Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

By “consume you,” do you mean you should be working or thinking about working 24/7? Because if so, that is absolutely chambers-specific. It is absolutely possible to be a good clerk without the work “consuming” you. Obviously not in every chambers - if your judge wants you to be consumed by work, that’s what you need to do - but not all judges are like that.

I think you read into what I said what you wanted to talk about. As an initial matter, I never said this is what "x" judge expects. It's a little odd interpretation of what I wrote (also as I noted, I have clerked in multiple chambers across multiple levels).

And we can agree to disagree as far as what it means to do the job well. I see you view what it means to do the job well as being a "good" clerk. Even a "good" (let's say above average) clerk makes a lot of mistakes. And more than a few clerks don't take their jobs seriously. What I meant by "consume" is that it has to be the main priority in your life, and you have to be willing to make sacrifices to get it done right (every situation is of course different, including the amount of work). I have seen more than my share of "good" clerks, particularly those who categorized themselves as such, screw up even fundamental theories of law. And in the end, it's the parties and often times the larger public who have to suffer through a clerk's mistakes.

[Anonymous User]

One thing I'll add---this is for all the kids who are thinking of clerking. I clerked at multiple federal levels. To do the job correctly, unfortunately, it should consume you. There are a lot of errors at every level.

Uhhhhh this is a strange attitude and really unhealthy. You can work really hard, pay close attention, and do great work without letting a job "consume you." People (that last) in the most serious jobs know how to turn it off and on at the right times. Clerking is serious, but it's not like you're an ER doctor. Even ER doctors (that last/don't hate life) switch it off when they go home, even though they could prevent one more error by working another 12 hours. It just doesn't work in the long run, or even over a single year.

In any event, having this type of attitude is likely to produce errors or waste a lot of time due to stressing about the wrong things. Some things matter, some things don't, your job shouldn't "consume you" except in limited time periods. If you're consumed by the day-to-day, you won't be able to ramp up when things really need that type of attention.

End of mental health rant.

See above.

And no, I would consider creating bad law across multiple states, half the country in one particular circuit, and the whole country (of course the SC) just as serious, if not more, than being a ER doctor. As a concrete and relevant example, we can talk about the potential life altering impact of even doctrines like qualified immunity have had across not only individuals, but communities, across decades.

And even if we were reducing this discussion to "hours" as you did, we can debate how many more errors are created by overwork as opposed to carelessness. Part of the reason the term clerkships are limited to a year is because it does take a lot of work to get it right.

End of response to someone's rant.

[nixy]

By “consume you,” do you mean you should be working or thinking about working 24/7? Because if so, that is absolutely chambers-specific. It is absolutely possible to be a good clerk without the work “consuming” you. Obviously not in every chambers - if your judge wants you to be consumed by work, that’s what you need to do - but not all judges are like that.

I think you read into what I said what you wanted to talk about. As an initial matter, I never said this is what "x" judge expects. It's a little odd interpretation of what I wrote (also as I noted, I have clerked in multiple chambers across multiple levels).

And we can agree to disagree as far as what it means to do the job well. I see you view what it means to do the job well as being a "good" clerk. Even a "good" (let's say above average) clerk makes a lot of mistakes. And more than a few clerks don't take their jobs seriously. What I meant by "consume" is that it has to be the main priority in your life, and you have to be willing to make sacrifices to get it done right (every situation is of course different, including the amount of work). I have seen more than my share of "good" clerks, particularly those who categorized themselves as such, screw up even fundamental theories of law. And in the end, it's the parties and often times the larger public who have to suffer through a clerk's mistakes.

I also have clerked across multiple levels. I don't agree with your take on this at all (also your statements about what I think doing the job well means are a little odd interpretation of what I wrote). The reason I brought up what judges expect is that what your judge expects largely determines how many sacrifices you have to make. You can be a good clerk (or an excellent clerk or a stellar clerk or whatever adjective you prefer to good) without making sacrifices if that's how your judge runs their chambers. You can also be a good/excellent/stellar/whatever clerk without letting clerking "consume" your life (again, depending on what your judge expects), and you can also make some sacrifices to excel in the job without letting it "consume" your life. It's not a religious vocation.

[lavarman84]

I think you read into what I said what you wanted to talk about. As an initial matter, I never said this is what "x" judge expects. It's a little odd interpretation of what I wrote (also as I noted, I have clerked in multiple chambers across multiple levels).

And we can agree to disagree as far as what it means to do the job well. I see you view what it means to do the job well as being a "good" clerk. Even a "good" (let's say above average) clerk makes a lot of mistakes. And more than a few clerks don't take their jobs seriously. What I meant by "consume" is that it has to be the main priority in your life, and you have to be willing to make sacrifices to get it done right (every situation is of course different, including the amount of work). I have seen more than my share of "good" clerks, particularly those who categorized themselves as such, screw up even fundamental theories of law. And in the end, it's the parties and often times the larger public who have to suffer through a clerk's mistakes.

On an unrelated note, in addition to the judge and his/her staff, it is also very important to have good coclerks, both in terms of the ability/willingness to do the job and in terms of personality. The job is a lot less enjoyable when you have to work with difficult personalities.

[jackshunger]

Lynch makes it sound like he is more of a prestige snob than he actually is. He actually hired from all of CCN for his clerks this term, and his other clerk went to Minnesota (from an ERW fellowship). He cares about grades, work quality, and calls from people he trusts.

It's the last bit of the last sentence that swallows the rest of it. The sentiment the post expresses kind of annoys me because it gives students a false sense of hope. It's not the case that what Lynch cares about are grades, work quality, and calls because historically he's hired people from HYS (and maybe CCN) who almost certainly have lower grades and lower work quality than the absolute top students at, say, Rutgers or Iowa or Mizzou or whatever.

The top .0001% of those students at Mizzou would be more qualified than the top 10% at HYS and get these uber-prestigious CA2 clerkships if the metrics were truly grades and work quality and calls from professors; it's more accurate to say Lynch (among others of course) cares about grades, work, and calls from a fixed, preset band of schools. It's prestige snobbery masquerading as something else. I don't have a problem with his criteria, just sort of annoying when it's masked as something it's not.

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

[lavarman84]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

That's a very questionable assumption. Is it one judges make? Certainly. But I'm far from sold that it holds true. Now, obviously, the average student at Yale is better than the average student at Columbia and so on and so forth. But when you start comparing median at Yale to the #1 or #2 student at Mizzou. Eh, who can really say?

[galba]

by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN

When you've drank so much of the Kool-Aid you've actually become the Kool-Aid man, slowly turning red, blasting through walls, screaming "Oh yeah!" every 30 seconds

[Anonymous User]

by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN

When you've drank so much of the Kool-Aid you've actually become the Kool-Aid man, slowly turning red, blasting through walls, screaming "Oh yeah!" every 30 seconds

I get the line of reasoning to some degree (insofar as Mizzou vs. T14, top 10% HYS vs. top 5% CCN, etc.), but it’s baffling to me that some people truly believe an admissions decision based on 1-2 points of difference in LSAT score is a strong indication of vastly superior legal ability.

[Asdfgqwerty]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Ah yes, the most important indicator of competency is whether you had a good enough undergrad GPA and LSAT score to get into Yale. That’s all that matters to being a stellar clerk or lawyer. Maybe you were a mediocre student, but at least you weren’t a top 10%-er at CCN. After all, Yale admissions let you in!

And we all know the admissions process is very fair and no one would ever choose another law school over Yale for ANY reason.

[nixy]

I think you read into what I said what you wanted to talk about. As an initial matter, I never said this is what "x" judge expects. It's a little odd interpretation of what I wrote (also as I noted, I have clerked in multiple chambers across multiple levels).

And we can agree to disagree as far as what it means to do the job well. I see you view what it means to do the job well as being a "good" clerk. Even a "good" (let's say above average) clerk makes a lot of mistakes. And more than a few clerks don't take their jobs seriously. What I meant by "consume" is that it has to be the main priority in your life, and you have to be willing to make sacrifices to get it done right (every situation is of course different, including the amount of work). I have seen more than my share of "good" clerks, particularly those who categorized themselves as such, screw up even fundamental theories of law. And in the end, it's the parties and often times the larger public who have to suffer through a clerk's mistakes.

On an unrelated note, in addition to the judge and his/her staff, it is also very important to have good coclerks, both in terms of the ability/willingness to do the job and in terms of personality. The job is a lot less enjoyable when you have to work with difficult personalities.

[polareagle]

One thing I'll add---this is for all the kids who are thinking of clerking. I clerked at multiple federal levels. To do the job correctly, unfortunately, it should consume you. There are a lot of errors at every level.

Uhhhhh this is a strange attitude and really unhealthy. You can work really hard, pay close attention, and do great work without letting a job "consume you." People (that last) in the most serious jobs know how to turn it off and on at the right times. Clerking is serious, but it's not like you're an ER doctor. Even ER doctors (that last/don't hate life) switch it off when they go home, even though they could prevent one more error by working another 12 hours. It just doesn't work in the long run, or even over a single year.

In any event, having this type of attitude is likely to produce errors or waste a lot of time due to stressing about the wrong things. Some things matter, some things don't, your job shouldn't "consume you" except in limited time periods. If you're consumed by the day-to-day, you won't be able to ramp up when things really need that type of attention.

End of mental health rant.

See above.

And no, I would consider creating bad law across multiple states, half the country in one particular circuit, and the whole country (of course the SC) just as serious, if not more, than being a ER doctor. As a concrete and relevant example, we can talk about the potential life altering impact of even doctrines like qualified immunity have had across not only individuals, but communities, across decades.

And even if we were reducing this discussion to "hours" as you did, we can debate how many more errors are created by overwork as opposed to carelessness. Part of the reason the term clerkships are limited to a year is because it does take a lot of work to get it right.

End of response to someone's rant.

You may be right about the overall cosmic importance of getting law right for a broad area of the country vs. working on an individual's health, that's a matter of opinion.

But I think your view of an individual clerk's importance (especially in the appellate context that you're talking about here) is over-inflated. It's the judge's job to get the law right, although obviously s/he will rely on you not to misstate things. Your co-clerks should be checking your work (presuming it wasn't just my appellate judge who had us swap opinions). And there's TWO OTHER JUDGES and their clerks who should be checking your work as well.

Do errors slip through sometimes? Sure. But I don't think you're going to screw up qualified immunity (any more than it already is) in a circuit just because you leave time and mental space in your life for relationships, hobbies, exercise, watching sports, and occasionally getting plastered.

An individual district court clerk could well contribute to a bigger error in a case given the workload and relative autonomy, but that's what circuit courts are for!

[nixy]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Apart from the other criticisms of this post, with which I completely agree, the bolded just isn't universally true (as well as grammatically incorrect). Someone who got one of the full rides/top scholarships at Columbia and no need-based aid at Yale may have decided that financially, Columbia made more sense, especially if their goal was to go into NYC biglaw. And some people just have to be in NYC.

[Libya]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Apart from the other criticisms of this post, with which I completely agree, the bolded just isn't universally true (as well as grammatically incorrect). Someone who got one of the full rides/top scholarships at Columbia and no need-based aid at Yale may have decided that financially, Columbia made more sense, especially if their goal was to go into NYC biglaw. And some people just have to be in NYC.

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

[lavarman84]

Do errors slip through sometimes? Sure. But I don't think you're going to screw up qualified immunity (any more than it already is) in a circuit just because you leave time and mental space in your life for relationships, hobbies, exercise, watching sports, and occasionally getting plastered.

Yeah, SCOTUS has done more than a good enough job completely screwing up qualified immunity all by itself.

[nixy]

You may be right about the overall cosmic importance of getting law right for a broad area of the country vs. working on an individual's health, that's a matter of opinion.

But I think your view of an individual clerk's importance (especially in the appellate context that you're talking about here) is over-inflated. It's the judge's job to get the law right, although obviously s/he will rely on you not to misstate things. Your co-clerks should be checking your work (presuming it wasn't just my appellate judge who had us swap opinions). And there's TWO OTHER JUDGES and their clerks who should be checking your work as well.

Do errors slip through sometimes? Sure. But I don't think you're going to screw up qualified immunity (any more than it already is) in a circuit just because you leave time and mental space in your life for relationships, hobbies, exercise, watching sports, and occasionally getting plastered.

An individual district court clerk could well contribute to a bigger error in a case given the workload and relative autonomy, but that's what circuit courts are for!

This is a really good post.

[beepboopbeep]

By “consume you,” do you mean you should be working or thinking about working 24/7? Because if so, that is absolutely chambers-specific. It is absolutely possible to be a good clerk without the work “consuming” you. Obviously not in every chambers - if your judge wants you to be consumed by work, that’s what you need to do - but not all judges are like that.

I think you read into what I said what you wanted to talk about. As an initial matter, I never said this is what "x" judge expects. It's a little odd interpretation of what I wrote (also as I noted, I have clerked in multiple chambers across multiple levels).

And we can agree to disagree as far as what it means to do the job well. I see you view what it means to do the job well as being a "good" clerk. Even a "good" (let's say above average) clerk makes a lot of mistakes. And more than a few clerks don't take their jobs seriously. What I meant by "consume" is that it has to be the main priority in your life, and you have to be willing to make sacrifices to get it done right (every situation is of course different, including the amount of work). I have seen more than my share of "good" clerks, particularly those who categorized themselves as such, screw up even fundamental theories of law. And in the end, it's the parties and often times the larger public who have to suffer through a clerk's mistakes.

You accuse nixy of "reading into" your post, but then read in an arbitrary definition of "good" that defines away the question and is nowhere to be found in nixy's post. Of course no one really disagrees that your work as a clerk should be your priority and that you may need to make sacrifices sometimes. That's not the same as saying it should consume you. If you're backing off that claim, just do that rather than accusing someone of misreading you.

The underlined is hilarious.

[beepboopbeep]

You may be right about the overall cosmic importance of getting law right for a broad area of the country vs. working on an individual's health, that's a matter of opinion.

But I think your view of an individual clerk's importance (especially in the appellate context that you're talking about here) is over-inflated. It's the judge's job to get the law right, although obviously s/he will rely on you not to misstate things. Your co-clerks should be checking your work (presuming it wasn't just my appellate judge who had us swap opinions). And there's TWO OTHER JUDGES and their clerks who should be checking your work as well.

Do errors slip through sometimes? Sure. But I don't think you're going to screw up qualified immunity (any more than it already is) in a circuit just because you leave time and mental space in your life for relationships, hobbies, exercise, watching sports, and occasionally getting plastered.

An individual district court clerk could well contribute to a bigger error in a case given the workload and relative autonomy, but that's what circuit courts are for!

This is a really good post.

Cosign. My 2/7/9 chambers really felt like a team, in part because we weren't really worried about whether some "supposedly good" clerk was screwing up "fundamental theories of law." It was a group effort to get the judge to the right place, and that sometimes even meant arguing for things that maybe weren't ultimately correct (but were at least arguable) to test theories, see what the best responses were, etc.

[Anonymous User]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Apart from the other criticisms of this post, with which I completely agree, the bolded just isn't universally true (as well as grammatically incorrect). Someone who got one of the full rides/top scholarships at Columbia and no need-based aid at Yale may have decided that financially, Columbia made more sense, especially if their goal was to go into NYC biglaw. And some people just have to be in NYC.

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

My judge reads every single app he receives from Yale, and for the most part, doesn't even look at anything that is not top 10% or so at CCN. He also is not alone in this regard either. Some major feeders hire Yale students without grades (Katsas and Thapar for example), while requiring others to not only get top grades, but also clerk before working for them.

[nixy]

Of course judges do that, because they can, and because they have to narrow down the pool somehow. But you yourself acknowledge that your judge looks at all Yale apps and top 10% or so CCN, so clearly disproves the idea that median at Yale is automatically *better* than the top 10% at CCN. And I think even the judges who follow this practice would acknowledge it doubtless cuts out equally capable students. Relying on school pedigree this way is a really rough heuristic for getting through a pile of applications. (and this is exactly why connections are so important, because if someone a judge trusts calls up to recommend applicant X, it eliminates having to parse fine differences in pedigree.) I’m sure the general justification is what Scalia said, that you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse and those that go in the best and the brightest will come out that way. But I don’t think that translates into a literal belief that every Yale student is better than every CCN student (see Clarence Thomas, who hires from a much wider range of schools).

In any case, based on the most recent numbers on LST, about 56 Yale grads went into clerkships straight out from graduation. There aren’t a ton of federal judges, but it’s a lot more than 56. And there are a lot more non-feeders than feeders.

[Libya]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Apart from the other criticisms of this post, with which I completely agree, the bolded just isn't universally true (as well as grammatically incorrect). Someone who got one of the full rides/top scholarships at Columbia and no need-based aid at Yale may have decided that financially, Columbia made more sense, especially if their goal was to go into NYC biglaw. And some people just have to be in NYC.

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

I'm not trolling, nor do I think it is particularly fair as a CCN student that was top 5%. But my judge reads every single app he receives from Yale, and for the most part, doesn't even look at anything that is not top 10% or so at CCN. He also is not alone in this regard either. Some major feeders hire Yale students without grades (Katsas and Thapar for example), while requiring others to not only get top grades, but also clerk before working for them.

To be fair, just because your judge hires that way doesn’t make it true across the board. More importantly, I was amused at the part of the post suggesting the YLS folks at median are better students than the CCN people. I’m at H, but I have to imagine median at Y is just as ridiculously easy to get.Top 10% at CCN is pretty damn impressive, however.

In any event, I think the grade/rank equations judges use to compare people are really ridiculous. I’d be more impressed by someone that graduated GW with highest honors than some like top 15% at H.

[Anonymous User]

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

Curious if anyone familiar with judges’ actual hiring practices gets the impression that they consider Chicago a cut above Columbia and NYU. I’m Chicago myself but I always figured the difference in numbers was due to self-selection.

[lavarman84]

You may be right about the overall cosmic importance of getting law right for a broad area of the country vs. working on an individual's health, that's a matter of opinion.

But I think your view of an individual clerk's importance (especially in the appellate context that you're talking about here) is over-inflated. It's the judge's job to get the law right, although obviously s/he will rely on you not to misstate things. Your co-clerks should be checking your work (presuming it wasn't just my appellate judge who had us swap opinions). And there's TWO OTHER JUDGES and their clerks who should be checking your work as well.

Do errors slip through sometimes? Sure. But I don't think you're going to screw up qualified immunity (any more than it already is) in a circuit just because you leave time and mental space in your life for relationships, hobbies, exercise, watching sports, and occasionally getting plastered.

An individual district court clerk could well contribute to a bigger error in a case given the workload and relative autonomy, but that's what circuit courts are for!

This is a really good post.

Cosign. My 2/7/9 chambers really felt like a team, in part because we weren't really worried about whether some "supposedly good" clerk was screwing up "fundamental theories of law." It was a group effort to get the judge to the right place, and that sometimes even meant arguing for things that maybe weren't ultimately correct (but were at least arguable) to test theories, see what the best responses were, etc.

I'm happy to say the same. Both my D. Ct. and COA chambers felt like teams. It wasn't about making another clerk look bad, being competitive, or being the best law clerk that year. It was actually about making our teammates look good because we wanted our judge to look good. That's the sort of environment I prefer.

[Anonymous User]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Apart from the other criticisms of this post, with which I completely agree, the bolded just isn't universally true (as well as grammatically incorrect). Someone who got one of the full rides/top scholarships at Columbia and no need-based aid at Yale may have decided that financially, Columbia made more sense, especially if their goal was to go into NYC biglaw. And some people just have to be in NYC.

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

I'm not trolling, nor do I think it is particularly fair as a CCN student that was top 5%. But my judge reads every single app he receives from Yale, and for the most part, doesn't even look at anything that is not top 10% or so at CCN. He also is not alone in this regard either. Some major feeders hire Yale students without grades (Katsas and Thapar for example), while requiring others to not only get top grades, but also clerk before working for them.

Thapar also hires very early at Chicago (not before grades, but Chicago gets grades far earlier) and both him and Katsas hire a bunch of Chicago students. If they strongly prefer Yale they have a very odd way of showing it. I also just don’t think it’s true that top conservative students prefer Yale to Chicago, especially if the latter gives them more money.

Worth noting also that Chicago just beat Yale at clerkship percentage last year.

[Anonymous User]

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

Curious if anyone familiar with judges’ actual hiring practices gets the impression that they consider Chicago a cut above Columbia and NYU. I’m Chicago myself but I always figured the difference in numbers was due to self-selection.

Not in my experience, but I clerked on CA2 so could certainly be different elsewhere. I always thought Chicago did better with clerkships in aggregate because the school is very good at supporting clerkship apps, not that Chicago students were considered better or the school more "prestigious."

[Anonymous User]

This isnt really true at all. The best students overwhelmingly go to the best schools because so much of law school is centered around prestige. That's the reason why so many judges are more than happy to fill their slots with median Yale students - because by and large a person who is median at Yale is probably a better student than even a top 10% student at CCN (let alone Mizzou), because that student would have otherwise went to Yale if they had that option. Does that mean the student from CCN or Mizzou would be a bad clerk? Of course not, but when you get 1000 applications for 4 slots, you have to set standards somewhere.

Apart from the other criticisms of this post, with which I completely agree, the bolded just isn't universally true (as well as grammatically incorrect). Someone who got one of the full rides/top scholarships at Columbia and no need-based aid at Yale may have decided that financially, Columbia made more sense, especially if their goal was to go into NYC biglaw. And some people just have to be in NYC.

Median at YLS > top 10% at CCN is a hell of a troll, especially when lumping Chi in there.

I'm not trolling, nor do I think it is particularly fair as a CCN student that was top 5%. But my judge reads every single app he receives from Yale, and for the most part, doesn't even look at anything that is not top 10% or so at CCN. He also is not alone in this regard either. Some major feeders hire Yale students without grades (Katsas and Thapar for example), while requiring others to not only get top grades, but also clerk before working for them.

Thapar also hires very early at Chicago (not before grades, but Chicago gets grades far earlier) and both him and Katsas hire a bunch of Chicago students. If they strongly prefer Yale they have a very odd way of showing it. I also just don’t think it’s true that top conservative students prefer Yale to Chicago, especially if the latter gives them more money.

Worth noting also that Chicago just beat Yale at clerkship percentage last year.

Chicago beat Yale!?!? The list I saw on Law.com for this past year had Stanford>Yale>Harvard>Chicago