About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 553 (1994)
Response, A

handle is hein.journals/uclr61 and id is 559 raw text is: A Response The Articles Editors Why are we publishing a set of essays debating the merits of the student-run law review? Similar commentary has appeared before, with apparently little effect on legal scholarship. But these critiques have come largely from outsiders. Adding the perspective of a current board may reveal hidden benefits of the current system and help screen out impracticable reforms. More important, however, we hope that our response will help bring about change, which seems improbable, if not impossible, without some measure of student involvement. Professor Lindgren's piece reminds us of the potential excess- es of student control and suggests further research into student editing practices, coupled with an immediate increase in faculty control. Professor Gordon demonstrates that the current regime has its benefits; unlike Lindgren, she thinks that research should precede any substantial change in law review practices. We agree with Professor Lindgren that useful reform need not await the results of an exhaustive study of the current system. Yet we believe that Lindgren's proposed solution (increased faculty control) is misguided. A better way to respond to Lindgren's concerns, while preserving the educational benefits of student autonomy, would be to institute moderate reforms of the current market in law review services. If journals gave professors more candid information about their selection and editing policies, professors could influence the journal market as educated con- sumers of student services, rather than through direct faculty control. I. SELECTING ARTICLES Professor Lindgren makes three principal points regarding articles selection. Law review boards privilege their interests over those of authors or subscribers; they have an elitist prefer- ence for credentials over substance; and they distort articles selection through their ignorance and their bias, as future clerks, in favor of federal subjects. Professor Gordon also advocates re- form, though she believes the benefits of student control out- weigh its vices.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most