I just realized I haven’t written a whole lot about my law school life lately. One reason is that I’ve been busy reading for classes and reading a few articles for my research assistant work, leaving very little time for my to contemplate on what little things might have happened to me that I should record here. Another reason is that I am getting used to the law school life, more or less, so that few things seem as noteworthy as they used to. Life has gradually settled down into short walks between the dorm, Hutchins, Law Library and the dining hall on weekdays, and a long drive between Ann Arbor and Chicago on weekends.

One thing I also realized lately: I’ve been thinking and writing in the form of “First… Second… Third…” or some variants of that, probably as a result of reading judicial opinions and law review articles that write that way. I don’t know this is good or bad. At least now I don’t write “on the other hand” as often as I used to as an econ major — a common ailment of the economists that supposedly prompted an American president to say, “Give me a one-handed economist.”

I’ve now past the mid-point of my law school career. My remaining three semesters of law school will hopefully be as enjoyable as the first three, minus the occasional frustration and disappointment. But they also seem hardly suspenseful now. I pretty much know what classes I will take (Evidence, Federal Courts and some seminar in one, and a clinic or externship in the other), and what my life routine will be like.

In the next few days I will write a post on Animus Revertendi to explain what I’ve been reading for my research work lately. It’s an interesting area of property law, and I am curious as to what civil lawyers, especially Chinese lawyers, with the new Chinese Property Code in place, think about such things.

Earlier this month I sent Dean Zearfoss a number of questions I gathered from this blog and the Animus Revertendi blawg regarding foreign law school applicants. Now the answers are here on the Animus Revertendi blawg.

Spent much of the day revising my Note. With the help from my Note Editors, now it really starts to look pretty good.

When I was woken up by the alarm of my next door neighbor, I realized that I fell asleep last night reading a long and winding law review article. I wasn’t reading it for fun (who would?). It was assigned by the professor for whom I am working as a research assistant.

When you fall asleep reading perhaps one of the most influential articles in recent years defining the boundary between property rights and contract rights, you know you are not dreaming about becoming a law professor.

Now that all apps are in, here’s what I know:

28 people applied. There are 25 spots on the editorial board altogether. This may seem that it is fairly easy to get a spot on the ed board, but think again.

MLR is organized in the following way: there is one Editor-in-Chief, one Managing Editor. These two are the highest on the totem pole. The next two, immediately below them and arguably above anyone else, are one Executive Articles Editor and one Executive Notes Editor. They lead the Articles Office and the Notes Office, respectively. Articles Office selects and edits pieces from scholars; Notes Office selects and edit student Notes. There are around 5 Articles Editors in the Articles Office, and 5 Notes Editors in the Notes office. These members perform the traditional functions of a law review and every law review has them, although some may name these positions differently, and some journals have more than one executive notes or articles editor.

Then there are the generic “Executive Editors” and “Executive Editor of Technology.” Executive Editors do incorporation and pageproofing. Executive Editor of Technology runs the technical side of things, like the Web site.

Then there are the Book Review Editors and Symposium Editors. They take on more specific tasks such as publishing book reviews and organizing our annual symposia.

I think it’s fair to say that, other than the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor, most people think that the most desirable positions are the Executive Articles Editor and the Executive Notes Editor, followed by Articles Editor and Notes Editor. Other positions are generally less competitive.

I only applied to two positions. Just about everyone applied to more than two positions, and just about everyone applied to both of the two positions that I applied to. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

It looks like my resume needs to be updated with the following line:

Note, Now, Later, or Never: Applying Asymmetric Discount Rates in Nuisance Remedies and Federal Regulations, 105 Mich. L. Rev. __ (2007).

The Editor-in-Chief told me informally that this would make me the first 2L to publish a Note at the MLR in years, if not decades. I have no intention to back up this assertion with hard evidence, but it is certainly ego-boosting.