My observation about the people on this board Forum

[scammedhard]

My point is exemplified by the fact that even some people on this thread feels that clerking for a state judge is somehow a waste of a year or that it's not an "ideal" position. This is of course a personal judgment, but I think people on here underestimate the value of a clerkship at the state level. I just want to stress the point that I had made earlier--that perceived-prestige on this Board is out of control. Before claiming that state clerkship is worthless, have you in fact heard from firms that they don't view favorably on a state clerkship?

This is anecdotal as well, but I'm beginning to look for post-clerkship employment now, and have been on 4 interviews (a vault 100 firm, two midsize firms 30-60 attorneys, and a small firm). They all seem interested in a state level clerkship. A friend of mine who graduated in 2009 and clerked fro 2 years at the state level was just hired to a vault 100 firm.

I want to emphasize that you should go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. Find something you are passionate about, learn, do it well, and things will fall your way. This is true despite being in a less than "ideal" position of being $100k in debt with only a measly state clerkship.

I don't have a problem with clerking at the state level, or even helping people with their parking tickets. As long as one's work is helping society, I am totally fine with whatever anyone does.

My beef with many law schools is the cost vs reward. You went to a Top 25/30 school and were able to find a job that will actually allow you to pay back your debt. Imagine people graduating or that have recently graduated from a Top 50 or 100 or 150 school.
I am not trying to belittle what you do or your job. I am simply trying to illustrate how harsh he labor market is. Or is it not? Did you pass on a higher salary to clerk for the state? Or this is just what you could find? Again, you have graduated from a top institution, and you should be proud of that, but the fact is that labor market for lawyers sucks.
And yes, I may be a prestige whore, but that is because the more prestigious the law school is, the higher the odds one can land a job to pay for the exorbitant and outrageous "investment" that is law school.

[bk1]

This is true despite being in a less than "ideal" position of being $100k in debt with only a measly state clerkship.

I'm going to reiterate the fact that $100k debt is actually close to an ideal situation for most grads from top regional schools.

[rose711]

My point is exemplified by the fact that even some people on this thread feels that clerking for a state judge is somehow a waste of a year or that it's not an "ideal" position. This is of course a personal judgment, but I think people on here underestimate the value of a clerkship at the state level. I just want to stress the point that I had made earlier--that perceived-prestige on this Board is out of control. Before claiming that state clerkship is worthless, have you in fact heard from firms that they don't view favorably on a state clerkship?

This is anecdotal as well, but I'm beginning to look for post-clerkship employment now, and have been on 4 interviews (a vault 100 firm, two midsize firms 30-60 attorneys, and a small firm). They all seem interested in a state level clerkship. A friend of mine who graduated in 2009 and clerked fro 2 years at the state level was just hired to a vault 100 firm.

I want to emphasize that you should go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. Find something you are passionate about, learn, do it well, and things will fall your way. This is true despite being in a less than "ideal" position of being $100k in debt with only a measly state clerkship.

Glad you are happy.

My point was that it was difficult for you,with your credentials, to even get a temporary full-time job. I don't know how to say this more plainly.

My comments about the state judge clerkship were based on the quote from the article that I posted above -- that it is temporary and people take them because they can't find other full time, permanent work.

If I disparaged your job, and it is creating great leads for you and your future is full-time, permanent job secure, then I again apologize.

It honestly isn't about you - it is about the less than 50% figure of employed law grads, about the schools still incorrectly reporting numbers, and about how even going to a top 30 school and being top 25- 30% means you, in the rubric used in the article, do not have permanent full-time work right now.

I can't speak for you, but I bet when you started school, you never expected to get no-offered and to be scrambling for a temporary job. I bet when you started school the job market was rosy and schools were getting away with lying about 95% employment. This is no longer the case.

I don't think I'm wrong to remind people that they (and about 50-55% of graduates) may find themselves without a permanent full-time job but with a lot of debt (to me $100,000 is a lot of debt to repay.) People need to make prudent decisions about the debt they are willing to undertake with realistic expectations of the jobs they may find when they graduate.

[whymeohgodno]

Yes, even a few people who graduated from the bottom half of my class got big law (grasp!).

I have to ask...were they URM?

[kapital98]

Very nice post (only read the first reply because I knew the usual suspects would come running to deny what your saying.)

bk187 is the personification of your post regarding 0L's... >.>

[bk1]

bk187 is the personification of your post regarding 0L's... >.>

I thought of that. It made me smile.

Very nice post (only read the first reply because I knew the usual suspects would come running to deny what your saying.)

Ironically I'm not denying what he is saying. I'm pointing out that he as 100k debt and that is manageable even on a 50k/year smalllaw salary. He would be singing a far different tune if he had paid sticker to attend his school.

[98234872348]

My point is exemplified by the fact that even some people on this thread feels that clerking for a state judge is somehow a waste of a year or that it's not an "ideal" position. This is of course a personal judgment, but I think people on here underestimate the value of a clerkship at the state level. I just want to stress the point that I had made earlier--that perceived-prestige on this Board is out of control. Before claiming that state clerkship is worthless, have you in fact heard from firms that they don't view favorably on a state clerkship?

This is anecdotal as well, but I'm beginning to look for post-clerkship employment now, and have been on 4 interviews (a vault 100 firm, two midsize firms 30-60 attorneys, and a small firm). They all seem interested in a state level clerkship. A friend of mine who graduated in 2009 and clerked fro 2 years at the state level was just hired to a vault 100 firm.

I want to emphasize that you should go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. Find something you are passionate about, learn, do it well, and things will fall your way. This is true despite being in a less than "ideal" position of being $100k in debt with only a measly state clerkship.

Glad you are happy.

My point was that it was difficult for you,with your credentials, to even get a temporary full-time job. I don't know how to say this more plainly.

My comments about the state judge clerkship were based on the quote from the article that I posted above -- that it is temporary and people take them because they can't find other full time, permanent work.

If I disparaged your job, and it is creating great leads for you and your future is full-time, permanent job secure, then I again apologize.

It honestly isn't about you - it is about the less than 50% figure of employed law grads, about the schools still incorrectly reporting numbers, and about how even going to a top 30 school and being top 25- 30% means you, in the rubric used in the article, do not have permanent full-time work right now.

I can't speak for you, but I bet when you started school, you never expected to get no-offered and to be scrambling for a temporary job. I bet when you started school the job market was rosy and schools were getting away with lying about 95% employment. This is no longer the case.

I don't think I'm wrong to remind people that they (and about 50-55% of graduates) may find themselves without a permanent full-time job but with a lot of debt. People need to make prudent decisions about the debt they are willing to undertake with realistic expectations of the jobs they may find when they graduate.

I wonder how many posters on this forum assume with that if they graduate with your credentials they will relatively easily find "at least" a mid-law full-time, permanent job? I wonder how many people think they might get no-offered with those credentials?

Are you a 0L? There are many people who would rather take a state clerkship than various non-"temporary" positions they could otherwise obtain. You realize that after you have work experience of any sort finding a job becomes much easier and people with court experience, especially those who are going into positions related to litigation, are sought after by firms. Clerkships are very competitive, even at the state level (especially when it comes to Courts of Appeal/State Supreme Courts). Quite frankly, if I were deciding between a permanent job offer in a field I was not interested in and the opportunity to clerk for a year or two, I'd take the latter.

OP obviously had to think quickly on his feet after being no-offered and likely took the best option, especially since the economy is starting to pick up. OP likely could have gotten an offer as a prosecutor or with some smaller private injury firm, but doing a clerkship is the best way for him to keep his options open while gaining valuable experience.

[kapital98]

bk187 is the personification of your post regarding 0L's... >.>

I thought of that. It made me smile.

Very nice post (only read the first reply because I knew the usual suspects would come running to deny what your saying.)

Ironically I'm not denying what he is saying. I'm pointing out that he as 100k debt and that is manageable even on a 50k/year smalllaw salary. He would be singing a far different tune if he had paid sticker to attend his school.

On that we can agree. 100K is essentially cost of living + 40-60K in tuition.

[scammedhard]

bk187 is the personification of your post regarding 0L's... >.>

I thought of that. It made me smile.

Very nice post (only read the first reply because I knew the usual suspects would come running to deny what your saying.)

Ironically I'm not denying what he is saying. I'm pointing out that he as 100k debt and that is manageable even on a 50k/year smalllaw salary. He would be singing a far different tune if he had paid sticker to attend his school.

bk187: your generation is doing the right thing: analyzing the risk v reward of law school.
Now look at the last generation of lawyers. They have the mentality that "as long as you love to be a lawyer, everything is going to be OK". That thinking led to a massive flood of lawyers, a total saturation of the market, and a who knows how many lives have wrecked because of non-dischargeable debt and dismal job prospects.

[Sandro]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

[bk1]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

And yet TLS is less pessimistic than places that have more actual lawyers (e.g. ATL).

[nematoad]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

And yet TLS is less pessimistic than places that have more actual lawyers (e.g. ATL).

just regarding the pessimism with poeple on TLS, a good deal of it is probably self selection. i'd imagine more people come to these boards when they're in trouble or those weak moments when they need to bitch. afterall, nobody can see your face. based off what i know about people, they prefer celebrating with real humans.

[Sandro]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

And yet TLS is less pessimistic than places that have more actual lawyers (e.g. ATL).

Pessimism or optimism is one thing, but there are so many people on here who dont have any actual knowledge and just parrot what they've seen often times many other clueless 0Ls 1Ls who think they are gods gift to TLS.

Just like in real life, people love to hear themselves talk.

[nematoad]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

And yet TLS is less pessimistic than places that have more actual lawyers (e.g. ATL).

Pessimism or optimism is one thing, but there are so many people on here who dont have any actual knowledge and just parrot what they've seen often times many other clueless 0Ls 1Ls who think they are gods gift to TLS.

Just like in real life, people love to hear themselves talk.

true that, and here it's worse. they become extreme caricatures of themselves

[whymeohgodno]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

And yet TLS is less pessimistic than places that have more actual lawyers (e.g. ATL).

Pessimism or optimism is one thing, but there are so many people on here who dont have any actual knowledge and just parrot what they've seen often times many other clueless 0Ls 1Ls who think they are gods gift to TLS.

Just like in real life, people love to hear themselves talk.

+1. I'm probably one of these people but I'm not half bad as some of the more egregious 0L's who roam these these boards.

[northwood]

The guy has a point. The representation on TLS of 0Ls and 1Ls who purport to know everything is large.

And yet TLS is less pessimistic than places that have more actual lawyers (e.g. ATL).

Pessimism or optimism is one thing, but there are so many people on here who dont have any actual knowledge and just parrot what they've seen often times many other clueless 0Ls 1Ls who think they are gods gift to TLS.

Just like in real life, people love to hear themselves talk.

true that, and here it's worse. they become extreme caricatures of themselves

+1. its super easy to type something controversial and have the protection of the computer screen.

[GatorStudent]

While I think that the OP has somewhat of a too-rosy perspective (as I (humbly) feel that the Class of 2011 will be the "lost generation" of lawyers), the idea that a state clerkship will open up doors for someone has some credibility. Having known quite a few people who have clerked at the state level, I know many of them who found solid jobs after they clerked, from working for well-known regional firms to clerking for federal judges. (And some of them clerk for other judges, or work as a staff attorney for the court. While that may not be many TLS'ers "cup of tea," most clerks have a VERY high QOL relative to the private sector, and 45-50k is not too bad to live on.) And that was when the economy was even worse. Of course, what I've proffered is anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I know quite a few people in this field.

[rose711]

So no one wants to comment on the content of the article as to where state law clerks should be counted? Professor Campos says they are part of the full-time temporary workers, for the reasons I quoted above: because no one would take these clerkships if they could get a full-time permanent job. I'm assuming he means a "good" permanent full-time job.

Certainly clerking for a state court judge is a hell of a lot better than many jobs, but the point is that, in the article, this job counts in the 50% of graduates who don't have permanent full-time jobs.

Perhaps Professor Campos is incorrect in his determination, perhaps clerking for a state court judge is more prestigious than he considers it to be; but in my comments I am following what he decided in a published article, not my own whim.

[DoubleChecks]

epiphany!

these debates will never get anywhere because self-interests will always be at the forefront! lol

[98234872348]

Certainly clerking for a state court judge is a hell of a lot better than many jobs, but the point is that, in the article, this job counts in the 50% of graduates who don't have permanent full-time jobs.

Wow, no. That is not at all what the article says.

This data suggests that fully one-third of those graduates who report they are working in full-time jobs that require a law degree are in temporary, rather than permanent, positions . . . I have treated state trial court clerkships as genuinely temporary employment, since few law graduates will accept such a clerkship if they have the option of taking a full-time permanent legal job instead.

This article fails to take into account that people with "temporary" positions can and do use this experience to get full time employment. Granted, maybe not the people working for admissions offices, but any legal experience is better than none and I am sure most of the people who take these jobs can leverage them into SOME sort of legal employment.

[ThomasMN]

You did read the article about how on average less than 50% of graduates get full-time, permanent jobs requiring a JD? And, unless you are clerking for a state supreme court, you are one of them?

People are trying to keep people from ending up in a situation like yours 6 figures of debt and no permanent job. If you think you are in a great position to advise people how to deal with this job market, and how they will be "fine", I would disagree.

To me, your story is one of the examples of what can go wrong in law; a cautionary tale.

Epic troll.

I hate people that mutate statistics. That 50% number comes from the statistics of ONE particular law school that is a t-50 - if I am right the TLS consensus was that it was either UC-Davis or Hastings.

[romothesavior]

Before I begin my thoughts, I would like to introduce myself. I started reading TLS in the Fall of 2006, when I was applying to law schools. I graduated in 2010 from a top 30 school (my school fluctuates within the top 20-30 range) in the top 35-40% of my class.

Emory isn't fluctuating. It's free falling.

HTH

[GatorStudent]

So no one wants to comment on the content of the article as to where state law clerks should be counted? Professor Campos says they are part of the full-time temporary workers, for the reasons I quoted above: because no one would take these clerkships if they could get a full-time permanent job. I'm assuming he means a "good" permanent full-time job.

Certainly clerking for a state court judge is a hell of a lot better than many jobs, but the point is that, in the article, this job counts in the 50% of graduates who don't have permanent full-time jobs.

Perhaps Professor Campos is incorrect in his determination, perhaps clerking for a state court judge is more prestigious than he considers it to be; but in my comments I am following what he decided in a published article, not my own whim.

There probably is some truth to Professor Campo's claim that many wouldn't take state clerkships if they could find something else.

EDIT: I'm going off what the poster stated re: Professor Campo's "claim." I didn't read the article.

However, there ARE some people who don't go to law school for prestige/money/whatever. For example, some of them want to clerk. Some care more about QOL.

And...some people get a clerkship, find out they like it the lifestyle, and clerk forever.

My point is that it's absurd to pretend that everyone who goes for a state clerkship is just doing it as a backup. I know people who did not--they wanted to clerk, and if they didn't get a federal clerkship, this was the next best thing (or close to it).

But, to be fair, I also know people who have heard from quite a few state judges that they've NEVER had the quality of applicants that they're seeing now. Instead of having a few high-quality students applying for each clerkship, there are dozens. And many of them are just desperate. But that can be said for almost any legal job, at this point.

[GatorStudent]

Clerkships are very competitive, even at the state level (especially when it comes to Courts of Appeal/State Supreme Courts). Quite frankly, if I were deciding between a permanent job offer in a field I was not interested in and the opportunity to clerk for a year or two, I'd take the latter.

The first sentence is VERY credited, especially with the state of the legal economy. I've also found that many law student share the same sentiment as you.

Now, mistergoft and I go to the same school, so maybe it's unique to our school, but I doubt it.

[romothesavior]

So no one wants to comment on the content of the article as to where state law clerks should be counted? Professor Campos says they are part of the full-time temporary workers, for the reasons I quoted above: because no one would take these clerkships if they could get a full-time permanent job. I'm assuming he means a "good" permanent full-time job.

Certainly clerking for a state court judge is a hell of a lot better than many jobs, but the point is that, in the article, this job counts in the 50% of graduates who don't have permanent full-time jobs.

Perhaps Professor Campos is incorrect in his determination, perhaps clerking for a state court judge is more prestigious than he considers it to be; but in my comments I am following what he decided in a published article, not my own whim.

There probably is some truth to Professor Campo's claim that many wouldn't take state clerkships if they could find something else.

However, there ARE some people who don't go to law school for prestige/money/whatever. For example, some of them want to clerk. Some care more about QOL.

That may be true, but my understanding is that clerking for a trial state judge in most states is not impressive, engaging, or fulfilling, and the pay is generally crap. And Professor Campos is absolutely correct that almost all students would take a full time, real job over some mundane, low-paying, dead-end clerking position with a Montana state family court judge or something.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to clerk. I'd even consider doing a state appellate clerkship over a job (Campos exempted these from his numbers). But I (and almost all others I know) will pass on state trial court if I have a real job, so I think he is spot on for not counting them as full-time, permanently employed.

But hey, I'm a 1L, so maybe my perception is incorrect.