X school because you want to Clerk! Forum

[84651846190]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

It depends on the clerkship. Some clerkships give you great experience. Some don't.

[Bildungsroman]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

[IAFG]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

It depends on the clerkship. Some clerkships give you great experience. Some don't.

I chose my words carefully. I'm not saying it's not valuable. I am saying they're overvalued. In that the hype is deafening.

[Bildungsroman]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

An older partner at my firm is amused by how an Article III clerkship has become this prestige prize. He went to HLS in the 70s. Back then, he said, there were a few highly sought after clerkships (SCOTUS, D.C. Cir., SDNY). But clerking in some remote district court or COA was something you did when you didn't have the grades for big law. It wasn't considered prestigious and students generally didn't want to do it unless they had to. These days, he shakes his head when he sees a YLS or HLS student scratch and claw for a district court clerkship in Missouri or Alabama.

Things have changed since the 1970s. Does this law partner shake his head when someone pays $12 for a movie ticket since they only cost $2 in the 1970s?

[IAFG]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

If you pay sticker and then do 2-3 clerkships all in an attempt to get there, you'll be out a lot more than that. And often enough end up with similar employment prospects to what you would have had otherwise.

[rpupkin]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

An older partner at my firm is amused by how an Article III clerkship has become this prestige prize. He went to HLS in the 70s. Back then, he said, there were a few highly sought after clerkships (SCOTUS, D.C. Cir., SDNY). But clerking in some remote district court or COA was something you did when you didn't have the grades for big law. It wasn't considered prestigious and students generally didn't want to do it unless they had to. These days, he shakes his head when he sees a YLS or HLS student scratch and claw for a district court clerkship in Missouri or Alabama.

Things have changed since the 1970s. Does this law partner shake his head when someone pays $12 for a movie ticket since they only cost $2 in the 1970s?

Probably not, seeing as how $2 in the 1970s is about the same as $12 now.

I think his point is that there is a clerkship mania that seems to be driving certain people to make decisions that don't further their careers in any meaningful way. It particularly irks him when corporate associates do it.

[Bildungsroman]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

An older partner at my firm is amused by how an Article III clerkship has become this prestige prize. He went to HLS in the 70s. Back then, he said, there were a few highly sought after clerkships (SCOTUS, D.C. Cir., SDNY). But clerking in some remote district court or COA was something you did when you didn't have the grades for big law. It wasn't considered prestigious and students generally didn't want to do it unless they had to. These days, he shakes his head when he sees a YLS or HLS student scratch and claw for a district court clerkship in Missouri or Alabama.

Things have changed since the 1970s. Does this law partner shake his head when someone pays $12 for a movie ticket since they only cost $2 in the 1970s?

Probably not, seeing as how $2 in the 1970s is about the same as $12 now.

That's the point. Times change, so a boomer using his experience from the 1970s as a metric for what should happen now is not some great insight; it's probably just a failure to adjust with the times.

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

If you pay sticker and then do 2-3 clerkships all in an attempt to get there, you'll be out a lot more than that. And often enough end up with similar employment prospects to what you would have had otherwise.

The "similar employment prospects" argument is probably just untrue. SCOTUS clerkships open up a lot of doors wider than good grades alone (e.g. appellate litigation, academia). And my point was about how firms value the clerkships. If a SCOTUS clerk isn't worth $285k more than a fresh graduate, why would a firm spend all that extra money to get one?

[jbagelboy]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

If you pay sticker and then do 2-3 clerkships all in an attempt to get there, you'll be out a lot more than that. And often enough end up with similar employment prospects to what you would have had otherwise.

Even I think that's a bit pessimistic. SCOTUS clerks tend to have excellent career trajectories. It's just that there are less than 40 a yr for thousands of T14 grads who all think they have a shot at one.

[IAFG]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

If you pay sticker and then do 2-3 clerkships all in an attempt to get there, you'll be out a lot more than that. And often enough end up with similar employment prospects to what you would have had otherwise.

Even I think that's a bit pessimistic. SCOTUS clerks tend to have excellent career trajectories. It's just that there are less than 40 a yr for thousands of T14 grads who all think they have a shot at one.

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway. I'm not saying it's worthless. I am saying it's overvalued.

[rpupkin]

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway. I'm not saying it's worthless. I am saying it's overvalued.

I'm with you on your basic point, but you're reaching a little too far here. A SCOTUS clerkship is like a golden ticket for academia. After clerking at SCOTUS, you can land a tenure track position at a good law school without having to bum along in a fellowship for 3 or so years first. Also, if you want to practice exclusively in appellate litigation as an associate, it is much easier to do so if you have a SCOTUS clerkship. If you're just coming equipped with a COA clerkship, most firms will push you towards at least some trial work (which is far more profitable for the firm).

You're right, of course, that law students should not make decisions about where to attend law school based on the very slim likelihood of getting a SCOTUS clerkship. But I think you're wrong about how much value an actual SCOTUS clerkship adds.

[Bildungsroman]

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway. I'm not saying it's worthless. I am saying it's overvalued.

This is an interesting assertion you keep making, but it seems unnecessarily to limit the scope of what qualifies as a career benefit (e.g. advantages after getting in the door at the firm) and runs counter to the actual practice of firms and law schools in their hiring decisions.

[IAFG]

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway. I'm not saying it's worthless. I am saying it's overvalued.

I'm with you on your basic point, but you're reaching a little too far here. A SCOTUS clerkship is like a golden ticket for academia. After clerking at SCOTUS, you can land a tenure track position at a good law school without having to bum along in a fellowship for 3 or so years first. Also, if you want to practice exclusively in appellate litigation as an associate, it is much easier to do so if you have a SCOTUS clerkship. If you're just coming equipped with a COA clerkship, most firms will push you towards at least some trial work (which is far more profitable for the firm).

You're right, of course, that law students should not make decisions about where to attend law school based on the very slim likelihood of getting a SCOTUS clerkship. But I think you're wrong about how much value an actual SCOTUS clerkship adds.

I think you're reading too much into my message about SCOTUS clerk value.

[rpupkin]

You're right, of course, that law students should not make decisions about where to attend law school based on the very slim likelihood of getting a SCOTUS clerkship. But I think you're wrong about how much value an actual SCOTUS clerkship adds.

I think you're reading too much into my message about SCOTUS clerk value.

I was responding primarily to this:

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway.

That was just too glib. A SCOTUS clerkship is a huge, career-changing boost for academia.

[beepboopbeep]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

Not to single this post out, but the strawmanning in this thread is getting crazy. No one's saying clerkships are terrible and students shouldn't ever shoot for them, especially SCOTUS clerkships. Just that it's absurd to decide on UVA over Penn or Chicago over Columbia because of a few percentage points difference in clerkship placement.

But circlejerk on, TLS.

[IAFG]

You're right, of course, that law students should not make decisions about where to attend law school based on the very slim likelihood of getting a SCOTUS clerkship. But I think you're wrong about how much value an actual SCOTUS clerkship adds.

I think you're reading too much into my message about SCOTUS clerk value.

I was responding primarily to this:

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway.

That was just too glib. A SCOTUS clerkship is a huge, career-changing boost for academia.

I think TLS overplays how hard academia is to get for people with sterling credentials. Heck, even lacking them.

[IAFG]

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway. I'm not saying it's worthless. I am saying it's overvalued.

This is an interesting assertion you keep making, but it seems unnecessarily to limit the scope of what qualifies as a career benefit (e.g. advantages after getting in the door at the firm) and runs counter to the actual practice of firms and law schools in their hiring decisions.

IMO, there's a big gap between how law students fetishize clerking and the actual boost you get from it. The fact that the boost is real doesn't detract from the existence of the gap.

[lawschool55]

Can we assume that people who get federal clerkships can get biglaw?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think there is a gap between the value ascribed to clerkships and the benefit, at least, particularly when you're a 0L who doesn't know what you want to do as a lawyer but have been told that clerking is another shiny prize to aim for (I'm talking about myself here, too). I don't think TLS really overstates how hard it is to get academia, though, if you mean a tenure-track job. It's not impossible, and the people who have the best shot are the people from the schools a lot of people here attend, but it's still pretty hard. There are just really few academic jobs.

I don't actually know that you can assume someone who gets a clerkship can get biglaw. Most of the time, sure, but I actually think that because clerkship hiring is so idiosyncratic, you can strike out of biglaw and still get a clerkship. The clerkship in itself may or may not get you biglaw if you didn't get it to start with; it can happen, but it's not guaranteed.

[IAFG]

Can we assume that people who get federal clerkships can get biglaw?

I know at least one federal term clerk with no shot at it. The reasons he got the clerkship are disconnected from what firms look for.

[worldtraveler]

You're right, of course, that law students should not make decisions about where to attend law school based on the very slim likelihood of getting a SCOTUS clerkship. But I think you're wrong about how much value an actual SCOTUS clerkship adds.

I think you're reading too much into my message about SCOTUS clerk value.

I was responding primarily to this:

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway.

That was just too glib. A SCOTUS clerkship is a huge, career-changing boost for academia.

I think TLS overplays how hard academia is to get for people with sterling credentials. Heck, even lacking them.

Given my own experience, I would agree with this. But I think I also have special snowflake syndrome so who knows.

[rpupkin]

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway.

That was just too glib. A SCOTUS clerkship is a huge, career-changing boost for academia.

I think TLS overplays how hard academia is to get for people with sterling credentials. Heck, even lacking them.

I actually agree with this. People write things like "You have to be top 1% of your class and be on the executive board of law review to get academia." That's not true. Success in academia is more about publishing record and area of interest than it is about tip-top grades, law review, and other markers of prestige.

You're still wrong about SCOTUS and academia, though. As A. Nony Mouse said, there just aren't that many tenure track positions available. A SCOTUS clerkship gives you a direct line into one of those positions. Everyone else is scratching and clawing.

[Anonymous User]

A SCOTUS clerk who cashes in that clerkship bonus ends up at the same firm they were gonna get if they theoretically turned down the clerkship. Academia? They were probably going to get that too anyway.

That was just too glib. A SCOTUS clerkship is a huge, career-changing boost for academia.

I think TLS overplays how hard academia is to get for people with sterling credentials. Heck, even lacking them.

I actually agree with this. People write things like "You have to be top 1% of your class and be on the executive board of law review to get academia." That's not true. Success in academia is more about publishing record and area of interest than it is about tip-top grades, law review, and other markers of prestige.

You're still wrong about SCOTUS and academia, though. As A. Nony Mouse said, there just aren't that many tenure track positions available. A SCOTUS clerkship gives you a direct line into one of those positions. Everyone else is scratching and clawing.

A couple things:

1. Academia's unbelievably competitive. But successful placement depends on somewhat different factors than what are commonly required for success in law. In descending order of importance, academia looks at (1) publication record, (2) other advanced degrees (esp. PhDs), (3) law school attended, (4) clerkships, (5) and finally how you did in law school, including law review, class rank, etc. Fellowships and VAPs probably fit in after publication record and advanced degrees in order of importance, but I didn't include them because you're not going to get a good fellowship/VAP without all of the rest of (1)-(5) (so being a Columbia fellow trumps going to Columbia for law school, probably, but your chances of getting a fellowship at Columbia are going to be much tougher if you went to Cardozo than if you went to NYU). And, of course, your research focus impacts your chances as well -- it is generally slightly easier to place as a corporations professor than as a conlaw prof, for example.

2. Being a SCOTUS clerk gives you a HUGE leg up for academia, all else being equal. That said, it's not nearly the golden ticket (anymore, at least) that those on this thread are implying. You'll find plenty of SCOTUS clerks scratching and biting for academia placements. You'll just also find that they tend to come up on top more often than others with similar credentials.

[Blessedassurance]

Clerkships, from SCOTUS on down, are incredibly overvalued on TLS and by law students in general.

Law firms must also be overvaluing them, since they're willing to pay a $285k bonus for a Supreme Court clerk.

If you pay sticker and then do 2-3 clerkships all in an attempt to get there, you'll be out a lot more than that. And often enough end up with similar employment prospects to what you would have had otherwise.

Even I think that's a bit pessimistic. SCOTUS clerks tend to have excellent career trajectories. It's just that there are less than 40 a yr for thousands of T14 grads who all think they have a shot at one.

scotus clerks overwhelmingly end up at law firms. a lot of them do make partners (although there are some "counsels" among them).

there are some who eventually make partners at jones day, wilmerhale, boutiques, glorified shitlaw etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... ted_States

curiously, an unusual number of the past two classes ended up at jones day:

--LinkRemoved--

[20141023]

.

[ph14]

Pretty much nobody who doesn't clerk gets academia UNLESS you also have a PhD. There are maybe enough special circumstances to account for 10-15% of the total hires in a given year, but 85-90% of the hires did either a clerkship or a PhD. So, yea, clerkships are pretty much a requirement for anyone hoping to go into academia who doesn't also want to get a PhD.

I've clerked and seen the post-clerkship job market and I think there are good reasons to want to clerk, and to prioritize clerking in choosing between schools (especially YS which really are in their own category when it comes to securing a clerkship). Clerking allows you an unusual amount of flexibility in choosing/changing law firm jobs (which is normally far more difficult a year out of law school), it does open a number of doors that would not otherwise have been opened, and is just a darn cool experience. As someone who believes strongly in the value of experiences for experience's sake, I think it's arguably one of the best things you can do as a lawyer. But for others -- especially for those who just want to be a lawyer and make money, endstop, the possibility of clerking may not always be worth sacrificing tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money for. But I did, and I don't regret it for one second.

On a final note, the poster who said that the folks who clerk generally already have excellent research and writing skills is probably correct. In my experience, my co-clerks have been far better at researching and writing than the litigators who come in front of the court (even the biglaw litigators). But it's false to assume that there isn't, therefore, any reason to clerk. I have grown more as a researcher and as a writer in my year(s) of clerking than in all of law school combined. Even having started clerking pretty solid in those departments, I nevertheless have had TONS of room to grow (as, I am sure, I still do).

It sounds like you had a great time with your clerkship, but it is an oversimplification / false dichotomy to assume that someone either wants become a good lawyer and therefore guns for a clerkship, or they only care about money and don't shoot for a clerkship. Yes, doing a clerkship will likely reduce the amount of money one could have made if they had gone straight into a firm, but other than that, if one is looking to do transactional biglaw work, I don't understand how spending a year (or more) doing a clerkship (or several of them) could possibly provide them with more pertinent experience than doing actual transactional work for that time. This is kind of the point that I was trying to make on the last page, and which IAFG has also pointed out: it seems like a lot of the advice on here is to do a clerkship no matter what your career goals are and to thereby base your choice of a law school around your chances of landing a clerkship, which just seems wrong.

Federal clerkships might generally be the hardest category on the ABA Employment Summary Report to land with enough data points to be meaningful, and they are a very good indicator of a school's overall placement power into any kind of employment, but I don't think that everyone should do one even if they have the chance just "for experience's sake."

It's pretty rare that I see anyone recommend a clerkship for someone interested in transactional work.