Feeder Judge Ratings OT 2016 - 2020 (and a bit beyond) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Thapar, Katsas, Sutton, Pryor and Oldham are probably the top conservative feeders in some order. Katsas benefits from taking people on their second clerkship so he'll get some of the best clerks from the other four judges. In that sense, Katsas might end up being more competitive than SCOTUS for a conservative because there are six Justices (plus Kennedy's clerk) while only four slots with him. I wouldn't be surprised if Katsas ends up getting 4/4 most years.

Agreed. Katsas and Thapar have the reputation in FedSoc circles of going to extraordinary lengths to hire clerks they know they can easily feed. Their numbers will be stratospheric, but not all of that will be because their phone calls are the "golden ticket," at least not yet. Pryor and Sutton are less focused on recruiting Yale's FedSoc president, and they'll sometimes take a flyer on an Alabama or OSU valedictorian and land them SCOTUS clerkships on the strength of their reputation alone.

Thapar hires extraordinarily early for some candidates—he’s long been notorious for hiring YLS students without grades, and I know he hired one this year—while Katsas hires practically on-plan afaik. Very different strategies.

How is this even possible? What does he go off of? He just reflexively hires any Yalies who were Rhodes scholars?

Yale + FedSoc + connections + at least one prof with good shadow grades OR a recommender willing to play the off-plan reference call game is a small but consistently nonzero pool that’s not much of a risk. Plus he has 5 clerks a term instead of 4, which lets him take a “flyer” consistently.

Other factors include Rhodes/Fulbright, a HYP (especially P) undergraduate degree with Latin honors, military service, and Republican political activity. Every year at Yale there are a handful of conservatives that make you stop and say, "he/she is clerking for SCOTUS no matter what." Thapar makes it a point to identify them quickly and recruit them aggressively. Whether shrewd or distasteful, you can't argue with the results. But this hasn't made Thapar many friends in the federal judiciary.

[Anonymous User]

Other factors include Rhodes/Fulbright, a HYP (especially P) undergraduate degree with Latin honors, military service, and Republican political activity. Every year at Yale there are a handful of conservatives that make you stop and say, "he/she is clerking for SCOTUS no matter what." Thapar makes it a point to identify them quickly and recruit them aggressively. Whether shrewd or distasteful, you can't argue with the results. But this hasn't made Thapar many friends in the federal judiciary.

A Fulbright is so much easier to obtain than the Rhodes, and in general, that I can't believe that part is true.

[Anonymous User]

Other factors include Rhodes/Fulbright, a HYP (especially P) undergraduate degree with Latin honors, military service, and Republican political activity. Every year at Yale there are a handful of conservatives that make you stop and say, "he/she is clerking for SCOTUS no matter what." Thapar makes it a point to identify them quickly and recruit them aggressively. Whether shrewd or distasteful, you can't argue with the results. But this hasn't made Thapar many friends in the federal judiciary.

A Fulbright is so much easier to obtain than the Rhodes, and in general, that I can't believe that part is true.

Depends which kind of Fulbright. I know overall there are a lot more Fulbrights awarded than Rhodes, so to some extent you're right, but some countries are *extremely* hard to land, for the research/study Fulbrights (not the teaching ones, which are still great to get, but not as selective). Plus you have to propose a research project for a Fulbright, which provides another level of data, if that's the kind of thing you care about as a judge.

[Anonymous User]

Thapar, Katsas, Sutton, Pryor and Oldham are probably the top conservative feeders in some order. Katsas benefits from taking people on their second clerkship so he'll get some of the best clerks from the other four judges. In that sense, Katsas might end up being more competitive than SCOTUS for a conservative because there are six Justices (plus Kennedy's clerk) while only four slots with him. I wouldn't be surprised if Katsas ends up getting 4/4 most years.

Agreed. Katsas and Thapar have the reputation in FedSoc circles of going to extraordinary lengths to hire clerks they know they can easily feed. Their numbers will be stratospheric, but not all of that will be because their phone calls are the "golden ticket," at least not yet. Pryor and Sutton are less focused on recruiting Yale's FedSoc president, and they'll sometimes take a flyer on an Alabama or OSU valedictorian and land them SCOTUS clerkships on the strength of their reputation alone.

Thapar hires extraordinarily early for some candidates—he’s long been notorious for hiring YLS students without grades, and I know he hired one this year—while Katsas hires practically on-plan afaik. Very different strategies.

How is this even possible? What does he go off of? He just reflexively hires any Yalies who were Rhodes scholars?

Yale + FedSoc + connections + at least one prof with good shadow grades OR a recommender willing to play the off-plan reference call game is a small but consistently nonzero pool that’s not much of a risk. Plus he has 5 clerks a term instead of 4, which lets him take a “flyer” consistently.

Other factors include Rhodes/Fulbright, a HYP (especially P) undergraduate degree with Latin honors, military service, and Republican political activity. Every year at Yale there are a handful of conservatives that make you stop and say, "he/she is clerking for SCOTUS no matter what." Thapar makes it a point to identify them quickly and recruit them aggressively. Whether shrewd or distasteful, you can't argue with the results. But this hasn't made Thapar many friends in the federal judiciary.

LMAO at the thought of feeder judges actually caring more about a degree from Princeton than any of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

[Anonymous User]

Other factors include Rhodes/Fulbright, a HYP (especially P) undergraduate degree with Latin honors, military service, and Republican political activity. Every year at Yale there are a handful of conservatives that make you stop and say, "he/she is clerking for SCOTUS no matter what." Thapar makes it a point to identify them quickly and recruit them aggressively. Whether shrewd or distasteful, you can't argue with the results. But this hasn't made Thapar many friends in the federal judiciary.

As a YLS grad not in FedSoc, I can corroborate this. I don't know exactly how it happens, but the YLS conservatives you expect to clerk for SCOTUS end up clerking for SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

I think there is a perception (correct or incorrect) that Princeton is harder to get into than those places.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

This. Summa at Princeton is a lot harder than summa at Harvard and Yale. If you're Judge Thapar and you have 0 semesters of law school grades, it's about as sure a bet of future academic success as you can ask for. Other grade deflating schools like Chicago and MIT maybe get a boost too, at least for math and science majors - for humanities majors, they may be seen as fallback schools. Military academies don't have the same academic reputation but get a big boost for different reasons.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

I think there is a perception (correct or incorrect) that Princeton is harder to get into than those places.

…there’s a perception that MIT and Chicago are easier to get into than Princeton? If so, that’s clearly wrong—Chicago and MIT (and Caltech) always have higher SAT ranges than the Ivies because they don’t have legacy and athletics preferences to the same extent.

Anyway I doubt even Thapar does this, but that it’s even a question shows the absurdity of hiring clerks without grades and how (relatively) easy feeder clerkships have gotten for Fed Soc students at YLS.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

I think there is a perception (correct or incorrect) that Princeton is harder to get into than those places.

…there’s a perception that MIT and Chicago are easier to get into than Princeton? If so, that’s clearly wrong—Chicago and MIT (and Caltech) always have higher SAT ranges than the Ivies because they don’t have legacy and athletics preferences to the same extent.

Anyway I doubt even Thapar does this, but that it’s even a question shows the absurdity of hiring clerks without grades and how (relatively) easy feeder clerkships have gotten for Fed Soc students at YLS.

If you're a judge you are probably over 40 and when you were applying to college Chicago and MIT were solidly easier to get into than Princeton. Today, all three colleges are about the same, with maybe an ever so slight Princeton edge.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

I think there is a perception (correct or incorrect) that Princeton is harder to get into than those places.

…there’s a perception that MIT and Chicago are easier to get into than Princeton? If so, that’s clearly wrong—Chicago and MIT (and Caltech) always have higher SAT ranges than the Ivies because they don’t have legacy and athletics preferences to the same extent.

Anyway I doubt even Thapar does this, but that it’s even a question shows the absurdity of hiring clerks without grades and how (relatively) easy feeder clerkships have gotten for Fed Soc students at YLS.

If you're a judge you are probably over 40 and when you were applying to college Chicago and MIT were solidly easier to get into than Princeton. Today, all three colleges are about the same, with maybe an ever so slight Princeton edge.

Chicago having an HYPS-level undergrad is a 21st century phenomenon, but MIT has been at least as hard to get into as HYPS for basically forever afaik.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

I think there is a perception (correct or incorrect) that Princeton is harder to get into than those places.

…there’s a perception that MIT and Chicago are easier to get into than Princeton? If so, that’s clearly wrong—Chicago and MIT (and Caltech) always have higher SAT ranges than the Ivies because they don’t have legacy and athletics preferences to the same extent.

Anyway I doubt even Thapar does this, but that it’s even a question shows the absurdity of hiring clerks without grades and how (relatively) easy feeder clerkships have gotten for Fed Soc students at YLS.

Ho hired a Harvard 1l pre-grades on the basis of magna undergrad from H plus being really really conservative ( he published the “well actually blasphemy laws are good and constitutional” hlr article). No Rhodes as far as I can tel (though there was some Oxford study). So even at H a Rhodes is not required (at least for Ho) and I assume Y is even easier. The guy ended up graduating magna so I’m sure he would have been hired anyway.

[Anonymous User]

The one I know Thapar hired this year was a Rhodes/Marshall Fed Soc student. Also yes no idea what’s up with the Princeton post.

Princeton doesn't have as aggressive grade inflation as Harvard and Yale so, all else equal, a summa cum laude from Princeton is more impressive than the same from H or Y. But there are probably, like, fewer than 10 judges in the country who would actually split hairs in this manner.

I mean on that logic Chicago, MIT, and the military academies should be preferred to Princeton, no?

I think there is a perception (correct or incorrect) that Princeton is harder to get into than those places.

…there’s a perception that MIT and Chicago are easier to get into than Princeton? If so, that’s clearly wrong—Chicago and MIT (and Caltech) always have higher SAT ranges than the Ivies because they don’t have legacy and athletics preferences to the same extent.

Anyway I doubt even Thapar does this, but that it’s even a question shows the absurdity of hiring clerks without grades and how (relatively) easy feeder clerkships have gotten for Fed Soc students at YLS.

If you're a judge you are probably over 40 and when you were applying to college Chicago and MIT were solidly easier to get into than Princeton. Today, all three colleges are about the same, with maybe an ever so slight Princeton edge.

Chicago having an HYPS-level undergrad is a 21st century phenomenon, but MIT has been at least as hard to get into as HYPS for basically forever afaik.

Chicago is in fact easier to get into than Princeton, which is in turn easier to get into than MIT.

https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/ ... 25-profile

https://admission.princeton.edu/how-app ... statistics

https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats/

[Anonymous User]

The Princeton supremacist troll is funny, but if you look around at recent years it does seem that Princeton typically has lower test scores than Chicago (as it did on the ACT this year). It might have more deflation—though it abandoned its deflation policy some time ago—but it’s certainly not materially more selective than other top schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/colleges-w ... sat-scores

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... admissions

https://www.veritasprep.com/act-sat-pre ... versities/

[Anonymous User]

The Princeton supremacist troll is funny, but if you look around at recent years it does seem that Princeton typically has lower test scores than Chicago (as it did on the ACT this year). It might have more deflation—though it abandoned its deflation policy some time ago—but it’s certainly not materially more selective than other top schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/colleges-w ... sat-scores

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... admissions

https://www.veritasprep.com/act-sat-pre ... versities/

Pretty sure for the year you are comparing, Chicago was “test optional,” meaning that you did not have to submit test scores even if you had taken them, and Princeton was not. So presumably you would only have submitted to Chicago if your test scores were very high. Princeton at the time was not test optional (but I think it is now). But this whole thing is silly.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it shouldn't be altogether surprising that a thread focused exclusively on feeder judges would devolve into this elitist and out-of-touch naval-gazing, but man this is painful to read. Don't you all have anything better to do than compare two incontrovertibly great universities? Let's try to get back on topic...

[Anonymous User]

The Princeton supremacist troll is funny, but if you look around at recent years it does seem that Princeton typically has lower test scores than Chicago (as it did on the ACT this year). It might have more deflation—though it abandoned its deflation policy some time ago—but it’s certainly not materially more selective than other top schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/colleges-w ... sat-scores

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... admissions

https://www.veritasprep.com/act-sat-pre ... versities/

Pretty sure for the year you are comparing, Chicago was “test optional,” meaning that you did not have to submit test scores even if you had taken them, and Princeton was not. So presumably you would only have submitted to Chicago if your test scores were very high. Princeton at the time was not test optional (but I think it is now). But this whole thing is silly.

Those are several years, and it seems to have also been the case before Chicago went test-optional, at least in stuff I found immediately, though the gaps were smaller.

https://www.businessinsider.com/college ... 2016-8?amp

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-50- ... 015-2015-7

[Anonymous User]

The Princeton supremacist troll is funny, but if you look around at recent years it does seem that Princeton typically has lower test scores than Chicago (as it did on the ACT this year). It might have more deflation—though it abandoned its deflation policy some time ago—but it’s certainly not materially more selective than other top schools.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/colleges-w ... sat-scores

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... admissions

https://www.veritasprep.com/act-sat-pre ... versities/

Pretty sure for the year you are comparing, Chicago was “test optional,” meaning that you did not have to submit test scores even if you had taken them, and Princeton was not. So presumably you would only have submitted to Chicago if your test scores were very high. Princeton at the time was not test optional (but I think it is now). But this whole thing is silly.

Those are several years, and it seems to have also been the case before Chicago went test-optional, at least in stuff I found immediately, though the gaps were smaller.

https://www.businessinsider.com/college ... 2016-8?amp

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-50- ... 015-2015-7

I'm not sure why SAT scores of the entering class are relevant here. Isn't overall selectivity more germane to prestige? Stanford Law School typically has lower LSAT stats than Columbia Law School but no one thinks Columbia Law School is more prestigious.

[Anonymous User]

Guys. This used to be a pretty useful thread. Can we stop the College Confidential-ing? The initial post was weird but makes sense seriously if not literally—yes there are ways for judges to identify likely / probably SCOTUS-candidate Yale conservatives without grades based off their life and academic backgrounds. It’s not perfect but it’s not a shot in the dark.

Let’s just move on as to the exact 2022 USNWR undergrad ranking mechanism that feeds into that identification because it’s useless and weirding everyone out, even in this gunner haven of a thread.

[Anonymous User]

Guys. This used to be a pretty useful thread. Can we stop the College Confidential-ing? The initial post was weird but makes sense seriously if not literally—yes there are ways for judges to identify likely / probably SCOTUS-candidate Yale conservatives without grades based off their life and academic backgrounds. It’s not perfect but it’s not a shot in the dark.

Let’s just move on as to the exact 2022 USNWR undergrad ranking mechanism that feeds into that identification because it’s useless and weirding everyone out, even in this gunner haven of a thread.

I made the first post but I haven't been involved in this exchange about SAT scores. I can't tell you if Princeton or Chicago is more selective, but I can tell you from first-hand experience it is "literally" true that certain FedSoc feeders distinguish Latin honors at Princeton from Latin honors at other ivies before 1L grades come out. Take or leave that information.

[Anonymous User]

Thapar must have a very good eye then because it seems like most of his hires clerk on the Court. I have heard Stras and Newsom also move very fast.

[Anonymous User]

Thapar must have a very good eye then because it seems like most of his hires clerk on the Court. I have heard Stras and Newsom also move very fast.

Can confirm that Newsom moves incredibly early, often with no grades or one semester, but the Stras hires I know were hired on a reasonable timeline (though it’s of course possible that some others were hired early).

[Anonymous User]

Also be cautious about “FedSoc judges moving early at YLS” all meaning “Thapar” just because he feeds incredibly well and is in that category. Ho, despite being a great jurist, has never fed despite the hire mentioned. Collins and Lagoa, both highly respected among conservatives, also move ridiculously fast / without grades and have limited feeding in comparison. So the heuristics, even if they “work” as to candidate quality and even if they are attached to reputable judges, don’t always lead to feeds. Best not to stress and to accept that Thapar is idiosyncratic in some regard.