It wouldn’t have happened at a law review…

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. anon says:

    Actually, the legal acadamy gives a lot of credit (in deed, though not in word) to student law reviews–we rely on placement as a strong proxy for quality. Everyone complains, but no one does anything about it (like disregard placement). To an economist, that is call a “revealed preference”.

  2. Adam Kolber says:

    I can attest to another story quite like the one Eric references. I opened up the article immediately following mine in a law review and saw that that author had precisely the same education and people to thank as I did! In this case, I wasn’t the victim. But the author following me was probably pretty upset.

  3. wow says:

    I hope you aren’t seriously suggesting that competent article selection and refereeing are less important than making sure the paper has no typos.

  4. Joseph Slater says:

    I’m not sure it’s a “revealed preference” as “lazyness” or more charitably, “no obvious alternatives” + “folks at elite schools, at least at the margins, benefit from the system and thus don’t have a big incentive to change it.”

    And yeah, article selection and copyediting are quite different issues.

  5. Joseph Slater says:

    I’m not sure it’s a “revealed preference” as much as “lazyness” or more charitably, “no obvious alternatives” + “folks at elite schools, at least at the margins, benefit from the system and thus don’t have a big incentive to change it.”

    And yeah, article selection and copyediting are quite different issues.

  6. Mike says:

    It does happen in student-edited law reviews. See 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 533 n.387 (“Need cite.”).