Do Gunners Ever Get There? Forum

[Munson]

I am a 3L at a top school. I'm ranked in the top 1%, published, clerking on the Court of Appeals in a major area and circuit, and then working at a prestigious litigation boutique. All of that should make me feel great, yet I am unsatisfied. It seems like a person can never do enough in this profession. There are always others that have done more, done better, gotten ahead in some way.

Personally, my dream is to be a judge one day. That seems like an incredible quality of life, and I'd love to have the opportunity to serve the public in that role. But when you look at the resumes of virtually every federal judge, it's a real eye-opener. Every one of them had all the credentials I have at this point in their careers, plus more in spades. They were Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, or won three national moot competitions, or cured cancer. They weren't just top 1%--they were number one. They didn't just clerk in a good circuit in a great city--they clerked for Posner or Kozinski or the like. And then they clerked on the Supreme Court. They had been published six times by 3L year. These people are ridiculous. Who are these people?

Looking at these resumes makes me think, despite the significant success I've had, that I've really fallen short of the glory. Any time I do well at something, but not superbly, I am reminded of my shortcoming. I wonder if this phenomenon isn't endemic of the whole damn profession. Does the gunner mentality ever end in this career? Or is the legal profession a never-ending sink hole that spins until you die? Does anyone else have this feeling that there is no end, that more more more will always be expected no matter how well you do?

[fatduck]

okay

[LeDique]

Cool

[fatduck]

sounds like you need to crush this problem - with your A.S.S.

[dingbat]

You will never be happy

[ph14]

I am a 3L at a top school. I'm ranked in the top 1%, published, clerking on the Court of Appeals in a major area and circuit, and then working at a prestigious litigation boutique. All of that should make me feel great, yet I am unsatisfied. It seems like a person can never do enough in this profession. There are always others that have done more, done better, gotten ahead in some way.

Personally, my dream is to be a judge one day. That seems like an incredible quality of life, and I'd love to have the opportunity to serve the public in that role. But when you look at the resumes of virtually every federal judge, it's a real eye-opener. Every one of them had all the credentials I have at this point in their careers, plus more in spades. They were Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, or won three national moot competitions, or cured cancer. They weren't just top 1%--they were number one. They didn't just clerk in a good circuit in a great city--they clerked for Posner or Kozinski or the like. And then they clerked on the Supreme Court. They had been published six times by 3L year. These people are ridiculous. Who are these people?

Looking at these resumes makes me think, despite the significant success I've had, that I've really fallen short of the glory. Any time I do well at something, but not superbly, I am reminded of my shortcoming. I wonder if this phenomenon isn't endemic of the whole damn profession. Does the gunner mentality ever end in this career? Or is the legal profession a never-ending sink hole that spins until you die? Does anyone else have this feeling that there is no end, that more more more will always be expected no matter how well you do?

There will always be people better than you. But that doesn't mean you can't be proud of your accomplishments. Anyways, getting a commission to be a federal judge isn't necessarily all about merit, i'm sure a lot of it is politics.

[toothbrush]

You will never be happy

[exitoptions]

There is no success until you land POTUS or SCOTUS.

[Theopliske8711]

I am a 3L at a top school. I'm ranked in the top 1%, published, clerking on the Court of Appeals in a major area and circuit, and then working at a prestigious litigation boutique. All of that should make me feel great, yet I am unsatisfied. It seems like a person can never do enough in this profession. There are always others that have done more, done better, gotten ahead in some way.

Personally, my dream is to be a judge one day. That seems like an incredible quality of life, and I'd love to have the opportunity to serve the public in that role. But when you look at the resumes of virtually every federal judge, it's a real eye-opener. Every one of them had all the credentials I have at this point in their careers, plus more in spades. They were Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, or won three national moot competitions, or cured cancer. They weren't just top 1%--they were number one. They didn't just clerk in a good circuit in a great city--they clerked for Posner or Kozinski or the like. And then they clerked on the Supreme Court. They had been published six times by 3L year. These people are ridiculous. Who are these people?

Looking at these resumes makes me think, despite the significant success I've had, that I've really fallen short of the glory. Any time I do well at something, but not superbly, I am reminded of my shortcoming. I wonder if this phenomenon isn't endemic of the whole damn profession. Does the gunner mentality ever end in this career? Or is the legal profession a never-ending sink hole that spins until you die? Does anyone else have this feeling that there is no end, that more more more will always be expected no matter how well you do?

There will always be people better than you. But that doesn't mean you can't be proud of your accomplishments. Anyways, getting a commission to be a federal judge isn't necessarily all about merit, i'm sure a lot of it is politics.

Luck and politics. I'm not sure which one plays the 60% part.

[nucky thompson]

I am a 3L at a top school. I'm ranked in the top 1%, published, clerking on the Court of Appeals in a major area and circuit, and then working at a prestigious litigation boutique. All of that should make me feel great, yet I am unsatisfied. It seems like a person can never do enough in this profession. There are always others that have done more, done better, gotten ahead in some way.

Personally, my dream is to be a judge one day. That seems like an incredible quality of life, and I'd love to have the opportunity to serve the public in that role. But when you look at the resumes of virtually every federal judge, it's a real eye-opener. Every one of them had all the credentials I have at this point in their careers, plus more in spades. They were Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, or won three national moot competitions, or cured cancer. They weren't just top 1%--they were number one. They didn't just clerk in a good circuit in a great city--they clerked for Posner or Kozinski or the like. And then they clerked on the Supreme Court. They had been published six times by 3L year. These people are ridiculous. Who are these people?

Looking at these resumes makes me think, despite the significant success I've had, that I've really fallen short of the glory. Any time I do well at something, but not superbly, I am reminded of my shortcoming. I wonder if this phenomenon isn't endemic of the whole damn profession. Does the gunner mentality ever end in this career? Or is the legal profession a never-ending sink hole that spins until you die? Does anyone else have this feeling that there is no end, that more more more will always be expected no matter how well you do?

Solely using other people's accomplishments to measure your own self-worth --> you will never be happy. you will never be satisfied.

What flaw (actual or perceived) are you trying to compensate for? why do you need to have the absolute best credentials in order to have glory? Specifically, why does looking at the lives of other people make you feel you have fallen short of glory?

Resume credentials are not a true measure of success. Resumes do not indicate how many friends or family one is surrounded by. Nor does it say if one is happily married to a super attractive wife. Nor does it say if one has kids, or if they have an actual relationship with those kids.

Look beyond professional accomplishments when you evaluate your own success, or the perceived success of others. Be happy with yourself the way you are. Why allow externalities impact your own happiness? Think about it: someone you have never met has crushed your self-esteem simply by making their resume public. That in and of itself should make you feel depressed.

[okinawa]

.

[Anonymous User]

1) my judge is an awesome guy to work for, but believe me, he does not have the resume you describe. Nor do most of the judges in this district. So it may be that you're comparing yourself only against the very tip top of your chosen field.

2) the prize for a pie-eating contest is...more pie. One of the most important things to learn in life is that if you determine your self-worth only by external achievements you're never going to be happy, because you can't control those things. (That said, law school/the legal profession make it really really hard *not* to do this, so I sympathize. But you have to find a way to stop doing it.)

[juzam_djinn]

1) my judge is an awesome guy to work for, but believe me, he does not have the resume you describe. Nor do most of the judges in this district. So it may be that you're comparing yourself only against the very tip top of your chosen field.

2) the prize for a pie-eating contest is...more pie. One of the most important things to learn in life is that if you determine your self-worth only by external achievements you're never going to be happy, because you can't control those things. (That said, law school/the legal profession make it really really hard *not* to do this, so I sympathize. But you have to find a way to stop doing it.)

typically the prize for pie-eating contests is not more pie; you're probably referring to the adage that big law is like a pie eating contest where the first prize is more pie

more often, it's a ribbon or a shiny medal

[Anonymous User]

for those people who are somewhat competitive, there is always a sort of "measuring up" that is done...are you content being above average in a given field? do you want to be top 10%? do you want top 1%? how about .1% or .001%? at some point you have to step back from it all and realize that doing things solely to be moved slightly up the perceived hierarchy is a vacuous and inane task. i would also go so far as to say that those who are the absolute most successful people achieve their goals through a love and focus on a task that they feel is perfect for them, with a hunger and a talent that leads them to perform well. I'm sure the guy who wants to be a SCOTUS clerk is busy enjoying his classes, his research for publications, and his life, and is not worried about stacking up to others...he sets a goal and enjoys the road towards achieving it.

[Anonymous User]

1) my judge is an awesome guy to work for, but believe me, he does not have the resume you describe. Nor do most of the judges in this district. So it may be that you're comparing yourself only against the very tip top of your chosen field.

2) the prize for a pie-eating contest is...more pie. One of the most important things to learn in life is that if you determine your self-worth only by external achievements you're never going to be happy, because you can't control those things. (That said, law school/the legal profession make it really really hard *not* to do this, so I sympathize. But you have to find a way to stop doing it.)

typically the prize for pie-eating contests is not more pie; you're probably referring to the adage that big law is like a pie eating contest where the first prize is more pie

more often, it's a ribbon or a shiny medal

dude, given the context, you got the point, right?

[ph14]

1) my judge is an awesome guy to work for, but believe me, he does not have the resume you describe. Nor do most of the judges in this district. So it may be that you're comparing yourself only against the very tip top of your chosen field.

2) the prize for a pie-eating contest is...more pie. One of the most important things to learn in life is that if you determine your self-worth only by external achievements you're never going to be happy, because you can't control those things. (That said, law school/the legal profession make it really really hard *not* to do this, so I sympathize. But you have to find a way to stop doing it.)

typically the prize for pie-eating contests is not more pie; you're probably referring to the adage that big law is like a pie eating contest where the first prize is more pie

more often, it's a ribbon or a shiny medal

dude, given the context, you got the point, right?

Your lack of knowledge concerning pie-eating contests is downright insulting.

[juzam_djinn]

1) my judge is an awesome guy to work for, but believe me, he does not have the resume you describe. Nor do most of the judges in this district. So it may be that you're comparing yourself only against the very tip top of your chosen field.

2) the prize for a pie-eating contest is...more pie. One of the most important things to learn in life is that if you determine your self-worth only by external achievements you're never going to be happy, because you can't control those things. (That said, law school/the legal profession make it really really hard *not* to do this, so I sympathize. But you have to find a way to stop doing it.)

typically the prize for pie-eating contests is not more pie; you're probably referring to the adage that big law is like a pie eating contest where the first prize is more pie

more often, it's a ribbon or a shiny medal

dude, given the context, you got the point, right?

I got the point, but it took me significantly longer than it would have had you chosen a more apt analogy. that's more a function of my own shortcomings though...

jk, just wanted to poke fun =)

[Anonymous User]

Yeah just not really true in my experience. Scalia wasn't even summa cum laude from hls

[Anonymous User]

1) my judge is an awesome guy to work for, but believe me, he does not have the resume you describe. Nor do most of the judges in this district. So it may be that you're comparing yourself only against the very tip top of your chosen field.

2) the prize for a pie-eating contest is...more pie. One of the most important things to learn in life is that if you determine your self-worth only by external achievements you're never going to be happy, because you can't control those things. (That said, law school/the legal profession make it really really hard *not* to do this, so I sympathize. But you have to find a way to stop doing it.)

typically the prize for pie-eating contests is not more pie; you're probably referring to the adage that big law is like a pie eating contest where the first prize is more pie

more often, it's a ribbon or a shiny medal

dude, given the context, you got the point, right?

I got the point, but it took me significantly longer than it would have had you chosen a more apt analogy. that's more a function of my own shortcomings though...

jk, just wanted to poke fun =)

I will have to remedy my lack of experience with pie-eating contests...

[keg411]

1) Go read the 3L job hunting thread and try to get some perspective. Or better yet, go read JDU.
2) Also, you need to relax. If you keep going the way you are, the only place you'll end up in is therapy.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah just not really true in my experience. Scalia wasn't even summa cum laude from hls

Yeah, he was only magna... what a slacker.

[fatduck]

There is no success until you land POTUS or SCOTUS.

even then, you'll come across someone who got both

[ph14]

There is no success until you land POTUS or SCOTUS.

even then, you'll come across someone who got both

Taft didn't settle for just a regular associate justice position, he got the Chief Justice seat. Resolved: Taft is the most prefstigious American ever.

[A. Nony Mouse]

There is no success until you land POTUS or SCOTUS.

even then, you'll come across someone who got both

Taft didn't settle for just a regular associate justice position, he got the Chief Justice seat. Resolved: Taft is the most prefstigious American ever.

Especially if you're measuring per pound....

[fatduck]

question: could Obama appoint himself to the Supreme Court?