Getting antsy Forum

[JackOfAllTrades]

OP you had an interview and apparently blew it. I'm not sure what you are complaining about. You made it sound like no one would even consider you because of your school. Yet your application was pulled and you got an interview.

You also had a professor who could have helped you with two judges but you waited too long. Although it's possible that the professor just hesitated to recommend you for whatever reasons. I am wondering a bit about your recommendations being as strong as you assume. Maybe that's a problem with your application?

I'm beginning to assume this is a troll but your previous post suggests maybe this is real.

I hope you will be understanding when the number 1 student at a much lower ranked school gets a clerkship and you don't. I can see that as a possibility.

If you want a clerkship there is a lot of good advice here.

I didn't blow my interview. The judge was interviewing 10 applicants, and I didn't get the position. And my application got pulled because that judge was a regional judge with ties to my school.

I have repeatedly said that there is a lot of good advice here, and repeatedly said that I appreciate that advice. But jesus christ, express an opinion and watch this place go ape shit.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Welcome to TLS.

[JackOfAllTrades]

that means some ranked above you (more meritorious) does not get a job. That solves nothing.

The idea is not that clerkships should be assigned in equal proportion to applicants' "merit", however you define it. That would be a perfect system, which is obviously conceptually and practically impossible.

The idea is that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots, and the process should be open to more people and judges should rely more heavily on factors other than what school you went to.

And what factors are those?

Grades? Yours still aren't that good. In the T1, you have hundreds of people with equal or better grades, and you already pointed out that you think hiring based on grades (e.g., only the top 3 students) is "insane."

Recommendations? This factors heavily for many judges, but for reasons that should be obvious, written ones are much less meaningful than verbal ones.

Work experience? There are lots of judges who only hire people with post-graduation experience (my judge being one) because of the skills you learn in your first few years of practice. That wouldn't help you.

At this point it seems like you just don't approve of any mode of hiring that doesn't include considering you a stellar applicant. And if that's what you want to waste your energy on, go for it. But if I were you I'd get off TLS and try to make your app more appealing to judges based on all the advice given in this thread (and countless others).

1) I never said hiring based on grades was insane. I explicitly said using an arbitrary cutoff of who you even consider based on grades is insane. Grades is, and should be, the number one factor. But a factor nonetheless.

2) I take issue with verbal recs counting for more than written. That creates a system where professors who know the most judges (generally professors at higher ranked schools) get more students into clerkships. And even within one school, that creates a system where you are rewarded if you happen to have been placed in a class/section with a well-connected professor.

3) As for work experience, I am talking about work experience prior to law school. Unless you think hiring a 24 year old is the same as hiring a 29 year old, that should count for a lot more than it apparently does.

4) It's not that I don't approve of a system that doesn't consider me a stellar applicant. I don't approve of a system that won't even look at my application past the "school" line.

[blahblewblah]

How would you fix it?

I already made one recommendation on this thread: setting a hard cap on the number of apps that applicants could send out in a given cycle.

Making the federal clerk hiring plan mandatory would also be a be help.

But breaking the systemic problem of judges hiring from the same schools would require mass-initiative on the part of judges and their clerks. But since many of you don't even seem to see a problem with judges hiring from the same schools, I'm not optimistic that will ever happen.

Not sure how either of those would solve your problem. Regarding the first. Let's say that there are 100 clerkship positions. Let's also say that we ranked 200 law students based solely on merit, and you ranked #101. If you can send unlimited applications (all candidates apply for all 100 jobs), you won't get a job. If applicants can only apply for 20 jobs, maybe it makes it somewhat more likely you get a job, since all the top applicants focus on some of the same jobs. However, if you get a job (and some of the students ranked below you even), that means some ranked above you (more meritorious) does not get a job. That solves nothing.

I also don't see how making the plan mandatory helps either. Same as above, either the top 100 meritorious applicants are getting jobs, or they are not.

I think you're missing the point. Many former clerks on this thread raised the issue of the sheer number of applications they receive as a justification for why they use such harsh and/or arbitrary cutoffs. Capping the number of apps students could send does two things:

1) It makes the system more fair to students who don't have the resources to pay for unlimited mailings to judges. People of limited resources can have their application fee waived when applying to law schools. No such benefit exists when applying for clerkships.

2) By design, though not by hard-fast-rule, it limits the number of apps judges receive.

The fact that someone like me might still be excluded under this system wouldn't mean that it's not preferable.

As for this part ...

that means some ranked above you (more meritorious) does not get a job. That solves nothing.

The idea is not that clerkships should be assigned in equal proportion to applicants' "merit", however you define it. That would be a perfect system, which is obviously conceptually and practically impossible.

The idea is that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots, and the process should be open to more people and judges should rely more heavily on factors other than what school you went to.

I mean, if you can't afford to apply to a few judges, you probably shouldn't be in law school. I get that not everyone has a ton of money, especially as a law student (I sure didn't). But it costs like $2 to send an application. Eat ramen for a week.

Also, to the extent judges want the amount of apps reduced, it is to reduce the amount of apps they won't consider at all. They would not like a rule that correspondingly reduces well-qualified applicants. In an ideal world, a judge would get to choose who to interview from (maybe) 10 stellar applications. Instead, they have to comb through 100 applications to find 10 stellar applications. The situation would not be better judges if they only had to comb through 10 applications with only 1 stellar application.

Honestly, you are crafting a definition of "merit" that happens to correspond directly to the situation you are in. That is fine I guess, but it is what the vast majority of people (who all have a direct interest in the definition) think. Judges want good clerks, and they use the information they have to hire good clerks. It may be good if there was a way to immediately know if a person is going to be a good lawyer. Until then, there have to be criteria. School/grades/recommendations/work experience/etc. may not be perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well for the judges.

[emkay625]

I'm curious as to how you think judges should make these kinds of decisions. Thinking realistically, what would you have them do? They receive, let's say, 500 applicants. (It will be lower or higher depending on the court, but for lots of federal courts, that would not be an unrealistic number). They have two law clerks, who already work about 60-70 hours a week.

How, exactly, do you propose those law clerks read through those 500 applications, all of whom have good grades, and 95% of whom went to Tier 1 schools, without using some kind of GPA/school cutoff combination? All of these people, as they all have good grades from good schools, have worthwhile legal work experience and all of them generally have pretty interesting resumes. What other way is there to do it? There are other factors - for example, legal writing grades are important to some judges and a good grade in LRW can help you get pulled even if your GPA is a teensy bit lower than others and a bad one can get you left behind even if your GPA is higher than others. Some judges pull for law review ed board experience, as well. But when you have about 1-2 minutes to evaluate an application, what kinds of things do you want them to be looking at? Comparing interest lines? Surely that seems even worse. Yes, grades can be somewhat arbitrary and we're talking hundredths and tenths of points in many cases.....but what else is there, exactly?

[emkay625]

that means some ranked above you (more meritorious) does not get a job. That solves nothing.

The idea is not that clerkships should be assigned in equal proportion to applicants' "merit", however you define it. That would be a perfect system, which is obviously conceptually and practically impossible.

The idea is that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots, and the process should be open to more people and judges should rely more heavily on factors other than what school you went to.

And what factors are those?

Grades? Yours still aren't that good. In the T1, you have hundreds of people with equal or better grades, and you already pointed out that you think hiring based on grades (e.g., only the top 3 students) is "insane."

Recommendations? This factors heavily for many judges, but for reasons that should be obvious, written ones are much less meaningful than verbal ones.

Work experience? There are lots of judges who only hire people with post-graduation experience (my judge being one) because of the skills you learn in your first few years of practice. That wouldn't help you.

At this point it seems like you just don't approve of any mode of hiring that doesn't include considering you a stellar applicant. And if that's what you want to waste your energy on, go for it. But if I were you I'd get off TLS and try to make your app more appealing to judges based on all the advice given in this thread (and countless others).

1) I never said hiring based on grades was insane. I explicitly said using an arbitrary cutoff of who you even consider based on grades is insane. Grades is, and should be, the number one factor. But a factor nonetheless.

2) I take issue with verbal recs counting for more than written. That creates a system where professors who know the most judges (generally professors at higher ranked schools) get more students into clerkships. And even within one school, that creates a system where you are rewarded if you happen to have been placed in a class/section with a well-connected professor.

3) As for work experience, I am talking about work experience prior to law school. Unless you think hiring a 24 year old is the same as hiring a 29 year old, that should count for a lot more than it apparently does.

4) It's not that I don't approve of a system that doesn't consider me a stellar applicant. I don't approve of a system that won't even look at my application past the "school" line.

But you did get looked at.....you got an interview. I know some people in the top 5% at T14 schools who got no interviews.

[bk1]

Who cares what the system should or shouldn't be? It's a complete waste of time. Focus on the things you can control and deal with the system as it is.

If the system sees your school and tosses your app out 9 times out of 10, well that sucks but it is the way it is. Your opinion of the system is irrelevant.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I mean, if you can't afford to apply to a few judges, you probably shouldn't be in law school. I get that not everyone has a ton of money, especially as a law student (I sure didn't). But it costs like $2 to send an application. Eat ramen for a week.

I really wish some of you could hear yourselves. It costs $5 (not $2) to mail an application, plus paper/printing and the time it takes to prepare it and drive to and wait at the post office. Multiply that by hundreds of applications, and that is a shit-ton of time and money. If you think people who can't afford that shouldn't be in law school, you are sort of proving my whole point.

Also, to the extent judges want the amount of apps reduced, it is to reduce the amount of apps they won't consider at all.

So then why don't judges simply lay down explicit markers? Many put on their Oscar page not to apply unless you're in the top 10% or 5%. I have yet to see any that say don't apply unless you're in the top 3 of T1 school, even though it's clear from these posts that many judges have similar policies.

Honestly, you are crafting a definition of "merit" that happens to correspond directly to the situation you are in.

No, as someone else already pointed out, there would still be hundreds of students more "meritorious" under my proposed changes.

School/grades/recommendations/work experience/etc. may not be perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well for the judges.

According to who? People who went to high-ranked schools and got clerkships?

[JackOfAllTrades]

Who cares what the system should or shouldn't be? It's a complete waste of time. Focus on the things you can control and deal with the system as it is.

If the system sees your school and tosses your app out 9 times out of 10, well that sucks but it is the way it is. Your opinion of the system is irrelevant.

I can do both. Thanks for your concern.

[RaceJudicata]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you won't fare well in an interview, let alone in a professional work environment

[blahblewblah]

I mean, if you can't afford to apply to a few judges, you probably shouldn't be in law school. I get that not everyone has a ton of money, especially as a law student (I sure didn't). But it costs like $2 to send an application. Eat ramen for a week.

I really wish some of you could hear yourselves. It costs $5 (not $2) to mail an application, plus paper/printing and the time it takes to prepare it and drive to and wait at the post office. Multiply that by hundreds of applications, and that is a shit-ton of time and money. If you think people who can't afford that shouldn't be in law school, you are sort of proving my whole point.

Also, to the extent judges want the amount of apps reduced, it is to reduce the amount of apps they won't consider at all.

So then why don't judges simply lay down explicit markers? Many put on their Oscar page not to apply unless you're in the top 10% or 5%. I have yet to see any that say don't apply unless you're in the top 3 of T1 school, even though it's clear from these posts that many judges have similar policies.

Honestly, you are crafting a definition of "merit" that happens to correspond directly to the situation you are in.

No, as someone else already pointed out, there would still be hundreds of students more "meritorious" under my proposed changes.

School/grades/recommendations/work experience/etc. may not be perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well for the judges.

According to who? People who went to high-ranked schools and got clerkships?

According to the judges who have not seen fit to alter their hiring practices. The rest of your post is ridiculous. If you can't spend $500 applying for a job, I don't know what to tell you.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I'm curious as to how you think judges should make these kinds of decisions. Thinking realistically, what would you have them do? They receive, let's say, 500 applicants. (It will be lower or higher depending on the court, but for lots of federal courts, that would not be an unrealistic number). They have two law clerks, who already work about 60-70 hours a week.

How, exactly, do you propose those law clerks read through those 500 applications, all of whom have good grades, and 95% of whom went to Tier 1 schools, without using some kind of GPA/school cutoff combination? All of these people, as they all have good grades from good schools, have worthwhile legal work experience and all of them generally have pretty interesting resumes. What other way is there to do it? There are other factors - for example, legal writing grades are important to some judges and a good grade in LRW can help you get pulled even if your GPA is a teensy bit lower than others and a bad one can get you left behind even if your GPA is higher than others. Some judges pull for law review ed board experience, as well. But when you have about 1-2 minutes to evaluate an application, what kinds of things do you want them to be looking at? Comparing interest lines? Surely that seems even worse. Yes, grades can be somewhat arbitrary and we're talking hundredths and tenths of points in many cases.....but what else is there, exactly?

this is like the third time I've been asked this, but I will reply because you raise some interesting issues.

Things like ed-board experience on law review or moot court would be very meaningful to me because it shows that an applicant is able to balance their study time with other responsibilities. It also shows that they are interested in the law beyond just making good grades.

LRW grades is another good one. I don't know how it works elsewhere, but at my school LRW is the only doctrinal class not graded on the basis of one exam. Rather, it's graded on multiple writing assignments. It correlates much more strongly to what a law clerk does, in my opinion.

Also, if you read my previous posts, the federal judiciary could place a hard cap on the number of apps students could send, which would bring that number down from 500 to something substantially lower.

Finally, the judiciary could lobby Congress for more money for human resources, so that they could do much of the heavy lifting and take some of the burden off law clerks. That's not likely to happen soon, or ever, given our current Congress. But you asked, and that's my answer.

[jbagelboy]

I mean, if you can't afford to apply to a few judges, you probably shouldn't be in law school. I get that not everyone has a ton of money, especially as a law student (I sure didn't). But it costs like $2 to send an application. Eat ramen for a week.

I really wish some of you could hear yourselves. It costs $5 (not $2) to mail an application, plus paper/printing and the time it takes to prepare it and drive to and wait at the post office. Multiply that by hundreds of applications, and that is a shit-ton of time and money. If you think people who can't afford that shouldn't be in law school, you are sort of proving my whole point.

Also, to the extent judges want the amount of apps reduced, it is to reduce the amount of apps they won't consider at all.

So then why don't judges simply lay down explicit markers? Many put on their Oscar page not to apply unless you're in the top 10% or 5%. I have yet to see any that say don't apply unless you're in the top 3 of T1 school, even though it's clear from these posts that many judges have similar policies.

Honestly, you are crafting a definition of "merit" that happens to correspond directly to the situation you are in.

No, as someone else already pointed out, there would still be hundreds of students more "meritorious" under my proposed changes.

School/grades/recommendations/work experience/etc. may not be perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well for the judges.

According to who? People who went to high-ranked schools and got clerkships?

$5 an application?
I did almost all mine online via OSCAR. And the mailers were sent through the clerkship office. So the apps cost nothing.

Traveling to interview, on the other hand, was very expensive and all out of pocket. So there I empathize. But then you already know you're in strong consideration. The applying, not so much.

I suggest you stop railing against the system and have a little patience: you're just a 2L. There's time.

[rpupkin]

Finally, the judiciary could lobby Congress for more money for human resources, so that they could do much of the heavy lifting and take some of the burden off law clerks. That's not likely to happen soon, or ever, given our current Congress. But you asked, and that's my answer.

This actually is a productive suggestion. HR staff wouldn't use a judge's arbitrary hiring criteria; instead, they would employ their own merit-based formula.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I mean, if you can't afford to apply to a few judges, you probably shouldn't be in law school. I get that not everyone has a ton of money, especially as a law student (I sure didn't). But it costs like $2 to send an application. Eat ramen for a week.

I really wish some of you could hear yourselves. It costs $5 (not $2) to mail an application, plus paper/printing and the time it takes to prepare it and drive to and wait at the post office. Multiply that by hundreds of applications, and that is a shit-ton of time and money. If you think people who can't afford that shouldn't be in law school, you are sort of proving my whole point.

Also, to the extent judges want the amount of apps reduced, it is to reduce the amount of apps they won't consider at all.

So then why don't judges simply lay down explicit markers? Many put on their Oscar page not to apply unless you're in the top 10% or 5%. I have yet to see any that say don't apply unless you're in the top 3 of T1 school, even though it's clear from these posts that many judges have similar policies.

Honestly, you are crafting a definition of "merit" that happens to correspond directly to the situation you are in.

No, as someone else already pointed out, there would still be hundreds of students more "meritorious" under my proposed changes.

School/grades/recommendations/work experience/etc. may not be perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well for the judges.

According to who? People who went to high-ranked schools and got clerkships?

$5 an application?
I did almost all mine online via OSCAR. And the mailers were sent through the clerkship office. So the apps cost nothing.

Traveling to interview, on the other hand, was very expensive and all out of pocket. So there I empathize. But then you already know you're in strong consideration. The applying, not so much.

I suggest you stop railing against the system and have a little patience: you're just a 2L. There's time.

Many judges, if not the majority, require paper applications

[Tls2016]

I mean, if you can't afford to apply to a few judges, you probably shouldn't be in law school. I get that not everyone has a ton of money, especially as a law student (I sure didn't). But it costs like $2 to send an application. Eat ramen for a week.

I really wish some of you could hear yourselves. It costs $5 (not $2) to mail an application, plus paper/printing and the time it takes to prepare it and drive to and wait at the post office. Multiply that by hundreds of applications, and that is a shit-ton of time and money. If you think people who can't afford that shouldn't be in law school, you are sort of proving my whole point.

Also, to the extent judges want the amount of apps reduced, it is to reduce the amount of apps they won't consider at all.

So then why don't judges simply lay down explicit markers? Many put on their Oscar page not to apply unless you're in the top 10% or 5%. I have yet to see any that say don't apply unless you're in the top 3 of T1 school, even though it's clear from these posts that many judges have similar policies.

Honestly, you are crafting a definition of "merit" that happens to correspond directly to the situation you are in.

No, as someone else already pointed out, there would still be hundreds of students more "meritorious" under my proposed changes.

School/grades/recommendations/work experience/etc. may not be perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well for the judges.

According to who? People who went to high-ranked schools and got clerkships?

$5 an application?
I did almost all mine online via OSCAR. And the mailers were sent through the clerkship office. So the apps cost nothing.

Traveling to interview, on the other hand, was very expensive and all out of pocket. So there I empathize. But then you already know you're in strong consideration. The applying, not so much.

I suggest you stop railing against the system and have a little patience: you're just a 2L. There's time.

Many judges, if not the majority, require paper applications

I think he was saying the clerkship office at Columbia mailed them out. Maybe that's another unfair factor you could add to your list of grievances.

[blahblewblah]

this is like the third time I've been asked this, but I will reply because you raise some interesting issues.

Things like ed-board experience on law review or moot court would be very meaningful to me because it shows that an applicant is able to balance their study time with other responsibilities. It also shows that they are interested in the law beyond just making good grades.

LRW grades is another good one. I don't know how it works elsewhere, but at my school LRW is the only doctrinal class not graded on the basis of one exam. Rather, it's graded on multiple writing assignments. It correlates much more strongly to what a law clerk does, in my opinion.

Also, if you read my previous posts, the federal judiciary could place a hard cap on the number of apps students could send, which would bring that number down from 500 to something substantially lower.

Finally, the judiciary could lobby Congress for more money for human resources, so that they could do much of the heavy lifting and take some of the burden off law clerks. That's not likely to happen soon, or ever, given our current Congress. But you asked, and that's my answer.

Law Review/Moot Court: it is nice that it is meaningful to you. It is also meaningful to most judges, although I don't know why being able to balance study time with other responsibilities is super relevant in a clerkship, since you are not in school. Regardless, I would think that most (if not almost all) federal judges either strongly prefer or require experience on a journal. I would think most treat moot court positively as well. The problem with both of these activities, however, is that if most candidates have them on their resume, they really aren't doing a lot of distinguishing work. Maybe at the margins (EIC of journal, moot court champion) but probably not in the majority of cases.

LRW grades: Many judges likely to take LRW grades into consideration. However, they are also problematic. Many schools are pass fail. Other schools have some sort of teaching assistant system that results in review of the assignments before final grades are given. So for some schools it may be super useful, others it may be not useful at all.

Hard cap: Again, this does nothing. The same number of qualified applicants are applying for the same number of jobs. Having fewer apps to sort through is not going to suddenly make your resume more impressive.

HR: Again, this does nothing. It helps sort away the weak apps faster, sure, but it still doesn't make your application better.

[JackOfAllTrades]

According to the judges who have not seen fit to alter their hiring practices. The rest of your post is ridiculous. If you can't spend $500 applying for a job, I don't know what to tell you.

This is amazing logic. "Separate but equal" was working just fine according to the judges who decided Plessy v Ferguson. That's an extreme example, obviously, but the line of reasoning is the same. The people who benefit from and/or perpetuate an unbalanced system rarely see the flaws in it.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I think he was saying the clerkship office at Columbia mailed them out. Maybe that's another unfair factor you could add to your list of grievances.

Oh, wow. Hahaha, yes I will add that one to the list.

[TatteredDignity]

.

[blahblewblah]

According to the judges who have not seen fit to alter their hiring practices. The rest of your post is ridiculous. If you can't spend $500 applying for a job, I don't know what to tell you.

This is amazing logic. "Separate but equal" was working just fine according to the judges who decided Plessy v Ferguson. That's an extreme example, obviously, but the line of reasoning is the same. The people who benefit from and/or perpetuate an unbalanced system rarely see the flaws in it.

Hahahahaha.

Wow.

[Quichelorraine]

Meanwhile, I'm loving the idea that the LSAT is a totally bullshit screener exam, and the role it plays is absolutely criminal, but being in the top 5% of your class--which shows great skill at taking law-school exams--is the real and true indicator of applicant quality. Plenty of people with great GPAs would have trouble reasoning their way out of a paper bag. It's no better an objective indicator than anything else.

The OP raises a good point in the sense that having hard and fast rules that aren't disclosed in the application process wastes everyone's time. In a perfect world, if a judge is only going to look at applicants from three schools, it might be better to simply make that known. But exceptions arise, and hard and fast rules bend (I know of a judge who formerly hired only from his regional alma mater, but who suddenly found himself employing a ton of Stanford grads, because, well, why not?).

The process is arbitrary. It sucks. It took me longer than I'd like to admit to get a gig. But as others have said, such is life; these are the cards you have been dealt. Play them as you may.

[DougEvans789]

Sincerely curious: why a federal clerkship and not a state clerkship? Being a federal clerk sounds like a wonderful gig, but my understanding is that it's a lot of employment discrimination, section 1983 stuff, and things arising under a patchwork of statutes that share little in common other than having been passed by (the federal) Congress. thats great if that's what you're into, but if you're into being a federal clerk because of the fancy word "federal," I'm not sure that's much different than being into an applicant because her resume has a fancy school name on it.

could be a sign that it's worth looking into state court options too. either way good luck!

[lavarman84]

Things like ed-board experience on law review or moot court would be very meaningful to me because it shows that an applicant is able to balance their study time with other responsibilities. It also shows that they are interested in the law beyond just making good grades.

LRW grades is another good one. I don't know how it works elsewhere, but at my school LRW is the only doctrinal class not graded on the basis of one exam. Rather, it's graded on multiple writing assignments. It correlates much more strongly to what a law clerk does, in my opinion.

So instead of looking at the arbitrary criteria that judges deem important, they should look at your arbitrary criteria?

[psu2016]

OP, I'm in basically the same situation you are (top 5% at a TTT), and I've had the same feelings of disappointment, but unfortunately this is exactly the system you entered when you chose to attend your school (and, later, when you chose not to transfer). We live in an era where it's stupidly easy to filter applications to scan for keywords like "harvard" and "yale" and whatever other schools you want to narrow down to - it' s not just judges that do this, but all legal employers. Is it a shitty system? I guess that's a valid way to look at it. But, unfortunately for people like you and me, that's how it is and how it's always been. It's never really been a secret that pedigree is absolutely essential in this industry, and I'm not sure why you're so surprised that you aren't the special snowflake that can rise above that fact.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding the value of the higher ranking. Very few people seriously claim that HYS students are inherently better than students at any other law schools, particularly if you look at the pool of newly minted baby lawyers, none of whom can do anything. We all get the same education, more or less. The difference lies in the fact that, at HYS, you are surrounded by people and alumni who can get you what you need. I mean, FFS, at my internship last summer I worked with someone who went to H and mentioned that I was interested in clerking and they showed me their clerking resources from their CSO. It was utterly mind boggling compared to what I was used to from my TTT CSO. Detailed, with names of alumni who had clerked there and plenty of judges who themselves had themselves gone to school there. I can think of about two living alumni from my school who are federal judges.