Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
williamholden1
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby williamholden1 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:35 pm

Why is Boston U so poor in this department? Did I choose poorly?

cornellbeez
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:43 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby cornellbeez » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:41 pm

snotrocket wrote:
cornellbeez wrote:I have a useful question: why do Michigan and Virginia kick clerkship ass?

I think there are some obvious eyeball correlations between the stats in the OP and these:

--LinkRemoved--

So it's not just an M-V thing, and probably not much of a regional phenomenon either. It seems more a legacy of what schools have somehow or another wound up producing more federal judges than others. Most of the schools conspicuous on that list seem to wind up near the top here as well.


Interesting. Thanks for the link. This makes much more sense than the other theory. Basically, judges hire their own.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Blindmelon » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:41 pm

williamholden1 wrote:Why is Boston U so poor in this department? Did I choose poorly?


Theres not much love for Boston schools minus the big guy. It is sort of disheartening.... ugh, choosing BU over GW still plagues me all the timmeeeee.... Still think I made the right choise. Still don't think GW is worth the extra 30k$.

User avatar
CE2JD
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby CE2JD » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:55 pm

The weather fight in this thread was pathetic. All parties involved in that fight should immediately killself.

User avatar
badlydrawn
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:11 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby badlydrawn » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:44 am

williamholden1 wrote:Why is Boston U so poor in this department? Did I choose poorly?



--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
chris0805
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby chris0805 » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:45 pm

1) Most of our clerks don't work in the 6th circuit.
2) Why aren't the schools located in circuit 9 faring better? Circuit 9 is the largest circuit and has the most case flow. In other words, why are circuit 9 schools (except Stanford) doing so shitastically for clerkship placement?
3) Why would Chicago, which basically has no competition in circuit 7 assuming your theory is accurate, do worse than the schools ranked above it? (Don't tell me Chi students are all gunning for biglaw now. While NU and Chi are the only top schools in circuit 7, NU does not even count as clerkship competition.)


1. That's a very good point
2. Schools in the 9th circuit aren't doing better because the 9th (and 2nd) circuit is one of the two most competitive circuits. If you're in the ninth circuit, you are at a competitive disadvantage because your "home" circuit is not going to give a fallback area.
3. That's a good question, but I was suprised that Chi and NU, who do fare well when looking at appellate clerkships, didn't do better here. I'll also note that the 7th is in fact much more competitive than 4th and 6th.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby 20160810 » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:51 pm

2 out of 189? Wow, UC Davis. Wow.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby ggocat » Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:01 pm

Nice work. Some interesting numbers.

knownot
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:13 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby knownot » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:07 am

Interesting to see that Chi-Kent is as high as it is. I would have guessed way lower.

Still can't decide between Kent ($$$) v. Wisconsin :cry:

jcwilsn1
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:35 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby jcwilsn1 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:29 am

knownot wrote:Interesting to see that Chi-Kent is as high as it is. I would have guessed way lower.

Still can't decide between Kent ($$$) v. Wisconsin :cry:


Those 10 clerkships are going to make up your mind? man pick UW and I'll see you there! look at nlj250 stats and any other stats imaginable. go UW

User avatar
vexion
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:29 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby vexion » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:59 pm

I'm really excited about Kentucky's placement. 15th! Anyone know of any special circumstances that brought that on? Kentucky is my UG alma mater/safety school.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:58 am

Just out of curiosity does this chart include the federal court of appeals clerks or no?

snotrocket
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:13 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby snotrocket » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:29 pm

adh07d wrote:Just out of curiosity does this chart include the federal court of appeals clerks or no?

It's all Article III judges, as I understand it -- so yes, it includes COA.

CaliforniaLaw
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 12:04 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby CaliforniaLaw » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:29 am

.
Last edited by CaliforniaLaw on Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:46 am

I just noticed, this list doesn't match up with this http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf at all, where is the discrepancy resolved?

Hitachi
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:38 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Hitachi » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:13 am

Not to mention it's measuring a different thing.

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby ruleser » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:20 am

Way to go Ohio State and Wash and Lee - Ohio State I think is misrepped by the rankings, as it is the top school in that state, while others ahead of it, such as W and M and W and L are secondary to UVA, GW is secondary to GULC, etc.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:53 am

Hitachi wrote:Not to mention it's measuring a different thing.


Where is the difference between a judicial clerkship, and the clerkships listed on page 1

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby ggocat » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:52 am

adh07d wrote:
Hitachi wrote:Not to mention it's measuring a different thing.


Where is the difference between a judicial clerkship, and the clerkships listed on page 1

The NLJ data includes all clerkships (Article I, state courts), not just Article III.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:24 pm

ggocat wrote:
adh07d wrote:
Hitachi wrote:Not to mention it's measuring a different thing.


Where is the difference between a judicial clerkship, and the clerkships listed on page 1

The NLJ data includes all clerkships (Article I, state courts), not just Article III.


Sorry for the series of noobish questions, but what is the difference between them in terms of prestige and actual function?

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby ggocat » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:56 pm

adh07d wrote:
ggocat wrote:The NLJ data includes all clerkships (Article I, state courts), not just Article III.

Sorry for the series of noobish questions, but what is the difference between them in terms of prestige and actual function?

This is a rough guide of what many would say is the order of prestige, organized by "tier":
1. U.S. Supreme Court (Article III)
2. U.S. Courts of Appeals (Article III)
3. U.S. District Courts - District Judges (Article III); highest appellate court in a state (State)
4. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts (Article I); U.S. Tax Court (Article I); U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Article I); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (Article I); U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (Article I); and various other "specialized" Article I tribunals.
5. U.S. District Courts - Magistrate Judges (Article I, but sometimes believed to be Article III); state intermediate appellate courts (State).
6. State trial level courts (State).

The tier 4 courts are only ranked above other courts if you have an interest in the field. If you don't want to practice bankruptcy, tax, government contracts, etc., then I would go to a U.S. magistrate judge or state intermediate appellate court judge before one of the tier 4 courts.

The U.S. Courts of Appeals are generally seen as the most prestigious clerkship you can obtain as a student (that is, you are hired as a student and work for a year after graduating). There tends to be a large drop off in general prestige after the tier 3 courts. But tier 4 courts are only slightly less prestigious than tier 3 courts if you plan to practice in that area of law (although some people might argue that some tier 4 courts, like the U.S. Tax Court, are more prestigious than tier 3 courts if you plan to practice in that area of law).

Although subject matter tends to differ quite a bit among Article I, Article III, and State courts, "function" (i.e., how much researching, writing, sitting in on trials, etc.) depends more on the level (i.e., highest appellate, intermediate appellate, trial) than on the Article I vs. Article III or Federal vs. State distinctions. Thus, job functions will be similar at the U.S. Supreme Court and highest appellate court in a given state. Job functions will also be similar at the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the state intermediate appellate courts, and the Article I appellate courts. The same is true for trial-level courts, such as U.S. District Courts, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, and U.S. magistrate judges. (Admittedly, I've had almost no exposure to state trial level clerks, which some states don't even have, so I'm not sure how much overlap there is in job functions with the federal system.)

FRCPlover
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby FRCPlover » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:16 pm

Olto wrote:Is this only for class of '09 placement? I'm pretty sure that these stats are bunk if not -- that is, if they cover EVERY clerk from a school regardless of their graduation year. There are plenty of clerks who have been out of school for years.


Also, there are about ~960 clerks on that list. Let's further assume that there are some schools with maybe one clerk not on that list -- so we round the number to 1,000. There are roughly 800 active federal judges with another 450 senior judges. Let's assume that the average active judge has two clerks*. That means there are at least 1,600 clerk positions. The numbers above only cover a little more than half of that. I don't know how a "senior" judge operates, but even assuming that they only have ONE clerk -- that's another 450 right there that are unaccounted for.

* Keep in mind, with two per judge... I'm not counting the four judges that each SCOTUS member has, and the high numbers that circuit courts normally have (upwards of four or five in many cases). Two per judge seems fair. The district court judge I am interning for has four clerks -- two full-time clerks, a deputy clerk, and a special master for a complex issue. Admittedly, she's probably in the minority with four at the district court level.

In sum, these numbers just don't make sense to me. I know two clerks from a single school alone, and I find it hard to believe that I know ~6% of the clerks from that school.


Since you are interning for a federal judge I take it that you are not trying to debunk these numbers by presenting data with the assumption that all federal clerkships are filled on a yearly basis. A great many judges have career clerks and a great many judges hire clerks for two-year periods. And many clerks are not coming directly from law school, but have either clerked for another judge or practiced law for a few years. So in my view the proposition that about 1000 article three federal clerkships are offered to graduating law students on an annual basis is not, as you suggest, unreasonable.

lawclerkaddict
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:03 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby lawclerkaddict » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:14 pm


User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby Helmholtz » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:23 pm

lawclerkaddict wrote:Great work, here's something to toss into the gumbo: http://www.abajournal.com/news/north_dakota_law_dean_says_u.s._news_info_on_clerkships_is_wrong/


You're telling me North Dakota doesn't place a quarter of its students into Article III clerkships? Bullshit.

irishman86
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 am

Re: Clerkship Placement Stats 2009

Postby irishman86 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:22 pm

I saw this linked in another thread. Cool charts.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest