New Space Deathmatch: Flat Screen TVs v. Financial Restraint

The fifth in my series examining winners and losers of the Boalt Hall space reconfiguration.

Winners: Flat Screen TVs
Has anyone noticed that Boalt is now filled with flat screen TVs? They’re everywhere. Even the seminar room that nobody ever uses has a gigantic one. Our old locker space has two flat screen TVs—and four ceiling projectors. There’s so much video technology in there that the projector screens overlap one another.

I’m not exactly sure what all this technology is for. Is there a massive demand for teleconferencing I don’t know about? Mary Robinson (former Irish President and UN High Commissioner for Human RIghts) is teaching a shared course with Columbia Law School, but that's taking place in Room 116. I’m trying to guess some reason why anyone would need to fire up six TVs in a classroom. Are future law lectures going to be in 3-D?

(The two flat screens in the old locker room are in the back of the class. Maybe Boalt has decided to give professors the same opportunity as students to surf the web during boring lectures.)

Loser: Financial Restraint
Let's face it: just a few years ago, Boalt was a dump. But look at it now! High tech classrooms. Recessed lighting. Power window shades. And shiny glass walls everywhere—even when it’s just in front of sheetrock. (Seriously, what’s the deal with that?) This new “no expense spared” renovation is great—until you realize who’s footing the bill.

I like the old 1950 photo of Boalt that’s been taped around the new basement space. Maybe it’s just the stylish, mid-century aesthetic: everyone looks great with their cigarettes and tailored grey suits. The basement space looks basically the same, although less lavishly furnished. Still, I’d be happy to take the sheetrock and manual window shades in exchange for a $29,000 reduction on my tuition bill.

New Space Deathmatch: Clubs v. Journals

The fourth in my series examining winners and losers of the Boalt Hall space reconfiguration. Today, we're back in the trenches--er, basement, with a comparison between club and journal office space.

Winners: Clubs
Ha! You all thought that journals would win in a landslide. After all, club offices are half the size. And they're shared. By the time you account for the lockers, there's not much space left.

Here's the thing. The "heavy lifting" of club participation takes place in classrooms, not offices. Journal offices are stuffed with computers and printers. They also need to store source collections, article submissions, author correspondences, and the other detritus of academic publishing. Clubs, on the other hand, store the nachos left over from karaoke night. Granted, there are large clubs--but who hangs out in their offices, apart from the five most active members?

The result is a cozy, nicely furnished room for the enjoyment of a few select people. No dusty, non-functioning Dell computers. No piles of photocopies. No obsolete 12 year-old torts casebook. Just a stylish sofa and a few comfortable seats. Maybe even a window. I’m going to hang out there all the time.

Losers: Um...can’t we all just get along?
Jeez, you can’t write a few paragraphs about office space without being called the worst person in the world. I will only say that some responses rely on a massive "straw man" argument--and don't distinguish a tease from a tirade. But I can’t fight such righteous indignation. I give up! Nobody loses. Everyone’s a winner at UC Berk-e-ley!

Anyway, if any Boalt group wants to bulk up their membership, they should do it the BTLJ way: free vodka and a superbly stocked snack cupboard.

Note to all Boalties: we're not alone.

New Space Deathmatch: Kato v. Zeb

The third in my series examining winners and losers of the Boalt Hall space reconfiguration. Lest anyone think that I'm just going to trash journals every day, here are two non-basement entities.

Winner: Nancy Kato
Blessed, blessed isolation! Well, the Registrar Office's soon-to-be new location in the MoFo Room isn't that far off the beaten path. But unlike its old space, MoFo isn't stifling. And MoFo's rectangular layout, with an entrance solely at the narrow end, is perfect for channeling/limiting law student interaction. As in a giant hive, Queen Ant M. K-J can be housed deep in the interior, preserved from interruption by an army of drones.

Also, it's location near the building exit ensures that our union-supporting comrades can slip out at exactly 4:30 p.m., regardless of student crisis. One thing's for sure: the MoFo Room has finally reached its zenith for irony potential.

Loser: Cafe Zeb
Hey, is this table taken? Probably not anymore, now that all the cool kids are hanging out on the new basement sofas. Between the 2007 office and courtyard closures, Cafe Zeb was once the only place to relax at Boalt. Not only are there now more places, but those places are about as far away from Zeb as possible. It's easier to walk to Cafe Strada than Zeb now from a club/journal office. (Granted, Strada and Zeb are owned by the same company.)

And let's not forget the other thing: a brand new kitchen in the basement. Refrigerators, a full sink, presumably a microwave--combined with food storage in your journal or club office. Who's really going to go all the way up to Zeb for green tea and a yogurt?

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.

	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.

New Space Deathmatch: CLR v. Board of Advocates

There are a lot of changes for Boalt student groups recently, with the exodus from Simon Hall, the new affinity group oasis/ghetto on the third floor, and the new basement space. I'm creating a series of posts to identify the big winners of this change--as well as those getting the shaft. The first battle royale: CLR versus Board of Advocates.

Winner: California Law Review
Law review has fallen upon some hard times. I'm not talking about academic integrity. I'm talking about respect. CLR used to be the preeminent student activity at Boalt; membership was mandatory for top students. Not so much these days. Not only is there little correlation between grades and membership, but law review is lost among the thicket of "other" journals--of which Berkeley publishes an obscene amount. (On the website's alphabetical list of journals, CLR is eleventh). More so than at any other law school, specialized journals compete with law review for student talent. Why be a primary-editing grunt when you can be EIC of BJ*L instead?

The point of all this is that CLR's new space is important. It's not that CLR needs a separate suite (with its own entrance!). It's a sign that Berkeley really sees CLR as its flagship publication, and is willing to treat it accordingly.

Loser: Board of Advocates
Who? Just kidding. These days, moot court is just as respected by judges, lawyers, and academics as law review--and maybe more so. In terms of prestigious student activities, Board of Advocates is right up there with CLR. And I don't see anyone else bringing SCOTUS justices to Berkeley any time soon. Congrats, Board overseers!

Which makes it a little regrettable that Board of Advocates drew such a losing hand from the space deck. Where are they, exactly? I think they're still in some crummy office on the 3rd floor maze, but I'm not really sure. They're isolated from other student groups both spacially and symbolically. Certainly they deserve more. It's true that they're getting a new moot courtroom in Room 140. But this is less a reward than a consolation prize for the insult of having to use Booth Auditorium in the past. And besides, Room 140 is really just a glorified classroom.