Getting antsy Forum

[Anonymous User]

It is remarkable to me that any clerkship office would not have a list of alumni who clerked for various judges. Also OP sounds like an entitled jerk. I know people who are too 5% at T14s who are also struggling. These
People are almost certainly smarter and easier to get along with than OP.

[lavarman84]

It is remarkable to me that any clerkship office would not have a list of alumni who clerked for various judges. Also OP sounds like an entitled jerk. I know people who are too 5% at T14s who are also struggling. These
People are almost certainly smarter and easier to get along with than OP.

My school doesn't even have a clerkship office. And they don't have a list like that either. The "clerkship office" is one of the CSOs who's considered the clerkship adviser.

[Minnietron]

I was kicking myself for reading this thread rather than learning about standard of review as it relates to Con Law; fortunately, I accomplished both!

[JackOfAllTrades]

Meanwhile, I'm loving the idea that the LSAT is a totally bullshit screener exam, and the role it plays is absolutely criminal, but being in the top 5% of your class--which shows great skill at taking law-school exams--is the real and true indicator of applicant quality. Plenty of people with great GPAs would have trouble reasoning their way out of a paper bag. It's no better an objective indicator than anything else.

The OP raises a good point in the sense that having hard and fast rules that aren't disclosed in the application process wastes everyone's time. In a perfect world, if a judge is only going to look at applicants from three schools, it might be better to simply make that known. But exceptions arise, and hard and fast rules bend (I know of a judge who formerly hired only from his regional alma mater, but who suddenly found himself employing a ton of Stanford grads, because, well, why not?).

The process is arbitrary. It sucks. It took me longer than I'd like to admit to get a gig. But as others have said, such is life; these are the cards you have been dealt. Play them as you may.

Thanks for the reply.

Virtually no one -- I don't care how smart you are -- can be in the top 5% of their class after 2-4 semesters without going to class, taking notes, and busting their ass. Every teacher is different and has his or her own quirks and things they like to focus on.

The LSAT, in contrast, is completely uniform across the country. You can't get a private tutor to teach you Professor Smith's contracts class.

Furthermore, it's ONE TEST. You can take it multiple times, but it's still just one test. Two to four semesters of grades is like 8-20 tests on all different subjects.

So yeah, I stand by that. Not saying that I have some alternative at the ready, but the LSAT should be abolished.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Sincerely curious: why a federal clerkship and not a state clerkship? Being a federal clerk sounds like a wonderful gig, but my understanding is that it's a lot of employment discrimination, section 1983 stuff, and things arising under a patchwork of statutes that share little in common other than having been passed by (the federal) Congress. thats great if that's what you're into, but if you're into being a federal clerk because of the fancy word "federal," I'm not sure that's much different than being into an applicant because her resume has a fancy school name on it.

could be a sign that it's worth looking into state court options too. either way good luck!

I am actually really fascinated by federal law. I did an externship over the summer and knew right away I wanted to clerk in federal court.

[JackOfAllTrades]

OP, I'm in basically the same situation you are (top 5% at a TTT), and I've had the same feelings of disappointment, but unfortunately this is exactly the system you entered when you chose to attend your school (and, later, when you chose not to transfer). We live in an era where it's stupidly easy to filter applications to scan for keywords like "harvard" and "yale" and whatever other schools you want to narrow down to - it' s not just judges that do this, but all legal employers. Is it a shitty system? I guess that's a valid way to look at it. But, unfortunately for people like you and me, that's how it is and how it's always been. It's never really been a secret that pedigree is absolutely essential in this industry, and I'm not sure why you're so surprised that you aren't the special snowflake that can rise above that fact.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding the value of the higher ranking. Very few people seriously claim that HYS students are inherently better than students at any other law schools, particularly if you look at the pool of newly minted baby lawyers, none of whom can do anything. We all get the same education, more or less. The difference lies in the fact that, at HYS, you are surrounded by people and alumni who can get you what you need. I mean, FFS, at my internship last summer I worked with someone who went to H and mentioned that I was interested in clerking and they showed me their clerking resources from their CSO. It was utterly mind boggling compared to what I was used to from my TTT CSO. Detailed, with names of alumni who had clerked there and plenty of judges who themselves had themselves gone to school there. I can think of about two living alumni from my school who are federal judges.

yeah I agree with all this.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Virtually no one -- I don't care how smart you are -- can be in the top 5% of their class after 2-4 semesters without going to class, taking notes, and busting their ass. Every teacher is different and has his or her own quirks and things they like to focus on.

I don't actually think this is true, sadly. But probably the more important point is that the GPA benefits people who figure out how to take law school exams quicker, which isn't especially related to lawyering ability either (since no lawyer is going to sit down to solve a client's problems in three hours by themselves based only on course outlines). I know lots of people who didn't figure out law school exams until sometime after their first semester, but by then their GPAs were still screwed (especially at the time of clerkship hiring). If you want to say that ability to learn how to take law school exams quickly is a sign that someone is smarter than other people...eh, that seems a self-serving definition.

I agree that the LSAT generally measures test-taking ability over other abilities. But while I think there are lots of people whose LSATs unfairly deflate someone's apparent ability, I also think there's no way the very top scorers aren't pretty damn smart. Even if you brute force your way to 175+ through months of study, that requires a kind of discipline and focus that will probably transfer over fairly well.

Also, I've clerked in both federal and state court, and there's nothing magical about federal law that makes it more exciting or intellectually satisfying. Barring something like copyright that's exclusively federal, I have a hard time thinking federal court offers anything state doesn't, other than prestige. State clerkships can be a great experience, and (to be a little more constructive than I have been) getting a SSC clerkship (or even court of appeals) can be a big help in moving on to a subsequent federal clerkship.

(FWIW, one of the judges I worked for wouldn't consider candidates who didn't have work experience before law school. He didn't care if that was waiting tables or being a ski bum, he just didn't want someone who'd only ever been a student. So the other thing is it's really hard to generalize about what judges do/don't value. He also didn't find journal membership very meaningful, because he felt anyone who really wanted to could get on a journal, and it didn't really say anything about your writing ability. So this all goes back to the idea that it's necessary to apply really broadly, because you don't know what judge you might click with for some reason you can't foresee.)

[Emma.]

Very few people seriously claim that HYS students are inherently better than students at any other law schools, particularly if you look at the pool of newly minted baby lawyers, none of whom can do anything.

I agree with you that new lawyers are all quite useless, but I think almost everyone in the legal profession thinks that students from HYS and the other T14 are of a higher caliber than students at TTTs. And I think you are wrong that the education is the same across all law schools (though it isn't clear which way that cuts as far as lawyering skills, since you can graduate from Yale without learning anything practical whatsoever).

[lavarman84]

Very few people seriously claim that HYS students are inherently better than students at any other law schools, particularly if you look at the pool of newly minted baby lawyers, none of whom can do anything.

I agree with you that new lawyers are all quite useless, but I think almost everyone in the legal profession thinks that students from HYS and the other T14 are of a higher caliber than students at TTTs. And I think you are wrong that the education is the same across all law schools (though it isn't clear which way that cuts as far as lawyering skills, since you can graduate from Yale without learning anything practical whatsoever).

I agree that students at top schools are more capable on average. However, I don't think education varies much. But if it does, I wouldn't be surprised if that cuts against the top schools. However, that's pure conjecture.

[wwwcol]

This thread has been a spectacular read.

[timmyd]

Clerkship hiring is really more complex than going to a certain school and ranking in a certain percentage. I got a fed dist after ranking top 6% at a ttt and then graduating top 15% from UT. Based on this thread, I appear to be an anomaly. But it turns out my judge likes to hire kids from the area with good writing skills. I guess I conveyed those traits better than other applicants. Sure, there are some judges that won't look outside of Ivy League schools. However, there are likely more that will. You being called in for an interview proves that. I have a hunch that you wernt offered bc you came off as douchey or something. It wasn't your grades or school.

[blahblewblah]

Meanwhile, I'm loving the idea that the LSAT is a totally bullshit screener exam, and the role it plays is absolutely criminal, but being in the top 5% of your class--which shows great skill at taking law-school exams--is the real and true indicator of applicant quality. Plenty of people with great GPAs would have trouble reasoning their way out of a paper bag. It's no better an objective indicator than anything else.

The OP raises a good point in the sense that having hard and fast rules that aren't disclosed in the application process wastes everyone's time. In a perfect world, if a judge is only going to look at applicants from three schools, it might be better to simply make that known. But exceptions arise, and hard and fast rules bend (I know of a judge who formerly hired only from his regional alma mater, but who suddenly found himself employing a ton of Stanford grads, because, well, why not?).

The process is arbitrary. It sucks. It took me longer than I'd like to admit to get a gig. But as others have said, such is life; these are the cards you have been dealt. Play them as you may.

Thanks for the reply.


Virtually no one -- I don't care how smart you are -- can be in the top 5% of their class after 2-4 semesters without going to class, taking notes, and busting their ass. Every teacher is different and has his or her own quirks and things they like to focus on.

The LSAT, in contrast, is completely uniform across the country. You can't get a private tutor to teach you Professor Smith's contracts class.

Furthermore, it's ONE TEST. You can take it multiple times, but it's still just one test. Two to four semesters of grades is like 8-20 tests on all different subjects.

So yeah, I stand by that. Not saying that I have some alternative at the ready, but the LSAT should be abolished.

What do you replace the LSAT with then? Students' GPAs from wildly different colleges in wildly different majors? The whole problem with your premise is that you seem to think there is some magical perfect criteria that makes it easy to sort law school applicants and potential law clerks based on merit (and that just happens to correspond to the areas in which you think you excel). That criteria just doesn't exist. Instead we are stuck with the system that is definitely not perfect, but does a fairly decent job of sorting applicants roughly based on merit.

Also, even with the LSAT, in order to do well you either have to "bust your ass" or be really smart. It's not like you can go have someone take the test for you. Even if you have a tutor you still have to have the capacity to do well and do the work.

[052220152]

I don't think that! I think we should all at least get a look.

Do you think there's something wrong with the HLS admissions department not reading the personal statements (and all the letters of rec) from an applicant with a 145 LSAT?

If that person has really good grades, then hell yes there is something wrong with that. The LSAT is a test that rich kids can literally pay to have other people teach them to take. The fact that you think a low LSAT score should immediately disqualify applicants proves my entire point.

im poor and did good on the lsat because im smart and worked at it. you sound like you should have been smarter or worked harder so that you could have done better on the lsat and gone to a non-shitty law school

[psu2016]

I don't think that! I think we should all at least get a look.

Do you think there's something wrong with the HLS admissions department not reading the personal statements (and all the letters of rec) from an applicant with a 145 LSAT?

If that person has really good grades, then hell yes there is something wrong with that. The LSAT is a test that rich kids can literally pay to have other people teach them to take. The fact that you think a low LSAT score should immediately disqualify applicants proves my entire point.

im poor and did good on the lsat because im smart and worked at it. you sound like you should have been smarter or worked harder so that you could have done better on the lsat and gone to a non-shitty law school

Jack seems to have wayyyyy bigger problems than going to a TTT.

edit: it's psu2016, accidental anon.

[052220152]

also id like to say, that giving you the job would be unmeritocratic. you clearly failed to do your research when beginning your career and we shouldn't reward that kind of failure to look into the basic outcomes that are associated with the different schools. although, it seems self-evident that the better (i.e., higher ranked) school you go to, the better typical outcome. but, you failed to even recognize that simple pattern when beginning your legal career. I think its good that chambers are tossing out your TTT application at a fast clip.

[pancakes3]

This has been a fantastic read. TY OP.

[North]

Something tells me OP would find any clerk hiring system ~structurally unjust~ that didn't result in him being a shoe-in for his favorite clerkship.

Hiring from top schools only? INJUSTICE.
Hiring based on regional ties? UNFAIR.
Hiring based on recommendations from legal professionals? TRIGGERED.
Hiring only from the top 5% at TT and above? Oh yeah that sounds pretty reasonable.

[DougEvans789]

Sincerely curious: why a federal clerkship and not a state clerkship? Being a federal clerk sounds like a wonderful gig, but my understanding is that it's a lot of employment discrimination, section 1983 stuff, and things arising under a patchwork of statutes that share little in common other than having been passed by (the federal) Congress. thats great if that's what you're into, but if you're into being a federal clerk because of the fancy word "federal," I'm not sure that's much different than being into an applicant because her resume has a fancy school name on it.

could be a sign that it's worth looking into state court options too. either way good luck!

I am actually really fascinated by federal law. I did an externship over the summer and knew right away I wanted to clerk in federal court.

But how? What thread of interest unites the weird islands of subject matter that federal law touches on? To me, it just sounds like the same prestige chasing that you're perhaps fairly railing against...

[bruinfan10]

.

[052220152]

Virtually no one -- I don't care how smart you are -- can be in the top 5% of their class after 2-4 semesters without going to class, taking notes, and busting their ass. Every teacher is different and has his or her own quirks and things they like to focus on.

The LSAT, in contrast, is completely uniform across the country. You can't get a private tutor to teach you Professor Smith's contracts class.

Furthermore, it's ONE TEST. You can take it multiple times, but it's still just one test. Two to four semesters of grades is like 8-20 tests on all different subjects.

So yeah, I stand by that. Not saying that I have some alternative at the ready, but the LSAT should be abolished.

I was better than top-5% at a T14 and didn't even come close to "busting my ass" to keep my GPA up. People can learn the law school exam system--just like they can learn the LSAT system--if they find what works for them and don't just follow the grinder path like lemmings. I similarly didn't use a test prep class to cram for the LSAT--I got some books and practiced old exams while I was interning at a law office during the day and waiting tables to pay rent at night. My score got me into the T14 with a partial scholly, so I went. I would never have accepted an offer from a T50 because everyone knows that job prospects (including clerkship prospects) out of T50s are terrible. So, as best I can tell...you don't understand the LSAT, you don't understand law school applications, and you don't understanding legal hiring. You just make bad decisions.

When it came time to send clerkship applications during 2L, I was up till 3-4 AM routinely during the peak months, researching judges and putting together scores of paper mailing applications (I suppose I took out more federal loans to cover whatever the cost of that paper was). I also spent hours talking to former clerks of as many of the judges to whom I was applying as I could about the application process and about their judges' hiring practices, so I quickly learned--unlike you--the difference between a phone recommendation and a paper recommendation (none of the judges, including those who hired me, knew my recommenders from adam). Because I'd figured out how to take law school exams without "busting my ass," I had time to get on LR ed board AND place in moot competitions, receive honors in and then TA legal writing, AND I didn't shoot myself in the foot by applying to a specific geographic location (because I understood that clerkship hiring is insanely competitive).

I had friends who were both smarter and harder working than I was who applied for clerkships with me: some of us got clerkships, some didn't, and we all thanked our lucky stars when we managed to land an interview. So again, as best I can tell, you don't understand the clerkship application process, the required qualifications, the competitiveness of the positions, the importance of geographic flexibility, how to hustle for interviews, or how lucky anyone is to get an interview. But you are good at talking down to Supreme Court justices, so you've got that going for you. To the extent this absurd game is a meritocracy---and it largely is, in ways that you haven't quite grasped, although there are exceptions at the margins---you just don't have much merit compared to your co-applicants.

hmm. imagine that--identifying you want to do something and then taking the best route to get there doesnt mean you didnt deserve it

[los blancos]

Don't tell this bro about the median@t-14 types that belatedly hustle their way into A3 clerkships through WE/connections/whatever - might have a meltdown.

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

Don't tell this bro about the median@t-14 types that belatedly hustle their way into A3 clerkships through WE/connections/whatever - might have a meltdown.

How do you think he'll react when he hears about the below-median HYSers who hustled into AIII clerkships? An even more entertaining meltdown

[pancakes3]

holy shit bruinfan with the mic drop

[Anonymous User]

Welcome to TLS.

[ndirish2010]

I don't usually come to the clerkships forum to enjoy trolls, but this one was spectacular.

FWIW, I have noticed a huge difference in writing quality in the samples I have reviewed between T14/T25/T1 and TTT. My district judge just wouldn't hire anyone from a worse school than Wake Forest, basically.