Journal survey
The saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I am not so convinced the journal eligibility system we have is "broke," but there was a lot yammering today regarding how to go about fixing it. Not so much for Law Review, but for the other journals that have staffing problems.
We do mixed walk on / write on. Small per cent walk on, large per cent of class eligible to write on. For the write-on, its an all-journal competition, with Law Review getting first pick. Other logistics were up for debate as well, such as whether or not to end the suicide pact . . . er, three-day weekend approach and give the students a week. And if we extend it, whether or not to add a more extensive Bluebooking component.
Anyone on other journals elsewhere have input?
8 little fish:
I thought I might have left you a comment how law review write on works at the Silly Little Law School... but it sounds like it's not the norm.
The day after the last 1L final, 1Ls can pick up the write on packet (has the SCOTUS case, with a closed list of sources, and the formatting rules etc). They then have 3 weeks to research and write a 12 page case comment. The submissions are all done via TWEN on westlaw.
Usually there are 30 openings, everyone has to write. The comments are scored and then the top 11 automatically get on without so much as a glance at grades (aka "write ons"). The last 19 spots by "grading on" (70% cumulative 1L grades, 30% comment score).
They can take up to 2 rising 3Ls, but they have to write on.
Oh and if I remember right, everyone on law review grades all of the comments. So the whole process isn't over til late july or early august.
No one ever knows whether they graded or wrote on except for the top scoring comment, which gets published in one of the upcoming issues.
Here's how it works at Useless Law School:
All journals have their own write ons and can establish their own policies. Most journals allow 1Ls to write on as early as October of 1L and require passing a bluebooking exercise which usually entails fixing 15-20 footnote type cites and then there is usually a paper of 10-15 pages. Some journals choose to do a closed topic (where the case is given and students must do the research to support a paper on the case) whereas some other journals have an entirely open topic for the paper (example: int'l law journal says write a 12 page paper on any topic in int'l law).
Useless Law Review write on begins the day after 1L spring finals end and the packet can be picked up via TWEN. The bluebooking portion is a total joke (super easy, any idiot should be able to do it) and consists of 10 citations to correct. For the paper portion candidates have the choice of 4 US Supreme Court cases to write a case comment, the paper is "closed" in that only cases cited by the SCOTUS case on the list plus the law review articles given to the candidates in their right on packet may be used. The candidates have 2 weeks to complete the write on and submit everything via TWEN.
For law review at my school you can only try to write on once. All of the other journals have various rules about how many times a candidate can attempt to write one, but most allow unlimited tries provided that the student will be able to serve at least 2 semesters as a staff member (so the latest you can try is the end of 2L).
Per school policy at Useless Law School there are no walk ons to any journal including law review and grades/class rank play no role in the selection process. All write ons are done anonymous with the registrar’s office matching up candidate numbers with names so that the boards don't know who passes/fails/etc.
As far as your school’s process sounds, I know the other school in Useless State has a similar process where there is one combined write on at the end of 1L for all the journals and law review gets first pick and everyone who wants to be on a journal has to do the write on (no walk ons). Personally I think the 3 day write-on period sounds heinous.
My personal experience on both Law Review (with an easy bluebook test) int’l law journal (with the hardest bluebook test of any journal at my school) definitely shows that the more extensive bluebook test equals staff members who are much better at doing the editing rounds which in turn makes the entire process easier getting articles ready for publication. I’m constantly amazed at how bad a lot of the law review articles end up coming back from staff members who are really lacking in their bluebook skills and I really do think it’s because the bluebook test was not hard enough on the law review write on.
Just my two *useless* cents :)
So, following on to the other comments, I guess mine would be the Magic Law School... I really like our system and I think it's pretty rare if not unique.
We have a 1-week write-on for Law Review. You get a giant packet and write a note based on the cases in there. There's also an editing component (I think it's 70% comment, 30% editing) where you have to edit a piece they give you. Not sure what the mix of grades to write-on is, in terms of selecting people. I think the top 2 people in each section in terms of grades (14 people) get in automatically.
That part is pretty standard. The part of the system I think is great is that every other journal is completely open, including to 1Ls. You start out subciting and can move on to higher-level editing and writing tasks. If you're willing to put in the work, you're in. I don't know why other schools don't do this. Maybe we can because we have a zillion journals, several of them quite large, so there's room for everyone. The way it shakes out is that nearly every 1L works on at least one journal, sometimes 2 or 3, and by 3L year I'd estimate (I'm really just pulling this out of my butt) maybe 60% of the class does journal work.
Just to clarify: by "open" I mean there is no write-on or competition of any kind to be on a journal other than Law Review.
i'm bitter that law review is so elitist. I guess those who get on totally deserve it, but im tired of all law school opportunities being dependent upon grades. I'm tempted to create my own law journal...and to get on you have to be able to be able to fart on command.
Ugh. Hearing about your conversation reminds me of being locked in the Law Review office discussing exactly those same issues with people who were apparently opposed to having a fair system.
Anyway, here's how it works at the University of Wisconsin--I don't care about keeping my school anonymous.
After the last 1L final, students are given a packet containing a question to write about and all the materials they can and must use--they can't do outside research. They then have ten days to write a ten to twelve page piece. In addition, when my board was elected, we added a Bluebooking exercise which counted for a total of 10 percent of the score, if I remember correctly.
Students could also write a "Diversity Statement" that the "Diversity Committee" would read and then pick a few that they thought represented people that would somehow add to the "diversity" of the Law Review. I argued bitterly against any sort of diversity nonsense because, well, it's all nonsense. But, ultimately, I was shot down.
Anyway, when all is said and done, the EIC would take all the scores, normalize across the various graders, and then arrive at a ranked list of the packets. Any person who was in the top ten students of the class would get on provided that they finished within the top three-quarters of the write-on competition. The rest were chosen based solely on their packets without regard to their grades.
There are a lot of things I like about that system. Namely, it gives everyone a chance to be on Law Review while still getting people with the highest grades. At the same time, people with those grades don't just get to show up, they have to make some minimal demonstration of aptitude not just for law school, but for Law Review-type stuff. I also think that relying too heavily on grades depreciates the value of Law Review: if having good grades is the only way to get on Law Review, and everyone who gets good grades gets to be on Law Review, then Law Review is just code for "has good grades," which, to me, means that that line on someone's resume is a waste of everyone's time.
Anyway, I hope you have luck deciding this stuff.
My school gives us one week in the summer to write, I believe, a 15-page comment. It is the one week that part-time students aren't in class from 6-9 p.m. so basically our summer is hell the whole way through if we decide to do it. Most people I have talked to who did it took time off work and basically worked on it 24/7 to compete with the full-time kids for a spot.
In the end, no changes.
thanks though.
Post a Comment