Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:27 am

In addition to what the poster above said, I've seen resumes reference working through college in a way that tends to suggest socio-economic status. Where it's not not like, summer internships in your chosen field, but more like waiting tables/bartending, sometimes referencing doing it 30 hrs/wk throughout undergrad or similar. Obviously it's no guarantee of socio-economic status - you could have grown up rich but your family wants you to work in school or whatever - but it tends to stick out. I think you can also reference something like being first-gen, or where you grew up, in your cover letter, if you go with something a little more descriptive than the bare bones (again, where you grew up isn't an absolute tell, and I can't come up with great examples without becoming entirely stereotypical, but for instance growing up in a town of 6000 people in rural Iowa is going to be a kind of socio-economic diversity, especially for a judge not in the midwest).

I agree though that your references saying something about this is going to be the most graceful way to get it across.

I am not a SCOTUS clerk and this is not SCOTUS clerk-specific advice. But as someone from a lower-income background, it is generally pretty easy for me to tell who comes from money (the majority of applicants), and who does not. So when there is someone genuinely from a low-income background, it sticks out.

First Generation groups are good, but a lot of people join those because of the facetious claim that being a first-generation lawyer is particularly meaningful, which it is not. Interest sections are a pretty easy tell most of the time.

I'm the anon above (also definitely not a SCOTUS clerk, though the questions seemed to be broader than SCOTUS), and I agree, even as someone who definitely didn't come from a low-income background, that it can definitely stick out. And I mean that in a genuinely impressive way, not in a "wore the wrong kind of boat shoes" way.

Also I would never have imagined that someone would think "first generation lawyer" actually fits into first generation groups, lol.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:27 am

In addition to what the poster above said, I've seen resumes reference working through college in a way that tends to suggest socio-economic status. Where it's not not like, summer internships in your chosen field, but more like waiting tables/bartending, sometimes referencing doing it 30 hrs/wk throughout undergrad or similar. Obviously it's no guarantee of socio-economic status - you could have grown up rich but your family wants you to work in school or whatever - but it tends to stick out. I think you can also reference something like being first-gen, or where you grew up, in your cover letter, if you go with something a little more descriptive than the bare bones (again, where you grew up isn't an absolute tell, and I can't come up with great examples without becoming entirely stereotypical, but for instance growing up in a town of 6000 people in rural Iowa is going to be a kind of socio-economic diversity, especially for a judge not in the midwest).

I agree though that your references saying something about this is going to be the most graceful way to get it across.

I am not a SCOTUS clerk and this is not SCOTUS clerk-specific advice. But as someone from a lower-income background, it is generally pretty easy for me to tell who comes from money (the majority of applicants), and who does not. So when there is someone genuinely from a low-income background, it sticks out.

First Generation groups are good, but a lot of people join those because of the facetious claim that being a first-generation lawyer is particularly meaningful, which it is not. Interest sections are a pretty easy tell most of the time.

I'm the anon above (also definitely not a SCOTUS clerk, though the questions seemed to be broader than SCOTUS), and I agree, even as someone who definitely didn't come from a low-income background, that it can definitely stick out. And I mean that in a genuinely impressive way, not in a "wore the wrong kind of boat shoes" way.

Also I would never have imagined that someone would think "first generation lawyer" actually fits into first generation groups, lol.

Lol exactly. “Everyone in my family is either an investment banker or a neurosurgeon… but I’m the first person to go to law school!”

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:27 am

In addition to what the poster above said, I've seen resumes reference working through college in a way that tends to suggest socio-economic status. Where it's not not like, summer internships in your chosen field, but more like waiting tables/bartending, sometimes referencing doing it 30 hrs/wk throughout undergrad or similar. Obviously it's no guarantee of socio-economic status - you could have grown up rich but your family wants you to work in school or whatever - but it tends to stick out. I think you can also reference something like being first-gen, or where you grew up, in your cover letter, if you go with something a little more descriptive than the bare bones (again, where you grew up isn't an absolute tell, and I can't come up with great examples without becoming entirely stereotypical, but for instance growing up in a town of 6000 people in rural Iowa is going to be a kind of socio-economic diversity, especially for a judge not in the midwest).

I agree though that your references saying something about this is going to be the most graceful way to get it across.

I am not a SCOTUS clerk and this is not SCOTUS clerk-specific advice. But as someone from a lower-income background, it is generally pretty easy for me to tell who comes from money (the majority of applicants), and who does not. So when there is someone genuinely from a low-income background, it sticks out.

First Generation groups are good, but a lot of people join those because of the facetious claim that being a first-generation lawyer is particularly meaningful, which it is not. Interest sections are a pretty easy tell most of the time.

I'm the anon above (also definitely not a SCOTUS clerk, though the questions seemed to be broader than SCOTUS), and I agree, even as someone who definitely didn't come from a low-income background, that it can definitely stick out. And I mean that in a genuinely impressive way, not in a "wore the wrong kind of boat shoes" way.

Also I would never have imagined that someone would think "first generation lawyer" actually fits into first generation groups, lol.

Lol exactly. “Everyone in my family is either an investment banker or a neurosurgeon… but I’m the first person to go to law school!”

You’d be surprised that at my HYS, there were definitely many of those people. It really should just be cabined to first-generation college or low-income students. The tent is way too big.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:27 am

In addition to what the poster above said, I've seen resumes reference working through college in a way that tends to suggest socio-economic status. Where it's not not like, summer internships in your chosen field, but more like waiting tables/bartending, sometimes referencing doing it 30 hrs/wk throughout undergrad or similar. Obviously it's no guarantee of socio-economic status - you could have grown up rich but your family wants you to work in school or whatever - but it tends to stick out. I think you can also reference something like being first-gen, or where you grew up, in your cover letter, if you go with something a little more descriptive than the bare bones (again, where you grew up isn't an absolute tell, and I can't come up with great examples without becoming entirely stereotypical, but for instance growing up in a town of 6000 people in rural Iowa is going to be a kind of socio-economic diversity, especially for a judge not in the midwest).

I agree though that your references saying something about this is going to be the most graceful way to get it across.

I am not a SCOTUS clerk and this is not SCOTUS clerk-specific advice. But as someone from a lower-income background, it is generally pretty easy for me to tell who comes from money (the majority of applicants), and who does not. So when there is someone genuinely from a low-income background, it sticks out.

First Generation groups are good, but a lot of people join those because of the facetious claim that being a first-generation lawyer is particularly meaningful, which it is not. Interest sections are a pretty easy tell most of the time.

I'm the anon above (also definitely not a SCOTUS clerk, though the questions seemed to be broader than SCOTUS), and I agree, even as someone who definitely didn't come from a low-income background, that it can definitely stick out. And I mean that in a genuinely impressive way, not in a "wore the wrong kind of boat shoes" way.

Also I would never have imagined that someone would think "first generation lawyer" actually fits into first generation groups, lol.

Lol exactly. “Everyone in my family is either an investment banker or a neurosurgeon… but I’m the first person to go to law school!”

You’d be surprised that at my HYS, there were definitely many of those people. It really should just be cabined to first-generation college or low-income students. The tent is way too big.

This is an annoying newish trend on (non-SCOTUS) clerkship applications. If you're representing yourself as a first-generation professional on your materials, you're communicating that you came from a disadvantaged background. Please do not bill yourself as a "first-generation lawyer" and try to claim disadvantage if your parents are doctors, accountants, etc.

Hello,

I’m in a bit of a unique situation re: institutional support and was hoping someone who is a present SCOTUS clerk could give me some insight into the process.

I’m first generation (from a rural town in Appalachia) and did not take law school as seriously as I should have. Went to my flagship state school, got top grades at a mid/lower T14 and landed a firm job at a top firm’s appellate group in DC for a year and then back to back District and COA clerkships in a desirable district/circuit with a semi feeder.

I’m about to start my COA clerkship and I would like to apply for SCOTUS clerkships but I have no connections to my law school. Didn’t know the Dean or any of the big deal / appellate focused professors and the professors who wrote my rec letters were not big academics. I don’t think the administration would have anything negative to say about me just also nothing positive. Was on law review and moot court but wasn’t involved in SBA or an ideological group.

I made some connections at my firm to attorneys who clerked on the Court and my district judge (and hopefully my COA judge) will have very positive things to say about me and will write strong letters. Is my application shot without institutional support/calls from my Dean/professors? I frankly just had no idea SCOTUS would even be a possibility until I got my COA clerkship my 3L year and had no idea what to do or how to position myself once I got it. Is it worth reaching out to the clerkship office and informing them of my desire to apply for SCOTUS? Any advice appreciated.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:13 pm

Hello,

I’m in a bit of a unique situation re: institutional support and was hoping someone who is a present SCOTUS clerk could give me some insight into the process.

I’m first generation (from a rural town in Appalachia) and did not take law school as seriously as I should have. Went to my flagship state school, got top grades at a mid/lower T14 and landed a firm job at a top firm’s appellate group in DC for a year and then back to back District and COA clerkships in a desirable district/circuit with a semi feeder.

I’m about to start my COA clerkship and I would like to apply for SCOTUS clerkships but I have no connections to my law school. Didn’t know the Dean or any of the big deal / appellate focused professors and the professors who wrote my rec letters were not big academics. I don’t think the administration would have anything negative to say about me just also nothing positive. Was on law review and moot court but wasn’t involved in SBA or an ideological group.

I made some connections at my firm to attorneys who clerked on the Court and my district judge (and hopefully my COA judge) will have very positive things to say about me and will write strong letters. Is my application shot without institutional support/calls from my Dean/professors? I frankly just had no idea SCOTUS would even be a possibility until I got my COA clerkship my 3L year and had no idea what to do or how to position myself once I got it. Is it worth reaching out to the clerkship office and informing them of my desire to apply for SCOTUS? Any advice appreciated.

I don’t think you need a SCOTUS clerk to tell you that you need to speak with your judge and have them agree to push you very hard. But the odds are certainly remote.

Hi all; if anyone with SCOTUS knowledge can share a little insight on this: how much weight does one's District Court Judge (as opposed to COA) Judge have on SCOTUS chances? I have a feeder DCT but a semi-ish feeder COA and was wondering if DCT judges play a significant role in recommending.

Isn't it true that the politics of the clerk is highly relevant? I can't imagine it being any other way.

Does anyone know when Justice Sotomayor starts reviewing applications?

danishblue wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:24 am

Isn't it true that the politics of the clerk is highly relevant? I can't imagine it being any other way.

Kinda depends on the Judge. For example, Sri and Roberts both don't hire ideologically

Any idea what a transfer would need to do to pull this off? I went from lower T14 -> YLS and while it's probably too late for me, I am curious what I would have needed to do

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 pm

Any idea what a transfer would need to do to pull this off? I went from lower T14 -> YLS and while it's probably too late for me, I am curious what I would have needed to do

Probably not going to happen and a little confused on why you'd transfer to YLS with presumably approximately a 4.0. In hindsight and for people reading this, if you want SCOTUS and are at a lower T14 and have the ability to be number 1 or 2 in your class, that's probably your best bet.

I guess insofar as what as you would have needed to do it would have been be part of Yale Fed Soc or getting straight Hs in curved classes and build some solid connections with Professors.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 pm

Any idea what a transfer would need to do to pull this off? I went from lower T14 -> YLS and while it's probably too late for me, I am curious what I would have needed to do

Probably not going to happen and a little confused on why you'd transfer to YLS with presumably approximately a 4.0. In hindsight and for people reading this, if you want SCOTUS and are at a lower T14 and have the ability to be number 1 or 2 in your class, that's probably your best bet.

I guess insofar as what as you would have needed to do it would have been be part of Yale Fed Soc or getting straight Hs in curved classes and build some solid connections with Professors.

Yeah fair points. It made sense for me - had around a 4.0 but no scholarship and wanted to see if i could reduce debt through HYS need based aid and yeah

But fair on the rest. Didn't know if it would have required specific/unique steps

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 pm

Any idea what a transfer would need to do to pull this off? I went from lower T14 -> YLS and while it's probably too late for me, I am curious what I would have needed to do

Probably not going to happen and a little confused on why you'd transfer to YLS with presumably approximately a 4.0. In hindsight and for people reading this, if you want SCOTUS and are at a lower T14 and have the ability to be number 1 or 2 in your class, that's probably your best bet.

I guess insofar as what as you would have needed to do it would have been be part of Yale Fed Soc or getting straight Hs in curved classes and build some solid connections with Professors.

Yeah fair points. It made sense for me - had around a 4.0 but no scholarship and wanted to see if i could reduce debt through HYS need based aid and yeah

But fair on the rest. Didn't know if it would have required specific/unique steps

Out of curiosity, did you transfer from UVA/Mich/Penn or Duke/NU/Cornell? And did you try negotiating your scholarship with your 1L school before transferring? I was in a somewhat similar position where I likely could have transferred from Duke/NU/Cornell to Stanford/Harvard but decided against applying to preserve my connections, record, and scholarship at my 1L school. Interested to know how your scholarship discussions went so I can better advise 1L mentees that might end up in the same boat.

Transfers do occasionally get SCOTUS clerkships; see Elliot Gaiser (Ohio State --> Chicago). You'll be in a bit of a unique position because it's an intra-T14 transfer. I saw one or two apps like that while clerking and it raised an eyebrow. The assumption is that you're a prestige whore. Your explanation makes sense though.

What's the rough timeline for hearing back? I interviewed and don't know what to make of the continued silence.

How much more competitive is SCOTUS than a feeder or well-regarded semi-feeder? I think the assumption here is that it’s much more competitive, but I’m also guessing the applicant pool is much larger for the feeder and many more self-select out for SCOTUS. Any insight on the number of applicants per SCOTUS justice vs. number of applicants per feeder?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:18 pm

How much more competitive is SCOTUS than a feeder or well-regarded semi-feeder? I think the assumption here is that it’s much more competitive, but I’m also guessing the applicant pool is much larger for the feeder and many more self-select out for SCOTUS. Any insight on the number of applicants per SCOTUS justice vs. number of applicants per feeder?

There are like 350 applications for four slots. My feeder judge had like twice as many applications.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:18 pm

How much more competitive is SCOTUS than a feeder or well-regarded semi-feeder? I think the assumption here is that it’s much more competitive, but I’m also guessing the applicant pool is much larger for the feeder and many more self-select out for SCOTUS. Any insight on the number of applicants per SCOTUS justice vs. number of applicants per feeder?

There are like 350 applications for four slots. My feeder judge had like twice as many applications.

Tracks. It's easy to mass-mail feeders if you're marginally competitive. Few people are going to bother their professors for SCOTUS recommendations if they know they have no shot.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:18 pm

How much more competitive is SCOTUS than a feeder or well-regarded semi-feeder? I think the assumption here is that it’s much more competitive, but I’m also guessing the applicant pool is much larger for the feeder and many more self-select out for SCOTUS. Any insight on the number of applicants per SCOTUS justice vs. number of applicants per feeder?

There are like 350 applications for four slots. My feeder judge had like twice as many applications.

Of those 350 applications, how many would you guess are “credible”? That is, top-tier grades (say, top 5% at HYS or top handful of people at T6), flagship journal, high-profile recommenders, etc.?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2024 9:42 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:18 pm

How much more competitive is SCOTUS than a feeder or well-regarded semi-feeder? I think the assumption here is that it’s much more competitive, but I’m also guessing the applicant pool is much larger for the feeder and many more self-select out for SCOTUS. Any insight on the number of applicants per SCOTUS justice vs. number of applicants per feeder?

There are like 350 applications for four slots. My feeder judge had like twice as many applications.

Of those 350 applications, how many would you guess are “credible”? That is, top-tier grades (say, top 5% at HYS or top handful of people at T6), flagship journal, high-profile recommenders, etc.?

When Justice Sotomayor recently spoke at Berkeley, she said she receives around 350 applications, of which "there’s probably 100 people who are at the top of their game." You can make what you will of what that 100 means.

How many non-judicial clerk staff members does each Justice get?

Does a SCOTUS clerkship count toward the 4-year limit for term clerks? I accepted a 2-year district court clerkship and I’m wondering if I would have to limit a circuit court clerkship to one year to maintain eligibility.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:13 pm

Does a SCOTUS clerkship count toward the 4-year limit for term clerks? I accepted a 2-year district court clerkship and I’m wondering if I would have to limit a circuit court clerkship to one year to maintain eligibility.

I really don’t think you have to worry about this.

I graduated magna at HLS and am finishing a year at a firm before a couple of non-feeder clerkships (one district, one circuit). Wasn't on law review or in FedSoc (I'm a liberal, but the sort of liberal who also really wants to be an AUSA; both judges I'm clerking for were appointed by Republican presidents, but both hire non-ideologically). I have strong recommendations but nobody on the Goldsmith/Lazarus level of active pushing (i.e. I had multiple recommenders call judges, but they definitely don't have well-known pipelines to any of the justices).

As I write this all out, I think I have a pretty decent sense of how long a shot I am for a SCOTUS clerkship. There are at least like 90 people between HYS who graduated in my year with similar grades; conservative justices could find strong ideological conservatives in that group, liberal justices could find ACS types, and both groups could find people who clerked for their friends/prestige-signalers. But I guess I'm wondering two things:

1) Do people with a similar set of credentials to mine (non-feeder clerkships, no LR, no strong ideological appeal) really ever get SCOTUS clerkships? The SCOTUS alums at my firm seem to overwhelmingly be of the "FedSoc -> Thapar/Sutton/Grant -> conservative wing of SCOTUS" type or the "summa at HLS -> Garland -> CJR and the liberal wing of SCOTUS" type. On the other hand, career services seems slightly more bullish about my odds (but I know they've got a vested interest in having people apply).

2) With my credentials basically set in stone, is there anything I can do to improve my odds at this point? The obvious answer seems to be 'do such good work in the clerkships that my judges, neither of whom has ever fed, feel compelled to push me in any way they can'. Curious if there's anything I'm missing.

I have a clear enough sense of my career interests that I know that SCOTUS isn't make-or-break for them (thank God, because it seems like it's almost certainly 'break'), but I'm curious whether there's a non-infinitessimal chance of it happening such that it's worth rustling up recs and the like.