Getting antsy Forum

[JackOfAllTrades]

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.

one of the judges here does exactly that: only considers the top 3 students in our class.

That's insane to me. The difference between #1 in the class and #5 or even #10 in the class is usually going to be negligible. Maybe that person spotted a couple more issues on an exam or maybe one of them was in a more competitive section 1L year or maybe one of them had a professor who graded arbitrarily.

Furthermore, only considering the top 3 or top 5 means using one metric: grades (which are based on one exam) to determine who to hire. The top three students in the class could be huge assholes.

[blahblewblah]

This is one of the most frustrating threads I have ever read on TLS.

[JackOfAllTrades]

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.)

most of these are fair points.

To be clear, I never said judges' hiring decisions were "irrational." I merely said that they perpetuate a broken system.

And I disagree that the oversupply of lawyers has anything to do with this. You could cut the number of law students in half, but if judges are still hiring a middling HYSer over a top 5% T1er or top 2-3% T2er, the system would remain just as broken.

[blahblewblah]

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.)

most of these are fair points.

To be clear, I never said judges' hiring decisions were "irrational." I merely said that they perpetuate a broken system.

And I disagree that the oversupply of lawyers has anything to do with this. You could cut the number of law students in half, but if judges are still hiring a middling HYSer over a top 5% T1er or top 2-3% T2er, the system would remain just as broken.

How would you fix it?

[Tls2016]

OP:you think the system is broken because you don't have the needed qualifications? Didn't you ask if you were overestimating your chances?
I'm confused.

[rawrpalooza]

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.

one of the judges here does exactly that: only considers the top 3 students in our class.

That's insane to me. The difference between #1 in the class and #5 or even #10 in the class is usually going to be negligible. Maybe that person spotted a couple more issues on an exam or maybe one of them was in a more competitive section 1L year or maybe one of them had a professor who graded arbitrarily.

Furthermore, only considering the top 3 or top 5 means using one metric: grades (which are based on one exam) to determine who to hire. The top three students in the class could be huge assholes.

lol

[Tls2016]

Another question: did you go to law school planning to clerk for a federal judge?

[Tls2016]

I don't think that! I think we should all at least get a look.

Do you think there's something wrong with the HLS admissions department not reading the personal statements (and all the letters of rec) from an applicant with a 145 LSAT?

If that person has really good grades, then hell yes there is something wrong with that. The LSAT is a test that rich kids can literally pay to have other people teach them to take. The fact that you think a low LSAT score should immediately disqualify applicants proves my entire point.

You know this is completely false. The people who do the best self study instead of relying on Kaplan or other classes. Maybe you mean private tutors?

[JackOfAllTrades]

How would you fix it?

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

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

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

[Tls2016]

How would you fix it?

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

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

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

Your credentials are borderline. I'm not sure your solution would help you get a crazy competitive and highly desired position.

[JackOfAllTrades]

OP:you think the system is broken because you don't have the needed qualifications? Didn't you ask if you were overestimating your chances?
I'm confused.

How are these questions mutually exclusive?

I overestimated my chances because I had no idea that judges were hiring average HYS people over top 5% T1ers.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I don't think that! I think we should all at least get a look.

Do you think there's something wrong with the HLS admissions department not reading the personal statements (and all the letters of rec) from an applicant with a 145 LSAT?

If that person has really good grades, then hell yes there is something wrong with that. The LSAT is a test that rich kids can literally pay to have other people teach them to take. The fact that you think a low LSAT score should immediately disqualify applicants proves my entire point.

You know this is completely false. The people who do the best self study instead of relying on Kaplan or other classes. Maybe you mean private tutors?

Self-study still requires 1) money to buy materials and 2) lots of free time to study. Two things that working class people don't have.

My god, are you really defending the idea of studying for what is intended to be an aptitude test?

[JackOfAllTrades]

How would you fix it?

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

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

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

Your credentials are borderline. I'm not sure your solution would help you get a crazy competitive and highly desired position.

Maybe, maybe not. But can we imagine a world where Harvard Law admitted almost exclusively from 14 schools? Or a world where Harvard undergrad admitted almost exclusively from 50 high schools?

Universities are (at least somewhat) accountable to the public. Judges are not. It's really up to the judges and their clerks.

[blahblewblah]

How would you fix it?

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

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

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

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

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

[rpupkin]

This thread is ridiculous, and I shouldn't make things worse by descending into ad hominem, but oh well:

The OP is unintentionally validating the position he attacks. I mean, he is in the top 5% of his class despite weak analytical and argumentative skills. Perhaps this is why so many judges are skeptical of the quality of the students from T50 law schools.

[RaceJudicata]

My Personal number #1 Rule in life...

Don't ask a question, if you are not prepared for the answer.

Another rule, not nearly as important, but a rule nonetheless:

Don't look to this forum for self-validation. Look to these fora for honest advice (for the most part).

[JackOfAllTrades]

This thread is ridiculous, and I shouldn't make things worse by descending into ad hominem, but oh well:

The OP is unintentionally validating the position he attacks. I mean, he is in the top 5% of his class despite weak analytical and argumentative skills. Perhaps this is why so many judges are skeptical of the quality of the students from T50 law schools.

lol "i shouldn't make ad hominem attacks but i will anyway."

Lots of people have contributed helpful input to this thread. You are not one of those people.

[emkay625]

OP:you think the system is broken because you don't have the needed qualifications? Didn't you ask if you were overestimating your chances?
I'm confused.

How are these questions mutually exclusive?

I overestimated my chances because I had no idea that judges were hiring average HYS people over top 5% T1ers.

I don't think most judges are doing that. I think in competitive districts, they are hiring top 5% HYS people (and top 5% T14 plus Vandy, UT, UCLA, USC people).

And OP, you say you don't like that there is a judge who only hires the top X number of people from your school because (paraphrasing what you said) grades are subjective. If judges don't rely on grades, what exactly should they rely on? Wouldn't relying on someone's soft factors be even more subjective? What exactly should they look at?

[JackOfAllTrades]

How would you fix it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for this part ...

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

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

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

[JackOfAllTrades]

OP:you think the system is broken because you don't have the needed qualifications? Didn't you ask if you were overestimating your chances?
I'm confused.

How are these questions mutually exclusive?

I overestimated my chances because I had no idea that judges were hiring average HYS people over top 5% T1ers.

I don't think most judges are doing that. I think in competitive districts, they are hiring top 5% HYS people (and top 5% T14 plus Vandy, UT, UCLA, USC people).

And OP, you say you don't like that there is a judge who only hires the top X number of people from your school because (paraphrasing what you said) grades are subjective. If judges don't rely on grades, what exactly should they rely on? Wouldn't relying on someone's soft factors be even more subjective? What exactly should they look at?

You are paraphrasing. Read again what I wrote. I wrote that the difference between the top 3 students and the top 10 students is likely to be "negligible," not subjective. That judge I'm talking about doesn't even consider you if you're not in the top 3.

I still think grades should be the #1 thing they look at, but it shouldn't be such an arbitrary cutoff. "Subjective" factors are important in my opinion. A judge who blindly only considers three students from one school, regardless of whether they have work experience, good recommendations, whether they have contributed in any way to their community, etc, is making a mistake in my opinion.

Furthermore, if a judge has such an arbitrary cutoff, he/she should say so in their Oscar profile, so as not to waste our time.

[rpupkin]

This thread is ridiculous, and I shouldn't make things worse by descending into ad hominem, but oh well:

The OP is unintentionally validating the position he attacks. I mean, he is in the top 5% of his class despite weak analytical and argumentative skills. Perhaps this is why so many judges are skeptical of the quality of the students from T50 law schools.

lol "i shouldn't make ad hominem attacks but i will anyway."

Lots of people have contributed helpful input to this thread. You are not one of those people.

Cry me a river. I started by responding to your question in the OP, stating that you'll have to be persistent in light of competition from more qualified candidates. You then steered the thread to the place we've arrived at. To the extent you've gotten helpful advice in this thread, it's due to people ignoring your posts—they're answering the questions you should be asking instead of addressing the bizarre points you're making.

[JackOfAllTrades]

This thread is ridiculous, and I shouldn't make things worse by descending into ad hominem, but oh well:

The OP is unintentionally validating the position he attacks. I mean, he is in the top 5% of his class despite weak analytical and argumentative skills. Perhaps this is why so many judges are skeptical of the quality of the students from T50 law schools.

lol "i shouldn't make ad hominem attacks but i will anyway."

Lots of people have contributed helpful input to this thread. You are not one of those people.

Cry me a river. I started by responding to your question in the OP, stating that you'll have to be persistent in light of competition from more qualified candidates. You then steered the thread to the place we've arrived at. To the extent you've gotten helpful advice in this thread, it's due to people ignoring your posts—they're answering the questions you should be asking instead of addressing the bizarre points you're making.

You're free to think whatever you want. And I'm free to think that your "perhaps judges are skeptical of students from T50 law schools because they have poor argumentative skills" comment is a perfect example of the kind of tone-deaf, elitist bullshit that makes it unsurprising the system stays the way it is. If there are clerks in chambers around the country who think like you do, then the status quo will remain.

[Lincoln]

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

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

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

And what factors are those?

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

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

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

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

[Tls2016]

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

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

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

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

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

[A. Nony Mouse]

Maybe, maybe not. But can we imagine a world where Harvard Law admitted almost exclusively from 14 schools? Or a world where Harvard undergrad admitted almost exclusively from 50 high schools?

Universities are (at least somewhat) accountable to the public. Judges are not. It's really up to the judges and their clerks.

But no one has to clerk to be a lawyer. And clerkships aren't there to help the students - they're there to serve the judges' interests. They're jobs, not getting a degree from somewhere. This comparison really doesn't work.

I think in the end the problem is that you want to draw equivalences between students of different rankings at different schools (top 5% here = top 20% there = top 50% somewhere else) and it's super super super hard to do this in any kind of objective way. So judges (and many employers, like biglaw) don't bother.

Look into federal government jobs. They generally like high grades more than what school you went to. (High grades with high ranked school is always great, of course.)