What's the best resume/credentials you've seen from a lawyer? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Yale undergrad has latin honors, and Kavanaugh only graduated cum laude. He also got his Kozinski clerkship as an emergency fill-in for Alex Azar, who quit, not based on law school grades (his original clerkship wasn't with a feeder). Obviously he's had an extremely successful career, but by all accounts I've seen Kavanaugh was a middling student by YLS standards.

Does anyone know why Azar left Kozinski so quickly? Some say he was fired, others that he quit - one of those things that’s sketchy enough to make me think that there *is* a deep state conspiracy where some secrets are protected and others aren’t. (Perfectly rational to go Luttig in the early ‘90s, but so soon after starting with Kozinski?)

Azar graduated in 1991 and Luttig's judicial appointment started August 2, 1991. So it's possible that it was just innocent musical chairs.

[Anonymous User]

Yale undergrad has latin honors, and Kavanaugh only graduated cum laude. He also got his Kozinski clerkship as an emergency fill-in for Alex Azar, who quit, not based on law school grades (his original clerkship wasn't with a feeder). Obviously he's had an extremely successful career, but by all accounts I've seen Kavanaugh was a middling student by YLS standards.

Does anyone know why Azar left Kozinski so quickly? Some say he was fired, others that he quit - one of those things that’s sketchy enough to make me think that there *is* a deep state conspiracy where some secrets are protected and others aren’t. (Perfectly rational to go Luttig in the early ‘90s, but so soon after starting with Kozinski?)

Azar graduated in 1991 and Luttig's judicial appointment started August 2, 1991. So it's possible that it was just innocent musical chairs.

I think Ruth Marcus said she wasn’t able to find anyone willing to talk about it, which suggests that it was probably acrimonious. If it was just Luttig’s confirmation, Azar would have known it was coming and not gone to work for Kozinski on the opposite coast, and Kozinski (who hired famously far out) would have known it was coming and planned ahead rather than calling around looking for a clerk who could start immediately.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think it’s actually true that LR is a weak signal anymore—all schools still select the bulk of editors from grades and/or a writing comp as always—but many conservatives now dislike LRs because they associate them with AA, and use the “weak signal” thing as the excuse. (And anyway even with AA top LRs are still like 10% URM.)

The bolded statements are completely factually wrong. Looking through the T6 LR websites, for example, CLR's no longer states that any candidates are selected solely on the basis of write-on (at least a couple of years ago, some were write-on only, while the majority IIRC of positions were holistic).

And your statement about the demographics is like way, way off (which is a good thing IMO since diversity is important, but still).

“Holistic” still = basically 100% write on and/or grades for non-URMs, but with AA for URMs. (Source: recent T6 exec boarder.)

And anyway, that isn’t true.

YLJ: 100% write-on plus AA
HLR: 70% write-on/grade-on with no AA, 30% holistic
SLR: 100% write-on with no AA
Chicago: 40% grade-on with no AA, 60% write-on (the formula for which is 85% writing competition, 15% personal statements)
Columbia: 100% holistic
NYU: 80% write/grade-on (with a personal statement component), 20% diversity

So yes, the bulk of editors are still chosen based on write-on and grades. No school I’m aware of selects primarily based on anything except write-on and grades. Personally I think write-on competitions themselves are a weak signal, but that’s the way it’s always been done, not something new with holistic selection.

LR exec board selection is much more political, but not membership.

This isn't true for Columbia; it's a mix of some solely based on write-on competition and others based on holistic (which means grades + write-on score + personal statement and diversity).

[Anonymous User]

Love the racism in all these posts that no one else mentioned Barack Obama or Thurgood Mardhall. And yes, I’m not hiding behind anonymous.

Pretty sure both were mentioned or at least Obama. But neither qualify for this thread and it has nothing to do with race, sorry. Obama....went to Harvard Law? Led HLR? Then had an unremarkable legal career (no clerkships, no awards or whatnot) before politics. Yes, he was president, but Joe Biden is not on the list either. Bill Clinton was at least a Rhodes Scholar.

Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer, then a judge, SG, justice. He at least graduated first in class.

Both brilliant people and historic trailblazers and nothing can take that away from them. If anything, success despite not having the fancy resume is even more impressive.

Obama graduated magna at HLS, was the first Black HLR president, and started teaching at UChicago on graduation, which is unheard of. He easily could have clerked on SCOTUS but decided that he didn't want to clerk--IIRC Judge Mivka offered him a clerkship without even an interview and Obama said he wasn't interested. And also being a senior lecturer (a faculty position) at Chicago and a partner at one of Chicago's top civil rights firms is hardly "unremarkable"--at least no less unremarkable than Byron White, who was a partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs.

Also, calling Marshall's legal career just being a "lawyer" is a massive understatement.

It's absurd to say that Obama and Marshall aren't in the conversation.

as the person who posted the Byron white “cv”, this whole conversation is pretty dumb but I was specifically focused on the fact that byron white has this triple crown of doing absurdly well in LS, doing absurdly well in the nfl, and then going on to scotus after doing MIDLAW.

if Obama had done some idiosyncratic shit like be a champion bowler or something I’d probably give it to him instead. you need the combo of prestigious legal education, ultimate career success AND random non-law success to be in the pantheon imo.

bill Clinton should be in the conversation too but he also lacks the 3rd it factor although the sax helps him a bit

[Prudent_Jurist]

Love the racism in all these posts that no one else mentioned Barack Obama or Thurgood Mardhall. And yes, I’m not hiding behind anonymous.

Pretty sure both were mentioned or at least Obama. But neither qualify for this thread and it has nothing to do with race, sorry. Obama....went to Harvard Law? Led HLR? Then had an unremarkable legal career (no clerkships, no awards or whatnot) before politics. Yes, he was president, but Joe Biden is not on the list either. Bill Clinton was at least a Rhodes Scholar.

Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer, then a judge, SG, justice. He at least graduated first in class.

Both brilliant people and historic trailblazers and nothing can take that away from them. If anything, success despite not having the fancy resume is even more impressive.

Obama graduated magna at HLS, was the first Black HLR president, and started teaching at UChicago on graduation, which is unheard of. He easily could have clerked on SCOTUS but decided that he didn't want to clerk--IIRC Judge Mivka offered him a clerkship without even an interview and Obama said he wasn't interested. And also being a senior lecturer (a faculty position) at Chicago and a partner at one of Chicago's top civil rights firms is hardly "unremarkable"--at least no less unremarkable than Byron White, who was a partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs.

Also, calling Marshall's legal career just being a "lawyer" is a massive understatement.

It's absurd to say that Obama and Marshall aren't in the conversation.

as the person who posted the Byron white “cv”, this whole conversation is pretty dumb but I was specifically focused on the fact that byron white has this triple crown of doing absurdly well in LS, doing absurdly well in the nfl, and then going on to scotus after doing MIDLAW.

if Obama had done some idiosyncratic shit like be a champion bowler or something I’d probably give it to him instead. you need the combo of prestigious legal education, ultimate career success AND random non-law success to be in the pantheon imo.

bill Clinton should be in the conversation too but he also lacks the 3rd it factor although the sax helps him a bit

So, winning the Presidency doesn’t count for anything?

[Anonymous User]

Love the racism in all these posts that no one else mentioned Barack Obama or Thurgood Mardhall. And yes, I’m not hiding behind anonymous.

Pretty sure both were mentioned or at least Obama. But neither qualify for this thread and it has nothing to do with race, sorry. Obama....went to Harvard Law? Led HLR? Then had an unremarkable legal career (no clerkships, no awards or whatnot) before politics. Yes, he was president, but Joe Biden is not on the list either. Bill Clinton was at least a Rhodes Scholar.

Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer, then a judge, SG, justice. He at least graduated first in class.

Both brilliant people and historic trailblazers and nothing can take that away from them. If anything, success despite not having the fancy resume is even more impressive.

Obama graduated magna at HLS, was the first Black HLR president, and started teaching at UChicago on graduation, which is unheard of. He easily could have clerked on SCOTUS but decided that he didn't want to clerk--IIRC Judge Mivka offered him a clerkship without even an interview and Obama said he wasn't interested. And also being a senior lecturer (a faculty position) at Chicago and a partner at one of Chicago's top civil rights firms is hardly "unremarkable"--at least no less unremarkable than Byron White, who was a partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs.

Also, calling Marshall's legal career just being a "lawyer" is a massive understatement.

It's absurd to say that Obama and Marshall aren't in the conversation.

as the person who posted the Byron white “cv”, this whole conversation is pretty dumb but I was specifically focused on the fact that byron white has this triple crown of doing absurdly well in LS, doing absurdly well in the nfl, and then going on to scotus after doing MIDLAW.

if Obama had done some idiosyncratic shit like be a champion bowler or something I’d probably give it to him instead. you need the combo of prestigious legal education, ultimate career success AND random non-law success to be in the pantheon imo.

bill Clinton should be in the conversation too but he also lacks the 3rd it factor although the sax helps him a bit

So, winning the Presidency doesn’t count for anything?

No.

[Anonymous User]

Debevoise has 2 SCOTUS clerks and a Rhodes Scholar ... in the M&A group...

[Anonymous User]

Love the racism in all these posts that no one else mentioned Barack Obama or Thurgood Mardhall. And yes, I’m not hiding behind anonymous.

Pretty sure both were mentioned or at least Obama. But neither qualify for this thread and it has nothing to do with race, sorry. Obama....went to Harvard Law? Led HLR? Then had an unremarkable legal career (no clerkships, no awards or whatnot) before politics. Yes, he was president, but Joe Biden is not on the list either. Bill Clinton was at least a Rhodes Scholar.

Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer, then a judge, SG, justice. He at least graduated first in class.

Both brilliant people and historic trailblazers and nothing can take that away from them. If anything, success despite not having the fancy resume is even more impressive.

Obama graduated magna at HLS, was the first Black HLR president, and started teaching at UChicago on graduation, which is unheard of. He easily could have clerked on SCOTUS but decided that he didn't want to clerk--IIRC Judge Mivka offered him a clerkship without even an interview and Obama said he wasn't interested. And also being a senior lecturer (a faculty position) at Chicago and a partner at one of Chicago's top civil rights firms is hardly "unremarkable"--at least no less unremarkable than Byron White, who was a partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs.

Also, calling Marshall's legal career just being a "lawyer" is a massive understatement.

It's absurd to say that Obama and Marshall aren't in the conversation.

as the person who posted the Byron white “cv”, this whole conversation is pretty dumb but I was specifically focused on the fact that byron white has this triple crown of doing absurdly well in LS, doing absurdly well in the nfl, and then going on to scotus after doing MIDLAW.

if Obama had done some idiosyncratic shit like be a champion bowler or something I’d probably give it to him instead. you need the combo of prestigious legal education, ultimate career success AND random non-law success to be in the pantheon imo.

bill Clinton should be in the conversation too but he also lacks the 3rd it factor although the sax helps him a bit

So, winning the Presidency doesn’t count for anything?

honestly being a best selling author relatively early in life counts more in totality.

an outsize number of us presidents have been lawyers, >50%, so being prez is in the category of “ultimate career success”. on that basis Lincoln wins it all because he was president and won a civil war and no one else can even try and trump that—is Washington were a lawyer he’d win but he wasn’t. Lincoln was also a renowned wrestling champion so another point for him

[Prudent_Jurist]

Love the racism in all these posts that no one else mentioned Barack Obama or Thurgood Mardhall. And yes, I’m not hiding behind anonymous.

Pretty sure both were mentioned or at least Obama. But neither qualify for this thread and it has nothing to do with race, sorry. Obama....went to Harvard Law? Led HLR? Then had an unremarkable legal career (no clerkships, no awards or whatnot) before politics. Yes, he was president, but Joe Biden is not on the list either. Bill Clinton was at least a Rhodes Scholar.

Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer, then a judge, SG, justice. He at least graduated first in class.

Both brilliant people and historic trailblazers and nothing can take that away from them. If anything, success despite not having the fancy resume is even more impressive.

Obama graduated magna at HLS, was the first Black HLR president, and started teaching at UChicago on graduation, which is unheard of. He easily could have clerked on SCOTUS but decided that he didn't want to clerk--IIRC Judge Mivka offered him a clerkship without even an interview and Obama said he wasn't interested. And also being a senior lecturer (a faculty position) at Chicago and a partner at one of Chicago's top civil rights firms is hardly "unremarkable"--at least no less unremarkable than Byron White, who was a partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs.

Also, calling Marshall's legal career just being a "lawyer" is a massive understatement.

It's absurd to say that Obama and Marshall aren't in the conversation.

as the person who posted the Byron white “cv”, this whole conversation is pretty dumb but I was specifically focused on the fact that byron white has this triple crown of doing absurdly well in LS, doing absurdly well in the nfl, and then going on to scotus after doing MIDLAW.

if Obama had done some idiosyncratic shit like be a champion bowler or something I’d probably give it to him instead. you need the combo of prestigious legal education, ultimate career success AND random non-law success to be in the pantheon imo.

bill Clinton should be in the conversation too but he also lacks the 3rd it factor although the sax helps him a bit

So, winning the Presidency doesn’t count for anything?

honestly being a best selling author relatively early in life counts more in totality.

an outsize number of us presidents have been lawyers, >50%, so being prez is in the category of “ultimate career success”. on that basis Lincoln wins it all because he was president and won a civil war and no one else can even try and trump that—is Washington were a lawyer he’d win but he wasn’t. Lincoln was also a renowned wrestling champion so another point for him

So, winning the presidency isn’t as prestigious as being a young bestselling author?

I needed to read that sentence two and a half times before I realized I don’t understand your value-system.

[Sackboy]

So, winning the presidency isn’t as prestigious as being a young bestselling author?

I needed to read that sentence two and a half times before I realized I don’t understand your value-system.

Pretty much all of our politicians are corrupt and awful, so I can't imagine why there would be any prestige involved.

Being a best-selling author seems much more difficult and respectable than being a politician generally (though, yes, president would be more difficult). Though, the is probably a tier list in prestige. Being a best-selling author of teen romance novels isn't quite the same as being the best-selling author of Game of Thrones.

Regardless, prestige is pretty illusory and not worth dedicating any of your efforts to in life.

[Prudent_Jurist]

So, winning the presidency isn’t as prestigious as being a young bestselling author?

I needed to read that sentence two and a half times before I realized I don’t understand your value-system.

Pretty much all of our politicians are corrupt and awful, so I can't imagine why there would be any prestige involved.

Being a best-selling author seems much more difficult and respectable than being a politician generally (though, yes, president would be more difficult). Though, the is probably a tier list in prestige. Being a best-selling author of teen romance novels isn't quite the same as being the best-selling author of Game of Thrones.

Regardless, prestige is pretty illusory and not worth dedicating any of your efforts to in life.

You realize people buy their way onto the NY Times bestsellers list? And do you also realize this whole thread is about prestige?

But the whole bestselling author thing is such a fallacy in context. Just because Obama was not a bestselling author does not mean his winning the Presidency does not contribute to making him a prestigious lawyer.

Furthermore, just because a lot of US Presidents have been lawyers does not mean a lot of lawyers have been US Presidents. So, I’m not really seeing how Obama is not a lawyer with impressive credentials.

[Sackboy]

So, winning the presidency isn’t as prestigious as being a young bestselling author?

I needed to read that sentence two and a half times before I realized I don’t understand your value-system.

Pretty much all of our politicians are corrupt and awful, so I can't imagine why there would be any prestige involved.

Being a best-selling author seems much more difficult and respectable than being a politician generally (though, yes, president would be more difficult). Though, the is probably a tier list in prestige. Being a best-selling author of teen romance novels isn't quite the same as being the best-selling author of Game of Thrones.

Regardless, prestige is pretty illusory and not worth dedicating any of your efforts to in life.

You realize people buy their way onto the NY Times bestsellers list? And do you also realize this whole thread is about prestige?

But the whole bestselling author thing is such a fallacy in context. Just because Obama was not a bestselling author does not mean his winning the Presidency does not contribute to making him a prestigious lawyer.

Furthermore, just because a lot of US Presidents have been lawyers does not mean a lot of lawyers have been US Presidents. So, I’m not really seeing how Obama is not a lawyer with impressive credentials.

Please use your lawyer skills to find where I typed NY Times bestseller. Also, I guess I should have been clearer that it's more impressive to be a bestseller based on the popularity of your novel. I did not mean to boost any of these "personalities" that produce books after long careers and have massive media campaigns supporting them. Not a lot of lawyers have also been owners of donut shops. Doesn't make it prestigious, mate. I can't imagine how anyone would think being a politician in this country is prestigious when we have had a reality star president, senators who throw snowballs on the senate floor as proof global warming doesn't exist, and u.s. reps who believe in jewish space lasers. Like, GTFO.

[randomthrowaway]

I'll throw out a fairly unknown lawyer, Robert Cochran.

• Stanford undergrad (economics)

• Stanford, JD

• Got bored in private practice after law school, so got an MBA from Harvard

• Got bored working at McKinsey post-MBA, so wrote a TV script for L.A. Law, sent it in and got hired as a writer.

• Writer for JAG

• Writer/producer of The Commish

• Creator/producer/writer of La Femme Nikita and 24

This guy gets my vote solely due to the fact that he created Jack Bauer.

[nixy]

Please use your lawyer skills to find where I typed NY Times bestseller. Also, I guess I should have been clearer that it's more impressive to be a bestseller based on the popularity of your novel. I did not mean to boost any of these "personalities" that produce books after long careers and have massive media campaigns supporting them. Not a lot of lawyers have also been owners of donut shops. Doesn't make it prestigious, mate. I can't imagine how anyone would think being a politician in this country is prestigious when we have had a reality star president, senators who throw snowballs on the senate floor as proof global warming doesn't exist, and u.s. reps who believe in jewish space lasers. Like, GTFO.

Oh come on, of course it's prestigious to be president. Maybe you think it shouldn't be, but it pretty undeniably is. That doesn't mean someone is smart or moral or a good person or admirable or anything like that, but prestige isn't a measure of those things. It's mostly a measure of scarcity/selectivity. Like clerking for SCOTUS is prestigious not because it's a perfect measure of smarts/ability, but because so few people are going to be able to do it.

[Anonymous User]

The only people who don't think politics is prestigious are people that realized no one would ever vote for them long ago

[Sackboy]

The scarcity argument isn't really very good, because there are a fair number of things that are quite scarce and have little prestige. Prestige is more of a combination of scarcity, desirability, and difficulty. Being a politician generally hits maybe 1 of those, and POTUS only hits more than 1 due to it being the peak outcome of a broad category. I can't think of a single politician that I think "wow, they're so prestigious". Maybe they were prestigious like 70 years ago.

The only people who don't think politics is prestigious are people that realized no one would ever vote for them long ago

Incredible anon take. I hope my children are as preffftigious as Trump one day.

[nixy]

The scarcity argument isn't really very good, because there are a fair number of things that are quite scarce and have little prestige. Prestige is more of a combination of scarcity, desirability, and difficulty. Being a politician generally hits maybe 1 of those, and POTUS only hits more than 1 due to it being the peak outcome of a broad category. I can't think of a single politician that I think "wow, they're so prestigious". Maybe they were prestigious like 70 years ago.

You think your average Joe Public thinks a fancy biglaw partner is more prestigious than POTUS? You don’t have to respect something/someone to acknowledge it carries prestige. Like, you can think the person is an idiot/asshole and acknowledge that the office is prestigious. (If you’re just giving your own opinion about it, that’s cool, I just don’t think it’s widely shared.)

I get your point about scarcity, but I was rolling “difficult to get” under scarcity. As for desirability, lord knows I don’t want to be president but there are LOTS of people who do. They might all be sociopaths but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t carry prestige.

(And to be clear, I’m not calling all politicians prestigious. Just the presidency.)

[Anonymous User]

The scarcity argument isn't really very good, because there are a fair number of things that are quite scarce and have little prestige. Prestige is more of a combination of scarcity, desirability, and difficulty. Being a politician generally hits maybe 1 of those, and POTUS only hits more than 1 due to it being the peak outcome of a broad category. I can't think of a single politician that I think "wow, they're so prestigious". Maybe they were prestigious like 70 years ago.

The only people who don't think politics is prestigious are people that realized no one would ever vote for them long ago

Incredible anon take. I hope my children are as preffftigious as Trump one day.

Let's look at the Senate. 100 in total, 6 year job guarantee, genuinely interesting work--oh, and by the way, you have to convince an entire state to vote for you. Scarce, desirable, difficult. Get rekt.

[Sackboy]

The scarcity argument isn't really very good, because there are a fair number of things that are quite scarce and have little prestige. Prestige is more of a combination of scarcity, desirability, and difficulty. Being a politician generally hits maybe 1 of those, and POTUS only hits more than 1 due to it being the peak outcome of a broad category. I can't think of a single politician that I think "wow, they're so prestigious". Maybe they were prestigious like 70 years ago.

The only people who don't think politics is prestigious are people that realized no one would ever vote for them long ago

Incredible anon take. I hope my children are as preffftigious as Trump one day.

Let's look at the Senate. 100 in total, 6 year job guarantee, genuinely interesting work--oh, and by the way, you have to convince an entire state to vote for you. Scarce, desirable, difficult. Get rekt.

"Genuinely interesting work" lol. Have you not paid attention to the Senate's success over the past 30(+) years? There is no desirability to being a U.S. Senator unless you want to be a crony, grifter, etc. If your party doesn't have the POTUS, Senate, and House, you're not going to do jack shit. When your party actually gets all 3, you'll squeeze out 1 or 2 pieces of meaningful legislation that will primarily be tax cuts or centrist shitstains of legislation. BTW, your party is achieving this once or twice a decade. What an idiot.

[Sackboy]

You think your average Joe Public thinks a fancy biglaw partner is more prestigious than POTUS? You don’t have to respect something/someone to acknowledge it carries prestige. Like, you can think the person is an idiot/asshole and acknowledge that the office is prestigious. (If you’re just giving your own opinion about it, that’s cool, I just don’t think it’s widely shared.)

I get your point about scarcity, but I was rolling “difficult to get” under scarcity. As for desirability, lord knows I don’t want to be president but there are LOTS of people who do. They might all be sociopaths but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t carry prestige.

(And to be clear, I’m not calling all politicians prestigious. Just the presidency.)

I mean I don't think fancy biglaw partners are prestigious, so we agree there. POTUS is definitely more prestigious than a lot of regular jobs, but that doesn't say much. I'm also not sure if carrying prestige among sociopaths should make something prestigious. It's very clear the American public doesn't respect the presidency whatsoever any more.

[Saami]

Taft:

Yale undergrad
University of Cinci LLB (strange but whatever)
Solicitor General
6th Circuit Judge
Governor of Philippians
Governor of Cuba
Secretary of War (now Defense)
President
Chief Justice of Supreme Court

Yea, but was he a Coker Fellow?

[Saami]

I don’t think it’s actually true that LR is a weak signal anymore—all schools still select the bulk of editors from grades and/or a writing comp as always—but many conservatives now dislike LRs because they associate them with AA, and use the “weak signal” thing as the excuse. (And anyway even with AA top LRs are still like 10% URM.)

The bolded statements are completely factually wrong. Looking through the T6 LR websites, for example, CLR's no longer states that any candidates are selected solely on the basis of write-on (at least a couple of years ago, some were write-on only, while the majority IIRC of positions were holistic).

And your statement about the demographics is like way, way off (which is a good thing IMO since diversity is important, but still).

“Holistic” still = basically 100% write on and/or grades for non-URMs, but with AA for URMs. (Source: recent T6 exec boarder.)

And anyway, that isn’t true.

YLJ: 100% write-on plus AA
HLR: 70% write-on/grade-on with no AA, 30% holistic
SLR: 100% write-on with no AA
Chicago: 40% grade-on with no AA, 60% write-on (the formula for which is 85% writing competition, 15% personal statements)
Columbia: 100% holistic
NYU: 80% write/grade-on (with a personal statement component), 20% diversity

So yes, the bulk of editors are still chosen based on write-on and grades. No school I’m aware of selects primarily based on anything except write-on and grades. Personally I think write-on competitions themselves are a weak signal, but that’s the way it’s always been done, not something new with holistic selection.

LR exec board selection is much more political, but not membership.

This isn't true for Columbia; it's a mix of some solely based on write-on competition and others based on holistic (which means grades + write-on score + personal statement and diversity).

This. When I applied a few years ago, there were 45 openings, of which 15 were offered to the 15 highest write-on scores, and the other 30 were chosen holistically. So, about one-third CLR members are chosen blindly through write-on. I can confirm this because despite being a straight white male with a B+ average, I made it onto CLR, presumably because I spent an insane amount of time on my write-on.

Edit: I should add that grades play a substantial role in the "holistic" evaluation, or so I'm told. It's no coincidence that CLR members are overrepresented among RBG Award recipients.

[Anonymous User]

The scarcity argument isn't really very good, because there are a fair number of things that are quite scarce and have little prestige. Prestige is more of a combination of scarcity, desirability, and difficulty. Being a politician generally hits maybe 1 of those, and POTUS only hits more than 1 due to it being the peak outcome of a broad category. I can't think of a single politician that I think "wow, they're so prestigious". Maybe they were prestigious like 70 years ago.

The only people who don't think politics is prestigious are people that realized no one would ever vote for them long ago

Incredible anon take. I hope my children are as preffftigious as Trump one day.

Let's look at the Senate. 100 in total, 6 year job guarantee, genuinely interesting work--oh, and by the way, you have to convince an entire state to vote for you. Scarce, desirable, difficult. Get rekt.

"Genuinely interesting work" lol. Have you not paid attention to the Senate's success over the past 30(+) years? There is no desirability to being a U.S. Senator unless you want to be a crony, grifter, etc. If your party doesn't have the POTUS, Senate, and House, you're not going to do jack shit. When your party actually gets all 3, you'll squeeze out 1 or 2 pieces of meaningful legislation that will primarily be tax cuts or centrist shitstains of legislation. BTW, your party is achieving this once or twice a decade. What an idiot.

The fact your believe this doomer nonsense while an (essentially) divided government:

a) Passed a series of covid relief bills that propped up much of the economy during a global pandemic
b) Funded one of the fastest vaccine plans in world history (and made Americans have broad vaccine availability well before most other first world countries)
c) Passed a significant and major bipartisan infrastructure package

Suggests you really don't recognize the successes of this government. The Biden administration is still getting its feet under it, but I'm confident it will end up doing well.

[Anonymous User]

The scarcity argument isn't really very good, because there are a fair number of things that are quite scarce and have little prestige. Prestige is more of a combination of scarcity, desirability, and difficulty. Being a politician generally hits maybe 1 of those, and POTUS only hits more than 1 due to it being the peak outcome of a broad category. I can't think of a single politician that I think "wow, they're so prestigious". Maybe they were prestigious like 70 years ago.

The only people who don't think politics is prestigious are people that realized no one would ever vote for them long ago

Incredible anon take. I hope my children are as preffftigious as Trump one day.

Let's look at the Senate. 100 in total, 6 year job guarantee, genuinely interesting work--oh, and by the way, you have to convince an entire state to vote for you. Scarce, desirable, difficult. Get rekt.

"Genuinely interesting work" lol. Have you not paid attention to the Senate's success over the past 30(+) years? There is no desirability to being a U.S. Senator unless you want to be a crony, grifter, etc. If your party doesn't have the POTUS, Senate, and House, you're not going to do jack shit. When your party actually gets all 3, you'll squeeze out 1 or 2 pieces of meaningful legislation that will primarily be tax cuts or centrist shitstains of legislation. BTW, your party is achieving this once or twice a decade. What an idiot.

The fact your believe this doomer nonsense while an (essentially) divided government:

a) Passed a series of covid relief bills that propped up much of the economy during a global pandemic
b) Funded one of the fastest vaccine plans in world history (and made Americans have broad vaccine availability well before most other first world countries)
c) Passed a significant and major bipartisan infrastructure package

Suggests you really don't recognize the successes of this government. The Biden administration is still getting its feet under it, but I'm confident it will end up doing well.

Happy to be back to brunch, are we?

[Lacepiece23]

I’ll go back to my sentiments a few pages ago. This thread reeks of unconscious bias towards white male lawyers.

I brought up Barry O and no one even commented until I mentioned the fact that one of the most accomplished resumes was well overlooked. And then multiple posts tried to argue that POTUS isn’t prestigious. Lmao, gtfoh.

The fact that Thurgood Marhsall, the guy that was like 29/32 in the Supreme Court, got black defendants off in front of all white juries in the 50s, sued thr law school that denied him admission because of his race and won, and ended up being on SCOTUS wasn’t mentioned by anyone but me is laughable.

Also, no RBG mention? Seriously? Albeit she stole Marshall’s strategy for overturning SCOTUS precedent, she still won significant rights for women, was top of her class at Harvard, a professor, and only transferred to Columbia to take care of her sick husband.