Wednesday, May 10, 2006

It's The Most Wonderful Time of the Year...

My Law School cannot make it through spring exams without a fiasco. Last year there was the cheating, the blog, and the discussion board.

This year, the SBG President decided to write an "article" for the final issue of the news letter, in which he criticized the system of grading onto law review. Then, a law review student sent an email to the entire school as a response, that email, as well as my comments, you can find below. It's not generally my style to post something like this, but once it's in my inbox it's fair game people. It's also excessively long, so if you're A.D.D. like me it's going to be a challenge.

I should point out that while I do mock Law Review some of my best friends are on Law Review. That said, the people I'm friends with would hate the e-mail that this chick sent and unlike her are not pretentious asses.

You know how when someone picks on your family, even if there is truth in what they say, you must defend it? Well, after [Outgoing SBG Presidents'] comments about the Law Review I feel the need to respond.

First, I want to address the "free pass" onto law review. Grading on is not a free pass. All of us that graded on worked very hard for our grades [We know, you're the law student flipping out 5 minutes before an exam about something you found on an old exam, don't be so proud of yourself]. While getting good grades does not necessarily prove that we can write, it does indicate that we have a good grasp of legal ideas [Hahaha! I firmly believe it has nothing to do with how well you know the material], preformed [it's performed] well on essay exams, and have the dedication and self-discipline to succeed in the tasks that we choose to undertake. Are there other students that have these same traits? Of course, but like it or not, there is a great deal of tradition within all law schools of selecting Law Review members according to grades. The Law Review may not be made up of the best writers at the school, but hopefully the Law Review helps us improve our writing and editing skills [So it's a special club for people with good grades to make themselves even more appealing, got it...You should try blogging if you want to work on your editing skills, it's way funner then checking citations] Plus, to make sure that everyone, regardless of grades, has an opportunity to make it onto the "gold ring" of co-curricular activities, there is a write-on competition [during the summer, who wants to do that?].

Secondly, [Outgoing SBG President's] complaints about the special privileges [Ohh, so you don't have a silent locked study area? And your own desks? And you do not get to go put your jacket and other books down and not haul them around? You don't get preferential treatment from the career services office? My Mistake.] that come with Law Review are not all based in fact. There is no super secret Law Review I.D. card [yes there is, I've seen it] that guarantees Law Review members good jobs, good grades, scholarship money, or special treatment from the administration. Making the Law Review does not guarantee a person a fabulous dream job [No, but it puts them a hell of a lot closer]. True, some Law Review members have excellent jobs lined up. Some of these jobs are judicial clerkships and some are with big law firms making a ton of money. [Outgoing SBG President] should not criticize those students that managed to get a prestigious job through their hard work, people skills [which you clearly lack sweetie] and well developed resumes. Some members are pursuing lower paying careers focused more on public service, where their good grades and professional skills will help the community [Their good grades help the community? How? And what Professional Skills do most law student have, the average age here is 24?...Don't be so damn smug that some Law Reviewers didn't get decent jobs so they think "helping" others with their sweet grades will help the community-and their chances at OCI next year]. There are also many smart, hard working, well qualified individuals on the Law Review that do not have jobs lined up after graduation. Those [Law School Name] grads that succeed should not have to apologize to other embittered [Law School Name] grads. The [Law School Name] grads that enjoy professional accomplishment just make the rest of us look better and elevate the university's reputation. We should be grateful to those success stories [I'd be grateful if the Articles Editor who offered to send me notes for 2 classes when I missed a month for mono, had actually sent them, other then that, I don't care what you do...P.S.-I probably did better then her in at least one class anyway], not criticize them for reaching the top levels of the profession [If 80 hour work weeks is the top of the profession I'll pass]. The fact that Law Review allows students to pursue clerkships and top jobs more easily is just a reality of the legal profession. It is not the university's fault. It is not the Law Review's fault. It is simply the way it is.

Thirdly, not all of us on Law Review are snotty [but you clearly are for sending this to the whole school]. There are a number of us that go through our law school career working to keep the fact that we are on Law Review quiet [it's not hard to figure out when you see people going into the secret locked room, or even so much as going upstairs at lunch time, we're not idiots...], just to avoid alienating anyone. The trouble is you do not know who we are [Did you ever think we don't care about slandering you to your face?]. Granted, there are a few snobs here and there, but we are in law school. Snobs are par for the course. Besides, publicly ridiculing those students that got good grades, made it on Moot Court [Moot Court actually has to tryout, via an argument-which actually does judge their performance on Moot Court...Don't drag them into this-people actually like them], wrote on to Law Review, or achieved some other recognition that [Outgoing SBG President] does not feel is sufficiently important, is his own version of snobbery. Despite my enthusiastic defense of the Law Review, I have never been impressed with what having "Law Review" on my resume has done for me [that means people think you suck as a person and do not want to work with you-big shocker given the letter you sent to the whole school]. The Law Review is just a student organization with members who are working hard to put out a publication and keep up with school work. We secured our spot on Law Review, a traditionally prestigious organization, through a combination of luck and hard work. Occasionally, I have heard Law Review members talking and I am disgusted with how pretentious they sound [really, just occasionally?], but I have had the same experience with other law students that are not on Law Review [I'm sure it's not at nearly the same frequency]. This being said, few things have disgusted me as much as [Outgoing SBG President's] article [he was just venting his opinion, which he is allowed to have...who cares? Nobody even reads the newspaper during finals-more people know about it now because of your e-mail] ridiculing the Law Review and blaming the organization for hiring criteria used within thelegal [you miss a space there sweetie?] profession. I have tried to be very objective [seriously? obviously that is not a skill taught on Law Review] and amiable in my response, but I am not above a little snobbery myself [you don't say]. I just have to point out two things, just for future reference. First, the plural form for curricular is curricula, not "curriculars," and second, maybe [Outgoing SBG President] should have submitted his article to the Law Review before he published it and we could have caught some of the mistakes [I rest my case].

Needless to say that was followed by another student e-mail, this time not from a Law Reviewer...

Okay, I am not even going to enter this potentially heated discussion on the merits [because there are no merits, it's stupid and it's an argument not only will nobody wi, but most people don't care about?], since I think that at this point during my law school career, it would not be appropriate or polite to do so [we'll decide if you're polite once we see where this takes us]. However, as a former Latin scholar [you just had to pull out an award didn't you? Way to make all Law Students look like douches], I feel my esteemed Latin professor would want me to point out that [Outgoing SBG President-whose name is spelled wrong's] original use of "curriculars" and [The See You Next Tuesday Who Wrote the Pro-Law Review Letter's] correction of it were both incorrect. "Curricular" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, it cannot be correctly pluralized. "Curricula", is the plural form of the noun "curriculum." That said, it is obvious from the colloquial context that [still spelling his name wrong] was referring to "curricular activities" [thanks, I can die happy now that I know that]. If he had submitted his article to the Law Review prior to publication, as [The See You Next Tuesday Who Wrote the Pro-Law Review Letter's] sarcastically suggests, it appears as though it still would have been published incorrectly [thanks for making the rest of the student body look even more petty].

I know I am splitting hairs here. Although I am not a member of Law Review (and with all due respect to the dedicated people who are) [stop kissing their asses, they don't share outlines], I can still be somewhat of a snob, as well. :-) [super cute smiley bro].

No comments: