Did only 6 over the past two days. Towards the end I was getting better at interviewing, but kept wondering how much I said meant anything to the interviewers at all.

Here’s what I am looking at: 18 interviews. CBs from the following so far, in the order of interviews: Sk, DPW, L&W, W&C, GDC, STB, D&P, SA, JD, PW. Will go on a few of these to see what the firms are like. Haven’t received a rejection yet but I am sure some are on the way.

Only 4 interviews today but still as tired as yesterday.

got the first callback from a good firm I interviewed with today. Two “dinner invites,” supposedly the precursor to a callback, from two good firms. Had to skip both dinners but managed to find time to go to one of the cocktail parties before dinner — almost the whole cite-checking team from the Law Review was there. That firm attracted some good people from Michigan.

8 interviews today, followed by an hour-long meeting in the library. I hate to hear my own voice now.

decompressing, very slowly, in my room… have to go through the drill again tomorrow.

if I could do it all over again I’d probably bid on half as many firms as I did, but, being the ultra-risk-averse type (a.k.a. law students), almost everyone of us bid both high and low in case we get screwed up by the lottery system. the law school should just allow students to cancel unwanted interviews after the schedules are released. I know it looks bad on the law school if its students keep cancelling interviews, but at least that saves both the interviewer’s time and the interviewee’s time.

A full day of note researching and drafting. Will have to read up on the firms tomorrow to prepare for the OCI on Monday.

I have probably 25-30 law review articles printed out as my sources, in addition to a long list of cases and a number of articles from the economics side of the academic world, and am at a complete loss how to organize them and find information quickly.

Also some observations from reading these articles:
- some of these articles are unnecessarily long. Sometimes the basic idea can be explained in a few pages but the author decides to drag it out over almost a hundred pages.
- some of these articles repeat what’s been said by the same author in other articles, word for word. No citiations to the original were given. If this was done to someone else’s work it would be plagarism. But somehow if you are repeating what you said before elsewhere then it is OK to not cite.
- Law Review articles have unnecessarily long and odd titles. Sometimes they try to be funny too, but often fails to disguise the dry nature of the piece.
- Some legal scholars tend to use concrete examples with toy numbers when a simple formula with a few variables would do the job more elegantly.
- Law Review editors, being law students themselves, sometimes let obvious math errors slip through. See, e.g.,
Richard L. Revesz, Envrionmental Regulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Discounting of Human Lives, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 941, 990-91 (1999) (neglecting to include the present value of future damage of $600 when calculating the harm of the contamination).

Today. Tomorrow is the LC move-in day. I will get to see what my new room looks like, and haul in my clothes, computer, fridge and all the other good stuff stored in the basement of the LC.

Spent much of the day typing away on my laptop working on my LR Note. I have a really good feeling about it but the insecurity that someone might have already written on this issue still haunts me from time to time (how is it possible that no one caught this rather obvious problem?), but hope that this topic is yet another one of those “a-ha” things that people don’t think of unless being reminded of.

Also today I received an offer for 2L summer from WGM, the firm that I interviewed with in NY last Friday. Took them longer than usual to contact me and so I thought they had already dinged me, but it looks like I didn’t mess up that interview too badly.

OCI starts next Monday.

Law Review orientation started this Monday and will last until Friday. I averaged about 30 minutes per footnote when citechecking and spent 5 hours checking 10 of them today. Also revised my outline for the note I will have to write, and am now much more confident about the note.

As it turned out, all my prior training has been useful for the law review. My note will be a law & economics note, making use of my math and econ background. I also volunteered my help with the tech editors at the law review and will help with the website stuff as well as perhaps the online companion to the law review — looks like the skills I acquired in my former life as a computer geek will be once again useful.

Will need to find some time to write down some impressions about law review and research some firms for the upcoming OCI. The firm where I went on a CB promised to call me within 2 business days… well that didn’t happen, so it doesn’t look too promising. Oh well. At least I have an offer from a firm I really like, so it’s at most one wasted trip to NY and some free airline miles.

Left Chicago this morning. Spent the day in NYC. Will fly back to Detroit tomorrow then drive to Ann Arbor to meet up with Ping.

So my 2L year will officially begin in a few days. Supposedly it is the year “they work you to death.” (It is said that the first year they scare you to death — something that did not materialize as far as I am concerned, and the third year they bore you to death — something that I hope won’t happen.) It looks like I already have a full schedule, for the next few weeks anyway.