Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders Forum

[stoopkid13]

A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors

Are you implying there are non-disgruntled staff editors?

[Quichelorraine]

(For what it's worth, I personally never understood the use of LR membership as a proxy for anything other than diligence and Bluebooking skills, neither of which should be affected at all by selection procedures.)

It's also a proxy for "I will spend an awful lot of time throwing myself into extremely boring, repetitive, detail-oriented work, because I have been reliably informed that it is prestigious!"

Which describes no small part of this profession.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors

I've been directly told by an "ideologically mixed semi-feeder" judge that s/he has greatly reduced the weighting of LR membership when assessing clerkship applicants from top schools, for reasons similar to those discussed in this thread. Not commenting on whether this is wise or reasonable, just pointing out that changes in LR selection procedures are (a) definitely occurring, and (b) definitely being noticed by other audiences.

(For what it's worth, I personally never understood the use of LR membership as a proxy for anything other than diligence and Bluebooking skills, neither of which should be affected at all by selection procedures.)

I was told exactly the same thing by a feeder judge.

And FWIW, at my T6, electing the EIC was basically a competition for who could push the most diverse (along race, sex, orientation dimensions) candidate the hardest. It was absolutely not a meritocracy. I'm glad it still is at YLS. And this is coming from someone who didn't run for Board and was otherwise pretty happy with my LR experience.

[jackshunger]

A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors

I've been directly told by an "ideologically mixed semi-feeder" judge that s/he has greatly reduced the weighting of LR membership when assessing clerkship applicants from top schools, for reasons similar to those discussed in this thread. Not commenting on whether this is wise or reasonable, just pointing out that changes in LR selection procedures are (a) definitely occurring, and (b) definitely being noticed by other audiences.

(For what it's worth, I personally never understood the use of LR membership as a proxy for anything other than diligence and Bluebooking skills, neither of which should be affected at all by selection procedures.)

I was told exactly the same thing by a feeder judge.

And FWIW, at my T6, electing the EIC was basically a competition for who could push the most diverse (along race, sex, orientation dimensions) candidate the hardest. It was absolutely not a meritocracy. I'm glad it still is at YLS. And this is coming from someone who didn't run for Board and was otherwise pretty happy with my LR experience.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

[Anonymous User]

A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors

I've been directly told by an "ideologically mixed semi-feeder" judge that s/he has greatly reduced the weighting of LR membership when assessing clerkship applicants from top schools, for reasons similar to those discussed in this thread. Not commenting on whether this is wise or reasonable, just pointing out that changes in LR selection procedures are (a) definitely occurring, and (b) definitely being noticed by other audiences.

(For what it's worth, I personally never understood the use of LR membership as a proxy for anything other than diligence and Bluebooking skills, neither of which should be affected at all by selection procedures.)

I was told exactly the same thing by a feeder judge.

And FWIW, at my T6, electing the EIC was basically a competition for who could push the most diverse (along race, sex, orientation dimensions) candidate the hardest. It was absolutely not a meritocracy. I'm glad it still is at YLS. And this is coming from someone who didn't run for Board and was otherwise pretty happy with my LR experience.

Sounds like I no longer have to pull an all-nighter to finish my write-on essay before the deadline tomorrow

[axel.foley]

A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors

I've been directly told by an "ideologically mixed semi-feeder" judge that s/he has greatly reduced the weighting of LR membership when assessing clerkship applicants from top schools, for reasons similar to those discussed in this thread. Not commenting on whether this is wise or reasonable, just pointing out that changes in LR selection procedures are (a) definitely occurring, and (b) definitely being noticed by other audiences.

(For what it's worth, I personally never understood the use of LR membership as a proxy for anything other than diligence and Bluebooking skills, neither of which should be affected at all by selection procedures.)

I was told exactly the same thing by a feeder judge.

And FWIW, at my T6, electing the EIC was basically a competition for who could push the most diverse (along race, sex, orientation dimensions) candidate the hardest. It was absolutely not a meritocracy. I'm glad it still is at YLS. And this is coming from someone who didn't run for Board and was otherwise pretty happy with my LR experience.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

.

[RedRock149]

Great catch. It must be the case that a cabal--likely Soros and the Clintons--engineered the EICs of the top LRs last year. It is just way too coincidental that a group of women could climb to the top of a masthead on their own.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

[nixy]

Great catch. It must be the case that a cabal--likely Soros and the Clintons--engineered the EICs of the top LRs last year. It is just way too coincidental that a group of women could climb to the top of a masthead on their own.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

Yeah, pretty sure there are actually more women than men enrolled at each of those schools, but it's only a meritocracy when it's the white dudes in charge.

[cavalier1138]

Great catch. It must be the case that a cabal--likely Soros and the Clintons--engineered the EICs of the top LRs last year. It is just way too coincidental that a group of women could climb to the top of a masthead on their own.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

Yeah, pretty sure there are actually more women than men enrolled at each of those schools, but it's only a meritocracy when it's the white dudes in charge.

No, see, 16 unaffiliated law reviews with entirely different election procedures planned to elect women to the EIC position. But when literally every law review in the country had a male EIC and a predominantly (if not exclusively) male staff, that was just the natural consequence of a meritocracy.

[jackshunger]

Great catch. It must be the case that a cabal--likely Soros and the Clintons--engineered the EICs of the top LRs last year. It is just way too coincidental that a group of women could climb to the top of a masthead on their own.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

Yeah, pretty sure there are actually more women than men enrolled at each of those schools, but it's only a meritocracy when it's the white dudes in charge.

No, see, 16 unaffiliated law reviews with entirely different election procedures planned to elect women to the EIC position. But when literally every law review in the country had a male EIC and a predominantly (if not exclusively) male staff, that was just the natural consequence of a meritocracy.

Sure, I'm a privileged white male that will never be EIC, and I can't speak to EIC elections back in the 90s, but I'm not the only person who was questioning the process. If the odds of W/M being EIC any given year is 60/40, and every event is independent, the odds of this occurring are .00028%.

This is a pointless conversation anyway, the main takeaway from every poster is that LR has been downgraded in value.

[cavalier1138]

Great catch. It must be the case that a cabal--likely Soros and the Clintons--engineered the EICs of the top LRs last year. It is just way too coincidental that a group of women could climb to the top of a masthead on their own.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

Yeah, pretty sure there are actually more women than men enrolled at each of those schools, but it's only a meritocracy when it's the white dudes in charge.

No, see, 16 unaffiliated law reviews with entirely different election procedures planned to elect women to the EIC position. But when literally every law review in the country had a male EIC and a predominantly (if not exclusively) male staff, that was just the natural consequence of a meritocracy.

Sure, I'm a privileged white male that will never be EIC, and I can't speak to EIC elections back in the 90s, but I'm not the only person who was questioning the process. If the odds of W/M being EIC any given year is 60/40, and every event is independent, the odds of this occurring are .00028%.

This is a pointless conversation anyway, the main takeaway from every poster is that LR has been downgraded in value.

But again, the point is that if the odds of that occurring are so low, then the odds of it being an all-male field are even lower. Yet that's exactly what happened before this.

If this was a pointless conversation, then smack yourself upside the head for making that inane post in the first place.

[jackshunger]

Great catch. It must be the case that a cabal--likely Soros and the Clintons--engineered the EICs of the top LRs last year. It is just way too coincidental that a group of women could climb to the top of a masthead on their own.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

Yeah, pretty sure there are actually more women than men enrolled at each of those schools, but it's only a meritocracy when it's the white dudes in charge.

No, see, 16 unaffiliated law reviews with entirely different election procedures planned to elect women to the EIC position. But when literally every law review in the country had a male EIC and a predominantly (if not exclusively) male staff, that was just the natural consequence of a meritocracy.

Sure, I'm a privileged white male that will never be EIC, and I can't speak to EIC elections back in the 90s, but I'm not the only person who was questioning the process. If the odds of W/M being EIC any given year is 60/40, and every event is independent, the odds of this occurring are .00028%.

This is a pointless conversation anyway, the main takeaway from every poster is that LR has been downgraded in value.

But again, the point is that if the odds of that occurring are so low, then the odds of it being an all-male field are even lower. Yet that's exactly what happened before this.

If this was a pointless conversation, then smack yourself upside the head for making that inane post in the first place.

I never said I thought EIC elections in the 90s were bastions of equality, although I doubt there has been an all Male T-14 EIC group in the 2000s, certainly not since 2010.

[LBJ's Hair]

A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors

I've been directly told by an "ideologically mixed semi-feeder" judge that s/he has greatly reduced the weighting of LR membership when assessing clerkship applicants from top schools, for reasons similar to those discussed in this thread. Not commenting on whether this is wise or reasonable, just pointing out that changes in LR selection procedures are (a) definitely occurring, and (b) definitely being noticed by other audiences.

(For what it's worth, I personally never understood the use of LR membership as a proxy for anything other than diligence and Bluebooking skills, neither of which should be affected at all by selection procedures.)

I was told exactly the same thing by a feeder judge.

And FWIW, at my T6, electing the EIC was basically a competition for who could push the most diverse (along race, sex, orientation dimensions) candidate the hardest. It was absolutely not a meritocracy. I'm glad it still is at YLS. And this is coming from someone who didn't run for Board and was otherwise pretty happy with my LR experience.

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/

Only people who have never participated in adboard selection. (I'm sure the EiCs are great FWIW)