Top Law Schools

You want it, they got it:

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... iii_clerks

Last year they posted stats which must have been c/o 2007: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =1&t=75513

You are hereby authorized to speculate baselessly.

If I may suggest some: UCLA > Berkeley LOL; vandy / dook with especially strong showings. Michigan from 14% to 9%? ROFL.

School - Article III placement
Yale University - 31.4%
Stanford University - 22.0%
Harvard University - 15.5%
Duke University - 13.0%
University of Chicago - 13.0%
University of Pennsylvania - 12.8%
University of Virginia - 11.8%
Columbia University - 11.0%
Vanderbilt University - 10.6%
University of Georgia - 10.4%
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill 10.0%
Northwestern University - 9.4%
Washington and Lee University - 9.0%
University of Texas--Austin - 9.0%
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor - 9.0%
Emory University - 9.0%
New York University - 8.5%
Washington University in St. Louis - 8.2%
Cornell University - 8.0%
University of Notre Dame - 7.8%
Georgetown University - 7.4%
University of California--Los Angeles - 7.1%
University of South Dakota - 7.0%
University of Alabama - 7.0%
University of California--Berkeley - 7.0%
Other schools - Less than 7%

Disclaimer for 0Ls: The percentages here are very difficult to glean useful information from. Some schools with low percentages may place more in more prestigious clerkships, it masks the CoA vs. district court distinction, at good schools with private practice focus (NYU and Columbia stand out) many students forgo clerkships to make bank, etc. Not to mention the application process is so personal as to make every year to year change more volatile than many other metrics.

Go!

Not to overspeculate or anything, but it is nice to see WUSTL with a decent showing. Better than its traditional midwestern counterparts anyways (UIUC, ND, Iowa, Minn, etc.)

But like you said, it is a personal thing as well, and fluctuations are the norm (since WUSTL had rather low clerkship placement the year before).

But still... its nice to see.

.

Woah there, Georgia, don't set the world on fire.

...

dood wrote:University of Georgia - 10.4%
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill 10.0%

Surprising, but I suspect it's because these schools have very small classes. Too lazy to actually check.

Southern schools do well, because most of the T14 claw each others' eyes out for CA/NY/DC/IL

Small schools have more volatility because 2 students can be > 1% of the class, which means much bigger ripples if a handful of the top of the class have their hearts set on or against clerking.

Also a big factor: Alumni clerking. Some schools do great at placing alumni in clerkships, some schools don't do well at all. These data don't reflect that.

dood wrote:University of Georgia - 10.4%
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill 10.0%

Surprising, but I suspect it's because these schools have very small classes. Too lazy to actually check.

Medium sized classes and a large local market. The south is arguably the biggest population center in the country, and consequently has a lot of judges who need clerks. Moreover, I get the impression that the judges there are more willing to hire from their local schools.

Artcile III judges are overated-all the cool kids are clerking for ALJs

Matthies wrote:Artcile III judges are overated-all the cool kids are clerking for ALJs

I imagine ALJs in your area of interest can be some of the most fascinating, directly relevant legal experience you can obtain. Talk about the 'best legal job nobody has ever heard of', lol. Is that where you're headed?

disco_barred wrote:

Matthies wrote:Artcile III judges are overated-all the cool kids are clerking for ALJs

I imagine ALJs in your area of interest can be some of the most fascinating, directly relevant legal experience you can obtain. Talk about the 'best legal job nobody has ever heard of', lol. Is that where you're headed?

Well i thought it might be if i did not pass the bar, fascinating fact, you don't have be licisned to pratice in many ALJ courts.

Penn showing off the new push to get grads into clerking, I like it. I mean I'm not smart enough to clerk but I want my friends to. I need those connects in high places, lol

not sure I'd believe these numbers, since WUSTL publishes their clerkship placements and the #s don't match.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thr ... forum_id=2 (AutoAdmit: parental guidance suggested)

at least it's better than when people speculate from just general "clerking %" numbers

protip: from certain schools it's better to work at traffic court than get a job straight out. for others, not so much

also, IMO when the c/o 2010/11 #'s come out, i'm not sure how much stock to put in them, because people who didn't get no-offered were/will just thank their lucky stars and just start work. i think we've all heard horror stories about COA clerks getting boned

Glad to see UNC doing well here.

jss1100 wrote:Glad to see UNC doing well here.

You do realize these UNC numbers are fraudulent, right? As in factually untrue. There is no possibility that UNC has that % of Art. III clerks and that 100% of its clerks are Art. III clerks. While the former is not believeable, the latter goes much further. It seems that UNC and several other schools (e.g., WUSTL) reported "all clerks" as opposed to "Art. III clerks," thus grossly inflating their #'s.

*faps*

Can anyone explain Emory's numbers?

Article III Clerkships: 9.0%
All Clerkships: 9.1%
% per person: 0.4% (Their class size is about 250 which should mean that each person counts for 0.4% of the class.)

Wahoo1L wrote:Can anyone explain Emory's numbers?

Article III Clerkships: 9.0%
All Clerkships: 9.1%
% per person: 0.4% (Their class size is about 250 which should mean that each person counts for 0.4% of the class.)

That's hilarious...

oh, data. You so meaningless.

TTT-LS wrote:

jss1100 wrote:Glad to see UNC doing well here.

You do realize these UNC numbers are fraudulent, right? As in factually untrue. There is no possibility that UNC has that % of Art. III clerks and that 100% of its clerks are Art. III clerks. While the former is not believeable, the latter goes much further. It seems that UNC and several other schools (e.g., WUSTL) reported "all clerks" as opposed to "Art. III clerks," thus grossly inflating their #'s.

Are the numbers for Chicago correct? They stand at exactly 13% for both "all judicial clerks" and "Art. III clerks". Any info would be appreciated.

sumus romani wrote:

TTT-LS wrote:

jss1100 wrote:Glad to see UNC doing well here.

You do realize these UNC numbers are fraudulent, right? As in factually untrue. There is no possibility that UNC has that % of Art. III clerks and that 100% of its clerks are Art. III clerks. While the former is not believeable, the latter goes much further. It seems that UNC and several other schools (e.g., WUSTL) reported "all clerks" as opposed to "Art. III clerks," thus grossly inflating their #'s.

Are the numbers for Chicago correct? They stand at exactly 13% for both "all judicial clerks" and "Art. III clerks". Any info would be appreciated.

All clerks are Art. III clerks? I think it wouldn't be totally unrealistic if that were the case for Chicago.

However, I would agree with TTT-LS that some of the other schools might have accidentally (give them the benefit of the doubt) reported all their clerks as Art. III when they are not. Vanderbilt's clerkship advisor said that there are some discrepancies with how each school reports their clerks - counting all as Art. III, including grads from different classes in the total clerk count for that year, etc. So its not a question of IF some of these numbers are off, just which ones are off, how they are off, and by what margin.

That said, glad to see Vandy's clerkship push is showing. Their numbers should be pretty accurate from what I've researched - about 10% in Art. III clerkships and 14-15% in any kind of clerkship overall.

i highly doubt that any school sends no one at all into state clerkships, even chicago. i bet people there have huge boners for delaware chancery ct, for instance.

.

beesknees wrote:

sumus romani wrote:

TTT-LS wrote:

jss1100 wrote:Glad to see UNC doing well here.

You do realize these UNC numbers are fraudulent, right? As in factually untrue. There is no possibility that UNC has that % of Art. III clerks and that 100% of its clerks are Art. III clerks. While the former is not believeable, the latter goes much further. It seems that UNC and several other schools (e.g., WUSTL) reported "all clerks" as opposed to "Art. III clerks," thus grossly inflating their #'s.

Are the numbers for Chicago correct? They stand at exactly 13% for both "all judicial clerks" and "Art. III clerks". Any info would be appreciated.

All clerks are Art. III clerks? I think it wouldn't be totally unrealistic if that were the case for Chicago.

However, I would agree with TTT-LS that some of the other schools might have accidentally (give them the benefit of the doubt) reported all their clerks as Art. III when they are not. Vanderbilt's clerkship advisor said that there are some discrepancies with how each school reports their clerks - counting all as Art. III, including grads from different classes in the total clerk count for that year, etc. So its not a question of IF some of these numbers are off, just which ones are off, how they are off, and by what margin.

That said, glad to see Vandy's clerkship push is showing. Their numbers should be pretty accurate from what I've researched - about 10% in Art. III clerkships and 14-15% in any kind of clerkship overall.

AutoAdmit has exposed the Vanderbilt counting methods, too: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... forum_id=2

.

Those posters at AutoAdmit are a bunch of losers and future JDU trolls.