Clerkships so white

Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities.
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Chicago is 2/3 grade-on.


Not exactly. The process looks like this:
1. Rank all writing competition submissions.
2. Of those who complete the writing competition, narrow to the top 60 applicants or 60%, whichever is a smaller group.
3. Of those, take the 30 with the best grades, then remove their applications from the ranked list of submissions.
4. Take the top 10 remaining submissions, with no consideration of grades.

From the masthead, board is 10 women/18 men. Staffers are 11 women/29 men. 2 POC, between board and staffers.

charmonster
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:34 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby charmonster » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Chicago is 2/3 grade-on.


Not exactly. The process looks like this:
1. Rank all writing competition submissions.
2. Of those who complete the writing competition, narrow to the top 60 applicants or 60%, whichever is a smaller group.
3. Of those, take the 30 with the best grades, then remove their applications from the ranked list of submissions.
4. Take the top 10 remaining submissions, with no consideration of grades.

From the masthead, board is 10 women/18 men. Staffers are 11 women/29 men. 2 POC, between board and staffers.


C'mon man, don't be insufferable. That is 2/3 grade-on with an effort check.

Hella sad to hear about that gender breakdown, I think it was close to parity my year (though I was not on it so I could be wrong).

Phys1calk1ller
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:23 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Phys1calk1ller » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:59 pm

From my experiences last year interviewing for clerkships (yes, I know it's anecdotal), I interviewed with 5 non-white judges, and out of their 16 or so clerks I met, only 2 were non-white. So while it's almost certainly true that some judges want someone who looks like them, I honestly believe that the vast majority of judges just want a smart person whom they can get along with.

Moreover, because the biggest factor in getting a clerkship interview is school and rank, and those at the top of their class at the top schools are usually (but not always) white, how is it any surprise that the vast majority of clerks are white? It raises the questions of: (1) why isn't there more representation in the top of law school classes?; and (2) why do most judges feel the need to only hire from that group of people? The answer to 2 is obvious and a reflection of how perception = reality but I have no idea what the answer to 1 is.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:16 pm

Also in my anecdotal experience, conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates. I got many, many more interviews with Republican appointed judges than Democratic appointed ones.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Also in my anecdotal experience, conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates. I got many, many more interviews with Republican appointed judges than Democratic appointed ones.

That's interesting. AA male with top 3-5% grades at a t14 and I didn't get a single interview request from republican appointed judges. All mine were BC or BO judges, and I applied broadly.

User avatar
radio1nowhere
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:01 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby radio1nowhere » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Also in my anecdotal experience, conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates. I got many, many more interviews with Republican appointed judges than Democratic appointed ones.

That's interesting. AA male with top 3-5% grades at a t14 and I didn't get a single interview request from republican appointed judges. All mine were BC or BO judges, and I applied broadly.

Were either of you FedSoc? I think part of the broader phenomenon is that conservative judges (with exceptions, of course) mainly just like to have conservative clerks. So — although non-white conservative applicants may do just fine with conservative judges — there's going to be under-representation for non-whites in general because non-whites are much less likely to be conservative.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:31 pm

radio1nowhere wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Also in my anecdotal experience, conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates. I got many, many more interviews with Republican appointed judges than Democratic appointed ones.

That's interesting. AA male with top 3-5% grades at a t14 and I didn't get a single interview request from republican appointed judges. All mine were BC or BO judges, and I applied broadly.

Were either of you FedSoc? I think part of the broader phenomenon is that conservative judges (with exceptions, of course) mainly just like to have conservative clerks. So — although non-white conservative applicants may do just fine with conservative judges — there's going to be under-representation for non-whites in general because non-whites are much less likely to be conservative.

AA anon here.

No, I was not in FeSoc. I didn't have any sort of political affiliation on my resume, but I was pretty heavily involved in BLSA and LALSA.

However, the anon I responded to didn't mention any FedSoc affiliation as tipping the scales for her/him, though. The anon simply stated that in his/her experience "conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates."

I was just noting that my experience was the exact opposite: out of the 10-15 interview requests I received, all came from judges nominated by Dems.

There's already a thread about the hiring practices of FedSoc/conservative judges, so I don't really want to derail this (already derailed) thread.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:09 pm

I'm the other anon- I was FedSoc, but I only put it on my resume for a handful of judges.

Also I'm not a URM. More of an overrepresented minority (to the extent that's actually a thing in law).
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I'm the other anon- I was FedSoc, but I only put it on my resume for a handful of judges.

Also I'm not a URM. More of an overrepresented minority (to the extend that's actually a thing in law).

AA anon here.


Have you ever considered that FedSoc, and not your non-white status, was the driving factor in your success with conservative judges? It seems much more likely than the conclusion drawn from your anecdata.

See this thread: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=278557&hilit=fedsoc

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:13 pm

Like I said, I only put it on my resume for a handful of judges. No doubt it helped for them. But for the other 7 or so I interviewed with my resume was completely normal, and of those the breakdown was 6 GOP/1 Dem give or take.

User avatar
radio1nowhere
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:01 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby radio1nowhere » Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
radio1nowhere wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Also in my anecdotal experience, conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates. I got many, many more interviews with Republican appointed judges than Democratic appointed ones.

That's interesting. AA male with top 3-5% grades at a t14 and I didn't get a single interview request from republican appointed judges. All mine were BC or BO judges, and I applied broadly.

Were either of you FedSoc? I think part of the broader phenomenon is that conservative judges (with exceptions, of course) mainly just like to have conservative clerks. So — although non-white conservative applicants may do just fine with conservative judges — there's going to be under-representation for non-whites in general because non-whites are much less likely to be conservative.

AA anon here.

No, I was not in FeSoc. I didn't have any sort of political affiliation on my resume, but I was pretty heavily involved in BLSA and LALSA.

However, the anon I responded to didn't mention any FedSoc affiliation as tipping the scales for her/him, though. The anon simply stated that in his/her experience "conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates."

I was just noting that my experience was the exact opposite: out of the 10-15 interview requests I received, all came from judges nominated by Dems.

There's already a thread about the hiring practices of FedSoc/conservative judges, so I don't really want to derail this (already derailed) thread.

Ok cool but why the weird comment on derailing the thread, when my post is right on-topic? Judges' hiring practices with respect to URM applicants is literally the discussion topic of the thread, and (very) roughly half of judges are conservative-ish. Thus, a comment on conservative judges' hiring practices with respect to URM applicants seems appropriate.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:42 pm

radio1nowhere wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
radio1nowhere wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Also in my anecdotal experience, conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates. I got many, many more interviews with Republican appointed judges than Democratic appointed ones.

That's interesting. AA male with top 3-5% grades at a t14 and I didn't get a single interview request from republican appointed judges. All mine were BC or BO judges, and I applied broadly.

Were either of you FedSoc? I think part of the broader phenomenon is that conservative judges (with exceptions, of course) mainly just like to have conservative clerks. So — although non-white conservative applicants may do just fine with conservative judges — there's going to be under-representation for non-whites in general because non-whites are much less likely to be conservative.

AA anon here.

No, I was not in FeSoc. I didn't have any sort of political affiliation on my resume, but I was pretty heavily involved in BLSA and LALSA.

However, the anon I responded to didn't mention any FedSoc affiliation as tipping the scales for her/him, though. The anon simply stated that in his/her experience "conservative judges are much more open to hiring non-white candidates."

I was just noting that my experience was the exact opposite: out of the 10-15 interview requests I received, all came from judges nominated by Dems.

There's already a thread about the hiring practices of FedSoc/conservative judges, so I don't really want to derail this (already derailed) thread.

Ok cool but why the weird comment on derailing the thread, when my post is right on-topic? Judges' hiring practices with respect to URM applicants is literally the discussion topic of the thread, and (very) roughly half of judges are conservative-ish. Thus, a comment on conservative judges' hiring practices with respect to URM applicants seems appropriate.

I didn't mean that as a jab at you. I just didn't want to turn this thread into another "how much does FedSoc matter for clerkships" thread. There's already a well-developed thread on that.

And with respect to my comment about "derailing" the thread, I was referring only to the weird dispute over Chicago's LR review process. That's all.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:55 am

i'm also wondering whether URM candidates self-select out of applying to conservative judges generally, and if not, whether they are blanketing all the conservative judges with applications. my decently competitive chambers virtually never sees a plausibly URM candidate (membership in an affinity group, uniqueness of name, cover or rec letter indicating as much), and i would say a large majority who have applied to us are white males. and my co-clerks and i definitely were looking; the two plausibly URM candidates who had at least the minimal GPA/H's for my judge were brought in almost immediately. (of course, i'm leaving aside the issue of whether URM candidates are getting high enough grades in law school, or getting the support in law school to do so; the top 3-5% AA above would have been brought into my chambers without question.)
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:36 am

because criteria for obtaining these clerkships is correlated with stuff that favors white clerks -- like recommendations from professors (who just like law firm partners implicitly gravitate toward folks that look like them), grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites), and law review (which again . . .). Then when minorities have those checkboxes, judges get around it by basing hires on fit and yada yada.

Finally, the biggest impediment are current clerks who are often the gate keepers. They won't recommend anyone but "the best of the best" to their judges based on the above criteria based on the false notion that if someone with "less prestige" gets hired, it will devalue the overall signaling that their clerkship has. As a result, clerks themselves often unwittingly discard diverse candidates.

I don't think its anyone who is particularly trying to keep POC out of clerkships, it is just how the system works.

cavalier1138
Posts: 4657
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby cavalier1138 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites)


I don't doubt that blind grading still favors students who are able to "suck up" to the professor best in their exam answer (by using their answer to repeat styles of argument and points the professor brought up in class), but how does blind grading allow professors to play favorites?

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:46 am

cavalier1138 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites)


I don't doubt that blind grading still favors students who are able to "suck up" to the professor best in their exam answer (by using their answer to repeat styles of argument and points the professor brought up in class), but how does blind grading allow professors to play favorites?


At my school professors had about 10-20% of our grade to use for "participation" (depending on the type of class/if the professor had assignments other than the final exam throughout the semester that weren't graded blind); it didn't allow a professor to fail you just because (s)he didn't like you, but it most definitely could make the difference between a B+ and an A-/A in some circumstances. Certainly if some students are more likely as a whole to get boosts from participation grades than others, this would result in grades that are different enough that they could be the difference between someone landing or being dinged for a competitive clerkship (or any other job, for that matter).

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7472
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby lavarman84 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites)


I don't doubt that blind grading still favors students who are able to "suck up" to the professor best in their exam answer (by using their answer to repeat styles of argument and points the professor brought up in class), but how does blind grading allow professors to play favorites?


At my school professors had about 10-20% of our grade to use for "participation" (depending on the type of class/if the professor had assignments other than the final exam throughout the semester that weren't graded blind); it didn't allow a professor to fail you just because (s)he didn't like you, but it most definitely could make the difference between a B+ and an A-/A in some circumstances. Certainly if some students are more likely as a whole to get boosts from participation grades than others, this would result in grades that are different enough that they could be the difference between someone landing or being dinged for a competitive clerkship (or any other job, for that matter).


The professors had the same option at my law school. I can't think of one ever using it.

lolwat
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby lolwat » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:31 pm

lavarman84 wrote:The professors had the same option at my law school. I can't think of one ever using it.


Some profs at my school used that option for anywhere from 10% to like 30% of the grade. In those classes you "suck up" by raising your hand to answer questions instead of making the professor look awkward when there's a 20 second silence after they ask a question and before they finally call on someone when they realize no one's going to volunteer. Anybody can be that volunteer, and I almost guarantee you it's appreciated and will get you those "suck up" participation points even if you get the answer wrong. (Sucking up by repeating the style of argument/positions the prof takes in a blind grading exam is similarly something everybody has the ability to do.)

criteria for obtaining these clerkships is correlated with stuff that favors white clerks -- like recommendations from professors (who just like law firm partners implicitly gravitate toward folks that look like them), grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites), and law review (which again . . .). Then when minorities have those checkboxes, judges get around it by basing hires on fit and yada yada.

Finally, the biggest impediment are current clerks who are often the gate keepers. They won't recommend anyone but "the best of the best" to their judges based on the above criteria based on the false notion that if someone with "less prestige" gets hired, it will devalue the overall signaling that their clerkship has. As a result, clerks themselves often unwittingly discard diverse candidates.

I don't think its anyone who is particularly trying to keep POC out of clerkships, it is just how the system works.


I don't know one way or another whether this is factually accurate, but I really, really, really hate this line of thinking. It presupposes everything is naturally stacked against minorities from the start no matter how objective a system try to be, and everybody is just supporting an inherently racist system. If we can't look at things like performance in law school (as demonstrated by grades, participation on law review, etc.) or recommendations (or taking it a step further, can we even look at what school an applicant went to, if THEIR admission criteria is somehow racist by nature?) without supporting an inherently racist system, then what exactly can or should a judge, or any other employer, look at when determining who to interview or hire? Just start picking random applications out of the pile?

jd20132013
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby jd20132013 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:41 pm

What if I told you that things actually are stacked against black and Latino people, such that the presupposition comports with reality ?

Just something to consider! The concern trolling is interesting though.

Anonymous User
Posts: 302854
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:43 pm

lolwat wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:The professors had the same option at my law school. I can't think of one ever using it.


Some profs at my school used that option for anywhere from 10% to like 30% of the grade. In those classes you "suck up" by raising your hand to answer questions instead of making the professor look awkward when there's a 20 second silence after they ask a question and before they finally call on someone when they realize no one's going to volunteer. Anybody can be that volunteer, and I almost guarantee you it's appreciated and will get you those "suck up" participation points even if you get the answer wrong. (Sucking up by repeating the style of argument/positions the prof takes in a blind grading exam is similarly something everybody has the ability to do.)

criteria for obtaining these clerkships is correlated with stuff that favors white clerks -- like recommendations from professors (who just like law firm partners implicitly gravitate toward folks that look like them), grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites), and law review (which again . . .). Then when minorities have those checkboxes, judges get around it by basing hires on fit and yada yada.

Finally, the biggest impediment are current clerks who are often the gate keepers. They won't recommend anyone but "the best of the best" to their judges based on the above criteria based on the false notion that if someone with "less prestige" gets hired, it will devalue the overall signaling that their clerkship has. As a result, clerks themselves often unwittingly discard diverse candidates.

I don't think its anyone who is particularly trying to keep POC out of clerkships, it is just how the system works.


I don't know one way or another whether this is factually accurate, but I really, really, really hate this line of thinking. It presupposes everything is naturally stacked against minorities from the start no matter how objective a system try to be, and everybody is just supporting an inherently racist system. If we can't look at things like performance in law school (as demonstrated by grades, participation on law review, etc.) or recommendations (or taking it a step further, can we even look at what school an applicant went to, if THEIR admission criteria is somehow racist by nature?) without supporting an inherently racist system, then what exactly can or should a judge, or any other employer, look at when determining who to interview or hire? Just start picking random applications out of the pile?


This is the black clerk anon from earlier. I get that you hate this line of thinking, but that does not make it less true. Education in this country has always been inherently unequal and that didn't just end with blind grading. Please have a peek at Top 14 law schools graduating class latin honors awards. At my T-14 ZERO black people made latin honors for the last three years, but some have been on law review, won academic awards, and gone on to clerk on District and Circuit Courts. Does that not strike you as odd?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5636
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby rpupkin » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This is the black clerk anon from earlier. I get that you hate this line of thinking, but that does not make it less true. Education in this country has always been inherently unequal and that didn't just end with blind grading. Please have a peek at Top 14 law schools graduating class latin honors awards. At my T-14 ZERO black people made latin honors for the last three years, but some have been on law review, won academic awards, and gone on to clerk on District and Circuit Courts. Does that not strike you as odd?

That strikes me as noteworthy, but I'm not sure I'm drawing the same inference you are. Doesn't the bolded run counter to the notion that african-american applicants are discriminated against in clerkship hiring based on their race?

lolwat
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby lolwat » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:09 pm

This is the black clerk anon from earlier. I get that you hate this line of thinking, but that does not make it less true. Education in this country has always been inherently unequal and that didn't just end with blind grading. Please have a peek at Top 14 law schools graduating class latin honors awards. At my T-14 ZERO black people made latin honors for the last three years, but some have been on law review, won academic awards, and gone on to clerk on District and Circuit Courts. Does that not strike you as odd?


I am not blind to the fact that racism is still a thing in our country, and it's probably been highlighted even more as of late. (Not getting political here.) But too often in these discussions, many people simply assume as a fact that everything is inherently racist and puts minorities at a disadvantage. I don't blindly accept that as a fact. Nor does it help to point at the result (less minorities at the top of the class / less minorities in clerkships / whatever the result is) and then make the conclusion that one thing (racism) must be, directly or indirectly, the cause of it all.

In general, those results wouldn't necessarily strike me as odd. But I don't really have enough information here: Are Latin honors grade-based and how low do they go (top %)? What academic awards did those students win? Is law review at your T14 write-on only with no grades being taken into account? And there's also this which I got scooped on:

That strikes me as noteworthy, but I'm not sure I'm drawing the same inference you are. Doesn't the bolded run counter to the notion that african-american applicants are discriminated against in clerkship hiring based on their race?


Seems like those students punched above their weight as far as what you would expect for the chances of a T14 student without Latin honors getting a clerkship. And since the only info here is that they're black and got clerkships despite not getting Latin honors, perhaps we should now conclude that being black actually helps?! :D (Kidding here.)

FascinatedWanderer
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby FascinatedWanderer » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
lolwat wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:The professors had the same option at my law school. I can't think of one ever using it.


Some profs at my school used that option for anywhere from 10% to like 30% of the grade. In those classes you "suck up" by raising your hand to answer questions instead of making the professor look awkward when there's a 20 second silence after they ask a question and before they finally call on someone when they realize no one's going to volunteer. Anybody can be that volunteer, and I almost guarantee you it's appreciated and will get you those "suck up" participation points even if you get the answer wrong. (Sucking up by repeating the style of argument/positions the prof takes in a blind grading exam is similarly something everybody has the ability to do.)

criteria for obtaining these clerkships is correlated with stuff that favors white clerks -- like recommendations from professors (who just like law firm partners implicitly gravitate toward folks that look like them), grades (which again favors, even in "blind grading" institutions, students who are the professors favorites), and law review (which again . . .). Then when minorities have those checkboxes, judges get around it by basing hires on fit and yada yada.

Finally, the biggest impediment are current clerks who are often the gate keepers. They won't recommend anyone but "the best of the best" to their judges based on the above criteria based on the false notion that if someone with "less prestige" gets hired, it will devalue the overall signaling that their clerkship has. As a result, clerks themselves often unwittingly discard diverse candidates.

I don't think its anyone who is particularly trying to keep POC out of clerkships, it is just how the system works.


I don't know one way or another whether this is factually accurate, but I really, really, really hate this line of thinking. It presupposes everything is naturally stacked against minorities from the start no matter how objective a system try to be, and everybody is just supporting an inherently racist system. If we can't look at things like performance in law school (as demonstrated by grades, participation on law review, etc.) or recommendations (or taking it a step further, can we even look at what school an applicant went to, if THEIR admission criteria is somehow racist by nature?) without supporting an inherently racist system, then what exactly can or should a judge, or any other employer, look at when determining who to interview or hire? Just start picking random applications out of the pile?


This is the black clerk anon from earlier. I get that you hate this line of thinking, but that does not make it less true. Education in this country has always been inherently unequal and that didn't just end with blind grading. Please have a peek at Top 14 law schools graduating class latin honors awards. At my T-14 ZERO black people made latin honors for the last three years, but some have been on law review, won academic awards, and gone on to clerk on District and Circuit Courts. Does that not strike you as odd?


This could just as easily be explained by affirmative action policies.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 28733
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:36 pm

Quick reminder: discussion of the merits of AA is limited to the thread devoted to that topic in the lounge. (The general topic of whether clerkships are disproportionately white and if so why isn't the same as discussing the merits of AA, but we might be wandering in that direction.)

jd20132013
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Clerkships so white

Postby jd20132013 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:49 pm

My apologies. I won't take it further




Return to “Judicial Clerkships”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.