Getting antsy Forum

[JackOfAllTrades]

Hey everyone,

I am a 2L graduating in 2017, and I am currently applying for clerkships beginning in 2017.

I am in the top 5% of a top 50 school. Law review. Very strong recommendations and very diverse pre-law school resume.

I have applied very broadly to over 150 judges. About 60% circuit and 40% district court. I started applying last semester and have updated my applications as fall grades came in.

So far, I have had only one interview for a district court clerkship, and I still have not heard back from that judge.

Most of the judges either 1) have already hired or 2) won't start looking at applications until May/June. I am angling to get a district court clerkship ASAP so that I can update my applications for circuit judges who require district court experience. I am starting to get nervous.

My question is this: is there a lot of movement between now and May in terms of judges scheduling interviews? Am I not as competitive as I thought I was?

Thanks so much.

[WheninLaw]

Hey everyone,

I am a 2L graduating in 2017, and I am currently applying for clerkships beginning in 2017.

I am in the top 5% of a top 50 school. Law review. Very strong recommendations and very diverse pre-law school resume.

I have applied very broadly to over 150 judges. About 60% circuit and 40% district court. I started applying last semester and have updated my applications as fall grades came in.

So far, I have had only one interview for a district court clerkship, and I still have not heard back from that judge.

Most of the judges either 1) have already hired or 2) won't start looking at applications until May/June. I am angling to get a district court clerkship ASAP so that I can update my applications for circuit judges who require district court experience. I am starting to get nervous.

My question is this: is there a lot of movement between now and May in terms of judges scheduling interviews? Am I not as competitive as I thought I was?

Thanks so much.

Top 50 school is a huge range. Assuming the 30-50 range, then no, you're not that competitive, especially for a circuit court position. Best bet is district court in your home/school market, then flyovers.

Also, 150 is not that many. I was top 10% at Chicago and applied to probably 300 judges. It's such a crapshoot, so keep applying.

[Lincoln]

First, you are not as competitive as you thought.

Second, 90% of applications end up in the trash for reasons you will never know and that have little do you with your credentials. Maybe the judge only hires from three schools. Maybe the judge hires 3 years out (some D.Ct. judges do), or maybe 6 months out. Maybe you have to have a regional connection.

Third, recommendations are everything. The general rule at my school was that unless you had a professor or other recommender making calls on your behalf, it was pure luck. I had a personal friend of the judge flag that I was applying, and then a different judge in the same court (who was not one of my LORs) recommend me. Without connections like that, you will have to rely on chance.

[JackOfAllTrades]

First, you are not as competitive as you thought.

Second, 90% of applications end up in the trash for reasons you will never know and that have little do you with your credentials. Maybe the judge only hires from three schools. Maybe the judge hires 3 years out (some D.Ct. judges do), or maybe 6 months out. Maybe you have to have a regional connection.

Third, recommendations are everything. The general rule at my school was that unless you had a professor or other recommender making calls on your behalf, it was pure luck. I had a personal friend of the judge flag that I was applying, and then a different judge in the same court (who was not one of my LORs) recommend me. Without connections like that, you will have to rely on chance.

Ah. So basically, meritocracy is a myth.

[rpupkin]

First, you are not as competitive as you thought.

Second, 90% of applications end up in the trash for reasons you will never know and that have little do you with your credentials. Maybe the judge only hires from three schools. Maybe the judge hires 3 years out (some D.Ct. judges do), or maybe 6 months out. Maybe you have to have a regional connection.

Third, recommendations are everything. The general rule at my school was that unless you had a professor or other recommender making calls on your behalf, it was pure luck. I had a personal friend of the judge flag that I was applying, and then a different judge in the same court (who was not one of my LORs) recommend me. Without connections like that, you will have to rely on chance.

Ah. So basically, meritocracy is a myth.

No. Judges assess your merits in different ways: law school, grades, writing sample, and a recommendation from someone the judge trusts. Relying on recommendations is not inherently anti-meritocratic.

[JackOfAllTrades]

First, you are not as competitive as you thought.

Second, 90% of applications end up in the trash for reasons you will never know and that have little do you with your credentials. Maybe the judge only hires from three schools. Maybe the judge hires 3 years out (some D.Ct. judges do), or maybe 6 months out. Maybe you have to have a regional connection.

Third, recommendations are everything. The general rule at my school was that unless you had a professor or other recommender making calls on your behalf, it was pure luck. I had a personal friend of the judge flag that I was applying, and then a different judge in the same court (who was not one of my LORs) recommend me. Without connections like that, you will have to rely on chance.

Ah. So basically, meritocracy is a myth.

No. Judges assess your merits in different ways: law school, grades, writing sample, and a recommendation from someone the judge trusts. Relying on recommendations is not inherently anti-meritocratic.

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.

[WheninLaw]

First, you are not as competitive as you thought.

Second, 90% of applications end up in the trash for reasons you will never know and that have little do you with your credentials. Maybe the judge only hires from three schools. Maybe the judge hires 3 years out (some D.Ct. judges do), or maybe 6 months out. Maybe you have to have a regional connection.

Third, recommendations are everything. The general rule at my school was that unless you had a professor or other recommender making calls on your behalf, it was pure luck. I had a personal friend of the judge flag that I was applying, and then a different judge in the same court (who was not one of my LORs) recommend me. Without connections like that, you will have to rely on chance.

Ah. So basically, meritocracy is a myth.

No? Professors (and/or judges) generally go to bat for someone for meritorious reasons - fantastic grades, fantastic writing, etc. It also seems reasonable for a judge to put more trust in a professor ("this student was one of the best I've ever had") than the fact that you have a marginally higher GPA.

I think you underestimate the quality of your competition. Top 5% anywhere is a great accomplishment, but most other candidates are in that range, from better schools that the judge has hired from, with trusted professors/colleagues pushing for them.

edit: I also think you overestimate yourself. Most judges have their clerks pull strong candidates. If your recommendations were truly that spectacular, I'd notice, and push your app to the judge.

[rpupkin]

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.

[Lincoln]

Think about it this way. Judges in preftigious district courts typically get >1,000 applications for each clerkship spot. Actually assessing all of those applications, transcripts, LORs, etc., is near impossible if chambers actually want to also decide cases. So they need some quick way to weed out applicants. I know one judge where that means just applications from H and P with a connection to New England. In other chambers, a call from someone the judge knows is the only way to get your application pulled. Between professors, other judges, former clerks, etc., that will likely be enough of an applicant pool for most clerkship spots. Selecting only the ones that have impressed other legal minds doesn't seem like a bad way, per se, to get good applicants.

Both of the people I mentioned in my prior post were people who had supervised or otherwise interacted with me in my capacity as a lawyer, and I was otherwise qualified to clerk (top 30% at T14, 2 years experience in V5 litigation, etc.), so I'm not sure that signifies that "meritocracy is a myth".

If your recommendations are so strong, give your recommenders a list of judges you've applied to and ask if they would consider calling some of them.

[JackOfAllTrades]

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.

[Lincoln]

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.

But it's not about the numbers. It's about getting noticed, and top 5% at any school other than T14 will not cut it, so you need some other arrows in your quiver.

[blahblewblah]

Look, you are qualified. Unfortunately, when it comes to clerkships, simply being qualified is not enough. Send out more applications and hopefully you will snag something, but it isn't guaranteed just because you are top 5%.

[rpupkin]

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.

[JackOfAllTrades]

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.

"Just about everyone at HYS?"

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

[rpupkin]

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.

"Just about everyone at HYS?"

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Again, you're wrong.

Does the fact that you probably have a better shot than the #1 student at Cooley mean that meritocracy is a myth?

[JackOfAllTrades]

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.

"Just about everyone at HYS?"

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Again, you're wrong.

Does the fact that you probably have a better shot than the #1 student at Cooley mean that meritocracy is a myth?

"Does the fact that you probably have a better shot than the #1 student at Cooley mean that meritocracy is a myth?"

Yes. Absolutely it does.

[robotrick]

"Just about everyone at HYS?"

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Why didn't you attend HYS? Or at least a T14? You'd have a better shot at clerking probably.

[rpupkin]

"Does the fact that you probably have a better shot than the #1 student at Cooley mean that meritocracy is a myth?"

Yes. Absolutely it does.

You seem to believe that GPA (or class rank) has some abstract meritocratic value in the context of clerkship hiring. It doesn't. A judge wants the best clerks, and he'll rely on factors that, in the judge's experience, correlate with strong clerkship performance. An applicant's class rank is one such factor. The quality of the applicant's law school is another. If a judge hires a median student from, say, University of Chicago over you, that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is being elitist or anti-meritocratic.

[JackOfAllTrades]

"Just about everyone at HYS?"

Like I said, meritocracy is a myth.

Why didn't you attend HYS? Or at least a T14? You'd have a better shot at clerking probably.

Is this a joke?

I could have transferred to a T-14, but that would have involved losing my scholarship, moving to a strange place, losing Law Review, losing all my professor connections and therefore losing all my strong letters of recommendation.

So if the premise is that slackers at HYS or semi-slackers at T-14 schools should have a better shot than someone who is in the top 5% at a top 50 school, then yes, for the love of fuck, meritocracy is a myth.

[robotrick]

I was gonna respond, but then I realized you were a troll. Had me going for a minute!

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p8336590

[JackOfAllTrades]

"Does the fact that you probably have a better shot than the #1 student at Cooley mean that meritocracy is a myth?"

Yes. Absolutely it does.

You seem to believe that GPA (or class rank) has some abstract meritocratic value in the context of clerkship hiring. It doesn't. A judge wants the best clerks, and he'll rely on factors that, in the judge's experience, correlate with strong clerkship performance. An applicant's class rank is one such factor. The quality of the applicant's law school is another. If a judge hires a median student from, say, University of Chicago over you, that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is being elitist or anti-meritocratic.

Wait, GPA and class rank are "abstract?" It seems a whole lot more scientific than a judge simply calling the same professor from the same school year after year.

And what is this:

"...he'll rely on factors that, in the judge's experience, correlate with strong clerkship performance."

If a judge isn't even hiring from schools below a certain threshold, what "correlation" can there be? For a law school forum, there is some serious circular reasoning going on.

I can understand if you mean "don't fix it if it aint broke" -- as in, this judge has always done it this way and it's worked out fine. But that has nothing to do with correlation. It might work out better if he hired higher-performing students from lower-ranking schools. But he won't know unless he tries it.

[JackOfAllTrades]

I was gonna respond, but then I realized you were a troll. Had me going for a minute!

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p8336590

looking back on that post, I regret writing that.

[rpupkin]

"Does the fact that you probably have a better shot than the #1 student at Cooley mean that meritocracy is a myth?"

Yes. Absolutely it does.

You seem to believe that GPA (or class rank) has some abstract meritocratic value in the context of clerkship hiring. It doesn't. A judge wants the best clerks, and he'll rely on factors that, in the judge's experience, correlate with strong clerkship performance. An applicant's class rank is one such factor. The quality of the applicant's law school is another. If a judge hires a median student from, say, University of Chicago over you, that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is being elitist or anti-meritocratic.

Wait, GPA and class rank are "abstract?" It seems a whole lot more scientific than a judge simply calling the same professor from the same school year after year.

And what is this:

"...he'll rely on factors that, in the judge's experience, correlate with strong clerkship performance."

If a judge isn't even hiring from schools below a certain threshold, what "correlation" can there be? For a law school forum, there is some serious circular reasoning going on.

I can understand if you mean "don't fix it if it aint broke" -- as in, this judge has always done it this way and it's worked out fine. But that has nothing to do with correlation. It might work out better if they hired higher-performing students from lower-ranking schools. But he won't know unless he tries it.

Sure. And maybe a judge would find a great clerk at the local community college. (There is no requirement that a federal clerk must have a J.D.) But, for the sake of efficiency, the judge is going to make generalizations. Everyone does this in hiring--in every profession--to some degree.

I'll leave you with this:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... law_clerk/

[bk1]

You think that your better grades means you have more "merit" than someone from a much better school. Whatever objective truth that belief may have is irrelevant. What matters are the kinds of things that judges (and other employers) care about. If they generally value school rank over class rank, that does not mean that merit is irrelevant. It just means their valuation system differs from yours. Calling it unmeritocratic is strange when we are still talking about objective indicators (e.g., school rank, class rank) as opposed to much softer factors (e.g., the judge knows your recommender).

The fact is that you are not as qualified as you think. It is very tough to get an A3 clerkship. T14 schools are barely placing 10% of their class into federal clerkships and you happen to go to school ranked ~20-30 spots lower than those schools. That is a big difference whether you believe it to be or not. Top 10% at T14s routinely strike out of clerkships and especially routinely strike out of trying to get circuit clerkships. You have put yourself at a disadvantage by applying to only 150 judges and to mostly circuit court judges. Simply put, you need to be applying to more judges overall and more district court judges specifically if you want a federal clerkship.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Think about it this way. Judges in preftigious district courts typically get >1,000 applications for each clerkship spot. Actually assessing all of those applications, transcripts, LORs, etc., is near impossible if chambers actually want to also decide cases. So they need some quick way to weed out applicants. I know one judge where that means just applications from H and P with a connection to New England. In other chambers, a call from someone the judge knows is the only way to get your application pulled. Between professors, other judges, former clerks, etc., that will likely be enough of an applicant pool for most clerkship spots. Selecting only the ones that have impressed other legal minds doesn't seem like a bad way, per se, to get good applicants.

Both of the people I mentioned in my prior post were people who had supervised or otherwise interacted with me in my capacity as a lawyer, and I was otherwise qualified to clerk (top 30% at T14, 2 years experience in V5 litigation, etc.), so I'm not sure that signifies that "meritocracy is a myth".

If your recommendations are so strong, give your recommenders a list of judges you've applied to and ask if they would consider calling some of them.

I totally get that clerks are busy and need a way to weed out applications. But when the weeding out process involves not even looking at the vast majority of the applications, I see that as a problem.

And I do think that work experience is a better indicator of clerkship potential.

Anyway, I appreciate all of the feedback. I am not trying to lash out, but I do think that people who have received clerkships tend to latch on to the idea of meritocracy due to cognitive dissonance. There is a whole body of research on this.