Top Law Schools

minnbills wrote:I thought it was common knowledge that getting a federal clerkship can help you quite a bit in biglaw?

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:And if you're comfortable with your greatest achievement in your professional life being lateraling into a prestigious firm, then make sure to work your ass off and land a clerkship? Huh?

Look, if you feel that those who seek out clerkships are "more ambitious" than those who do not on the basis that the former are putting in additional work while the latter are slacking and enjoying the last year of top-law-schools.com, fine. I can see how one can reasonably attempt to link work ethic and ambition (and vice versa). However, all this nonsense about true ambition somehow being tied to not having your long-term career path being determined at the end of 2L summer is woefully unconvincing. In fact, the main example you set forth in support of your conception of "ambition" (i.e., the ability to lateral to a better firm later on in life) is all but self-defeatest--indeed, as you later point out, if you land an offer from a top firm after 2L summer, you won't need to (or even be able to, by definition!) move on to a better firm later on.

I still don't see how clerking, taken alone, exudes more ambition than most any other law student career choice.

Lawquacious wrote:

minnbills wrote:I thought it was common knowledge that getting a federal clerkship can help you quite a bit in biglaw?

As a backdoor, or as in chances of making partner???

mrloblaw wrote:

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:And if you're comfortable with your greatest achievement in your professional life being lateraling into a prestigious firm, then make sure to work your ass off and land a clerkship? Huh?

Look, if you feel that those who seek out clerkships are "more ambitious" than those who do not on the basis that the former are putting in additional work while the latter are slacking and enjoying the last year of top-law-schools.com, fine. I can see how one can reasonably attempt to link work ethic and ambition (and vice versa). However, all this nonsense about true ambition somehow being tied to not having your long-term career path being determined at the end of 2L summer is woefully unconvincing. In fact, the main example you set forth in support of your conception of "ambition" (i.e., the ability to lateral to a better firm later on in life) is all but self-defeatest--indeed, as you later point out, if you land an offer from a top firm after 2L summer, you won't need to (or even be able to, by definition!) move on to a better firm later on.

I still don't see how clerking, taken alone, exudes more ambition than most any other law student career choice.

Clerking doesn't. Continuing to resume pad once it's possible to coast into six figures does. Clerking is one way of resume padding.

I'm loosely defining ambition as the antithesis of the "being happy with what you've got" mindset.

This whole tangent spun off because I chose my words inarticulately half a dozen posts back, since I rather envy people who aren't ambitious, as I've used the term.

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:

mrloblaw wrote:

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:And if you're comfortable with your greatest achievement in your professional life being lateraling into a prestigious firm, then make sure to work your ass off and land a clerkship? Huh?

Look, if you feel that those who seek out clerkships are "more ambitious" than those who do not on the basis that the former are putting in additional work while the latter are slacking and enjoying the last year of top-law-schools.com, fine. I can see how one can reasonably attempt to link work ethic and ambition (and vice versa). However, all this nonsense about true ambition somehow being tied to not having your long-term career path being determined at the end of 2L summer is woefully unconvincing. In fact, the main example you set forth in support of your conception of "ambition" (i.e., the ability to lateral to a better firm later on in life) is all but self-defeatest--indeed, as you later point out, if you land an offer from a top firm after 2L summer, you won't need to (or even be able to, by definition!) move on to a better firm later on.

I still don't see how clerking, taken alone, exudes more ambition than most any other law student career choice.

Clerking doesn't. Continuing to resume pad once it's possible to coast into six figures does. Clerking is one way of resume padding.

I'm loosely defining ambition as the antithesis of the "being happy with what you've got" mindset.

This whole tangent spun off because I chose my words inarticulately half a dozen posts back, since I rather envy people who aren't ambitious, as I've used the term.

This is a more reasonable approach, though it could be the case that those who choose not to clerk are using their free time to pad their resumes in other ways (or they simply don't want to handcuff themselves into a resume fluffer that entails a year-long commitment).

But I agree, slacking is hardly ambitious.

mrloblaw wrote:

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:And if you're comfortable with your greatest achievement in your professional life being lateraling into a prestigious firm, then make sure to work your ass off and land a clerkship? Huh?

Look, if you feel that those who seek out clerkships are "more ambitious" than those who do not on the basis that the former are putting in additional work while the latter are slacking and enjoying the last year of top-law-schools.com, fine. I can see how one can reasonably attempt to link work ethic and ambition (and vice versa). However, all this nonsense about true ambition somehow being tied to not having your long-term career path being determined at the end of 2L summer is woefully unconvincing. In fact, the main example you set forth in support of your conception of "ambition" (i.e., the ability to lateral to a better firm later on in life) is all but self-defeatest--indeed, as you later point out, if you land an offer from a top firm after 2L summer, you won't need to (or even be able to, by definition!) move on to a better firm later on.

I still don't see how clerking, taken alone, exudes more ambition than most any other law student career choice.

Clerking doesn't. Continuing to resume pad once it's possible to coast into six figures does. Clerking is one way of resume padding.







I'm loosely defining ambition as the antithesis of the "being happy with what you've got" mindset.

Edit: to directly address the lateraling thing, if I really wanted to move from one peer firm to another, I'd still try to pad the resume as much as possible to make the outcome more likely.

This whole tangent spun off because I chose my words inarticulately half a dozen posts back, since I rather envy people who aren't ambitious, as I've used the term.

mrloblaw wrote:

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:And if you're comfortable with your greatest achievement in your professional life being lateraling into a prestigious firm, then make sure to work your ass off and land a clerkship? Huh?

Look, if you feel that those who seek out clerkships are "more ambitious" than those who do not on the basis that the former are putting in additional work while the latter are slacking and enjoying the last year of top-law-schools.com, fine. I can see how one can reasonably attempt to link work ethic and ambition (and vice versa). However, all this nonsense about true ambition somehow being tied to not having your long-term career path being determined at the end of 2L summer is woefully unconvincing. In fact, the main example you set forth in support of your conception of "ambition" (i.e., the ability to lateral to a better firm later on in life) is all but self-defeatest--indeed, as you later point out, if you land an offer from a top firm after 2L summer, you won't need to (or even be able to, by definition!) move on to a better firm later on.

I still don't see how clerking, taken alone, exudes more ambition than most any other law student career choice.

Clerking doesn't. Continuing to resume pad once it's possible to coast into six figures does. Clerking is one way of resume padding.

I'm loosely defining ambition as the antithesis of the "being happy with what you've got" mindset.

Edit: to directly address the lateraling thing, if I really wanted to move from one peer firm to another, I'd still try to pad the resume as much as possible to make the outcome more likely.

This whole tangent spun off because I chose my words inarticulately half a dozen posts back, since I rather envy people who aren't ambitious, as I've used the term.

TheFriendlyBarber wrote: Somehow we've conceived of our world as one where not clerking and slacking are invariably linked.

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:
Somehow we've conceived of our world as one where not clerking and slacking are invariably linked.

mrloblaw wrote:

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:
Somehow we've conceived of our world as one where not clerking and slacking are invariably linked.

Costs of clerking:

Opportunity costs - One year not practicing law, two years with less free time (gunning 2L/3L)
Monetary costs - One year with lower salary

Outside some super specialized career plan, the only thing I can think of that would be better to do in law school would be a semester internship or four. The other costs aren't relevant until two to three years down the line.

Have I missed something?

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:
It doesn't need to be "super specialized." For transactional attorneys, one year at Wachtell, Cravath, etc is far more valuable than spending a year reviewing habeas petitions on the 8th Circuit. Similarly, for public interest-minded firms, a Skadden fellowship could very well be more disable than a clerkship on a court sitting in bankruptcy on the other side of the country. Point being, there are more variables at play than are captured by your current opportunity/monetary cost table. Clerking is a great option for many people, but it is not the be-all, end-all some people think it is.

r6_philly wrote:I have met a handful of lawyers 15-30 years out of law school whose careers really impressed me, and almost every single one of the clerked. The ones who clerked highly value their clerkships, and the ones who didn't express regret that they didn't. I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to list all the benefits, but I will trust the recommendation from the same people whose careers I admire.

foxtrottortxof wrote: Correlation/causation alert, but I see your point.

r6_philly wrote:

foxtrottortxof wrote: Correlation/causation alert, but I see your point.

I think we are all looking for correlations. Career causation is something maybe no one can prove/disprove. So in terms of guiding my career (aside from the strong hand of luck), I will have to use signs of correlation. And it's pretty strong because they can subjectively tell me the benefit of their clerkship - the biggest one seems to be, uniformly, their judges helped them land the positions they want after firm practice, either directly or indirectly. So I believe clerkship could be something that's still useful 5-10 years afterwards. Now if your firm pays clerkship bonuses, then the opportunity cost isn't so great. $30-60k v. having a federal judge as friend, mentor, and resource (granted, he/she has to like you) is a clearly cut decision, at least to me.

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:I think everyone should clerk. Yes, everyone.

lzyovrachievr wrote:

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:I think everyone should clerk. Yes, everyone.

Dean Revesz, is that you?

Sorry, maybe not. But NYU's dean just said that exactly about 3 weeks ago. (And he said it like it was something we would all have the opportunity to do but would somehow choose not to.)

citydweller09 wrote:I'm curious where people got the idea that clerking can be a "back door" to a big firm if one strikes out at OCI, because that doesn't make much (if any) logical sense. If someone doesn't have the credentials to get a firm job through OCI, it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to land any federal clerkship, let alone one prestigious enough to overcome whatever deficiencies they had that led to the strikeout in the first place. It certainly makes sense that getting a prestigious clerkship could help someone "trade up" to a better firm than what they got at OCI, but that's a different thing.

mrloblaw wrote:

citydweller09 wrote:I'm curious where people got the idea that clerking can be a "back door" to a big firm if one strikes out at OCI, because that doesn't make much (if any) logical sense. If someone doesn't have the credentials to get a firm job through OCI, it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to land any federal clerkship, let alone one prestigious enough to overcome whatever deficiencies they had that led to the strikeout in the first place. It certainly makes sense that getting a prestigious clerkship could help someone "trade up" to a better firm than what they got at OCI, but that's a different thing.

Clerkships look at two years of numbers (or three, if it's a post-employment clerkship); 2L SAs look at one year. Thus, for transfers from lower tiered schools or kids who sucked horribly during 1L (but somehow can bring grades up to something respectable), clerking can be a backdoor.

It's just not one you want to bet on if you don't have to.

G. T. L. Rev. wrote: . . . and better litigation training than most first year associates get.