Top Law Schools

Besides SCOTUS chances, to what extent are outcomes diminished if you underperform your stats regarding a COA clerkship? Are boutiques and OLC/SG type DOJ positions out of the question? I'm top 2-3% at CCN (no LR) but the COA I got is non 2/9/DC non-feeder. Close to a major coastal city, and the judge is well regarded but certainly not feeder level.

You got a COA clerkship without being on the journal. What makes you think you "underperformed?"

Who said I wasn't on a journal?

Anonymous User wrote:Who said I wasn't on a journal?

Assuming you graded onto Law Review, why did you choose another journal? If your school only does write-on, how do you explain that in interviews given your high rank?

I said THE journal, the flagship journal, aka the only one that matters.

You got a COA clerkship without having one of the major credentials COA judges care about. You should be counting your lucky stars. There are a lot of doors open to you now. No, you probably aren't going to be a Bristow Fellow (and this is true for everyone who has ever gone to lawschool, no matter which school), but the fact that you are worried about the "tier" of your COA clerkship hurting your chances re: jobs that, even with the best possible clerkship(s), are insane long shots is ridiculous.

Look, my school has had several SCOTUS clerks who weren't on LR, so I really don't think that matters-let's not go off on that tangent. I myself got CA9 and DC Cir. interviews but had to decline because of timing. So I think it's fair to say I underperformed despite your bizarre sense of offense that I should say this.

The fact that your school has had "several" SCOTUS clerks who weren't on the journal does not mean that the journal is not an important credential. I don't care nor am I offended that you weren't on the journal, but if you really wanted a feeder clerkship, you should have known that being on the journal would have been a boost.

You now face the unhappy prospect that, unless your second clerkship (if you do a second clerkship) is with a feeder judge, you are not likely to be one of those non-journal SCOTUS clerks. Of course, even if your second clerkship is with a feeder judge, you are not likely to be a SCOTUS clerk, as most feeders send, at most, one clerk to the Court. This is the cold, hard reality that faces strivers. Embrace it.

The kind of jobs you are talking about (OLC, OSG) are extreme long-shot jobs for EVERYONE. They are not realistic goals. You are not that special. There has been a person in your class rank at your school every year, and most (maybe all?) of them have failed to land those jobs. By all means, apply to the Bristow Fellowship. But you probably weren't going to get it no matter who you clerked for.

Anonymous User wrote:Look, my school has had several SCOTUS clerks who weren't on LR, so I really don't think that matters-let's not go off on that tangent. I myself got CA9 and DC Cir. interviews but had to decline because of timing. So I think it's fair to say I underperformed despite your bizarre sense of offense that I should say this.

I guess i'm confused as to how getting interviews for 2/3 of the 2/9/dc circuits means you underperformed.

It'll be quite hard for you to get a job because they'll assume you don't know how to have a substantive conversation. Therefore, you should put on your resume that you got offers from the 2nd and D.C. Circuits, but that you turned them down. It's really your only chance at avoiding a life of poverty.

OSG is effectively out of the question for any non-SCOTUS clerk. That's not entirely true but it's so unlikely that you'll land there without a SCOTUS clerkship that you probably shouldn't be making any career plans involving that gig. Perhaps if you go to CIV and absolutely blow people away there for a few years, get a detail to OSG and absolutely blow everyone away there, and then the timing is just right and a spot opens up, then you'd have a shot. (Unlike OLC, OSG doesn't hire from clerkships. There's not even a direct path from Bristow to OSG).

This entire thread went way over my head.

The essence of my question is, if your credentials are significantly stronger than those the judge generally has clerk for him or her, which is a better predictor of post clerkship outcomes? Previous credentials or the clerkship?

So you have a clerkship with a well-regarded but not feeder judge in 1/3/4/maybe 11? My sense is that virtually every boutique and most dedicated big firm appellate practices are open to you. OSG and OLC are probably not, but they were a huge stretch to begin with so I wouldn't worry too much. Your outcomes will also obviously depend on who your judge knows and whether he/she likes you.

I also agree that your outcome is totally consistent with your credentials, so I think the dichotomy you try to draw is a false one.

Thanks for the response. Is it really the consensus that one of the top 10-12 students at a T6 can't be regarded as a stronger than average COA clerk?

People from my school with worse grades than me have clerked on DC Cir. and some with same grades and no LR have gone on to feeders, yet here the view seems to be that top 2-3% is basically just run of the mill COA.

Anonymous User wrote:The essence of my question is, if your credentials are significantly stronger than those the judge generally has clerk for him or her, which is a better predictor of post clerkship outcomes? Previous credentials or the clerkship?

If this is your question, then it finally makes sense what you are asking. You didn't do a very effective job of communicating that in your previous posts or with the title of this thread. The title is extremely confusing, if not misleading, and you should edit it for clarification purposes.

Kelly frost, with respect, in my experience reading these forums you have been one of the least helpful and most misinformed posters, I have very little regard for what you have to say, so please don't post in this thread anymore- allow others to answer the question.

Anonymous User wrote:Kelly frost, with respect, in my experience reading these forums you have been one of the least helpful and most misinformed posters, I have very little regard for what you have to say, so please don't post in this thread anymore- allow others to answer the question.

I don't know about you guys and gals, but I didn't pick up on much respect.

Anonymous User wrote:The essence of my question is, if your credentials are significantly stronger than those the judge generally has clerk for him or her, which is a better predictor of post clerkship outcomes? Previous credentials or the clerkship?

The clerkship, though to be honest, it might not help you much given... this. One of my family friend is a higher-up at the DOJ. He mentioned that, since they have so many applicants from every circuit, the incremental credential difference only matter if he likes two candidates equally. Judging by ... this, if you interview the way you post, it's probably a good thing you didn't get a 2nd/9th/DC circuit clerkship. Otherwise, you might get a surprise later when the job goes to someone with "less" prestige.

Anonymous User wrote:Kelly frost, with respect, in my experience reading these forums you have been one of the least helpful and most misinformed posters, I have very little regard for what you have to say, so please don't post in this thread anymore- allow others to answer the question.

Please note, no where did I offer advice regarding your clerkship or job opportunities. I will gladly step away from this thread and allow others to answer the question. My parting piece of advice is to strongly consider changing the title to this thread as it is confusing, vague, and indistinct. By doing that, it will better allow others to answer the question much more than me ceasing to post in this thread.

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the response. Is it really the consensus that one of the top 10-12 students at a T6 can't be regarded as a stronger than average COA clerk?

People from my school with worse grades than me have clerked on DC Cir. and some with same grades and no LR have gone on to feeders, yet here the view seems to be that top 2-3% is basically just run of the mill COA.

yet here the view seems to be that top 2-3% is basically just run of the mill COA.

run of the mill COA.

Sorry you had to settle. Make sure to tell your "run of the mill COA" judge how lucky he/she is to have you.

I meant run if the mill for a COA clerkship, not that the COA judge is run if the mill. I love the judge I'll be clerking for, but you seem very very touchy boltsfan.

That being said it doesn't seem like I'll get a real answer to this question so I'll pack up my toys and go home.

Anonymous User wrote:
That being said it doesn't seem like I'll get a real answer to this question so I'll pack up my toys and go home.

I think this has more to do with your question and how you are asking it.

Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the response. Is it really the consensus that one of the top 10-12 students at a T6 can't be regarded as a stronger than average COA clerk?

People from my school with worse grades than me have clerked on DC Cir. and some with same grades and no LR have gone on to feeders, yet here the view seems to be that top 2-3% is basically just run of the mill COA.

Seems like you got at least some (not many) answers, but you're a little incredulous about them. That may be the best you're going to do.

I don't think underperforming your clerkship numbers is really a thing, in part because hiring isn't just about numbers. In the end it boils down to a judge who interviews you deciding they'd like to work with you for a year. I don't think there's any level of stats that guarantees a feeder will hire you, and so therefore, not getting a feeder doesn't mean you underperformed. And I don't think there are really prestige distinctions worth making beyond feeder/non-feeder - all COAs are hard to get. (I'm sure there *are* people who parse this kind of thing incredibly fine, but I think it's a waste of energy.)

But to your original question, you're not going to be disadvantaged (except to the extent any non-SCOTUS clerk is, like the OSG stuff), and worrying about whether your COA clerkship is going to disadvantage you sounds a little tone-deaf.

ArtistOfManliness wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Kelly frost, with respect, in my experience reading these forums you have been one of the least helpful and most misinformed posters, I have very little regard for what you have to say, so please don't post in this thread anymore- allow others to answer the question.

I don't know about you guys and gals, but I didn't pick up on much respect.

Dude. He said "with respect." You cant' be disrespectful if you lead with that.

Anonymous User wrote:I meant run if the mill for a COA clerkship, not that the COA judge is run if the mill. I love the judge I'll be clerking for, but you seem very very touchy boltsfan.

That being said it doesn't seem like I'll get a real answer to this question so I'll pack up my toys and go home.

I don't understand what kind of answer you're asking for. People have answered your question - it's just not what you wanted to hear. Having any COA clerkship will not hurt your "credentials." If you think you're God's gift to humanity because you were top at a t-6, I hate to burst your bubble, you're not. Your COA may not help your credentials significantly, but your credentials are not so incredible that a COA will hurt it.

You likely won't have a shot at SCOTUS. You likely won't have a shot at OLC or OSG type positions. But you will be ripe and ready for almost any big law and most appellate boutique firms.