adversarial indeed

so i had my law review interview this weekend. law review is the legal journal published by each legal institution. it's the journal that has rigorous requirements so that only the top students make it in. it's also the student activity that the most prestigious institutions require before you will even be considered for a position with them.

the interview was not pleasant--at all. out of all the legal interviews i have had this year, this one was the worst. it was everything that people don't like about the legal world. it was a committee of egos attacking my character and ability and willingness to contribute to the law review. it was rude questions and interruptions. it was simply horrible. i left not wanting to join. i left thinking that some of the editors had a personal problem with me. i tried to discern whether it was my grades, my writing style, my commitments to church and faith... i couldn't figure it out.

and then i started talking with the other students who'd interviewed. they explained they had somewhat similar experiences, though i'm not sure anyone else thought it was as personally directed as it seemed to me. so then i thought maybe the board was just trying to weed people out--people who don't belong because they won't work hard or aren't tough enough.

but then i had my final draft conference for the paper i'm writing for sumission to the law review, and my professor asked how my interview went. she then told me that though all her other students had the same experience, it was not typical of our law review interview. she basically apologized for the board's behavior and told me that she had already complained to their advisor and requested that something be done about it.

even during the rude questions and disrepectful attitudes, the committee kept asking me questions about being willing to sacrifice for a team and whether i would be willing to go the extra mile to make sure things were done. it seems counterintuitive to me though, if you're going for teamwork, that you would start out by disparaging your team members. somehow that doesn't seem like the kind of teambuilding that i would want to do if i were heading up the team. for all the competitiveness and adversarial nature of the legal world, i still believe that you get the best out of a team if they actually believe they are valued and respected and have something to contribute.

so i'm taking a position on the law review, but i'm not excited about it. i think there's a real possibility that it could be a horrible experience. but i do it because it has to be on my resume.

for the most part i've had a really positive experience with my school. i've had great professors, the other students have been interesting, and i have learned a ton. for the most part, my school actually has a collaborative atmosphere, meaning that though there's competition for grades and such, people really do help one another out. this is the kind of experience i would have stereotyped law school to encourage, but had hoped to never have to encounter. i suppose if it is the worst that i have to endure, then i will have gotten off pretty easy. but i am very disappointed in our law review, and am now looking forward to the day it will be over for me.

it will be interesting to see if it's really as bad as the interview made it seem.