No blogging for a while. I've been in a frenzy of activity getting ready for my new job (which I officially start today) and getting my house into some semblance of order. I'm really looking forward to getting back into a regular schedule, even if it does include a 45-minute commute each day.
Anyway, I saw this post through E. McPan and thought I'd comment. I'm marginally qualified, having served on a law review board, but not having felt the full career effects yet. Translation: I don't know how much it will help my career down the road, only now. Keep that in mind when deciding whether I'm full of it.
My response is different than Elaine's, slightly. I think it depends on what you want for your career and what "law review" at your school means. In some schools, you basically learn how to check citations. In others, you learn a lot about writing through producing several drafts with feedback (and also check citations). So I think the decision to do law review depends on whether you a) want it for a career advantage, or b) want to learn the skills that go with it.
If neither of those matches your career objectives, you may not want to do it. For example, if you never plan on practicing, law review may add nothing valuable to your resume. And if all you'll learn is the Bluebook, that makes the experience of little intrinsic value.
But for most people, you should do it, and work hard to do it. This is particularly true for schools that allow students to write-on. Not all schools allow it, so take advantage while you can. This is particularly true in places like my school, where a major component is going through lots (lots!) of revised drafts of your case note or comment, and hopefully strengthening your writing.
Incidentally, my school is a bit more flexible: first-year students write proposals for case notes and, if accepted, spend their second year writing them, with several student-edited drafts (not as good as faculty-edited drafts, but better than no edits at all). Being invited gives absolutely no advantage in this process, other than possibly being better writers--not always true. The only thing invitation gives you is the possibility of being listed as "staff" even without being published; write-ons must publish to get the credential, while invitees must make a "good-faith effort."
You have felt the full career effects of law review already. You got your first job. After that, your career will rest squarely on your reputation as a lawyer. No one will care if you were on law review if you can't relate to your clients or lack social skills. No one will care about your GPA if you can't get results or develop a repuation for inattention to detail. That is yet to be seen for any noob in the field. As far as the skills law review imparts, perhaps blue book skills and research skills are the best you can hope for. As for the case note or comment writing process, it is far too artificial and academic to be useful in the practice of law. I blame the law review and legal writing experience on the tendency of young attorneys to file pleadings 5x longer than they need to be. In a business where time is money, we do not need a 40-page treatise on a particular issue when 5 pages is enough. And yet, that is all one sees from these recent graduates trying to dazzle their elders with everything they learned in law school. Law school is nothing more than 3 years of vocabulary classes. Law school and law review do not teach you how to write as a lawyer, how to try cases, how to deal with clients, or how to practice law. You need to learn this in practice. All your law review and law school did for you was give you an edge on getting that first job. From here on out, none of that will matter one bit.