Selection Process – Generally
The Law Review holds an annual write-on competition to select new staff members from the first year class. The Spring competition consists of a case comment and a citation test.
Each Spring, Law Review staff members create the write-on competition packet (“packet”) that forms the basis of the case analysis. The packet consists of approximately two to three hundred pages, which includes one case that is the subject of the case analysis and a series of diverse sources that discuss the relevant issue. The packet is distributed soon after the final examination for the spring semester.
Candidates will have fourteen days to complete a citation test and write a case analysis that conforms to the packet’s standards. Candidates author their citation test and case analysis anonymously by using their RUID number.
Membership Guidelines Concerning Annual Write-On Competition
These rules, approved by a majority of the Law Review membership, reflect the Law Review’s absolute commitment to academic honesty, fairness and integrity. These rules are as much ideals as they are regulations. They are intended to provide guidance to current and potential members. Above all, the rules 1) ensure that each member of the Law Review feels confident in his/her achievements, 2) maintain the integrity of the selection process, and 3) uphold the prestige of Law Review membership.
I. On Notice
Each year, at the General Interest Meeting, the Law Review shall introduce the section of the by-laws pertaining to the Write-On prohibitions. This presentation will be designed to put potential participants “On Notice” of the Law Review’s by-laws and policies. In addition, the Law Review will provide an “On Notice Memo” that is designed to put students on notice of the Law Review’s by-laws.
II. Sample Case Analyses
A. General: The Write-On Committee shall make available, by publishing to the Law Review’s website, between three and five sample case analyses. These sample case analyses will be drawn from successful competition submissions prepared by current or former Law Review members.
B. Availability: The analyses will remain on the website throughout the duration of the Write-On process.
C. Contents: The materials placed on reserve will include only the textual portion of the analyses. Footnotes will not be included. The materials should not indicate whether footnotes are correct or incorrect. The analyses should include no identification of their authors.
D. Disclaimer: The authors of these case analyses were offered membership to the Rutgers University Law Review. However, these submissions were not necessarily among the ten highest-scored submissions (authors of which receive offers of membership without reference to grade point average). These analyses are for reference only and do not necessarily conform to current competition style, formatting, or citing requirements.
E. Selection: The Write-On Committee shall draw case analyses from competition submissions by former or current Law Review members. Analyses will be placed on reserve only with their authors’ consent.
A. General: Law Review members shall not discuss the competition with participants or potential participants. Participants and potential participants shall not discuss the competition with anyone, including, but not limited to: past or current Law Review members, family, friends, coworkers, faculty or other participants or potential participants. This ban includes, but is not limited to, discussions concerning:
3. Structure of Comment;
5. Competition Tactics;
6. Procedures for compiling the Write-On packet;
8. Strategy for reading, analyzing and dissecting the Write-On packet; or
9. Time Management.
B. Website: The Law Review Website shall be updated to include general information on the Write-On process. Members may direct candidates and potential candidates to the website.
C. Exceptions: In recognition of the difficulty of determining, on an individual, discretionary basis, what communication violates these rules, it is the intention of the Law Review members that this rule be applied broadly to all conversations concerning the write-on process.
Law Review members shall decline to discuss the competition, even rejecting conversational niceties by informing participants or potential participants that Law Review rules do not allow discussion of the competition.
There are only three recognizable exceptions:
1. Law Review may hold a General Information Meeting[s] to present information. The substance of a general information session will be left to the determination of the Write-On Committee. Furthermore, any General Information Meeting must be 1) open to the entire student body, 2) be advertised and organized in a manner expected to notify the entire student body and to maximize attendance.
2. The “On Notice Meeting” outlined in these by-laws;
3. Sanctioned Statements and Topics:
– Law Review members are chosen through a Write-On Competition;
– You have 14 days to write your case comment;
– Stay calm;
– There is a large packet;
– Go to the Law Review website for more information;
– Law Review members may discuss current responsibilities on Law Review;
– Confirmation of important dates and times; i.e. date of General Information Meeting, due date of submission;
– Selection Process
IV. Enforcement and Compliance
Law Review members found to have violated the communications policy set forth above will be removed from Law Review membership. In addition, violations of this policy will be referred to the administration and may constitute violations of the University Honor Code.
Any other misconduct relating to or during the competition may constitute a violation of the University Honor Code and may be considered as such by the administration without reference to Law Review judicial proceedings or regulations.
Any participant or potential participant found by the Law Review to be in violation of these by-laws will be disqualified from the Law Review Write-On process.
Procedure for Evaluation
of Write-On Competition Submissions
The submissions are evaluated in two stages. In the initial stage, three or more members of the incoming Editorial Board (“Board”) read each case analysis. Footnote graders focus on grading footnotes in the case analysis for citation accuracy, creativity, conformance with technical requirements, etc. Text graders focus on four essential attributes of legal writing: quality of writing, organization, legal analysis, and legal evaluation.
Submissions are graded according to the following weighted allocation scheme:
|Endnotes in the Case Comment||20%|
|Quality of Writing||10%|
The Board assigns each paper a grade based on the above criteria and weight. The Editor-in-Chief then averages the scores. The five submissions with the highest averaged scores are automatically offered staff positions.
The Law Review may then select, at its discretion, additional staff members based on the combined average of the submission’s grade and the author’s grade point average.
Applicants in the Minority Student Program (“MSP”) indicate this by sending an email to email@example.com before the end of the competition. During grading, an overall ratio is generated by comparing the number of MSP applicants to the overall number of applicants. No further applicants are accepted if the proportion of MSP and who were already accepted for staff positions is equal to or greater than the overall ratio. If the proportion is less than the overall ratio, additional MSP applicants shall be admitted in the order of their ranking until the accepted proportion roughly equals the overall ratio. The MSP factor is thus applied only to those applicants who demonstrated the ability to produce Law Review-quality work.