Proof that Law Reviews Serve a Useful Purpose
posted by Slam Master A at 2:39 PM
Thursday, January 08, 2009
The Rules of Engagement
Senior Status:
Armen's ProfileTacitus' Profile
Tom's Profile
Disco Stu(d)'s Profile
Mad J.D.'s Profile
Max Power Profile
Isaac's Profile
Earl Warren's Profile
MRP's Profile
Sean Fernandes' Profile
Slam Master A's Profile
TJ's Profile
Caley's Profile
Carbolic's Profile
McWho's Profile
Patrick's Profile
Toney's Profile
J.D.elicious' Profile
Bekki's Profile
Dan's Profile
Petch’s Profile
Active Status:
Jackie O's ProfileJames' Profile
L'Alex's Profile
Maude's Profile
McTwo’s Profile
Ursus Major's Profile
Labeled Threads:
What is a Labeled Thread?0L/1L Advice
Academia
Bar Exams
BLF
Boalt Briefs
Classes and Professors
CLR Discussion
Clerkships
DE
Deep Space
DO
Elections
Exams
Grades
Grammar Snarks
Greetings from the BHSA
Honor Code
Idaho
Kashmiri
Law Student Life
Legal Culture
Legal Education Costs
Library
LRAP
Moot Court and Trial Team
Moving Out (Graduation)
N&B
Nancy Grace
OCIP and Employment
Only in Berkeley
Professor Quotes
Professor Ratings
Prop. 8
Rabid Conservatives
Rabid Liberals
Rankings
Shiny Gold Stars
Technology Rants
The Others
The Red Menace
The Resident Evil
The Simpsons
Yoo-Hoo
Blogroll
De NovoThe Tacitus Project
Group Think Tank
Berkeley/Boalt Blogs
Anderson BerryBeetle Beat
Berkeley Graduate
Berkeley Jurisprude
Berkeley Law Blog
Bleed Blue & Gold
Boalt Professor Review
Boalt H. Civ. P.
Boalt Movie Review
Cal Stuff
Cause and Defect
Dean Berring's Building Blog
Exact Approx
Expressio Unius
For God and For Cheese
Frolicking in Your Panda
A Girl Walks into a Bar (Exam)
Governing Through Crime
Jungle Cat Diaries
I'm Not Crunchy
La Mitotera
Musings from Boalt Hall
Robert Reich's Blog
The Present Tense
Repatriated Expatriate
The Seema Machine
Stacita
A Year Deferred
Other Blogs
Above the LawAmbivalent Imbroglio
Amicus Curae
The Armacost Project
Bag and Baggage (Boalt '90)
Bainbridge
Balkinization
Barely Legal
Begging to Differ
Biting Tongue
Black Book Legal
Blawg Wisdom
BlueGrassRoots
Boffo Blog
Buffalo Wings & Vodka
Color of Law
Concurring Opinions
The Debate Link
Dropping a Barbell
EB Express Blog
First Movers
The Frugal Law Student
Half the Sins of Mankind
Head Heeb
Hear Me Roar
Illiterally
Intel Dump
Inter Alia
Is That Legal?
JAG Central
JD2B
Jeremy Blachman
Kevin Drum
Law & Terrorism Blog
Law Career Blog
Legal Ethics
Legal Times Blog
Leiter's Law School Rep
Leiter Rep
Life of Lexi (UVA/Hutz fan)
Mel Woods
Memoirs of Hastings
Notes from the (1L) Underground
Notes from the (Legal) Underground
Objective Justice
Orin Kerr
Other Side of Wall (Hastings)
Prague Blog
Random...Chase
Samples Connection
SCOTUSBlog
The Berkeley Blog
The Shark
SoapBox Law
Sua Sponte
Sua Sponte (GW Law)
Sui Generis
Three Years of Hell
TJ's Double Play
Trad'l Notions (USF)
Turning Cathy into a Lawyer
Underneath Their Robes
Volokh Conspiracy
Will Work for Favorable Dicta
24 Comments:
There was a write up on this at ATL a while back.
Please warn before linking to a massive shitty quality PDF. Thanks.
I've only been practicing since September, but I've actually have a lot of help from law reviews in 2 specific instances now (as a transactional lawyer). Kind of surprised me. One was a desperately needed empirical study and the other was an update on the status of some CA law (an online supplement to a law review). Sometimes the professors write something relevant!
Law reviews are very important coz environment in which a law works keeps changing
Ron Kramer law group
LOL, bizzare spam @3:25AM.
It would be a lot easier to read CLR if, I don't know, they updated their website more often than we hold Olympics games...
To quote the talking Volkswagon bg, "give ze people what they want!" And what they want is access to content. Or at least an up-to-date table to contents to justify a trip to the library.
You're killing me people. If the goal is publishing articles people read, you've got to let the people read the articles.
it would also be a lot easier to read if . . . i don't know you had to be at the top of the class to be on it. not if you got on for simply having 12 hours of your life to waste on a packet.
Grades are starting to go up.
9:32...really?
LOL @ 9:32. Because clearly the bottom 90% of the Boalt class can't write.
I've heard stories from CLR alums about the time they put into reading those packets. It's not very reassuring.
I'd be fine with a legitimate write-on competition. But the whole "diversity statement" 20% make the process a joke.
@8:06 Diversity statement or not, CLR is dominated by white/non-URMs. Even with the diversity statement, very few URMs make it on to CLR. People who claim the diversity statement sways the write-on process to any great degree are just wrong. If anything, if that were true, it would make it all the more impressive for a white person (such as yourself?) to be on CLR. But you didn't make it, did you? Sorry find another excuse to make yourself feel better than: "afirmitiv akshun peeps r in ur CLR stealin ur spotz!"
9:32 here. clearly i wasnt all that serious. you guys can waste your time on whatever you want to waste it on. ill take my mornings sleeping in and week nights out in the city. i still have a job next year.
9:38--do you have any facts to back up your comments? CLR has been tracking these issues, to the best extent they can, for quite some time. There has also been a huge internal push over the course of several years to improve. The results are mixed, and some years are better than others, but overall I'm not so sure CLR's proportion of minority students is worse than that of Boalt's overall. That's not to say that CLR, and Boalt, shouldn't do better, but just stating that CLR is dominated by whites doesn't make it so. Ignoring the nuances of these issues does no one any favors.
Lastly, and very importantly, one area where CLR has done very well is in leadership positions. The top leadership positions have definitely not been dominated by non-URMs over the past several years, which is a credit to CLR's members.
The top leadership positions have definitely not been dominated by non-URMs over the past several years, which is a credit to CLR's members.
My head is spinning.
why is your head spinning Patrick? Go back over teh last 5 years and check out EIC and managing editor. CLR has done a very good job in this regard.
Oh, no, it was just the double negative. I'm not too bright.
9:38 here, re "but overall I'm not so sure CLR's proportion of minority students is worse than that of Boalt's overall"
I guess I would consider a proportional membership in line with what I was saying. I was arguing that the diversity statement being part of the write-on process was not flooding CLR with undeserving URMs who won membership based on diversity. But this only applies to membership (i.e., winning the write-on), and not to editorial board positions. Ed board, and especially senior positions, are definitely proportionally overly represented by URM/LGBT.
That said, I really don't understand how or why this is in-and-of-itself a good thing. I think fairness in the competition is good, but don't really understand why it's to their credit that members stack the Ed board.
It would seem to me that CLR members should be much more excited that they can say "We have the most qualified people running the journal" than "We have a bunch people representing various races running the journal." The goal is to turn out an excellent product, which results from getting the best people. Diversity may be a factor in providing a good end product, but is by no means a substitute for brilliant students. From what I know of the top two in CLR right now, they are extraordinarily bright. I would be focusing on this aspect rather than how many different skin colors you represent... that just sounds demeaning.
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race"
The real issue with the diversity statement is that it's the only part of the packet that the admissions committee takes seriously. Just ask the CLR members how long they spent reading and grading their entire pile of packets. The majority say things like, "one night." Or "I just slapped a grade on." I've had friends tell me this. And I've heard CLR-folk bragging/whining about it in between classes. If the student notes are such a joke, why not admit it and ONLY make 1Ls write the diversity statement. That's all that they read anyway.
F that. I spent a friggin' long time grading mine, and I don't know of anyone else on CLR who didn't do the same. Granted, I don't think many of us read the background stuff and get really into the argument, but I think people definitely put the time in to read the things. I was amazed at how many people either (a) turn in crap that isn't spell checked, or (b) don't know how to structure a legal argument. I think if you turn in a well-written, well-structured note, you have an excellent chance of making it on.
I second 4:01. I took the responsibility of grading write-on packets very seriously, even though the mechanics of the scoring process prevent any one grader's opinion from being decisive.
Also, at least for the class of 2010 packets I graded, there was a wide variation in quality; some of the packets were excellent, and many made me wonder how the writer survived a year at Boalt.
I doubt the personal statements were decisive for many people at all. If you don't know how to write, you probably didn't have a well-written personal statement either. You can't just turn in something that says "I'm a URM" and get points, you still have to write decently.
1Ls, as the write-on approaches, the sour grapes, particularly on this forum, re-emerge. Being white is not a barrier to CLR admission or a disadvantage once you are there.
Oh, and as one of the few members who actually went to both election forums, the board isn't really "stacked". Everyone who wanted an ed board position got something, and there were unfilled positions after elections were over. For whatever reason, URMs seem to run for board positions in greater numbers. Make of that what you will.
If you don't want to be on CLR, that's fine, admittedly it isn't for everyone. But if you don't make it after the write-on, take the rejection with some class. You weren't rejected for being white.
Aren't we supposed to wait until April to have the yearly CLR doesn't let any white people on discussion?
Post a Comment
<< Home