Getting antsy Forum

[JackOfAllTrades]

No, you're misreading me because you've made up your mind about this already. My comment was not meant to suggest that judges don't have to filter (or limit which applications they look at), it's that they want to filter on their own terms, not based on who gets their application into OSCAR first. Of course they have "criteria" (not sure why you needed that to be in scare quotes). All jobs have criteria. See the Scalia article linked earlier for why judges might filter by school. Your assumptions about how top 5% at one school compares to median at HYS etc are just that, assumptions; other people hold different ones.

Keep in mind judges are not being altruistic when they hire. They want to find the person who is best going to help them do their job, and they have to go through this process every year (or maybe every other), and they're busy, and it's a pain in the ass. They want to choose the right person, and they want it to be as easy as possible to do that, and they also get to define right person. Nobody is owed a clerkship.

And drawing generalizations about the whole legal profession based on the pedigree of 9 SCOTUS judges seems a little overwrought. It's not a meritocracy, but nothing is. It also doesn't mean that the people who get the jobs aren't qualified. This profession is filled with thousands of highly qualified people. The #1 student in the class at my lower T1 couldn't get a federal clerkship, and they totally deserved one.

I think you are misreading me. Oscar already has a cap on the number of applications you can submit. But there is no cap on the number of applications that a judge can receive, so it has nothing to do with "who gets their application into Oscar first." Rather, it would force students to narrow their searches and apply more strategically, because they would no longer be able to spam-mail as many judges they want with paper apps.

And I don't think I am "owed" a clerkship, or even an interview. I do feel that I at least deserve for my application to be looked at and not tossed in a pile. Someone on this thread commented that, in his chambers, they did look at all of them, which, if true, is great. But if by looking at it he really means opening it, seeing that the school isn't T-14, and tossing it into the pile, then that's not a real look.

Anyway, I am glad someone finally admits that it's not a meritocracy. Being #1 in your class and not getting a clerkship is a perfect example of that. I fully understand that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots available, but that is a lousy justification of the current paradigm. Maybe some judges think that someone who's top 25% at Harvard would be a better clerk than your friend who was #1 at lower T1. In my opinion, those judges are perpetuating a broken system.

I externed at a circuit court with some law clerks from Harvard, and they were smart, but they weren't any smarter than me or you or your friend who finished #1 in his class. It seems that some lawyers (including maybe some on this thread) who become very successful through this system have a hard time believing that the system is arbitrary and/or nepotistic.

[lavarman84]

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Let's be real, this is true to an extent. Like any other profession, connections matter in law.

However, OP, I never saw you give an answer as to why you don't have a professor calling on your behalf. You say that you have very strong recommendations. If that's true, I would have to assume that one of your recommenders is willing to make calls for you if you give him/her a list of clerkships you're especially interested in.

Is that happening for you? Have you looked into it?

Also, is your school pushing you for a clerkship? Have you talked to the professors at your school that are in charge of helping students obtain clerkships?(I'm assuming your school has at least one professor that has that role)

If you're really tight with a professor, I recommend speaking with him/her about it and seeing if he/she can connect you to other professors at your law school that might be able to aid you in the process.

[Lincoln]

I think you are misreading me. Oscar already has a cap on the number of applications you can submit. But there is no cap on the number of applications that a judge can receive, so it has nothing to do with "who gets their application into Oscar first." Rather, it would force students to narrow their searches and apply more strategically, because they would no longer be able to spam-mail as many judges they want with paper apps.

And I don't think I am "owed" a clerkship, or even an interview. I do feel that I at least deserve for my application to be looked at and not tossed in a pile. Someone on this thread commented that, in his chambers, they did look at all of them, which, if true, is great. But if by looking at it he really means opening it, seeing that the school isn't T-14, and tossing it into the pile, then that's not a real look.

Anyway, I am glad someone finally admits that it's not a meritocracy. Being #1 in your class and not getting a clerkship is a perfect example of that. I fully understand that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots available, but that is a lousy justification of the current paradigm. Maybe some judges think that someone who's top 25% at Harvard would be a better clerk than your friend who was #1 at lower T1. In my opinion, those judges are perpetuating a broken system.

I externed at a circuit court with some law clerks from Harvard, and they were smart, but they weren't any smarter than me or you or your friend who finished #1 in his class. It seems that some lawyers (including maybe some on this thread) who become very successful through this system have a hard time believing that the system is arbitrary and/or nepotistic.

Your OP was mostly framed as asking for advice and a reality check w/r/t your chances of getting a clerkship, but it's kind of devolved into your griping about how the hiring works.

Clerkships (more so than BigLaw jobs, for example) are definitely arbitrary. The point I (and others) made is that there are things you can do to put yourself in the best position possible to take advantage of the arbitrariness, and resting on your grades and LORs and complaining that it's not working isn't it. A perfect example would be to ask the circuit judge you externed for if s/he would be willing to help. If that judge calls a U.S.D.J. in your state and says you were a fantastic intern, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an interview. Your next post should really be "thanks for all the advice--I will reach out to my professors and the judge and ask if they can help reach out."

[JackOfAllTrades]

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Let's be real, this is true to an extent. Like any other profession, connections matter in law.

However, OP, I never saw you give an answer as to why you don't have a professor calling on your behalf. You say that you have very strong recommendations. If that's true, I would have to assume that one of your recommenders is willing to make calls for you if you give him/her a list of clerkships you're especially interested in.

Is that happening for you? Have you looked into it?

Also, is your school pushing you for a clerkship? Have you talked to the professors at your school that are in charge of helping students obtain clerkships?(I'm assuming your school has at least one professor that has that role)

If you're really tight with a professor, I recommend speaking with him/her about it and seeing if he/she can connect you to other professors at your law school that might be able to aid you in the process.

I do have one professor I'm really close with. I got the highest grade in his class, and he's always liked me. So I asked him to do this. He has been a professor there for a long time and was a bit caught off guard. After checking with the career counselor's office, he agreed to do it because I got the highest grade in his class. But he only agreed to call two judges on my list that he happens to know. Both judges were already full by the time he called.

This really raises another issue. Professors at higher-ranked schools know more judges and are more likely to make calls. A professor who's been at my school was so unsure of the process, he had to call someone else to see if it was kosher.

Anyway, I suppose I need to ask some of my other recommenders if they'd be willing to make some calls.

[rpupkin]

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Let's be real, this is true to an extent. Like any other profession, connections matter in law.

To be clear, there is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. And, yes, connections matter in law.

I resisted the OP's ranting because his main complaint--that judges place too much weight on an applicant's law school--doesn't really have anything to do with whether clerkship hiring is meritocratic or not. OP doesn't think it makes sense to value a median HLS grad over a top 5% T50 grad (or whatever) because, apparently, he externed at a circuit court with some clerks from HLS and found that they weren't any smarter than he was. Fine. When OP is in a position to hire clerks or lawyers, he can take his experience into account. But other people may have had different experiences. A judge who would rather hire a median HLS student over the OP isn't ignoring merit; rather, the judge may sincerely believe that the median HLS student is likely to be a more capable clerk than than the OP. It's a merit-based consideration.

Now, you can, as the OP clearly does, quibble with how much weight a judge places on a particular factor. For example, you could fault a judge for putting too much weight on an applicant's writing sample because writing samples are so often edited by others. But that doesn't mean that valuing a writing sample is anti-meritocratic; it just means that people of good faith can disagree about how much weight to place on various factors in a meritocratic system.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I think you are misreading me. Oscar already has a cap on the number of applications you can submit. But there is no cap on the number of applications that a judge can receive, so it has nothing to do with "who gets their application into Oscar first." Rather, it would force students to narrow their searches and apply more strategically, because they would no longer be able to spam-mail as many judges they want with paper apps.

And I don't think I am "owed" a clerkship, or even an interview. I do feel that I at least deserve for my application to be looked at and not tossed in a pile. Someone on this thread commented that, in his chambers, they did look at all of them, which, if true, is great. But if by looking at it he really means opening it, seeing that the school isn't T-14, and tossing it into the pile, then that's not a real look.

Anyway, I am glad someone finally admits that it's not a meritocracy. Being #1 in your class and not getting a clerkship is a perfect example of that. I fully understand that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots available, but that is a lousy justification of the current paradigm. Maybe some judges think that someone who's top 25% at Harvard would be a better clerk than your friend who was #1 at lower T1. In my opinion, those judges are perpetuating a broken system.

I externed at a circuit court with some law clerks from Harvard, and they were smart, but they weren't any smarter than me or you or your friend who finished #1 in his class. It seems that some lawyers (including maybe some on this thread) who become very successful through this system have a hard time believing that the system is arbitrary and/or nepotistic.

Your OP was mostly framed as asking for advice and a reality check w/r/t your chances of getting a clerkship, but it's kind of devolved into your griping about how the hiring works.

Clerkships (more so than BigLaw jobs, for example) are definitely arbitrary. The point I (and others) made is that there are things you can do to put yourself in the best position possible to take advantage of the arbitrariness, and resting on your grades and LORs and complaining that it's not working isn't it. A perfect example would be to ask the circuit judge you externed for if s/he would be willing to help. If that judge calls a U.S.D.J. in your state and says you were a fantastic intern, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an interview. Your next post should really be "thanks for all the advice--I will reach out to my professors and the judge and ask if they can help reach out."

"A perfect example would be to ask the circuit judge you externed for if s/he would be willing to help. If that judge calls a U.S.D.J. in your state and says you were a fantastic intern, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an interview."

Wait --- can I really do that? That seems like an inappropriate thing to ask a judge to do.

And yes, this has devolved into that, partly because of the answers I received --- that big-name schools get all the clerkships because that's just how it is. But I have said thank you to multiple people on this thread and will happily say so again. Thank you. To the people who called me names, not so much.

Another question I asked in my OP that never was answered was this: do judges do a lot of hiring between March and April?

[lavarman84]

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Let's be real, this is true to an extent. Like any other profession, connections matter in law.

However, OP, I never saw you give an answer as to why you don't have a professor calling on your behalf. You say that you have very strong recommendations. If that's true, I would have to assume that one of your recommenders is willing to make calls for you if you give him/her a list of clerkships you're especially interested in.

Is that happening for you? Have you looked into it?

Also, is your school pushing you for a clerkship? Have you talked to the professors at your school that are in charge of helping students obtain clerkships?(I'm assuming your school has at least one professor that has that role)

If you're really tight with a professor, I recommend speaking with him/her about it and seeing if he/she can connect you to other professors at your law school that might be able to aid you in the process.

I do have one professor I'm really close with. I got the highest grade in his class, and he's always liked me. So I asked him to do this. He has been a professor there for a long time and was a bit caught off guard. After checking with the career counselor's office, he agreed to do it because I got the highest grade in his class. But he only agreed to call two judges on my list that he happens to know. Both judges were already full by the time he called.

This really raises another issue. Professors at higher-ranked schools know more judges and are more likely to make calls. A professor who's been at my school was so unsure of the process, he had to call someone else to see if it was kosher.

Anyway, I suppose I need to ask some of my other recommenders if they'd be willing to make some calls.

That's very odd. I go to a school that's likely ranked pretty similarly to yours and I haven't had any issues with professors knowing the process or being willing to advocate for me.

Are there any other professors you're close with that might know a bit more about clerkships? Does your law school have a professor that's a clerkship chair or something similar? If you have any other professors that you think would be willing to advocate for you, I'd try to reach out to them. They might be more knowledgeable about the process.

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Let's be real, this is true to an extent. Like any other profession, connections matter in law.

To be clear, there is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. And, yes, connections matter in law.

I resisted the OP's ranting because his main complaint--that judges place too much weight on an applicant's law school--doesn't really have anything to do with whether clerkship hiring is meritocratic or not. OP doesn't think it makes sense to value a median HLS grad over a top 5% T50 grad (or whatever) because, apparently, he externed at a circuit court with some clerks from HLS and found that they weren't any smarter than he was. Fine. When OP is in a position to hire clerks or lawyers, he can take his experience into account. But other people may have had different experiences. A judge who would rather hire a median HLS student over the OP isn't ignoring merit; rather, the judge may sincerely believe that the median HLS student is likely to be a more capable clerk than than the OP. It's a merit-based consideration.

Now, you can, as the OP clearly does, quibble with how much weight a judge places on a particular factor. For example, you could fault a judge for putting too much weight on an applicant's writing sample because writing samples are so often edited by others. But that doesn't mean that valuing a writing sample is anti-meritocratic; it just means that people of good faith can disagree about how much weight to place on various factors in a meritocratic system.

I don't quibble with it. It's completely understandable to me. How can you compare median at HLS to top 5% at a T50? They're not facing the same competition. Does it make it a meritocracy to fault the HLS kid for going to a better school and facing tougher competition?

There isn't a good or fair way to do it. And the simple truth is that there will be some situations to take advantage of for a top student at a T50 school. That school likely has some alums that are federal judges which means that they'll be less inclined to trash applications from top students from their alma mater. And might even favor a top student from their alma mater over equally or better qualified candidates.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I don't quibble with it. It's completely understandable to me. How can you compare median at HLS to top 5% at a T50? They're not facing the same competition. Does it make it a meritocracy to fault the HLS kid for going to a better school and facing tougher competition?

There isn't a good or fair way to do it. And the simple truth is that there will be some situations to take advantage of for a top student at a T50 school. That school likely has some alums that are federal judges which means that they'll be less inclined to trash applications from top students from their alma mater. And might even favor a top student from their alma mater over equally or better qualified candidates.

You are the second person on this thread to treat "higher-ranked" as if it's synonymous with "better."

Harvard is not "better" than any other school just like the students who go there aren't smarter than students from any other schools.

Samuel Fucking Alito went to Yale. Anyone here think that dude is some kind of intellectual powerhouse?

We could get into a whole, long philosophical debate about this, but suffice it to say, that if people think HSY are objectively "better" than other schools, then it's easy for me to understand why they subscribe to the meritocracy myth.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Are there any other professors you're close with that might know a bit more about clerkships? Does your law school have a professor that's a clerkship chair or something similar? If you have any other professors that you think would be willing to advocate for you, I'd try to reach out to them. They might be more knowledgeable about the process.

I am going to do this. Thanks for the tip.

[rpupkin]

I don't quibble with it. It's completely understandable to me. How can you compare median at HLS to top 5% at a T50? They're not facing the same competition. Does it make it a meritocracy to fault the HLS kid for going to a better school and facing tougher competition?

There isn't a good or fair way to do it. And the simple truth is that there will be some situations to take advantage of for a top student at a T50 school. That school likely has some alums that are federal judges which means that they'll be less inclined to trash applications from top students from their alma mater. And might even favor a top student from their alma mater over equally or better qualified candidates.

You are the second person on this thread to treat "higher-ranked" as if it's synonymous with "better."

Harvard is not "better" than any other school just like the students who go there aren't smarter than students from any other schools.

Samuel Fucking Alito went to Yale. Anyone here think that dude is some kind of intellectual powerhouse?

We could get into a whole, long philosophical debate about this, but suffice it to say, that if people think HSY are objectively "better" than other schools, then it's easy for me to understand why they subscribe to the meritocracy myth.

Here's the Scalia quote from the article linked to up thread:

“By and large,” Scalia said during the April 24 law school appearance, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, OK?”

It's not that schools like Harvard and Yale are "objectively" better; it's that they have the most stringent admissions requirements. In general, they have stronger students than the schools ranked below them. Yes, I'm sure you can find some 3.9/177 YLS admit who is a poor writer. And I'm sure you can find a 2.3/139 Cooley admit who ends up turning into a decent lawyer. Overall, though, the top schools are going to have more capable students. This doesn't seem controversial.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I don't quibble with it. It's completely understandable to me. How can you compare median at HLS to top 5% at a T50? They're not facing the same competition. Does it make it a meritocracy to fault the HLS kid for going to a better school and facing tougher competition?

There isn't a good or fair way to do it. And the simple truth is that there will be some situations to take advantage of for a top student at a T50 school. That school likely has some alums that are federal judges which means that they'll be less inclined to trash applications from top students from their alma mater. And might even favor a top student from their alma mater over equally or better qualified candidates.

You are the second person on this thread to treat "higher-ranked" as if it's synonymous with "better."

Harvard is not "better" than any other school just like the students who go there aren't smarter than students from any other schools.

Samuel Fucking Alito went to Yale. Anyone here think that dude is some kind of intellectual powerhouse?

We could get into a whole, long philosophical debate about this, but suffice it to say, that if people think HSY are objectively "better" than other schools, then it's easy for me to understand why they subscribe to the meritocracy myth.

Here's the Scalia quote from the article linked to up thread:

“By and large,” Scalia said during the April 24 law school appearance, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, OK?”

It's not that schools like Harvard and Yale are "objectively" better; it's that they have the most stringent admissions requirements. In general, they have stronger students than the schools ranked below them. Yes, I'm sure you can find some 3.9/177 YLS admit who is a poor writer. And I'm sure you can find a 2.3/139 Cooley admit who ends up turning into a decent lawyer. Overall, though, the top schools are going to have more capable students. This doesn't seem controversial.

We're quoting Scalia now? Another intellectual powerhouse who went to Harvard and is completely invested in the myth that because they have "more stringent" admission requirements, that their students are the most qualified.

As for that "stringent" admissions process, you do realize that the LSAT is basically half of the admissions process and that the LSAT is a complete sham of a test that benefits wealthy people? http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/lsat-tes ... not-logic/

[Lincoln]

"A perfect example would be to ask the circuit judge you externed for if s/he would be willing to help. If that judge calls a U.S.D.J. in your state and says you were a fantastic intern, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an interview."

Wait --- can I really do that? That seems like an inappropriate thing to ask a judge to do.

And yes, this has devolved into that, partly because of the answers I received --- that big-name schools get all the clerkships because that's just how it is. But I have said thank you to multiple people on this thread and will happily say so again. Thank you. To the people who called me names, not so much.

Another question I asked in my OP that never was answered was this: do judges do a lot of hiring between March and April?

I don't know much about hiring outside my district, but here it's common to interview in the summer and fall for clerkships starting two years out.

With respect to asking, you have to be tactful, and you can check with the judge's (former) clerks to see what the judge's practices are. The judge I interned for was helpful when it came to OCI, and one of the clerks had mentioned that the judge really liked my work product, so when I was applying to clerkships, I asked tactfully if the judge would consider being a reference. He said I could list him as a reference in the cover letter, but that it was his policy not to write LORs for interns. The judge I am clerking for specifically mentioned in my interview that he had called my intern-judge and asked about me, and that his word had carried a lot of weight, whereas I know he didn't call any of my LOR references.

[JackOfAllTrades]

"A perfect example would be to ask the circuit judge you externed for if s/he would be willing to help. If that judge calls a U.S.D.J. in your state and says you were a fantastic intern, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an interview."

Wait --- can I really do that? That seems like an inappropriate thing to ask a judge to do.

And yes, this has devolved into that, partly because of the answers I received --- that big-name schools get all the clerkships because that's just how it is. But I have said thank you to multiple people on this thread and will happily say so again. Thank you. To the people who called me names, not so much.

Another question I asked in my OP that never was answered was this: do judges do a lot of hiring between March and April?

I don't know much about hiring outside my district, but here it's common to interview in the summer and fall for clerkships starting two years out.

With respect to asking, you have to be tactful, and you can check with the judge's (former) clerks to see what the judge's practices are. The judge I interned for was helpful when it came to OCI, and one of the clerks had mentioned that the judge really liked my work product, so when I was applying to clerkships, I asked tactfully if the judge would consider being a reference. He said I could list him as a reference in the cover letter, but that it was his policy not to write LORs for interns. The judge I am clerking for specifically mentioned in my interview that he had called my intern-judge and asked about me, and that his word had carried a lot of weight, whereas I know he didn't call any of my LOR references.

I have already asked one judge I externed for if I could use him as a reference and he said that was fine. But you mentioned asking the judge to call another judge. I feel like very few would go far that, even if they thought you were awesome.

[Lincoln]

I have already asked one judge I externed for if I could use him as a reference and he said that was fine. But you mentioned asking the judge to call another judge. I feel like very few would go far that, even if they thought you were awesome.

Sure. My point is just that grades (especially if it's not top 5) are not enough for something as competitive and subject to personal whims as clerkships, so I'm trying to offer constructive advice in the form of examples.

[jbagelboy]

My recommendations are very strong. But I could have the strongest recommendations known to earth, but it makes no difference if your app never gets pulled from the pile.

In my experience, the majority of applicants have really strong recommendations.

Look, you're top 5% at a T50. There are thousands of law students in the country with stronger credentials than you have. You're just going to have to be persistent.

"Thousands?"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there are thousands. Even if you assume the top 10% at every top 50 school, that's maybe slightly over 1,000. And I'm in the top 5%.

I don't harbor any delusions that I would be god's gift to any judge. I'm just trying to crunch the numbers here.

I wasn't being hyperbolic. You're basically behind just about everyone at HYS, the top 25% or so in the rest of the T14, and then all the people with a better class rank than you in the next 100 or so schools. (Keep in mind that someone ranked #1-#3 in their class at a TTT is probably in a stronger position than someone who is top 5% at a T50.) Overall, we're talking about at least a couple of thousand of students ahead of you in the T14 alone, plus another thousand or so in lower-ranked schools.

I don't think this is true. Top 5% at, say, w&L, fordham, or BC (classic t50s) would stand better placed with at least some judges than people with bad grades at top schools.

Still, the point that not all schools are treated equally is a pretty fundamental one, and hardly anti-meritocratic.

[jbagelboy]

OP: keep your grades up and expand your search to 2018 and 2019. You might be better as an alumni candidate after a year or two at a firm with some litigation experience. Don't give up but don't have unreasonable expectations. Its perfectly normal to clerk a few years out now after the collapse of the plan.

[jbagelboy]

I don't quibble with it. It's completely understandable to me. How can you compare median at HLS to top 5% at a T50? They're not facing the same competition. Does it make it a meritocracy to fault the HLS kid for going to a better school and facing tougher competition?

There isn't a good or fair way to do it. And the simple truth is that there will be some situations to take advantage of for a top student at a T50 school. That school likely has some alums that are federal judges which means that they'll be less inclined to trash applications from top students from their alma mater. And might even favor a top student from their alma mater over equally or better qualified candidates.

You are the second person on this thread to treat "higher-ranked" as if it's synonymous with "better."

Harvard is not "better" than any other school just like the students who go there aren't smarter than students from any other schools.

Samuel Fucking Alito went to Yale. Anyone here think that dude is some kind of intellectual powerhouse?

We could get into a whole, long philosophical debate about this, but suffice it to say, that if people think HSY are objectively "better" than other schools, then it's easy for me to understand why they subscribe to the meritocracy myth.

Here's the Scalia quote from the article linked to up thread:

“By and large,” Scalia said during the April 24 law school appearance, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, OK?”

It's not that schools like Harvard and Yale are "objectively" better; it's that they have the most stringent admissions requirements. In general, they have stronger students than the schools ranked below them. Yes, I'm sure you can find some 3.9/177 YLS admit who is a poor writer. And I'm sure you can find a 2.3/139 Cooley admit who ends up turning into a decent lawyer. Overall, though, the top schools are going to have more capable students. This doesn't seem controversial.

We're quoting Scalia now? Another intellectual powerhouse who went to Harvard and is completely invested in the myth that because they have "more stringent" admission requirements, that their students are the most qualified.

As for that "stringent" admissions process, you do realize that the LSAT is basically half of the admissions process and that the LSAT is a complete sham of a test that benefits wealthy people? http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/lsat-tes ... not-logic/

Why are you fighting so hard against the core tenets of the system you're trying so hard to break into

[rpupkin]

I wasn't being hyperbolic. You're basically behind just about everyone at HYS, the top 25% or so in the rest of the T14, and then all the people with a better class rank than you in the next 100 or so schools. (Keep in mind that someone ranked #1-#3 in their class at a TTT is probably in a stronger position than someone who is top 5% at a T50.) Overall, we're talking about at least a couple of thousand of students ahead of you in the T14 alone, plus another thousand or so in lower-ranked schools.

I don't think this is true. Top 5% at, say, w&L, fordham, or BC (classic t50s) would stand better placed with at least some judges than people with bad grades at top schools.

Well, it's hard to get "bad grades" at HYS. As for the rest of the T14, I estimated "top 25%," which I think is about right. Would a top 5% Fordham student fare better in clerkship hiring than a top 25% CLS student? Maybe, but I doubt it.

[jbagelboy]

I wasn't being hyperbolic. You're basically behind just about everyone at HYS, the top 25% or so in the rest of the T14, and then all the people with a better class rank than you in the next 100 or so schools. (Keep in mind that someone ranked #1-#3 in their class at a TTT is probably in a stronger position than someone who is top 5% at a T50.) Overall, we're talking about at least a couple of thousand of students ahead of you in the T14 alone, plus another thousand or so in lower-ranked schools.

I don't think this is true. Top 5% at, say, w&L, fordham, or BC (classic t50s) would stand better placed with at least some judges than people with bad grades at top schools.

Well, it's hard to get "bad grades" at HYS. As for the rest of the T14, I estimated "top 25%," which I think is about right. Would a top 5% Fordham student fare better in clerkship hiring than a top 25% CLS student? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Yea, a CLS student will have more flexibility than the fordham student since there are a lot of judges that regularly hire columbia students but not fordham. But I think your other proposition only holds up for YLS, if that. Otherwise we wouldn't see only 16% clerking (or 25% incl alumns) from HLS if grades weren't a barrier. Lots of folks try and can't, and judges calculate GPAs there as they would at other schools with non-conventional grading structures. So the top students at strong regional schools will have some clerkship options that kids with lower grades at top schools do not (unless you're saying 86%-75% of hls students self select out of clerking, which is ridiculous).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Is the problem judges now or people applying too broadly? Have you see what 500 applications looks like? Coming in every year? Of course judges filter. You just disagree with what that filter should be - which is a subjective matter. And judges get to decide what they value.

The problem with your meritocracy complaints is that under the current system, people who get the job are all qualified. The issue would be if unqualified people were getting hired. You just want them to be different qualified people.

Frankly this conversation is kind of confusing because nothing in law is a pure meritocracy. And it's clear before you even go to law school that some schools place more students in federal clerkships than others. So it's weird to start complaining about that now.

The potshots at Scalia and Alito are also really weird. I don't agree with many many things they said/say, but that doesn't make them unqualified to sit on the court. I'm pretty sure they were/are extremely intelligent people (them believing things I don't doesn't make them dumb).

Anyway, clerking is bizarre and applicants just have to deal with that. The fact that I got a clerkship is definitely evidence that some judges don't care about school (or even almighty grades). Also probably more evidence that it's not meritocratic, though, too (since my #1 colleague was probably more worthy).

Raging against the machine at this point seems counterproductive (and I agree with others that bringing these kinds of attitudes into an interview is really going to work against you).

[lowdmouse]

"A perfect example would be to ask the circuit judge you externed for if s/he would be willing to help. If that judge calls a U.S.D.J. in your state and says you were a fantastic intern, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't get an interview."

Wait --- can I really do that? That seems like an inappropriate thing to ask a judge to do.

And yes, this has devolved into that, partly because of the answers I received --- that big-name schools get all the clerkships because that's just how it is. But I have said thank you to multiple people on this thread and will happily say so again. Thank you. To the people who called me names, not so much.

Another question I asked in my OP that never was answered was this: do judges do a lot of hiring between March and April?

I don't know much about hiring outside my district, but here it's common to interview in the summer and fall for clerkships starting two years out.

With respect to asking, you have to be tactful, and you can check with the judge's (former) clerks to see what the judge's practices are. The judge I interned for was helpful when it came to OCI, and one of the clerks had mentioned that the judge really liked my work product, so when I was applying to clerkships, I asked tactfully if the judge would consider being a reference. He said I could list him as a reference in the cover letter, but that it was his policy not to write LORs for interns. The judge I am clerking for specifically mentioned in my interview that he had called my intern-judge and asked about me, and that his word had carried a lot of weight, whereas I know he didn't call any of my LOR references.

I have already asked one judge I externed for if I could use him as a reference and he said that was fine. But you mentioned asking the judge to call another judge. I feel like very few would go far that, even if they thought you were awesome.

As another data point, the COA judge I interned for was more than happy to call other judges I was applying to if she knew them, but as a rule didn't write formal recommendations for former interns. This clearly was a major factor in landing clerkship interviews. After that, you have to sell yourself in the interview. As with everything, it depends on the judge, but you would be crazy not to ask.

But seriously, this thread can either be about constructive advice for clerkship apps, or it can be about criticizing the clerkship system, but when you make it about both, you get worse advice and an uglier debate. Anyone who is top 5% at a T50 has reason to be upset about the legal industry's (judges included) obsession with prestige and rankings. But you aren't going to change that with your clerkship applications. So, if you want a clerkship, hustle profs, reach out to every judge who might advocate for you, kill your exams, and look at magistrate judges, but for the love of god don't let that chip on your shoulder come into the interview with you. Get hired or stop looking, then you can have this debate. But don't spoil your headspace right now with negativity about the system--even if it's a messed up system.

[emkay625]

No, you're misreading me because you've made up your mind about this already. My comment was not meant to suggest that judges don't have to filter (or limit which applications they look at), it's that they want to filter on their own terms, not based on who gets their application into OSCAR first. Of course they have "criteria" (not sure why you needed that to be in scare quotes). All jobs have criteria. See the Scalia article linked earlier for why judges might filter by school. Your assumptions about how top 5% at one school compares to median at HYS etc are just that, assumptions; other people hold different ones.

Keep in mind judges are not being altruistic when they hire. They want to find the person who is best going to help them do their job, and they have to go through this process every year (or maybe every other), and they're busy, and it's a pain in the ass. They want to choose the right person, and they want it to be as easy as possible to do that, and they also get to define right person. Nobody is owed a clerkship.

And drawing generalizations about the whole legal profession based on the pedigree of 9 SCOTUS judges seems a little overwrought. It's not a meritocracy, but nothing is. It also doesn't mean that the people who get the jobs aren't qualified. This profession is filled with thousands of highly qualified people. The #1 student in the class at my lower T1 couldn't get a federal clerkship, and they totally deserved one.

I think you are misreading me. Oscar already has a cap on the number of applications you can submit. But there is no cap on the number of applications that a judge can receive, so it has nothing to do with "who gets their application into Oscar first." Rather, it would force students to narrow their searches and apply more strategically, because they would no longer be able to spam-mail as many judges they want with paper apps.

And I don't think I am "owed" a clerkship, or even an interview. I do feel that I at least deserve for my application to be looked at and not tossed in a pile. Someone on this thread commented that, in his chambers, they did look at all of them, which, if true, is great. But if by looking at it he really means opening it, seeing that the school isn't T-14, and tossing it into the pile, then that's not a real look.

Anyway, I am glad someone finally admits that it's not a meritocracy. Being #1 in your class and not getting a clerkship is a perfect example of that. I fully understand that there are way more qualified applicants than there are spots available, but that is a lousy justification of the current paradigm. Maybe some judges think that someone who's top 25% at Harvard would be a better clerk than your friend who was #1 at lower T1. In my opinion, those judges are perpetuating a broken system.

I externed at a circuit court with some law clerks from Harvard, and they were smart, but they weren't any smarter than me or you or your friend who finished #1 in his class. It seems that some lawyers (including maybe some on this thread) who become very successful through this system have a hard time believing that the system is arbitrary and/or nepotistic.

I'm a lady.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Is the problem judges now or people applying too broadly?

It's both. But solving the second problem would ameliorate the first.

Of course judges filter. You just disagree with what that filter should be - which is a subjective matter. And judges get to decide what they value.

The problem with your meritocracy complaints is that under the current system, people who get the job are all qualified. The issue would be if unqualified people were getting hired. You just want them to be different qualified people.

You don't see a problem with the fact that the vast majority of people who get hired come from the same schools, simply because "people who get the job are all qualified." So it's no surprise that you think a SCOTUS made up entirely up Harvard and Yale grads is perfectly acceptable. The legal profession should strive to include qualified people from all sorts of backgrounds, not just a handful of schools.

Frankly this conversation is kind of confusing because nothing in law is a pure meritocracy. And it's clear before you even go to law school that some schools place more students in federal clerkships than others. So it's weird to start complaining about that now.

Wow, the strawmen at work here. First, the fact that "pure" meritocracy doesn't exist is not an excuse not to try and do better.

Second, I didn't know what a clerkship was when I was applying to schools. But, even if I did, it's not as if I had my pick of whatever school I wanted to attend. "Stop complaining about a system that is broken! You knew it was broken when you signed up" is a sort of a weird thing to say.

The potshots at Scalia and Alito are also really weird. I don't agree with many many things they said/say, but that doesn't make them unqualified to sit on the court. I'm pretty sure they were/are extremely intelligent people (them believing things I don't doesn't make them dumb).

First, I never said Alito and Scalia were "dumb." I merely said that they are not half as smart as they think they are. Second, the fact that I don't agree with Alito and Scalia politically has nothing to do with my views of their intellectual prowess. John Roberts is incredibly gifted. Robert Bork was a legal genius. Scalia and Alito are neither of those things. The country would likely have benefitted from having two equally-qualified jurists who didn't attend Ivy League schools on the court.

Raging against the machine at this point seems counterproductive (and I agree with others that bringing these kinds of attitudes into an interview is really going to work against you).

I'm not dumb enough to make these kinds of comments in an interview. But raging against the machine is never counterproductive. If the HYS folks who got clerkships could overcome the cognitive dissonance and realize that they are not special, we might have a more diverse legal profession. Unfortunately, those clerks and judges buy into their own hype and refuse to look outside their bubble. The fact that so many people here see no problem with such a paradigm is stunning.

[TatteredDignity]

From personal experience, I can tell you that being in the top 5% at a good (but not great) school is a really tough spot for landing a clerkship. For judges who like to hire the best people from a strong regional, you're getting beat by the top 5 (or 3 or 1) students in your class. For judges who prefer to hire from higher-ranked (since I'm not allowed to say "better") schools than yours, you're obviously at a disadvantage. Purely in terms of grades and school rank, you're only ahead of top 5% students at lower-ranked schools.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Of course you didn't have your pick of whatever school you wanted (neither did I). That means access to certain kinds of jobs is tougher. That's just reality. Yeah, you did sign on to that system when you decided to go to law school. You can work for what you think is a fairer outcome in the future, but you have to just work within that system till then.

Saying there are reasons for why judges hire the way they do is not to say that it's the best way to hire. But they're also not irrational choices.

And there are LOTS and LOTS of things that are screwed up and unfair and not meritocratic and so on about the law school application process and law school and the legal profession. Clerkship hiring is not really what I consider the worst part. Until the legal profession doesn't suffer from an oversupply of lawyers, it's going to be an elitist profession.

(If Alito and Scalia hadn't been hired the other hires would probably have been other Harvard/Chicago grads like Roberts and Bork.)