BruceWayne wrote:The type of people you're having this argument with are the types of people who view grades as the be all end all, and view law school exam grading as an objective sound grading process--and as a good way of evaluating someone's grasp on a subject.
Isn't there a difference between thinking grades are the be all end all and thinking grades are objective measures of success as a clerk? I don't think grades are the most important thing in law school, but I would think they are still more useful than just about anything else a judge can look at to determine whether a student will make a good clerk. Writing samples are read by plenty of other people and are often not reflective of writing ability. Trying to judge personality based on an interview is difficult. I imagine recommendations could be the best metric, except that I imagine professors usually say the same types of things about how great candidates are, so it is hard to make distinctions.
If you have a variety of grades - some from 3 hour exams, some from take home longer exams, some from papers, some from LRW, etc. - don't you think that is far more reflective of a candidate's ability to grasp the law, write well, and research than most other metrics? But I haven't gone through the clerkship process so maybe I'm not getting it.