Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
stoopkid13

Bronze
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:31 am

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by stoopkid13 » Sat May 30, 2020 11:34 pm

cheaptilts wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 4:39 pm
A lot of recent comments in this thread seem to emanate from disgruntled staff editors
Are you implying there are non-disgruntled staff editors? :D

Quichelorraine

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:54 am

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by Quichelorraine » Sun May 31, 2020 8:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
(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
Posts: 351008
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 31, 2020 9:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
cheaptilts wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 4:39 pm
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

New
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by jackshunger » Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:23 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
cheaptilts wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 4:39 pm
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/
Last edited by cavalier1138 on Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Outed for anon abuse.

Anonymous User
Posts: 351008
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by Anonymous User » Sun May 31, 2020 9:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:23 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
cheaptilts wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 4:39 pm
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

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
axel.foley

Bronze
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by axel.foley » Sun May 31, 2020 9:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:23 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
cheaptilts wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 4:39 pm
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/
.
Last edited by cavalier1138 on Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Outed for anon abuse.

User avatar
RedRock149

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:25 am

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by RedRock149 » Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:31 am

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.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

For example, does anyone seriously believe this wasn't planned out beforehand?
https://www.law.com/2020/01/21/women-ho ... w-reviews/
Last edited by cavalier1138 on Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Outed for anon abuse.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by nixy » Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:31 am
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.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

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.

User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 7390
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:14 am

nixy wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:31 am
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.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

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.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


jackshunger

New
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by jackshunger » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:39 am

cavalier1138 wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:14 am
nixy wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:31 am
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.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

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.

User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 7390
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:49 am

jackshunger wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:39 am
cavalier1138 wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:14 am
nixy wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:31 am
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.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

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

New
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by jackshunger » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:09 am

cavalier1138 wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:49 am
jackshunger wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:39 am
cavalier1138 wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:14 am
nixy wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:31 am
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.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm

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

Silver
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Ideologically mixed feeders/semi feeders

Post by LBJ's Hair » Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:26 pm

jackshunger wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:36 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:23 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
cheaptilts wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 4:39 pm
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)

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”