughly speaking, BTLJ has four times the output of AALJ, and three times the membership. (Actual student participation may be higher, since BTLJ has strict rules regarding the hours required for masthead credit.) Academic reputation aside, it deserves at least twice the amount of office. Or to put it another way: if AALJ is 1/4th the size of BTLJ, why does it get 80% of BTLJ's space?
This is the demerit of the basement's egalitarian design: large successful journals are punished, and small, struggling journals are rewarded. Taken together, BTLJ, ELQ, and BJIL probably account for the majority of journal work at Boalt (in terms of membership and output), but receive very little space. Instead, most journal space is allocated to small, infrequently publishing groups. Ultimately, the basement space's egalitarian design has deeply disproportionate effects.
Labels: Deep Space, Grammar Snarks, Law School
posted by Carbolic at 2:00 PM
64 Comments:
I think the idea was to give traditionally under-appreciated journals some backpay. For example, BJCL used to be housed in ELQ's old supply closet, and now we have one of the four big offices you mentioned, the exact same size as ELQ's. Is it too big for our "prestige?" Maybe, for now. But by putting the offices on equal footing, you make a step toward putting the journals on equal footing (with the exception of CLR). Next year, when the 1Ls decide what journal to join, AALJ won't seem any less "important" than BTLJ, nor BJCL than ELQ. People will be more likely to spread out evenly according to their interests. How often a journal can publish is often determined by its membership, and its membership will be determined, in part, by its office size. So, hopefully, if you check in four years from now, the two columns in your post will match up more evenly, and we'll have the student center's design to thank.
I think office size space and the impression of prestige that office size space is ultimately an unimportant consideration when trying to figure out what journal you want to join. I suspect interest area and the quality of free food are still going to be the most determinative factors.
Also, "putting the journals on equal footing" kind of suggests bringing down some journals, and bringing up others, so everyone meets somewhere happy in the middle. I think the reason BTLJ is the best specialized journal in the country because of the amount of hard work that people in the past have and people in the present continue to put into it. That's why law firms donate huge amounts of money so we can keep our closets packed with snack food. I'm all for bringing all the other journals up in prestige, but only as long as it doesn't affect BTLJ (which I don't think office space will).
Good post Carbolic. BTLJ got screwed. Why couldn't some of the less important journals be forced to share a space like some non-journal groups were? There are some non-journal groups that have huge memberships and do tons of work (e.g., CARC, which didn't get an office to my knowledge). Why do we have to pretend that all journals are equal?
This isn't really about BTLJ getting screwed, but AALJ hitting the jackpot. I was on the committee last year that sorted this all out, and as I recall it was pretty obvious that the 2 of the 4 "big" offices would go to BTLJ and ELQ and the 3rd big one went to I can't remember who, then there was a drawing for the 4th one. I thought that it went to the Middle Eastern Law Journal, which was funny because they were the smallest journal. Anyway, on the committee we were generally annoyed by the fact that CLR got 1000 sq. ft., which is 4X larger than office space #2, and their own copy room, but the CLR folks were genuinely apologetic about it and said that it just came down from on high and that they had nothing to do about it (ditto on the fact that they got the MoFo lounge in the interim while everyone else was banished to down the hill - except BJIL, don't get me started on that). I look forward to coming back and seeing what the new digs look like! -recent grad
I get tired of BTLJ people thinking that they should have x/y/z since they are the 26th best journal in the nation. Board of Advocates (which has numerous rankings which are good, but I don't feel like gathering them) uses a 15x15 office in the north addition.*
You have an office, it is nice. Deal.
Congrats to the Crim Journal by the way, it has come a long way in the last six years.
*Note that my dislike stems mostly from the fact that BTLJ did not allow me to mooch on their most recent lunch meeting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
These stats make no sense. There are only two Asian American law journals in the country, so how could AALJ possibly be #127?
i've never heard any BoA people gripe so don't misinterpret this comment, but the mock trial teams finished 2008 as 10th in the country.
http://www.lawschooladvocacy.com/2008trialad.html
last weekend, at the stanford invitational, one of our 1Ls won the top advocate award out for the entire 14 team national tournament. we're hoping to do well in all the spring tournaments.
Toney, I take your point and didn't mean to diminish the hard work BTLJ does. But I'm sure there was a time when their publishing/membership was similar to AALJ's, or BJCL's five years ago. It can be pretty tough to work your way up the chain, and I think the office allocation gave some of us smaller journals a boost, "deserved" or not. This is not to say that BTLJ didn't get screwed, but just to point out some silver lining.
For someone who was on the committee, wasn't it at least partially determined via lottery?
Mike, CARC has an office. They share it with BHCHR (which should soon be BLCHR, no?).
I believe that the specialized rank has to do with all specialized journals, not just asian american law ones.
Dan, you could give ELQ a little respect. BJCL was in ELQ's "old supply closet" because the board of ELQ voted to offer that space to BJCL when BJCL had no space. And as far as being a "closet," it was a room that was big enough for three large desks with computer work stations, three large bookshelves, and space to park several bicycles and still move around. The tone of your first comment makes it sound like ELQ owed BJCL that space, when in actuality ELQ was the only journal with office space that voluntarily gave up some of that space so BJCL could have anything at all. At the time, it seemed to me that BJCL was grateful, and I think ELQ was hopeful that by being generous we'd foster some journal unity and maybe even goodwill. It's upsetting to see that our spirit was actually resented.
--alum and former ELQ board member
I don't think Dan feels that way, as he was here when the office was granted. Nor does anyone on the crim journal think that it was anything other than a hugely generous gesture.
It was more a comment on the crappy status BJCL was given by the school (and since it was new, I kinda understand that).
Another ELQ alum here - the BJCL peeps were VERY grateful when they moved in - they even threw us a party! I don't think that anyone was resentful about it, not anyone who experienced it first hand, anyway. And they let me use their super amazing 500-sheet hole puncher, which I appreciated.
BJIL has a 500-sheet hole punch?
Someone should pass that tidbit on to the individual who clogged the WestLaw printer ALL AFTERNOON with what I can only assume was every single citing reference for Federal Rule 56. Nothing else could produce that many pages. I had to use LEXIS as a fallback, which is bad news. Seeing all that red at one time tends to work me into a frenzy.
Seriously, if no one has come through with a hand truck to haul the mountain of paper away, I'm going to start highlighting the name on each sheet and hanging them in the hallways. Think of your classmates or, in the event you hate your classmates, think of the trees.
7:59 - Was your morning grapefruit a little under-ripe?
I remember BJCL being grateful at the time too, and I remember the party. Which is why seeing Dan talk about the "old supply closet" like it wasn't worth having surprised me and got me miffed. And the idea that the journals were in a competition to seem important sounded off-base too. I can see how any hostility was meant to be directed at the administration, not ELQ or any other journal though, so if I misunderstood, I apologize.
And I hate grapefruit--to me grapefruit is always under-ripe. ;)
--7:59
What's the point of these posts about who got what office space in a random lottery?
Um, people who win lotteries are still winners?
Since the deathmatch threads are now being serialized, I thought I would explain the process that we went through on the student office space taskforce last semester.
We, the taskforce (4 Boalties who applied and were appointed by BHSA) got all the journals together to help with the transition out of Simon Hall. Then, the administration came out with a floor plan of the new basement, and gave us the job of assigning rooms to the twelve Boalt journals.
CLR's location was non-negotiable, giving them about 800 sq. ft. Of the 11 remaining offices, four were about 250 sq. ft. and seven were between 175 and 205 sq ft. After a couple meetings with all journal EiCs and a vote, we decided on a modified lottery scheme to determine placements. This lottery was only actually "egalitarian" as it placed journals in three groups: BJIL, ELQ, and BTLJ (all 3-4 issues a year) were in the first group, BJCL, BBLJ, and BJELL (2 issues a year) were in the second group, and BLRLJ, BJALP, JMEIL, BGLJ and AALJ (1 issue per year). Then we ranked the 11 rooms' desirability, taking into account things like proximity to natural light and toilet flushing noises. (Way more info than you wanted, but at least now people can be informed and complain.)
When we conducted the lottery, only the first grouping of journals was in play for the first three rooms, assuring that BJIL, BTLJ, and ELQ got the biggest spaces. Then, for the fourth large room, only the second grouping of journals was in play, and BBLJ was picked. After that, the system was a complete lottery. BJELL, though it was in our second grouping, ended up receiving the smallest office.
Sorry for all the acronyms, but since somewhere along the line I had to stare at them so much that I memorized them, I'm definitely not going to take even more time to write out all the names. My two cents is (are??) that the administration had to come up with usable spaces, and had to give everyone space. Once you go smaller than 150 or so sq. ft., the space isn't as useful to anyone. Anyways, given the floor plans that we had, I would stand by the lottery system we came up with. Board of Advocates and many other groups never came up in our discussions because they weren't being kicked out of Simon and moved to Hearst. Now, the decision to put 3-5 student groups in a single office with portable cubbies I'm not so clear on, but that wasn't part of the process we coordinated.
-Khalil
sorry, my post above should say "not actually egalitarian."
there was bound to be something like that in a post so long.
-khalil
Holy F -- BTLJ is THE reason any "other" Boalt journal gets any respect...
CLR is the ish, but in a pinch it could/has coast(ed) on "Berkeley Law's" internationally recognized pimpedness; BTLJ must be handy with the steel (i.e., earn its keep) and should probably have greater office space than CLR.
Thanks for the great post Khalil!
10:20 is my favorite N&B comment EVA.
10:20 #1, please stop.
I know there was an initial caveat, but I'd like to throw out the fact that BTLJ actually has about 130 students on the masthead.
Yeesh! Sorry if I offended anyone by mentioning that BJCL used to be in ELQ's supply closet without also mentioning that we were EXTREMELY grateful to have an office in the building at all, and it's only thanks to ELQ that we were able to get one. In fact, we have a number of BJCL [hearts] ELQ magnets all over our fridge in the new office. I even have one on my fridge at home! Moreover, most of my best friends are in ELQ. Can I say this any more clearly? I LOVE ELQ! LOVE THEM!!!
I really did not mean to imply that we resented being in the supply closet (and certainly not that we resented ELQ for donating it to us!). I was only trying to point out how a journal's status can change over time, and an office that some might say is too big for a journal now might be too small in the future.
To beat a dead horse into the ground, I should also mention that I really really liked the supply closet. I spent a lot of my 1L up there. It had a great view, good food, and was plenty big for our purposes.
I LOVE ELQ!
I really like your supply closet, too, Dan. My one visit there last fall after the career fair was absolutely intoxicating!
Let me add something, but not speaking in any official capacity for BTLJ.
Before we do too much chest-thumping about rankings, we would all do well to remember that the primary reason any of our journals do well is the quality of the pieces our authors produce. We certainly send to the printer a better product than we get, but we can hardly turn water into wine with use of the Chicago Manual and a Bluebook.
Also, I am certainly appreciative that we have a roomy and usable space, as our Editorial Board alone pushes 40 people. Hopefully most agree that is fair. And I certainly think the students who were involved in the trying negotiations deserve thanks for a thankless job. The new space is so much better than the old. It was worth the school's money and our inconvenience.
"This is the demerit of the basement's egalitarian design: large successful journals are punished, and small, struggling journals are rewarded."
Carbolic's premise + reasoning is as sound as that of the U$ New$ and World Report'$ ranking$ of law $chool$.
12:56, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, but it's interesting that you picked that quote, as that was the one that bothered me the most.
I don't think any groups have been punished. Some have just been rewarded less than others. That's not getting screwed; it's getting jealous.
On a total aside, I'm kind of worried that the reason Boalt never gives us nice things to begin with is because we are incapable of maintaining them. Case in point: there was already a bunch of trash left in the common area. What's up with that?
Khalil speaks reason and truth.
10:04 --- i couldn't agree more. pizza boxes, newspapers, and general detritus (i've always wanted to use that word) were scattered throughout the common area yesterday afternoon.
come on people. give a hoot. don't pollute. help keep the new student center looking good.
A) I think there's a lot of trash right now because the custodial folks (who are so lovely) can't actually get into any of the journal offices due to a card reader mishap. So now we're all just shoving our trash in the communal space.
B) Honestly, if everyone just took the time to roam around the journal offices you would notice that in reality all of the offices are about the same size. You can't feel a huge difference between them. So comparative size seems to be a moot point... but if you want to start talking about who has poles in the middle of their offices or individual A/C controls (which don't actually work), then you're onto something.
Sorry if I'm needlessly lengthening this thread, but unfortunately it's been brought up to me a few times around school. The comparison between the journals, which seemed to suggest one was more valuable than the other, really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
We all got new offices (except BoA and NALSA). They're pretty much universally better than the old. We should be happy for student groups that got an upgrade, not resentful.
That's the last I'll say on this, but I hope most people agree with me. We don't want the atmosphere down here getting nasty, especially because the offices' proximity to each other allows for easy pranking.
12:24 - I wasn't referring to the trash that is overflowing out of the trash bins because the janitors haven't had access. I was referring to candy wrappers and other trash that people leave on tables, not because there isn't a trash can nearby or it's full, but out of pure rudeness and/or laziness. Our janitorial staff should not have to pick up after us like we are bunch of 5 year olds.
I will testify that Dan REALLY loves ELQ. Like sometimes, when he is alone with an issue...well, I'll let you use your imagination.
Ever since the debut of Ecology Law Currents, Dan has spent a lot more time online late at night. He also has far fewer paper-cuts. But to be fair, most of the members of BTLJ jerk off to articles about irreversible environmental devastation too.
Yeah, well, global warming is a liberal farce.
Um, sorry to be all marxist, but isn't bickering amongst ourselves what the powers-that-be want us to do? I mean, it's like a coal miner and a migrant fruitpicker coming to blows about who takes the least loot back hovelward for their gallon of sweat. Of all the world's communities, who'd a thunk Boalt would come to embody in miniature the petty prejudices that keep the globe's oppressed divided against their fellow sufferers?
...but if we were to have a turf-war brawl among journals, my money's on BTLJ. Watch out for the gizmos.
Good point Justin. And very gracious, too. Thanks.
Yes, CARC has an office, shared with the Boalt Hall Committee for Human Rights (BHCHR, who are not planning on changing their name anytime soon as far as I know...) and with the Berkeley Law Foundation (BLF). CARC is really grateful to finally have at least some office space for the more than 80 students we have involved. Last year we had 117 students, this year I think we have about 86. Thank you Space Committee. We appreciate it.
I completely endorse Jiny Kim's letter on behalf of the Asian American Law Journal. Well said. I don't think that we should refer to some journals as more important than others.
I too applaud Ms. Kim, and feel that Carbolic's post is both hurtful and flawed.
I am reminded of nothing so much as my eight-year-old niece and her six-year-old sister arguing about who was given a slightly larger cookie.
But she did get a bigger cookie! And it's not FAIR! Then she called me a poopy head!
God we are lame.....
I also appreciate Jiny's letter. Personally, I think N and B should post an apology, but since I didn't write the piece, I feel I'm not entitled to do so. Nonetheless, I offer whatever apology I'm entitled to make.
My take on this, which I have shared with the other bloggers, is that Carbolic did not intend to hurt AALJ or the other identity journals, but the comparisons he made inevitably were hurtful. There's a big difference between saying "Group X didn't get enough" and "Group Y got more than it deserved," and this post skirted the line.
As a board member of a medium-sized journal, I resented the divisive tone, and I totally see where Jiny is coming from. Luckily, I think most members of these journals (including BTLJ) do not make these comparisons or rank each other's value.
I hope we can continue on in a collaborative spirit.
I believe that journals and fish can coexist peacefully.
I did not find the original post divisive or hurtful. Could be because I'm a BTLJ person. Jiny's letter was thoughtful, and she was right to send a response, but to call this post "an attack on [AALJ's] legitimacy" is a pretty big exaggeration.
I agree. If this post is all it takes to attack AALJ's legitimacy, AALJ's legitimacy is in real trouble. Because I don't think AALJ is in trouble, I can only conclude the OP isn't an attack.
Where's your sense of humor people? Remember: you were brought to Boalt because you are fun!
Some people are professional offendees. Best to ignore them and not play into their drama.
I have to disagree with 2:57 and 3:06. To say that a journal is "struggling," and that its members are so slow that they need "editing tips" is an attack on its legitimacy. Of course this is all fun and games...until you become the one being made attacked of...
Sorry...I meant "until you become the one being attacked...
lighten up people. did AmJur day teach you nothing? or has law school really destroyed your senses of humor?
It's destroyed it!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
May I politely suggest using "AJD" for the sake of a covert ADJ 2009 . . .
What part of the original post was intended to be humorous, exactly? Or by "sense of humor" do you mean "sense that privileged people are allowed to say whatever patronizing thing we like about you and you are not entitled to respond"? Because law school has eroded that, somewhat.
Commentator above is a fucking idiot. No, I am not "privileged."
WE NEED A TOWN HALL ON HIGHER-RANKED-JOURNAL MEMBER PRIVILEGE!!! BOALT COMMUNITY UNITE!!!!
Where's your sense of humor? I guess some people are just professional offendees...
You can get paid for being offended? Count me in. And shut up!
Get over it people. Don't you have cases to read and a life to live?
Post a Comment
<< Home