Better to take fed courts or gun for magna? Forum

[Anonymous User]

At HLS with 4.0 after 1L and 2L (since we are credit/fail now). Is it better for clerkship and career prospects to take fed courts (and very likely not get magna) or focus on gunning for magna?

[dvlthndr]

Do you really think a single “Pass” (or heaven forbid, a “Low Pass”) is going to ruin your chances at being in the top 10% of the graduating class?

[Anonymous User]

A low pass—no doubt in my mind, however I highly doubt I’d get one unless I don’t try at all. A pass—probably could knock me out. More importantly, fed courts takes up a lot of time and would distract me from other courses I could most likely H if I allocate enough time. If I took easy H courses mixed with legitimate but not uber intense doctrinals (sec. reg., evidence, etc.) that I could focus on heavily, I think I’d have a good chance at locking down magna.

[Wild Card]

This is a weird question to be asking. Not sure what you're trying to signal. Why not ask your many classmates at Harvard?

It is too early for you to count on getting magna because there are many opportunities for you to be screwed.

Federal Courts is easy. It's advanced civpro. It doesn't take more time to prepare for than any other law school course. If you usually take three black letter and one seminar, you could instead take two black letter and two or three seminars.

[ksm6969]

You know HLS generally averages by year, not by number of credits, right? Are you sure they will still do that with the Credit/No credit thing? that would probably have a bigger impact than one fed courts class. Also, how was your 2L? was it all a bunch of easy seminars/clinics? if so, then it would look somewhat bad if your 3L is also easy seminars/clinics. If your 2L was a bunch of black letter classes, then you can more easily get away with some clinics and seminars in 3L.

[Anonymous User]

You know HLS generally averages by year, not by number of credits, right? Are you sure they will still do that with the Credit/No credit thing? that would probably have a bigger impact than one fed courts class. Also, how was your 2L? was it all a bunch of easy seminars/clinics? if so, then it would look somewhat bad if your 3L is also easy seminars/clinics. If your 2L was a bunch of black letter classes, then you can more easily get away with some clinics and seminars in 3L.

Yes they are still averaging by year except they will only count my 2L fall and it will be weighted as either .5 or .6 of a year (whatever is more favorable for me, they are relaxing requirements this year so that if either weighting factor gets you into range you get the honors). I feel like I’ve taken a balanced course load; 2 legitimate black letters (corps, tax, con law, crim pro) and 2 seminars/clinics. My basic question was would magna with no fed courts look better than cum laude with fed courts.

As to wild card’s point I feel like that’s not true that fed courts is easy at HLS; at least according to my friends who have their shit together (i.e. COA clerkships, law review). I have never once heard fed courts is easy, although I’m perhaps some of the people who are actual geniuses here think so

[objctnyrhnr]

(Former fedclerk in fairly competitive district, graduated from non t14, was quite involved with hiring while working as clerk)

Reasonable minds could differ on this, but imo it’s gpa gpa gpa as a priority for competitive clerkships. You need to get your resume pulled first, and (often but not always) get pretty far along in the process before anybody would even see your transcript. (Noting however that I have heard anecdotally that some chambers look at the script much earlier on in the process.)

Substantively, if you have what it takes to do that well at Harvard, then you should absolutely be able to come to the objectively correct answer on a relatively complex procedural motion with the benefit of at least one brief from each side, and Westlaw at your fingertips. You don’t need the civ pro on steroids class to be able to do well at your clerkship, and most judges/law clerks should know that.

My vote is take the easier class if you think it’ll make a substantial gpa difference.

[Anonymous User]

(Former fedclerk in fairly competitive district, graduated from non t14, was quite involved with hiring while working as clerk)

Reasonable minds could differ on this, but imo it’s gpa gpa gpa as a priority for competitive clerkships. You need to get your resume pulled first, and (often but not always) get pretty far along in the process before anybody would even see your transcript. (Noting however that I have heard anecdotally that some chambers look at the script much earlier on in the process.)

Substantively, if you have what it takes to do that well at Harvard, then you should absolutely be able to come to the objectively correct answer on a relatively complex procedural motion with the benefit of at least one brief from each side, and Westlaw at your fingertips. You don’t need the civ pro on steroids class to be able to do well at your clerkship, and most judges/law clerks should know that.

My vote is take the easier class if you think it’ll make a substantial gpa difference.

Agree 100%

[lavarman84]

(Former fedclerk in fairly competitive district, graduated from non t14, was quite involved with hiring while working as clerk)

Reasonable minds could differ on this, but imo it’s gpa gpa gpa as a priority for competitive clerkships. You need to get your resume pulled first, and (often but not always) get pretty far along in the process before anybody would even see your transcript. (Noting however that I have heard anecdotally that some chambers look at the script much earlier on in the process.)

Substantively, if you have what it takes to do that well at Harvard, then you should absolutely be able to come to the objectively correct answer on a relatively complex procedural motion with the benefit of at least one brief from each side, and Westlaw at your fingertips. You don’t need the civ pro on steroids class to be able to do well at your clerkship, and most judges/law clerks should know that.

My vote is take the easier class if you think it’ll make a substantial gpa difference.

I agree with this take.

[dex1259]

Do you really think a single “Pass” (or heaven forbid, a “Low Pass”) is going to ruin your chances at being in the top 10% of the graduating class?

HLSer here. If your gpa currently sits at 4.0, a single Pass uncompensated by a DS in most cases would actually be enough to knock you out of magna, since magna is around 3.95 (i.e. basically all Hs). Whether any of this matters, of course, is a different question. I tend to agree with the previous two posts, FWIW.

[Anonymous User]

While clerkship hiring is extremely GPA dependent, and it's typically right to pick the easier blackletter in almost every circumstance, fed courts might be the one exception. For my judge (in a "prestigious" circuit), fed courts is the only hard prerequisite for hiring, and the judge will ask current law student applicants during interviews whether they've registered to take it. The judge otherwise wants to see the highest GPA possible and an overall challenging courseload, but the second part of that can be gamed pretty easily; everyone at elite law schools knows which "blackletter" classes are actually jokes.

Not saying I agree with the policy's wisdom, my fed courts class was not terribly useful. And I don't think many judges have this as a hard rule, though anecdotally quite a few prefer applicants having taken fed courts. But I know at least one other judge on the same circuit has a similar policy.

(Anon because discussing my judge's hiring practices.)

[Anonymous User]

I'm an HLS grad (and now a clerk) who barely missed magna (with a 3.96) because of a P in a five-credit Fed Courts class, so I totally get your situation. Although the answer to your question is probably pretty chambers-dependent, I think that there may be a way to split the baby here. There are always a few Fed Courts classes available in a given year, and what I would do (if I could do it all over again) would be to take it with Field instead of with Fallon or Goldsmith. Fallon and Goldsmith attract more of the gunners because they're such big names (my class was stacked with Law Review folks and a couple students who already had SCOTUS clerkships locked down), so Field should have an easier curve. I'd still give it more effort than an average class, but I think that would maximize your chances of having both Fed Courts and magna on your resume when you graduate.

[stoopkid13]

Unless you have some academic/intellectual interest in Fed Courts, I'd avoid it. You'll lose out on some judges who require Fed Courts (and they do exist), but I think that's outweighed by the prospective benefit of graduating magna. And for career prospects beyond clerking, no one will care whether you took Fed Courts except maybe academia.

[Anonymous User]

sorry you missed magna by so little; that’s a great GPA, however.

Interesting opinion. I was thinking of this but I am flinching at taking field because it seems almost universally derided as a bad learning experience. And I really hate those types of classes; I’ve DS’d and H’d black letter courses, putting in very little effort save for reading week, with mediocre profs who had more forgiving curves and I have to say they were pretty miserable times even with the hindsight bias of having done well with minimal effort. I didn’t know the professors would be that bad though so maybe if I go in with the right perspective it’ll be less painful.

[Anonymous User]

Unless you have some academic/intellectual interest in Fed Courts, I'd avoid it. You'll lose out on some judges who require Fed Courts (and they do exist), but I think that's outweighed by the prospective benefit of graduating magna. And for career prospects beyond clerking, no one will care whether you took Fed Courts except maybe academia.

This is great to hear. To the extent I need to know fed courts I'd rather learn it on the job. I'd potentially be interested in academic but only down the road and honestly more likely as a professor of practice or lecturer instead of tenure track research position (no interest in the painful path towards that goal). Other goals are just biglaw after clerking and then bigfed.

[Anonymous User]

sorry you missed magna by so little; that’s a great GPA, however.

Interesting opinion. I was thinking of this but I am flinching at taking field because it seems almost universally derided as a bad learning experience. And I really hate those types of classes; I’ve DS’d and H’d black letter courses, putting in very little effort save for reading week, with mediocre profs who had more forgiving curves and I have to say they were pretty miserable times even with the hindsight bias of having done well with minimal effort. I didn’t know the professors would be that bad though so maybe if I go in with the right perspective it’ll be less painful.

Thanks. And totally fair. My only other P at HLS was a course like that, with a terrible prof, but where that I thought I could H (or even DS) the course. So yeah, it's hard to know the right approach.

Two parting thoughts. First, I think stoopkid13 is right that (clerking and maybe some DOJ jobs aside) having magna on your resume beats having Fed Courts on your transcript. Magna cum laude signals something that mere cum laude does not, and you'll have that on your resume and firm profiles and the like for the rest of your career. And second, you're in a great position either way. Being in the top 15% (even if not the top 10%) at HLS will open many doors for you if you decide to take Fed Courts and miss magna. And you'll get a clerkship or two either way, even if some judges pass on your application because you don't have Fed Courts.

[Anonymous User]

Unless you have some academic/intellectual interest in Fed Courts, I'd avoid it. You'll lose out on some judges who require Fed Courts (and they do exist), but I think that's outweighed by the prospective benefit of graduating magna. And for career prospects beyond clerking, no one will care whether you took Fed Courts except maybe academia.

This is great to hear. To the extent I need to know fed courts I'd rather learn it on the job. I'd potentially be interested in academic but only down the road and honestly more likely as a professor of practice or lecturer instead of tenure track research position (no interest in the painful path towards that goal). Other goals are just biglaw after clerking and then bigfed.

To add another data point: at my (considered more "prestigious") 2/9/DC circuit, multiple judges do look for and ask whether you've taken Fed Courts. Even if the reality is that you can do your job as a clerk without taking it, what matters is not what is true, but what the judges making hiring decisions think.

Also agree with the above poster: take Fed Courts with someone other than Fallon (lots of Law Review/academia types, above-average workload) or Goldsmith (lots of Law Review/gunner types, very tough grader), and instead take it with Field or Jackson.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the responses I am leaning towards splitting the baby and taking the shitty but more forgiving curve fed courts.

[Pneumonia]

You should absolutely take federal courts. Protecting your GPA is not a bad goal, but you may miss magna even without fed courts. If it were guaranteed that avoiding fed courts would net you magna and that taking it would keep you out, then I think there MIGHT be a decent argument for avoiding the class, depending on your goals. But neither are guaranteed. You have a good shot at getting an H in fed courts. It is just another class, like the others that you have done well in. Your worries about workload will affect everyone in the class. Just take very easy classes for your other options that semester.

Also, aren't you applying for clerkships right now, i.e., before graduation? Won't judges reviewing your app see your current GPA? If you are trying to get magna for SCOTUS, you should take the gamble on getting an H in fed courts. It doesn't make sense to avoid such an important class for the prospect of something so remote.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Agree with Pneumonia. If you're gunning for SCOTUS, grab the bull by the horns and try for a DS in fed courts because that's the sort of MJ flu-game performance that'll actually make a difference.

If you're not gunning, then it doesn't matter a ton either way, so just go with your gut and dodge the class so as not to placebo-stress yourself into messing up a semester.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with Pneumonia. If you're gunning for SCOTUS, grab the bull by the horns and try for a DS in fed courts because that's the sort of MJ flu-game performance that'll actually make a difference.

If you're not gunning, then it doesn't matter a ton either way, so just go with your gut and dodge the class so as not to placebo-stress yourself into messing up a semester.

I’m not gunning for SCOTUS as I am not on HLR, don’t have significantly more DSs than Ps (I have the same amount, and it’s 4 each which is even worse), and am not conservative or really well connected. It seems like with my credentials my only chance would be a VERY strong 3L (I’m guessing around 4.25-4.5 with fed courts DS), being Fed Soc President, AND conservative heavy hitters (Goldsmith, Manning, Fried, etc.) really going to bat for me. And even then it’d be an outside chance probably.

[LBJ's Hair]

Agree with Pneumonia. If you're gunning for SCOTUS, grab the bull by the horns and try for a DS in fed courts because that's the sort of MJ flu-game performance that'll actually make a difference.

If you're not gunning, then it doesn't matter a ton either way, so just go with your gut and dodge the class so as not to placebo-stress yourself into messing up a semester.

I’m not gunning for SCOTUS as I am not on HLR, don’t have significantly more DSs than Ps (I have the same amount, and it’s 4 each which is even worse), and am not conservative or really well connected. It seems like with my credentials my only chance would be a VERY strong 3L (I’m guessing around 4.25-4.5 with fed courts DS), being Fed Soc President, AND conservative heavy hitters (Goldsmith, Manning, Fried, etc.) really going to bat for me. And even then it’d be an outside chance probably.

Think you'd already have a good COA clerkship lined up if the HLS FedSoc machine were gonna back you for SCOTUS. The heavy hitters hire 1Ls. To an outsider, seems like that ship has sailed.

I'd take baby FedCourts and protect magna. (That said, the recs are equally, if not more important, than the grades. Make sure you've got at least two "real" profs to write for you, even if you're protecting the GPA.)

[Anonymous User]

Agree with Pneumonia. If you're gunning for SCOTUS, grab the bull by the horns and try for a DS in fed courts because that's the sort of MJ flu-game performance that'll actually make a difference.

If you're not gunning, then it doesn't matter a ton either way, so just go with your gut and dodge the class so as not to placebo-stress yourself into messing up a semester.

I’m not gunning for SCOTUS as I am not on HLR, don’t have significantly more DSs than Ps (I have the same amount, and it’s 4 each which is even worse), and am not conservative or really well connected. It seems like with my credentials my only chance would be a VERY strong 3L (I’m guessing around 4.25-4.5 with fed courts DS), being Fed Soc President, AND conservative heavy hitters (Goldsmith, Manning, Fried, etc.) really going to bat for me. And even then it’d be an outside chance probably.

Think you'd already have a good COA clerkship lined up if the HLS FedSoc machine were gonna back you for SCOTUS. The heavy hitters hire 1Ls. To an outsider, seems like that ship has sailed.

I'd take baby FedCourts and protect magna. (That said, the recs are equally, if not more important, than the grades. Make sure you've got at least two "real" profs to write for you, even if you're protecting the GPA.)

To clarify was just making generalizations to speculate what credentials I assume i'd need. Not in fed soc and would not even want to clerk for many of those judges (Sentelle, Pryor, Sutton, whatever). But yes the people I've seen on this path have like Pryor or Grant (guessing she'll be a big Kavanaugh feeder) clerkships among others already

[Pneumonia]

Even with the new plan, won’t most hiring be done before you get fall grades? Why not take fed courts plus two seminars in the spring? That way it would at least be on your class list for interviews.

[Anonymous User]

Even with the new plan, won’t most hiring be done before you get fall grades? Why not take fed courts plus two seminars in the spring? That way it would at least be on your class list for interviews.

Only goldsmith teaches it in the spring. More importantly, it conflicts with a black letter i really want to take only offered at that time.