Getting antsy Forum

[BlindSpot]

I'm around top 5-6% at a T14, on LR, with some clinic experience, no moot court/mock trial. According to my school's very detailed clerkship placement data, people with my stats still aren't going to be raking in the circuit court clerkship interviews. I'm not interesting in an appellate clerkship anyways so I don't care about that, but I thought you should hear another data point. You should focus more on dct clerkships.

[052220152]

is op ever going to return and answer for his being a dork

[bruinfan10]

is op ever going to return and answer for his being a dork

Either this was a troll and he's gotten his kicks, or he's been browbeaten back into his hole.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Virtually no one -- I don't care how smart you are -- can be in the top 5% of their class after 2-4 semesters without going to class, taking notes, and busting their ass. Every teacher is different and has his or her own quirks and things they like to focus on.

The LSAT, in contrast, is completely uniform across the country. You can't get a private tutor to teach you Professor Smith's contracts class.

Furthermore, it's ONE TEST. You can take it multiple times, but it's still just one test. Two to four semesters of grades is like 8-20 tests on all different subjects.

So yeah, I stand by that. Not saying that I have some alternative at the ready, but the LSAT should be abolished.

I was better than top-5% at a T14 and didn't even come close to "busting my ass" to keep my GPA up. People can learn the law school exam system--just like they can learn the LSAT system--if they find what works for them and don't just follow the grinder path like lemmings. I similarly didn't use a test prep class to cram for the LSAT--I got some books and practiced old exams while I was interning at a law office during the day and waiting tables to pay rent at night. My score got me into the T14 with a partial scholly, so I went. I would never have accepted an offer from a T50 because everyone knows that job prospects (including clerkship prospects) out of T50s are terrible. So, as best I can tell...you don't understand the LSAT, you don't understand law school applications, and you don't understanding legal hiring. You just make bad decisions.

When it came time to send clerkship applications during 2L, I was up till 3-4 AM routinely during the peak months, researching judges and putting together scores of paper mailing applications (I suppose I took out more federal loans to cover whatever the cost of that paper was). I also spent hours talking to former clerks of as many of the judges to whom I was applying as I could about the application process and about their judges' hiring practices, so I quickly learned--unlike you--the difference between a phone recommendation and a paper recommendation (none of the judges, including those who hired me, knew my recommenders from adam). Because I'd figured out how to take law school exams without "busting my ass," I had time to get on LR ed board AND place in moot competitions, receive honors in and then TA legal writing, AND I didn't shoot myself in the foot by applying to a specific geographic location (because I understood that clerkship hiring is insanely competitive).

I had friends who were both smarter and harder working than I was who applied for clerkships with me: some of us got clerkships, some didn't, and we all thanked our lucky stars when we managed to land an interview. So again, as best I can tell, you don't understand the clerkship application process, the required qualifications, the competitiveness of the positions, the importance of geographic flexibility, how to hustle for interviews, or how lucky anyone is to get an interview. But you are good at talking down to Supreme Court justices, so you've got that going for you. To the extent this absurd game is a meritocracy---and it largely is, in ways that you haven't quite grasped, although there are exceptions at the margins---you just don't have much merit compared to your co-applicants.

hmm. imagine that--identifying you want to do something and then taking the best route to get there doesnt mean you didnt deserve it

Looks like "bruinfan10" deleted this post.



If you were top 5% at a T-14 without busting your ass, it means either one of two things: 1) you're a genius -- in which case, congratulations -- or 2) your school is not actually that competitive.

Seeing as you studied for the LSAT and didn't get into HYS, chances are, you're not a genius. So my guess is you're full of shit, and you did bust your ass studying. Especially if you're the kind of person who would "stay up til 3-4AM routinely" preparing applications.

And I love this part....

"I also spent hours talking to former clerks of as many of the judges to whom I was applying as I could about the application process and about their judges' hiring practices, so I quickly learned--unlike you--the difference between a phone recommendation and a paper recommendation"

Good for you! Unfortunately I don't have "former clerks of judges" on speed-dial, so I didn't "quickly" learn about the need for profs to make phone calls. One of the perks of going to T-14, I guess, other than apparently being able to place in the top 5% without busting your ass, is to have access to a roladex of law clerks.

This entire thread is self-parody. I point out that maybe, just maybe, judges should expand their search beyond 14 schools, and a dude literally says "lol you didn't even try calling former law clerks," as if that is some kind of thing that most schools offer.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The whole point is that no, not all schools offer these kinds of resources, so it's not realistic to have as good a shot at getting a clerkship from a school that doesn't have them. I'm not sure what your problem is with that. Such resources are one reason why higher-ranked schools have better placement.

(Though my lower T1 gave us a spreadsheet of alumni clerks we could contact, so either your school is really terrible or you don't know how to take advantage of the resources they have.)

Also the fact that you don't get that some people score really well in law school without busting their ass is confusing. Of course some people do.

[JackOfAllTrades]

The whole point is that no, not all schools offer these kinds of resources, so it's not realistic to have as good a shot at getting a clerkship from a school that doesn't have them. I'm not sure what your problem is with that. Such resources are one reason why higher-ranked schools have better placement.

(Though my lower T1 gave us a spreadsheet of alumni clerks we could contact, so either your school is really terrible or you don't know how to take advantage of the resources they have.)

Also the fact that you don't get that some people score really well in law school without busting their ass is confusing. Of course some people do.

No, my school doesn't offer this kind of resource, and even if they did, there is no chance that it would be anywhere near as extensive, and hence valuable, as top schools. And that only reinforces my point about a rigged system begetting a rigged system.

At this point, we've completely dropped the pretense that these schools place more clerks because they are more competitive schools and therefore their students are more meritorious. Now we are just accepting that these schools have more connections. This really isn't a complicated or controversial proposition.

A few additional points to add...

First, we can debate all day about what constitutes "busting your ass," but if that dude was smart enough to place top 5% at a T14, he busted his ass by my definition. It's simply not possible to 1) learn all the material AND 2) figure out all your professors' weird quirks without working really hard.

I guess "some people" do. But that guy? Highly doubtful.

I get that many people figure out "how to take" exams earlier than others, and some schools are trying to mitigate this problem. Many schools are doing "practice exams" midway through first semester where they re-create the conditions of an actual exam. The exams are graded by professors, and so students get feedback. My school doesn't do it, but I have heard of other schools doing it. Anyway, the one-exam-is-your-entire-grade system is a disaster, and I say that as someone who figured out how to take exams got As in almost all my classes. I'll start another thread about that another day when I'm feeling up to creating more outrage.

Second, there is no way to game LRW. That's a class that absolutely involves ass-busting.

Finally, if there are people who didn't bust their ass that are getting clerkships, that only further reinforces my point about meritocracy being a myth. Clerkships are really hard work. Do we want these positions going to people who slacked off? Being really smart should be a necessary qualification, not a sufficient one.

[wwwcol]

This should go over well.

[emkay625]

Virtually no one -- I don't care how smart you are -- can be in the top 5% of their class after 2-4 semesters without going to class, taking notes, and busting their ass. Every teacher is different and has his or her own quirks and things they like to focus on.

The LSAT, in contrast, is completely uniform across the country. You can't get a private tutor to teach you Professor Smith's contracts class.

Furthermore, it's ONE TEST. You can take it multiple times, but it's still just one test. Two to four semesters of grades is like 8-20 tests on all different subjects.

So yeah, I stand by that. Not saying that I have some alternative at the ready, but the LSAT should be abolished.

I was better than top-5% at a T14 and didn't even come close to "busting my ass" to keep my GPA up. People can learn the law school exam system--just like they can learn the LSAT system--if they find what works for them and don't just follow the grinder path like lemmings. I similarly didn't use a test prep class to cram for the LSAT--I got some books and practiced old exams while I was interning at a law office during the day and waiting tables to pay rent at night. My score got me into the T14 with a partial scholly, so I went. I would never have accepted an offer from a T50 because everyone knows that job prospects (including clerkship prospects) out of T50s are terrible. So, as best I can tell...you don't understand the LSAT, you don't understand law school applications, and you don't understanding legal hiring. You just make bad decisions.

When it came time to send clerkship applications during 2L, I was up till 3-4 AM routinely during the peak months, researching judges and putting together scores of paper mailing applications (I suppose I took out more federal loans to cover whatever the cost of that paper was). I also spent hours talking to former clerks of as many of the judges to whom I was applying as I could about the application process and about their judges' hiring practices, so I quickly learned--unlike you--the difference between a phone recommendation and a paper recommendation (none of the judges, including those who hired me, knew my recommenders from adam). Because I'd figured out how to take law school exams without "busting my ass," I had time to get on LR ed board AND place in moot competitions, receive honors in and then TA legal writing, AND I didn't shoot myself in the foot by applying to a specific geographic location (because I understood that clerkship hiring is insanely competitive).

I had friends who were both smarter and harder working than I was who applied for clerkships with me: some of us got clerkships, some didn't, and we all thanked our lucky stars when we managed to land an interview. So again, as best I can tell, you don't understand the clerkship application process, the required qualifications, the competitiveness of the positions, the importance of geographic flexibility, how to hustle for interviews, or how lucky anyone is to get an interview. But you are good at talking down to Supreme Court justices, so you've got that going for you. To the extent this absurd game is a meritocracy---and it largely is, in ways that you haven't quite grasped, although there are exceptions at the margins---you just don't have much merit compared to your co-applicants.

hmm. imagine that--identifying you want to do something and then taking the best route to get there doesnt mean you didnt deserve it

Looks like "bruinfan10" deleted this post.



If you were top 5% at a T-14 without busting your ass, it means either one of two things: 1) you're a genius -- in which case, congratulations -- or 2) your school is not actually that competitive.

Seeing as you studied for the LSAT and didn't get into HYS, chances are, you're not a genius. So my guess is you're full of shit, and you did bust your ass studying. Especially if you're the kind of person who would "stay up til 3-4AM routinely" preparing applications.

And I love this part....

"I also spent hours talking to former clerks of as many of the judges to whom I was applying as I could about the application process and about their judges' hiring practices, so I quickly learned--unlike you--the difference between a phone recommendation and a paper recommendation"

Good for you! Unfortunately I don't have "former clerks of judges" on speed-dial, so I didn't "quickly" learn about the need for profs to make phone calls. One of the perks of going to T-14, I guess, other than apparently being able to place in the top 5% without busting your ass, is to have access to a roladex of law clerks.

This entire thread is self-parody. I point out that maybe, just maybe, judges should expand their search beyond 14 schools, and a dude literally says "lol you didn't even try calling former law clerks," as if that is some kind of thing that most schools offer.

OP you're making assumptions. It's common practice once you secure a clerkship interview to reach out to former clerks of the judge and talk about the interview. You don't need access to a "rolodex" to this. I simply searched for people who clerked for the judges I interviewed with on LinkedIn. Once I found them, I would go to their firm web site and find their email, email and explain that I was interviewing with their judge, and asked if they would be willing to talk to me. All said yes. There is nothing exclusive about this process that prevents you from doing it because you didn't go to a T14 school. I did not go to a T14 school. This is a pretty standard thing for everyone who gets a clerkship interview to do.

[A. Nony Mouse]

At this point, we've completely dropped the pretense that these schools place more clerks because they are more competitive schools and therefore their students are more meritorious. Now we are just accepting that these schools have more connections. This really isn't a complicated or controversial proposition.

No, there is still a merit argument. T14 students won the chance to access more resources by getting the UGPA and LSAT to get into the more-competitive schools with the better resources.

[JackOfAllTrades]

OP you're making assumptions. It's common practice once you secure a clerkship interview to reach out to former clerks of the judge and talk about the interview. You don't need access to a "rolodex" to this. I simply searched for people who clerked for the judges I interviewed with on LinkedIn. Once I found them, I would go to their firm web site and find their email, email and explain that I was interviewing with their judge, and asked if they would be willing to talk to me. All said yes. There is nothing exclusive about this process that prevents you from doing it because you didn't go to a T14 school. I did not go to a T14 school. This is a pretty standard thing for everyone who gets a clerkship interview to do.

That guy wasn't talking about calling clerks after getting interviews. He was talking about calling them to get the interview.

And I'm not about to start searching LinkedIn and cold-calling former clerks. That would probably do more harm than good.

[JackOfAllTrades]

At this point, we've completely dropped the pretense that these schools place more clerks because they are more competitive schools and therefore their students are more meritorious. Now we are just accepting that these schools have more connections. This really isn't a complicated or controversial proposition.

No, there is still a merit argument. T14 students won the chance to access more resources by getting the UGPA and LSAT to get into the more-competitive schools with the better resources.

Oh ok, so then why don't judges start hiring 0Ls then? Just send in your LSAT score and UGPA and wait for the interviews to roll in?

[Quichelorraine]

Of course "some people" do, yes. But that guy? Highly doubtful.

So? If some people do, then perhaps the correlation between ass-busting and being top-5% isn't bulletproof. Although I personally would fall on the side of it requiring some effort (or, perhaps, a savant-like aptitude for law-school exams) more often than not.

And no, my school doesn't offer this kind of resource, and even if they did, there is no chance that it would be anywhere near as extensive, and hence valuable, as top schools. And that only reinforces my point about a rigged system begetting a rigged system.

Why doesn't your school offer this sort of resource? Surely it has placed prior clerks, both locally and further afield. Your school is certainly capable of putting that information into list for. That it has chosen not to...well, color me mystified.

(And lest you think otherwise, this isn't necessarily correlated with rank. There are plenty of strong regional schools that bother to compile this information; it's in both the school's and the students' best interest, as it creates positive employment outcomes.)

Sure, better-ranked schools are likely to have a greater number of clerks to trot out. But the net advantage they have might be the familiar regional versus national reach.

At this point, we've completely dropped the pretense that these schools place more clerks because they are more competitive schools and therefore their students are more meritorious. Now we are just accepting that these schools have more connections. This really isn't a complicated or controversial proposition.

How has anybody "dropped this pretense?" Surely the answer is a combination of both, right? Those schools are more competitive and and have students with net better credentials and, by virtue of these factors (and because they've been around longer, or have more judges on the bench, or what have you) they generate more workable connections.

Lashing out is fine in controlled bursts. Again, the system sucks. It is not fair, and students at less-preftigious schools do suffer for it. But you're coming across as both angry and self-righteous, which isn't an attractive combination, especially in a process this arbitrary. Self-flagellate all you want, but this really shouldn't be news to you.

[052220152]

OP is dumb it's no wonder that he didnt get a clerkship

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh ok, so then why don't judges start hiring 0Ls then? Just send in your LSAT score and UGPA and wait for the interviews to roll in?

Ironically, the most elite judges actually are pretty close to that - the more elite the judge, the earlier they hire; I think some judges hire on one semester of grades. Those students are all going to have better grades than yours, though.

The thing is that you're assuming your rank means something, objectively, when compared to people at other ranks at higher-ranked schools, but that's just an assumption. You can argue that top 5% at a T50 is better than top [fill in the blank] percent at [fill in the school rank], but the thing is, there's no science behind that, and it's just as self-serving as the people you rail against.

[JackOfAllTrades]

So? If some people do, then perhaps the correlation between ass-busting and being top-5% isn't bulletproof. Although I personally would fall on the side of it requiring some effort (or, perhaps, a savant-like aptitude for law-school exams) more often than not.

No it's not, and I specifically state in my post that the law school grading system is a disaster.

Why doesn't your school offer this sort of resource? Surely it has placed prior clerks, both locally and further afield. Your school is certainly capable of putting that information into list for. That it has chosen not to...well, color me mystified.

I don't know why. Maybe they don't want former clerks fielding dozens of calls each year. Just my best guess though.

Lashing out is fine in controlled bursts. Again, the system sucks. It is not fair, and students at less-preftigious schools do suffer for it. But you're coming across as both angry and self-righteous, which isn't an attractive combination, especially in a process this arbitrary. Self-flagellate all you want, but this really shouldn't be news to you.

I'm not lashing out. I stated a fact, one that apparently many here of verrrrrry uncomfortable with. All I've been doing is replying to posts and defending my position. I'm confident that I will land a clerkship eventually, even if that entails working for a magistrate or bankruptcy judge first.

Lots of people have offered constructive advice on this thread. Others have lost their freaking minds.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Oh ok, so then why don't judges start hiring 0Ls then? Just send in your LSAT score and UGPA and wait for the interviews to roll in?

I think some judges hire on one semester of grades. .

REPEAL ARTICLE III

[A. Nony Mouse]

People are responding to your anger and self-righteousness. You make people want to disagree with you regardless of what you're saying.

I don't think clerkship hiring is a meritocracy, in that there are plenty of people who would be decent clerks who aren't going to get looked at. I do think it's competitive enough that the people who do get clerkships are overwhelmingly qualified. (The last time I brought this up, you started talking about diversity, which isn't the same thing as being meritocratic, which is moving the goal posts.)

I also think that there's no point in going to a school with mediocre clerkship placement (just assuming, since that's the case for most T50 schools) and then raging about not having the same opportunities as at a T14. That's just how the system works. It's elitist. You sound like you're discovering this for the first time, and that's another reason why people aren't sympathizing with you.

Your original questions included whether you are less competitive than you thought you were. You are. I'm not sure how calling us all elitists is going to do anything to change that. Apply really broadly, focus on lower-jurisdictions, look up people who clerked for the judge and figure out if you have any connections to them. It's an idiosyncratic crapshoot because it is entirely determined by the judge's own preferences. Again, nothing you can do about that.

You might want to try state level clerkships to start - I went from state to federal, and know a number of (non T14) people who did.

[emkay625]

OP you're making assumptions. It's common practice once you secure a clerkship interview to reach out to former clerks of the judge and talk about the interview. You don't need access to a "rolodex" to this. I simply searched for people who clerked for the judges I interviewed with on LinkedIn. Once I found them, I would go to their firm web site and find their email, email and explain that I was interviewing with their judge, and asked if they would be willing to talk to me. All said yes. There is nothing exclusive about this process that prevents you from doing it because you didn't go to a T14 school. I did not go to a T14 school. This is a pretty standard thing for everyone who gets a clerkship interview to do.

That guy wasn't talking about calling clerks after getting interviews. He was talking about calling them to get the interview.

And I'm not about to start searching LinkedIn and cold-calling former clerks. That would probably do more harm than good.

I can tell you it's very, very common. (Don't cold call people before you have an interview though. That's weird.). And only call former clerks, not current clerks. And I wouldn't cold call, I'd send an email and ask if they'd be willing to talk to you. I emailed seven folks, all seven said yes. This is a very common thing that clerkship interviewees do, and if you don't, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

[Quichelorraine]

I don't know why. Maybe they don't want former clerks fielding dozens of calls each year. Just my best guess though.

That isn't how it works, in my experience. Far fewer people reach out than sense would dictate. Anyway, most schools only include alums in that list who want to be there, and are willing to help out students and other fellow travelers.

Researching using LinkedIn and the like is more of a crapshoot, to be sure.

I'm not lashing out. I stated a fact, one that apparently many here of verrrrrry uncomfortable with. All I've been doing is replying to posts and defending my position. I'm confident that I will land a clerkship eventually, even if that entails working for a magistrate or bankruptcy judge first.

Well, it sure sounds like you're lashing out. And where do you get the sense that anybody's uncomfortable with the idea that clerkship hiring is an idiosyncratic, arbitrary mess? That's the consensus.

[052220152]

Hey fuck you OP

[Anonymous User]

OP you're making assumptions. It's common practice once you secure a clerkship interview to reach out to former clerks of the judge and talk about the interview. You don't need access to a "rolodex" to this. I simply searched for people who clerked for the judges I interviewed with on LinkedIn. Once I found them, I would go to their firm web site and find their email, email and explain that I was interviewing with their judge, and asked if they would be willing to talk to me. All said yes. There is nothing exclusive about this process that prevents you from doing it because you didn't go to a T14 school. I did not go to a T14 school. This is a pretty standard thing for everyone who gets a clerkship interview to do.

That guy wasn't talking about calling clerks after getting interviews. He was talking about calling them to get the interview.

And I'm not about to start searching LinkedIn and cold-calling former clerks. That would probably do more harm than good.

Cold calling former clerks is completely the norm. No clerk I know would ever think twice about it and most would let their judge know that an interviewee was reaching out. :shrug:

[JackOfAllTrades]

People are responding to your anger and self-righteousness. You make people want to disagree with you regardless of what you're saying.

yea that seems right. People seem to be overlooking the things I'm saying because I'm not saying them politely.

I don't think clerkship hiring is a meritocracy, in that there are plenty of people who would be decent clerks who aren't going to get looked at. I do think it's competitive enough that the people who do get clerkships are overwhelmingly qualified. (The last time I brought this up, you started talking about diversity, which isn't the same thing as being meritocratic, which is moving the goal posts.)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about, RE: "diversity." I never mentioned anything about that as far as I remember. But since you brought it up, we could have another thread about Art III judges are immune from Title VII discrimination suits. The judge where I externed last summer had a picture of all his former clerks on the wall, almost 20 yrs worth. One black person. Rest white.

I also think that there's no point in going to a school with mediocre clerkship placement (just assuming, since that's the case for most T50 schools) and then raging about not having the same opportunities as at a T14. That's just how the system works. It's elitist. You sound like you're discovering this for the first time, and that's another reason why people aren't sympathizing with you.

I honestly did not know what a "clerkship" was when I started law school, and I seriously doubt the majority of law students do. It never ceases to amaze me the number of practicing attorneys I talk to who think an "internship" is a clerkship.

And even if I had known what a clerkship was and how screwed up the process is, I don't see how that should preclude me from pointing out that it's screwed up. If we take your position, the only people who could complain a broken system are the people who have no incentive to complain about it.

Your original questions included whether you are less competitive than you thought you were. You are. I'm not sure how calling us all elitists is going to do anything to change that.

Once again, you are attributing to me things I never said. Lots of people, including you, have given helpful advice. Others have said things like this:

"Your facility with words seems to explain your ability to perform well at a middling school, while your inability to marshal them into logical expressions of thought likely explains why you couldn't get into a better school"

So yeah, that dude is the epitome of elitism. But I never called everyone an elitist.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Cold calling former clerks is completely the norm. No clerk I know would ever think twice about it and most would let their judge know that an interviewee was reaching out. :shrug:

Seriously, this is something that no one from our career office ever told me. I told them I had an interview and they never mentioned doing this. Glad I know now, I guess.

[WheninLaw]

Cold calling former clerks is completely the norm. No clerk I know would ever think twice about it and most would let their judge know that an interviewee was reaching out. :shrug:

Seriously, this is something that no one from our career office ever told me. I told them I had an interview and they never mentioned doing this. Glad I know now, I guess.

My career office (Chicago) wouldn't have told me to do this either. Just take initiative.

[emkay625]

Cold calling former clerks is completely the norm. No clerk I know would ever think twice about it and most would let their judge know that an interviewee was reaching out. :shrug:

Seriously, this is something that no one from our career office ever told me. I told them I had an interview and they never mentioned doing this. Glad I know now, I guess.

It sounds to me like your CSO is not doing its job. And I don't think that has to do with school rank. The local tier 3/4 school in the city I clerk in has a great CSO that has been guiding their top 10-20 students through the clerkship app process (we have two current interns from this school that were talking about it...they have been advised to call former clerks, have been given a list of alumni judges and alumni clerks with contact info, have the CSO office emailing profs on the day of interviews to remind profs to call judges if they know them, they each had an appointment with an advisor to talk about where best to use their time in terms of which judges they should target, etc.). Those are all things your school should be doing and it seems like they're not.

That being said, it is possible for your school to do all this stuff and still not have great numbers. The school I'm talking about only snags about 2-3 clerkships a year and none of them are ever COA spots. And regardless of what your school does or does not do, the fact is each year literally thousands of qualified candidates will not get a clerkship. It sucks. You just have to hustle and hope for the best.