« "I'm Planning a Prison Break..." | Main | The Blame Game »

September 28, 2005





People on Law Review suck.


Found some excerpts from a dated critique on law reviews for Fitz's amusement:

“Professors have alleged that student editors are incompetent to judge academic contributions to an ever-more-complex field, and often rely on irrelevant "secondary" criteria, such as the reputation and/or background of the author, the prestige of his or her institution, or the number of prominent names the author can drop in an "acknowledgements" footnote. They have asserted that students are inherently conservative (or, alternatively, faddish) in their publication choices, preferring the familiar to the truly original. They have alleged that students at elite law schools in particular are unduly biased in favor of faculty at their own institutions. They have expressed resentment at having more or less to beg the editors of higher-ranking reviews for "expedited reads" of an article after it has been accepted elsewhere; they have publicly chafed under the burden of the short deadlines imposed by the understandably-nervous editors of law reviews extending offers.
An increasing number of professors have also complained about student editing of articles after selection. They have expressed concern that their manuscripts are not just reviewed for oversights but are substantively rewritten, often by rule-obsessed editors having a less-than- perfect sense of either literary style or the legal subject at hand. They have voiced their frustration with having to watch out for and correct the factual and grammatical errors that are frequently (if innocently) imported into their texts in this process. They have taken offense at how some law review editors have treated them: they have variously called the attitudes and practices of student editors "infuriating," "officious," and arrogant, and some have called for the creation of formal codes of ethics to govern editor-author relationships no longer defined by student deference and respect.”
“The plethora of manuscripts, the amount of work consequently demanded of today's student editors and the virtually-complete independence of those editors from law faculty have together given rise to a fourth cause of contemporary law review criticism: doubts about the traditionally- assumed pedagogical value of law review service. Doubts about the educational benefits of law review have, however, also been raised by law students themselves. In 1988, a recently graduated Notes editor of the Georgetown Law Journal concluded that "the law review's academic and creative value is overstated. Many students leave law review with little more to show for their two-year membership than bluebook proficiency." In 1990, a disaffected senior articles editor from the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics bemoaned a more general and even more pedagogically-awkward problem: "I've barely opened my casebooks because the journal takes too much time; I've skipped classes because the journal takes so much time." In other words, law review was actually interfering with this editor's education.”


Wendy, If you could find an article that portrays those who shop at the Spardellos clothing store in a negative light, then you'll pretty much sum up my feelings on people in general (present company excluded of course).


Fitz- Found this on some talk radio sight. Although, it's not gramatically wonderful, it sheds light on your suspicions though it's regarding the owner and not the store's clientele:

May 29 Re: Rep.Coogan, hangin with the Gangsters. 5/27/03


My goodness, Representative Coogan has allot of explaining to do. What in Holy God`s name is a member of the House doing, out on the town, with a multiple convicted felon? I went to RI COURTS.com. I checked on John Broccoli, the owner of Spardellos Clothiers. He has been convicted of many felonies! He was given a sentence of 40yrs to serve. Violent crime , Habitual criminal statue. How did he get out in 10 yrs???The record shows Judge Williams let Broccoli out in 96, WHY?? Maybe Judge Williams would like him to run the Traffic Court.. I guess in R.I. crime pays. We have a man in the Legislature who conducts himself in a manner NOT becoming his office. Hangs around with a multiple convicted felon. Are the people of R.I. really this blind? My best to you John, C. Cohen.


There's a representative Coogan!!!??


It doesn't express my extreme hatred for anyone who can watch one of those stupid commercials (4 foot fat guy in a 2000 dollar suit with 2 six foot models on his arm helping him take his jacket off before groping him while he plays pool....Arghhhh...I'm getting pissed off just thinking about it)and still shop at that store, but its gets to the source of the problem and highlights just what's wrong with society. I'm telling you, if I had any motivation at all, I could draft an essay that would convincingly blame that store for the downfall of all humanity.


You all think about law review too much.

The comments to this entry are closed.