DC Cir v. Regional Cir Forum

[Anonymous User]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

[Anonymous User]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

This still misunderstands the argument. Each year, Chicago mints some (minuscule) number of highest honors recipients. Some years they are liberal; some years they are conservative. The higher ratio of conservative feeders to conservative students in no way informs that contest. When Chicago's highest honors recipients are conservative, as sometimes happens, it would be impossible for a liberal feeder to go any higher in the class. I will spot that liberal feeding concentrates in fewer judges. Yet even so, I am aware of multiple Garland clerks from Yale hired with 4H/1P transcripts. Other factors explain Chicago's struggle placing students with "*true* feeders on the left" as narrowly defined.

[Anonymous User]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

Also Chicago and agree with all of this. The top of our class is unusually public because of K&E and is only slightly disproportionately conservative, and even that is probably Chicago-specific—many of the students who turn down HYS for Chicago do it for the strong Fed Soc. You do sometimes get a conservative student with such strong grades that they could get e.g. Tatel—the #1 student in the class of 2019 was very conservative—but then they can get hired for SCOTUS straight from law school. I have no idea why sociologically our resident Fed Soc homer would think the top of the class would be 50-50 at a law school that’s 85-15.

O’Scannlain, Thapar, and Sutton (and like all of the Fed Soc semi-feeders) have recently hired non-top-10% students from Chicago (Sutton even took one out of the top quarter). Of our three upcoming Katsas clerks one wasn’t K&E and one missed LR (the one I know exact grades for was right at 180.5, which for a lib gets like Higginson or Wardlaw). Many of the Fed Soc judges who are less willing to compromise on grades are ones that pop up in lists of Fed Soc judges who hire liberals—e.g. Bibas, Ikuta, Richardson, Park may only hire K&E and take K&E libs.

[namefromplace]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

Yeah I don't get the logic of OP here. A significant majority of law students are liberal, but the top 5% of law schools are an even split of liberals and conservatives? So conservatives are smarter than liberals? Or each law school class has a set of a handful of uber-smart conservatives that are equal in intelligence and number to the smartest of liberals? The simple explanation--and the correct one--is that more students would want to clerk for a liberal judge than a conservative one, and, given the Trump administration's court packing, there are more conservative feeders and semi-feeders than liberal feeders and semi-feeders. So you have a lot of liberal students vying for few spots and you have fewer conservative students vying for more spots. Clerkships with liberal feeders are therefore more competitive and those judges can look more closely at grades.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I don't get the logic of OP here. A significant majority of law students are liberal, but the top 5% of law schools are an even split of liberals and conservatives? So conservatives are smarter than liberals? Or each law school class has a set of a handful of uber-smart conservatives that are equal in intelligence and number to the smartest of liberals

Setting aside the actual clerkship discussion, some T14 FedSoc chapters are known for being full of gunners, leading to a noticeably disproportionate representation of conservative students at the top of the class. Not necessarily to the same degree every year.

The simple explanation--and the correct one--is that more students would want to clerk for a liberal judge than a conservative one, and, given the Trump administration's court packing, there are more conservative feeders and semi-feeders than liberal feeders and semi-feeders. So you have a lot of liberal students vying for few spots and you have fewer conservative students vying for more spots. Clerkships with liberal feeders are therefore more competitive and those judges can look more closely at grades.

This all seems true to me, except for the erroneous charge of "court packing."

[Anonymous User]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

Yeah I don't get the logic of OP here. A significant majority of law students are liberal, but the top 5% of law schools are an even split of liberals and conservatives? So conservatives are smarter than liberals? Or each law school class has a set of a handful of uber-smart conservatives that are equal in intelligence and number to the smartest of liberals? The simple explanation--and the correct one--is that more students would want to clerk for a liberal judge than a conservative one, and, given the Trump administration's court packing, there are more conservative feeders and semi-feeders than liberal feeders and semi-feeders. So you have a lot of liberal students vying for few spots and you have fewer conservative students vying for more spots. Clerkships with liberal feeders are therefore more competitive and those judges can look more closely at grades.

Single anecdote but I went to UVA, which is probably 60/40 liberal, and the top 10 GPAs in my class were probably 6-4 liberal or so, matching the overall class. UVA has always punched above its weight with SCOTUS clerks because it has probably the largest number of conservatives of any T14. If HYS were ideologically balanced at the top of their classes, I don't think we'd have the clerkship numbers we do.

[Anonymous User]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

Yeah I don't get the logic of OP here. A significant majority of law students are liberal, but the top 5% of law schools are an even split of liberals and conservatives? So conservatives are smarter than liberals? Or each law school class has a set of a handful of uber-smart conservatives that are equal in intelligence and number to the smartest of liberals? The simple explanation--and the correct one--is that more students would want to clerk for a liberal judge than a conservative one, and, given the Trump administration's court packing, there are more conservative feeders and semi-feeders than liberal feeders and semi-feeders. So you have a lot of liberal students vying for few spots and you have fewer conservative students vying for more spots. Clerkships with liberal feeders are therefore more competitive and those judges can look more closely at grades.

Single anecdote but I went to UVA, which is probably 60/40 liberal, and the top 10 GPAs in my class were probably 6-4 liberal or so, matching the overall class. UVA has always punched above its weight with SCOTUS clerks because it has probably the largest number of conservatives of any T14. If HYS were ideologically balanced at the top of their classes, I don't think we'd have the clerkship numbers we do.

I am surprised that UVA is 40% conservative. I guess you learn somethign new every day. I went to Columbia which is closer to 10-15% conservative/libertarian. Although, as another rough data point, my year seemed to be overrepresented with FedSoc people at the top of the class. However, I did not get the impression this was a common occurrence.

[Anonymous User]

I am surprised that UVA is 40% conservative. I guess you learn somethign new every day. I went to Columbia which is closer to 10-15% conservative/libertarian. Although, as another rough data point, my year seemed to be overrepresented with FedSoc people at the top of the class. However, I did not get the impression this was a common occurrence.

That is actually a common occurrence at CLS.

[Anonymous User]

I am surprised that UVA is 40% conservative. I guess you learn somethign new every day. I went to Columbia which is closer to 10-15% conservative/libertarian. Although, as another rough data point, my year seemed to be overrepresented with FedSoc people at the top of the class. However, I did not get the impression this was a common occurrence.

That is actually a common occurrence at CLS.

That's my understanding also, at least for the past several classes. Maybe conservatives rarely go into public interest jobs requiring pro bono and volunteering in addition to gold stars? I would also be interested in knowing the undergraduate GPAs and LSAT scores for conservatives. I could see fewer of them getting an admissions boost for unique backgrounds and life experiences (although maybe veterans are more conservative?)

[Anonymous User]

I am surprised that UVA is 40% conservative. I guess you learn somethign new every day. I went to Columbia which is closer to 10-15% conservative/libertarian. Although, as another rough data point, my year seemed to be overrepresented with FedSoc people at the top of the class. However, I did not get the impression this was a common occurrence.

That is actually a common occurrence at CLS.

That's my understanding also, at least for the past several classes. Maybe conservatives rarely go into public interest jobs requiring pro bono and volunteering in addition to gold stars? I would also be interested in knowing the undergraduate GPAs and LSAT scores for conservatives. I could see fewer of them getting an admissions boost for unique backgrounds and life experiences (although maybe veterans are more conservative?)

Eh. Disagree on this being a common occurrence at CLS. RBG scholars are typically not members of fed soc. I think fed soc folks are at the top of the class probably in the same proportion as they are in the student body, and the overrepresentation is more a function of fed soc folks sticking out, and less actual overrepresentation.

[Anonymous User]

I am surprised that UVA is 40% conservative. I guess you learn somethign new every day. I went to Columbia which is closer to 10-15% conservative/libertarian. Although, as another rough data point, my year seemed to be overrepresented with FedSoc people at the top of the class. However, I did not get the impression this was a common occurrence.

That is actually a common occurrence at CLS.

That's my understanding also, at least for the past several classes. Maybe conservatives rarely go into public interest jobs requiring pro bono and volunteering in addition to gold stars? I would also be interested in knowing the undergraduate GPAs and LSAT scores for conservatives. I could see fewer of them getting an admissions boost for unique backgrounds and life experiences (although maybe veterans are more conservative?)

Eh. Disagree on this being a common occurrence at CLS. RBG scholars are typically not members of fed soc. I think fed soc folks are at the top of the class probably in the same proportion as they are in the student body, and the overrepresentation is more a function of fed soc folks sticking out, and less actual overrepresentation.

Does Coumbia still publish a list of the RBG scholars? I thought I saw one once, but I have tried to find it again to no avail.

[Anonymous User]

My argument is that if you reviewed the top 5% of the T-14 schools by gpa, you would uncover an approximately-equal blend of liberals and conservatives. (Needless to say, some schools have more liberals (Berkeley, Stanford) and some have more conservatives (Virginia, Chicago)). By the same token, if you were to fill 2 judges' chambers, one with the 4 best liberals and one with the 4 best conservatives, you would not notice a difference in grades or qualifications. Disparities become apparent only when looking at the entire population of FedSoc students. Fewer conservatives in American law schools, and Trump's many appointments, make it easier for conservatives to find clerkships. That does not mean, however, that Millett and Pillard have "higher" "standards" than Wilkinson or Pryor. And indeed, they do not.

Chicago student here. It is exponentially easier for conservatives here to get feeder clerkships without the same grades. There are certainly exceptions now and then, but to have a super strong chance with a *true* feeder on the left here (Garland up to now, Srinivasan, to a slightly lesser extent Tatel) you basically have to have highest honors, which generally translates to being the valedictorian or salutatorian since only 1-2 get it every year. FedSoc students regularly get Pryor, Katsas, etc. with just K&E (top 5%), high honors (~top 7%), and occasionally even regular honors (~top 20%). At least that's what the law firm bios of people from here who have clerked recently suggest. The top conservatives are definitely, at least from my school, hiring clerks with somewhat lower GPAs than the top liberals. That being said, I don't really thinks there's a meaningful difference in intelligence, skill, or work ethic between someone with a 182 (highest honors) and someone with a 181 or even 180 (high honors/regular honors range). Frankly Garland and his ilk are just that insanely selective about grades because they can afford to be, so why not.

Yeah I don't get the logic of OP here. A significant majority of law students are liberal, but the top 5% of law schools are an even split of liberals and conservatives? So conservatives are smarter than liberals? Or each law school class has a set of a handful of uber-smart conservatives that are equal in intelligence and number to the smartest of liberals? The simple explanation--and the correct one--is that more students would want to clerk for a liberal judge than a conservative one, and, given the Trump administration's court packing, there are more conservative feeders and semi-feeders than liberal feeders and semi-feeders. So you have a lot of liberal students vying for few spots and you have fewer conservative students vying for more spots. Clerkships with liberal feeders are therefore more competitive and those judges can look more closely at grades.

Single anecdote but I went to UVA, which is probably 60/40 liberal, and the top 10 GPAs in my class were probably 6-4 liberal or so, matching the overall class. UVA has always punched above its weight with SCOTUS clerks because it has probably the largest number of conservatives of any T14. If HYS were ideologically balanced at the top of their classes, I don't think we'd have the clerkship numbers we do.

I am surprised that UVA is 40% conservative. I guess you learn somethign new every day. I went to Columbia which is closer to 10-15% conservative/libertarian. Although, as another rough data point, my year seemed to be overrepresented with FedSoc people at the top of the class. However, I did not get the impression this was a common occurrence.

Maybe 40% is a little high, but at least when I was there (late Obama years) there was a huge bloc of center-right Never-Trump Republicans that made up a large share of the class (Southerners, northeastern country club RINO types, Mormons, and conservative Catholics being four distinct subgroups), along with a smaller group of true FedSoc academics. I only knew of 3-4 open Trump supporters out of the 300 in my class, but John Kasich would have done very respectably against Clinton if the law school had been a precinct.

3 of the top 4 students in my class were liberals, but the only SCOTUS clerk to date was the lone conservative of the 4 (for Alito), and there were several other conservatives in the top VLR group. The year before me the top 10 of the class was probably majority FedSoc.