As a 2L doing copywork/cite checking, I hated Law Review. I hated the inanity of editing someone else's very clearly shit work. I thought it ridiculous that a professor would submit such a piece of shit and expect, as their due, little armies of law review plebes to fix all of their gross errors. And I'm not just talking about sloppy blue-booking. I'm talking about border-lined (or just over the line) plagiarism. Incorrect citations. General extreme laziness in citing anything. Do law profs have original thoughts? My conclusion was that, no, no they don't. All articles are merely regurgiations of other author's thoughts... and more often than not, while copyworking, i would discover it wasn't even the person my author cite's thoughts. It was some other egghead's long before.
So I came to the conclusion that
- Employers like law review on resumes because it shows that you are detail-oriented, know how to find needle in hay-stacks, know how to save your future senior partner's ass from looking stupid, and you are willing to do completely pointless, mind-numbingly dull tasks just because someone in authority asked (told) you to. So you do it to get a job.
- It makes you feel good about your research and writing skills, which are clearly superior to most of the stuff that you work on. If you only had their "connections," you could be just as cool as the authors think they are.
- It is a right of passage and simply must be endured.
And the part that makes me just sick about it: I RAN FOR THE STUPID THING! I asked for it. And I got it. Utter, total fucking moron.