I love law reviews--I think they open up avenues of ideas/connections/etc. I would never have seen on my own. I love how they have so shifted toward international/comparative law (more seriously, more consistently, and sooner than many of us have, despite the efforts of ALSB for a decade or so by now). I even love the range of abstractness/etc. I find that if I give my undergrads a student-note to read it is likely to be more comprehensible to them than a more sophisticated article, and so even the lower-level writing seems of value to me. I love that we have more outlets, and more diversity, than almost any other discipline.
On non-native speakers: I generally have student-group presentations in my PLAW classes of size 20-35 students. I have had non-native students, who can comprehend but not speak, do very well with the use of power point. I provide opportunities for students to work in groups, and find that they can and do help each other. I do, however, give them extra time on exams and allow them to bring and use language dictionaries. We, too, have a writing-clinic and I too send students there for help.
Elaine
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Swaine, Edward
Sent: Thu 10/28/2004 3:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: law reviews and peer review
For the record, I disagree with Alan, and may or may not disagree with
Tom; for the moment I hope to play one off against the other, and duck
away unnoticed.
Much is wrong with student-run law reviews, but the Chronicle synopsis
of Posner's article misses some of its nuances, and Posner's article is
itself rather un-nuanced. For example, I don't think that length is a
problem inherent to student-run journals, though it is certainly
worsened by it. As to Alan's criticism, Posner's article doesn't
dismiss the value of doctrinal work; indeed, it praises such
scholarship, but says that it is becoming a more marginal part of what
reviews publish, and that they are gravitating more toward
interdisciplinary work.
It's somewhat amusing, though, to imagine that the solution lies in
entrusting law school faculty to preside over peer reviewed journals
because of interdisciplinary scholarship, given that many such faculty
are not credentialed in any traditional way in those areas -- and,
indeed, possess no more training than the average student editor. Much
of Posner's own work appeared in student-run reviews or in peer-reviewed
journals administered by those without particular training in economics,
philosophy, or literature (often founded at the University of Chicago,
to its credit), and I think relatively little has appeared in journals
traditionally esteemed in those fields. Either way, it looks like we
manage to found and rely on house organs.
P.S. Consider the ethics of selling copies of those free law review
reprints that one is always receiving. And should we conclude anything
from the market price?
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Strudler [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: law reviews and peer review
I always try to find a way to disagree, especially if Tom Dunfee is
involved.
Do we need more traditional peer reviewed journals? We have plenty. If
one adds to that number all the student reviewed journals, we get a
staggeringly high number of peer reviewed journals. Law reviews play a
useful role for students. If faculty want to publish elsewhere, the
option is now available. Let the students have their fun.
I think that an assumption Posner makes is that the traditional
doctrinal article should be banished from the presses, and that it is
better for all articles to be disciplined based, particularly if it is
a social science discipline. And I think that his assumption is false
and overly scientistic. Doctrinal analysis is valuable. Reviewing it is
labor intensive. Let the students do it.
On Oct 28, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Steven E. Abraham wrote:
> Can anyone really disagree?
>
> Dunfee, Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> The following was in today's online edition of the Chronicle of
>> Higher Education.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MAGAZINES & JOURNALS
>>
>>
>>
>> A glance at the November/December issue of "Legal Affairs":
>>
>> Fixing what's wrong with law reviews
>>
>>
>>
>> Law reviews use an editorial process that is "strange, even
>>
>> incomprehensible, to scholars in other fields," says Richard A.
>>
>> Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago's law
>>
>> school and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
>>
>> Circuit.
>>
>>
>>
>> The journals are generally edited by students, have large
>>
>> staffs, and do not use peer review. They are published
>>
>> bimonthly, or more frequently, and are "seemingly unconstrained
>>
>> in length," he writes.
>>
>>
>>
>> The system evolved when legal scholarship was more a
>>
>> professional activity than an academic one, he says, but now
>>
>> that the character of legal scholarship has changed, the
>>
>> weaknesses in the law-review system have become "both more
>>
>> conspicuous and more harmful."
>>
>>
>>
>> Legal scholars increasingly use insights from other disciplines
>>
>> in analyzing law, and student editors are typically not
>>
>> knowledgeable enough in those fields to provide editing
>>
>> suggestions of much quality. But the quantity of time and staff
>>
>> that the law reviews do possess allows them to "torment the
>>
>> author with stylistic revisions," he writes.
>>
>>
>>
>> The result, he says, is that "too many articles are too long,
>>
>> too dull, and too heavily annotated, and that many
>>
>> interdisciplinary articles are published that have no merit at
>>
>> all."
>>
>>
>>
>> Ideally, the solution would be for law schools to "take back"
>>
>> their journals and give faculty members the primary editorial
>>
>> duties, relegating students to tasks like checking citations.
>>
>> But the current system is so valuable for training law students,
>>
>> and for identifying particularly talented ones, that such a
>>
>> reform, he says, is "too much to hope for."
>>
>>
>>
>> The article, "Against the Law Reviews," is online at
>>
>> http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2004/review_
>>
>> posner_novdec04.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
