First to say snooty know-nothing 3L articles editors telling professors (who have actually obtained a JD) how their articles can be better / more timely is the epitome of irony.

that anonymous blog is truly craptackular.

what pompous assholes.

glad i was a Note Editor. Articles Editors are pompous, preening fools who simultaneously yearn to asskiss name profs.

I propose flooding the comments on that website with criticism. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways.

I was not so impressed with Turbo Tax. Based on information I provided at the very beginning it failed to properly determine what were the correct state forms for me. Things became obviously wrong and I had to check state tax booklets to see where they were messing up.

I actually agree with everything I read at the anonymous editor's blog ... and I still think it is pompous.

"I actually agree with everything I read at the anonymous editor's blog ... and I still think it is pompous."

agreed, although the reality is that the professors submitting articles are the ones applying for selection; this necessarily puts the editors in the position to expect at least a certain level of quality in those submissions. however different things are in the classroom, in the context of law review, the roles are reversed to some degree.

those 3Ls may not know anything, but they're the ones making the calls re: publication, so they get to have their say. i suppose you could say they're the "deciders."

law professors do submit some horrid crap, though.

Legal academia is a joke because it does not have peer-reviewed journals. Why in the world do students decide what is worthy of being published?

The anonymous articles editors could be better writers. There are grammar, syntax, and word usage errors galore in their advice. Can they edit if they can't write?