Law Review vs. Moot Court

[jagmqt]

There seem to be a lot of law students, lawyers, and potential law students on this forum, so I thought I'd pose a question:

Which is better, Law Review or Moot Court?

By "better," here are some considerations...
Prestige...What looks better on a resume? What sounds better to collegues/classmates? What will earn greater accolades, short term (e.g. publication, victory) and long term?

Educational experience...Where will the student get a greater learning experience? Both may involve writing (article compared to appellate brief), but neither has to (cite checker compared to simple oral argument).

Real-world applicability...What are the pros and cons of each to a student entering the job market, and then beginning on the job. Assume no supervisor, what features of each will prove more useful on that first assignment.

Cost vs. benefit (to the student)...Considering the time invested, which fits better into a students schedule? If one is for credit (therefore tuition dollars) and one is extra curricular, should that make a difference in the consideration?

Those considerations are only to get the thoughts flowing...it's not intended to be exhaustive. I could list more, but I'd rather hear your thoughts. Perhaps you don't consider them comparable at all...

A couple of assumptions...
Consider both Law Review and Moot Court taking place at the same school, whatever tier you want it to be. We all know that Harvard Law Review is better than the Elon Moot Court Team. I'm not looking to compare schools, but only programs.
And...
Try to compare equal "positions" in each activity. For example, if you envision the EIC of the Law Review, compare that to the top Moot Court competitior, one that has won in-school and out-school competitions.

I didn't want to make this a poll becaue I'd rather hear your thoughts. I chose Moot Court to compare with Law Review because, to me, instances of SCOTUS justices judging moot court competitions adds a significant amount of credibility.

Sorry for the long post. Anyone have any opinions?

jag

(Disclaimer ~ I'm a student now, graduating in January, and I have my opinion.)

 

[overdog]

Law review is better for your resume, although moot court would be much more beneficial from an experience and fun perspective. The only way moot court is going to look good on your resume is if you are good at it and are able to win (or at least get runner-up) in some major competitions. As for law review, you don't necessarily have to get an editorial position. Being a general staff member is considered prestigious and will open doors for you that being a general participant in moot court will not.

 

[DNW]

Law review > moot court, unless you want to be a trial lawyer.

 

[jagmqt]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

Law review > moot court, unless you want to be a trial lawyer.

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the decisions...that's why I didn't make it a poll. Could you offer some of your reasons?

jag

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

Law Review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moot Court unless you are a Moot Court finalist, in which case they are probably equivalent.

 

[jagmqt]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

Law Review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moot Court unless you are a Moot Court finalist, in which case they are probably equivalent.

Again...Why? That's the answer I'm intereted in...

jag

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by jagmqt

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the decisions...that's why I didn't make it a poll. Could you offer some of your reasons?

jag

A trial lawyer's advocacy skills are his main weapons. You don't get to show this off if you do law review. So, if you're looking for work as a trial lawyer after you're finished, your moot court accomplishments will look much better to a firm looking to hire a trial lawyer.

 

[zalb916]

This thread is pretty stupid. Law review is almost always considered more prestigious because of the qualifications that are required to become a member. For instance, my school had an automatic placement on law review for the top 10% of the class after first year and then an automatic placement on moot court for the next 10% percent. I think those were the percents. I wasn't smart enough to place on either, so I may not be smart enough to remember the percents.

You don't seem to draw much of a distinction between educational experience and real world applicability in your examples. Most people on journals, myself included, rarely use the skills gained in their post-law school jobs. Okay, I can blue book and allegedly research, write, and edit more effectively. But I don't really think my journal experience was that practical. People that I know who did moot court use many of the skills learned there every day.

As for the experience in school, I know very few people who enjoyed the process of reviewing and editing articles. Maybe there are some. Those people are weird. I know many people who enjoyed moot court.

 

[Slopho]

^ He's just asking a question.

 

[jagmqt]

Originally Posted by zbromer

This thread is pretty stupid. . .
Omitted to keep the post short

Originally Posted by Slopho

^ He's just asking a question.
Thanks for the support...

To respond, I understand "prestige" but hoped that wouldn't be the only (or primary) consideration.

As to the educational vs. real world application...to clarify where I see distinctions...

Educational: which will help a student in law school...where will s/he learn skills that will be used throughtout the remainder of the education...

Real World: which skill will prove beneficial on the job...

Should the students choose career path play a factor? Does the decision to go into business law, criminal law, estate planning, tax law, etc..., play a factor? I would contend that all lawyers should be prepared to research and litigate coming out of law school--but should students with a desire to enter a certain field emphasize one (law review or moot court)?

Do any of you think the perceptions of each has changed? Was a law review position more valueable 50 years ago? 100 years? Is moot court emerging as a true gague of ability, or is it still a fun competition for students?

I think the tendency is to favor law review, but I'm asking is that justified today?

jag

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

It sounds like you're fishing for a particular answer -- that Moot Court is as good as Law Review. I can't give you that answer because it's not true. Law Review is obviously more prestigious because (1) it is competitive to gain entry, and (2) it is a standard that every employer understands. Outside of prestige, Law Review and Moot Court don't have much to commend themselves to students. I fail to see how either would improve your performance in a three-hour bluebook exam. I suppose they may improve your research and writing for the real world, but in my experience, most of what you learn in legal practice is learned on the job. You're probably not going to be arguing cases for your first few years as a lawyer, so the oral argument experience gained through Moot Court isn't that significant.

I'm not saying that Moot Court doesn't have value, just that the initial question is akin to asking, Who is better, Kobe Bryant or Ray Allen?

 

[Slopho]

Ray Allen, better actor and not a ******.

 

[jagmqt]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

It sounds like you're fishing for a particular answer --

Not really. I just think the presumption weighs in favor of Law Review, so I'm trying to even them out for consideration here...at least start them off on the same page...(I suppose it does seem that I'm favoring one, though...but that isn't my intent)

Thanks for your thoughts...

jag

 

[zalb916]

My apologies for the insulting comment about the thread. It was rude, uncalled for, and unhelpful.

Law review has definite prestige factor and certainly helps on a resume. I didn't do law review. I did a journal. It's the same basic work, though. I found the work boring and tedious and oftentimes downright miserable. I'd like to think I sharpened my research, writing, editing, and cite checking skills. However, I'd be dubious about how much I really benefited. I knew the blue book pretty damn well back then, but I can't really say I wouldn't have learned it otherwise.

I have no moot court experience other than talking to friends. They actually enjoyed it. They got real practical benefit. Some of them even choose to pursue a career based on their experience.

Aim for law review. It's what everyone does. It's what your supposed to do, if you can get it. Your experience will be a lot less fun, I think. I also believe that you'll get more practical benefit out of moot court. So, really not a bad fall back.

 

[the law]

I can say in a real world application, law review is for more practical than moot court. I was an editor on LR in law school. I also competed in the school's moot court competition.

Let's face it, when you first go out into practice, what are you more likely to be doing:
(1) research and writing; or
(2) arguing and drafting appellate briefs?

Granted, both are valuable experiences, but I have found my LR experience far more useful in practice than moot court, and I'm a litigator.

Or you can do as a couple did in my school and do both.

However, I would shoot for law review over moot court.