Constitutional Daily

Founding Principles

The Tenure Paradox - Robot pimp

Slap on the Wrist for "Non-Consensual Sex" - Lampshade, Esq.

Intelligence: The Gathering - Graphic and Gratuitous

Grads are the New Illegals - Robot Pimp

Meet Entitlement Eric - Robot Pimp

Wherein I Solve World Peace - Lampshade, Esq.

A Necessary Delusion - Shadow Hand

Do you even need to shave overhead? - Lawyerlite

LSAT Jenga - Publius Picasso

Time, Place, and Manner

...Should have some links here or something.


Stanford: 80% of Legal Scholarship Sucks

E-mail Print PDF

Ever wondered just what sorts of articles get submitted to law reviews?

Well, if you've ever been on a law school journal, you already know the answer. But, for the rest of the world Shima Baradaran conducted an interview for Prawf's Blawg with Andrew Prout, Editor in Chief of Stanford Law Review. One question in particular got to the core of law review submission contents:

SB: We've all received those emails from law review editors telling us that you received thousands of submissions and that unfortunately, there are so many good ones . . . and you unfortunately can't accept ours.  Do you really think that putting a rejection in that context makes us feel better?  Kidding.  That's not the question.  The question is, how many of the manuscripts you receive do you think are of good quality or are from authors that you would potentially consider publishing?

AP: Most submissions were either not especially well-written or on a topic that didn't seem important, or they had a thesis that didn't seem novel.  I'd say about a fifth or so were good pieces, and among those, most of the selection process came down to personal taste.  Every once in awhile, an article stood out as amazing (and the whole committee realized it), but those articles were few and far between.

Before jumping into the contents, look at what Professor Baradaran has implied her question. Sometimes articles get published, and sometimes authors get published. The former is based on the quality of the article. The latter is based on the identity of the author. It's no surprise that a 3L student, who doesn't really know anything about anything, might use a prestigious CV as a proxy for article quality, but it's easy to see how this can quickly devolve into an incestuous academic circle jerk. Fortunately, Prout went on to explain that Stanford does blind reviews; the editorial board does not know who the author is. That's not the norm though, and a fancy letterhead often does give a professor a significant advantage.


Now on to the contents. According to Prout, 80% of the submissions they get are unpublishable due to either poor writing or an uninteresting topic. If professors are spending about half their time writing articles, this would indicate that about 40% of a professor's job is spent writing unpublishable crap. ...That sounds about right.

And by "right" we mean "accurate" not "what ought to be."

What's worse though is that many of those crap, unpublishable articles will actually be published. After all, there are 200 law schools, some 10,000 articles get published every year, and most schools don't have the same standards as Stanford.

Just to be clear though, those 80% Prout referred to aren't the ones that are good but just not as good as the really great articles. They're not the equivalent of a 170 LSAT. They're just bad. They're the 145 LSAT thought ought never see the light of day, and certainly not be published in an academic journal.

[Prawf's Blawg]

blog comments powered by Disqus

Philadelphia Lawyer, Unfiltered

The finest blend of analysis, advice, and fury on the internet. Sour mash, oak barrel aged, published at cask strength.


Most Recent Article:

In Defense of Risk (Happy Fourth of July)

All Articles from The Philadelphia Lawyer

Author Profile

The Robot Pimp

An in depth look at the emerging intersection of law, behavioral economics, and robots.

Most Recent Article:

The Tenure Paradox

All Articles from The Robot Pimp

Author Profile

Practice Makes Putrid

Legal practice would be all rainbows and buttercups, if it weren't for the clients, and opposing counsel, and co-counsel, and judges, and the law.

Most Recent Article:

Eat Mor Fiv Freedums

All Articles from The Namby Pamby

Author Profile

Gin and Glannon's

As Shadow Hand suffers through law school, the rest of us get a little Schadenfreude.

Most Recent Article:

I Just Work Here

All Articles From Shadow Hand

Author Profile

Irresistible Impulse

Dr. Rob Dobrenski's daring expedition into the psychology of lawyers and the law. (Not a substitute for a life well lived.)

Most Recent Article:

You're Not a Failure, You're a Narcissist

All Articles from Dr. Rob

Author Profile

Graphic and Gratuitous

Sometimes cartoons are the highest form of communication. Those times are known as "most of the time."

Most Recent Cartoons:

Intelligence: The Gathering

All Cartoons

There And Never Back Again

Defunct Big Law attorney BL1Y shares his misadventures as a writer who accidentally went to law school.


Most Recent Article:


All Articles from BL1Y

Author Profile

Lampshade, Esquire

We're dealing with some technical difficulties here. Hold up a minute.

All Articles From Lampshade, Esq.

Staff Infections

News, humor, and other non-billables from our underpaid, uncredited, unsexy staff.


News Articles

Smaller News Bits

Large Numbers of Law

Mixed Bag of Lawesome


Scofflaw Multistate Bar Review