Columbia's Clerkship Office is Awful Forum

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Appreciate the discussion and agree with a lot of the points. What I would say to people commending Saavedra for getting the basic things done or making excuses for the school not hiring another few people to process paper apps or figuring out a better system to maximize chances of getting clerkships is that tuition is near the highest in the entire country, did not drop a penny during a pandemic when noone was on campus, and is definitely out of line with the services provided. They should be pressured to do more for our money.

CLS clerk here. The point we're is making is that the clerkship office itself does quite a bit for your money if you apply on Plan. There is a clear process, laid out neatly on both the website and the courseworks, about how to submit your applications for processing. Asking them to hire more people to process paper apps for 1 month a year is an odd ask if you are concerned about the COA. It's been established they do more than Yale does, where students have to mail out all of their applications themselves. I'm not really sure what more they could do logistically, other than not make mistakes when sending out the applications (which has happened).

I'm not saying this as a defender of the CLS clerkship office: they can definitely be more transparent and get faculty more involved with pushing students to judges. And if they abandoned their fealty to the Plan and were honest about the judges that hired off-Plan, more students would be hired. But your concerns aren't a major issue or would truly help CLS improve its decent numbers.

Sorry, what do they do for our money? I'm genuinely curious because it seems like they could do a lot more and I'm not even sure what they do now besides sometimes process paper apps. Even if it's not OJC, the school should encourage professors to get more involved like Chicago does because for $77,000 tuition, a lot of litigation focused students seem to be getting the short end of the stick.

They provide logistical support and advice, which isn't that different from most other schools. Chicago has more professors involved in the process because Chicago has professors that care more about clerkships, has far more ideological diversity amongst the faculty so the professors know more judges, and the office openly ignores the Plan.

If you are a top student at CLS, plenty of professors will call for the 2nd Circuit/SDNY/EDNY judges that they know. But they can't all call the same judges to pitch 30 different students.

I think the point is that they give bad advice too. In my opinion, all OJC needs to do to improve is to be more transparent and drop the general advice based on Stone/Kent distinctions. There are huge variations within Stone, so their "competitiveness" graph or whatever is completely useless. How is saying that a student that is 1x-2x Stone is competitive for SDNY/EDNY helpful at all?

[Anonymous User]

I think the point is that they give bad advice too. In my opinion, all OJC needs to do to improve is to be more transparent and drop the general advice based on Stone/Kent distinctions. There are huge variations within Stone, so their "competitiveness" graph or whatever is completely useless. How is saying that a student that is 1x-2x Stone is competitive for SDNY/EDNY helpful at all?

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

[Anonymous User]

I think the point is that they give bad advice too. In my opinion, all OJC needs to do to improve is to be more transparent and drop the general advice based on Stone/Kent distinctions. There are huge variations within Stone, so their "competitiveness" graph or whatever is completely useless. How is saying that a student that is 1x-2x Stone is competitive for SDNY/EDNY helpful at all?

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

Whenever I’ve chatted with my recommenders about competitiveness (as a non-feeder applicant), they’ve said to ask OJC for specifics about judges that they don’t know. When your professors mostly know NY judges, which are all super competitive, then it becomes much more difficult to gauge which judges to apply to outside of NY. Obviously I know the most competitive judges, but what about the judges in other districts that are pretty competitive, but my professors don’t know? I think that’s where OJC should be helpful.

[Anonymous User]

I think the point is that they give bad advice too. In my opinion, all OJC needs to do to improve is to be more transparent and drop the general advice based on Stone/Kent distinctions. There are huge variations within Stone, so their "competitiveness" graph or whatever is completely useless. How is saying that a student that is 1x-2x Stone is competitive for SDNY/EDNY helpful at all?

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

Whenever I’ve chatted with my recommenders about competitiveness (as a non-feeder applicant), they’ve said to ask OJC for specifics about judges that they don’t know. When your professors mostly know NY judges, which are all super competitive, then it becomes much more difficult to gauge which judges to apply to outside of NY. Obviously I know the most competitive judges, but what about the judges in other districts that are pretty competitive, but my professors don’t know? I think that’s where OJC should be helpful.

Yeah as a former student at Chicago that seems to be a big difference, the network is more national and the office pushes judges all over the place. If you want recommendations for judges on the Eighth Circuit or the District of New Mexico that's no problem, the office will have them, usually with a list of alumni who've clerked for the judge or sometimes practitioners in the area or profs with connections. Ironically I don't think we have particularly good coverage of SD/EDNY though relative to the size and prominence of the districts.

Tbh I found that the info on TLS is pretty helpful for scoping out judges you know nothing about though

[Anonymous User]

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

lol, as someone who has hated on OJC earlier in this thread, I actually thought the pyramid chart they handed out my year was one of the more useful and straightforward pieces of information I received them. It was basically the only time they appeared to be giving any specific information about how GPA affects our chances. Like 2x Stone had two categories: ~3.6 was possible EDNY/SDNY, ~3.4 was possible "other" districts. Clearly someone has access to data (gpa/class rank of prior clerks) that would be really helpful for applicants to know but they just aren't providing much of it (presumably because everything is CONFIDENTIAL).

Like they will give us a slide (with an horrifically inaccurately proportioned pie chart) that says "this is how students in the top 25%" do but we don't actually have access to class ranks to know if we are in that?? Why am I (and the judges I apply to!) supposed to do so much guessing?

[Anonymous User]

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

lol, as someone who has hated on OJC earlier in this thread, I actually thought the pyramid chart they handed out my year was one of the more useful and straightforward pieces of information I received them. It was basically the only time they appeared to be giving any specific information about how GPA affects our chances. Like 2x Stone had two categories: ~3.6 was possible EDNY/SDNY, ~3.4 was possible "other" districts. Clearly someone has access to data (gpa/class rank of prior clerks) that would be really helpful for applicants to know but they just aren't providing much of it (presumably because everything is CONFIDENTIAL).

Like they will give us a slide (with an horrifically inaccurately proportioned pie chart) that says "this is how students in the top 25%" do but we don't actually have access to class ranks to know if we are in that?? Why am I (and the judges I apply to!) supposed to do so much guessing?

Clerk here. It's worse than useless because a 3.6 is not competitive for EDNY/SDNY, let alone all of the other bad advice given on there. And the rest of the information on there is meaningless because chambers don't care if you were Kent 1x, Stone 2x - we care when you got Kent (1L matters a lot more), and we calculate overall GPAs in important courses.

[stoopkid13]

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

lol, as someone who has hated on OJC earlier in this thread, I actually thought the pyramid chart they handed out my year was one of the more useful and straightforward pieces of information I received them. It was basically the only time they appeared to be giving any specific information about how GPA affects our chances. Like 2x Stone had two categories: ~3.6 was possible EDNY/SDNY, ~3.4 was possible "other" districts. Clearly someone has access to data (gpa/class rank of prior clerks) that would be really helpful for applicants to know but they just aren't providing much of it (presumably because everything is CONFIDENTIAL).

Like they will give us a slide (with an horrifically inaccurately proportioned pie chart) that says "this is how students in the top 25%" do but we don't actually have access to class ranks to know if we are in that?? Why am I (and the judges I apply to!) supposed to do so much guessing?

Clerk here. It's worse than useless because a 3.6 is not competitive for EDNY/SDNY, let alone all of the other bad advice given on there. And the rest of the information on there is meaningless because chambers don't care if you were Kent 1x, Stone 2x - we care when you got Kent (1L matters a lot more), and we calculate overall GPAs in important courses.

I only vaguely remember what that pyramid said (and my recollection is that it was created by the prior clerkship director, not the current OJC). But there is a lot of daylight between "possible" and "competitive."

OJC absolutely tracks student gpas and what judges those students clerk for (or they did at some point). The only reason I can think of for withholding that data from students is so you can't go back and piece together alumnis gpas.

[Anonymous User]

I don't disagree the chart OJC gives is worse than useless. But anyone relying on that has not had an honest conversation with their recommenders and isn't likely to obtain good results.

lol, as someone who has hated on OJC earlier in this thread, I actually thought the pyramid chart they handed out my year was one of the more useful and straightforward pieces of information I received them. It was basically the only time they appeared to be giving any specific information about how GPA affects our chances. Like 2x Stone had two categories: ~3.6 was possible EDNY/SDNY, ~3.4 was possible "other" districts. Clearly someone has access to data (gpa/class rank of prior clerks) that would be really helpful for applicants to know but they just aren't providing much of it (presumably because everything is CONFIDENTIAL).

Like they will give us a slide (with an horrifically inaccurately proportioned pie chart) that says "this is how students in the top 25%" do but we don't actually have access to class ranks to know if we are in that?? Why am I (and the judges I apply to!) supposed to do so much guessing?

Clerk here. It's worse than useless because a 3.6 is not competitive for EDNY/SDNY, let alone all of the other bad advice given on there. And the rest of the information on there is meaningless because chambers don't care if you were Kent 1x, Stone 2x - we care when you got Kent (1L matters a lot more), and we calculate overall GPAs in important courses.

They also don't even give out that pyramid anymore. Putting aside whether 3.6 is competitive at all, at least the pyramid had GPAs on it. The slide that OJC refers to now literally just has the Stone/Kent designations. I've seen the past documents mentioned above that had average GPAs of alumni that have clerked for judges, so really unsure why OJC doesn't do that now. Relying on this idea that CLS doesn't calculate GPAs and won't provide any information that has GPAs on it is just so detrimental to clerkship applicants.

[Anonymous User]

Having the only even mildly useful data come from a previous director absolutely tracks.

Anyway, for the pending and future applicants, you can get SDNY/EDNY with 3.6x, though (a) don't count your chickens, (b) you are gonna need a reason to standout and (c) you need to apply to the right judges, i.e. apply as broadly as possible. They aren't all Kovner. That's all I read the tiers on now-CONFIDENTIAL pyramid as meaning: "plausible."

But yeah, if OJC is currently telling people 3.6X is a golden ticket on its own, or much less that just getting Stone once as a 2L is, then that is a monumental disservice and is only setting people up for disappointment.

[Anonymous User]

The clerkship office has access to, and at least while I was there, used to circulate among a small group of professors on the clerkship committee, data showing the GPA by judge. The issue with circulating it more broadly is the fact that any judge with 1 total columbia clerk you see their GPA. You could do it for only judges with 7+ Columbia clerks or something but then the list is much smaller.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I am still expecting them to provide at least the most basic aid in sending out apps. I'm frustrated.

I wish I had gone to Chicago, UVA, NYU, or one of the other peer schools I was accepted at. The office here is not only completely unhelpful, but they are more interested in making sure their jobs are a little easier than helping students get clerkships. Whenever they do send out information about judge openings or something else it seems like the emphasis is more on "This is CONFIDENTIAL information do not share with anyone from any other school" than on actually being helpful. Plus we just got a very passive aggressive email from the Dean about making it easier for them to process apps. As a 3L with good grades but not on LR, I feel like I've gotten little to no support through this process. Forget any guidance.

Here is the first line of that email.

"From time to time, OJC will receive a request from an applicant to send "on file" faculty recommendation letters in connection with a new round of clerkship applications.  The expectation appears to be that OJC will update the "on file" letters with the name, address and salutation information for each of the new judges in this new round of applications. This expectation is incorrect."

Basically they're more interested in their byzantine internal procedures being followed than results and helping the students get out apps. Yuck.

Small shout out to the NYU clerkship office, because they've been really helpful to me in applying for clerkships during this cycle. Dean Cherande has been nothing but amazing. She's picked up the phone on several occasions to help mock interview me, provide advice on things I should say or avoid saying at interviews, and even took the time to review my cover letter and resume. She's been phenomenal and I ended up landing an SDNY/EDNY + circuit court clerkship because of her.

I know this post reads like someone from the NYU clerkship office may have written it, but I just really wanted to highlight how awesome they are because I truly wouldn't have gotten the results that I did this cycle without them.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I am still expecting them to provide at least the most basic aid in sending out apps. I'm frustrated.

I wish I had gone to Chicago, UVA, NYU, or one of the other peer schools I was accepted at. The office here is not only completely unhelpful, but they are more interested in making sure their jobs are a little easier than helping students get clerkships. Whenever they do send out information about judge openings or something else it seems like the emphasis is more on "This is CONFIDENTIAL information do not share with anyone from any other school" than on actually being helpful. Plus we just got a very passive aggressive email from the Dean about making it easier for them to process apps. As a 3L with good grades but not on LR, I feel like I've gotten little to no support through this process. Forget any guidance.

Here is the first line of that email.

"From time to time, OJC will receive a request from an applicant to send "on file" faculty recommendation letters in connection with a new round of clerkship applications.  The expectation appears to be that OJC will update the "on file" letters with the name, address and salutation information for each of the new judges in this new round of applications. This expectation is incorrect."

Basically they're more interested in their byzantine internal procedures being followed than results and helping the students get out apps. Yuck.

Small shout out to the NYU clerkship office, because they've been really helpful to me in applying for clerkships during this cycle. Dean Cherande has been nothing but amazing. She's picked up the phone on several occasions to help mock interview me, provide advice on things I should say or avoid saying at interviews, and even took the time to review my cover letter and resume. She's been phenomenal and I ended up landing an SDNY/EDNY + circuit court clerkship because of her.

I know this post reads like someone from the NYU clerkship office may have written it, but I just really wanted to highlight how awesome they are because I truly wouldn't have gotten the results that I did this cycle without them.

Good for you. This is a post about the Columbia office, by people already at Columbia.

And fwiw, Dean Saavedra did all the things you mentioned for me and I landed similar clerkships to you. I think a lot of people expect her to just know to do those things for them after one meeting, but you have to cultivate the relationship, keep her in the loop, let her know your goals.

[Anonymous User]

Good for you. This is a post about the Columbia office, by people already at Columbia.

And fwiw, Dean Saavedra did all the things you mentioned for me and I landed similar clerkships to you. I think a lot of people expect her to just know to do those things for them after one meeting, but you have to cultivate the relationship, keep her in the loop, let her know your goals.

Good for you. CLS alum who got my clerkship on one of CA2/SDNY with zero help from Saavedra, despite meeting with her several times, "keeping her in the loop," and "letting her know my goals." Her "advice," if you can call it that, was to apply to everyone from the most selective feeder judge in the country to magistrate judges in non-NY districts. She never offered to help me with recommenders, never offered to reach out to judges on my behalf (despite telling me she was speaking with a judge on my list), and never gave me any gauge of my competitiveness.

When the head of the clerkship program could be replaced with a poster saying "apply broadly," there's something wrong. And now that I've clerked, I've seen how clerkship directors from other schools quarterback outreach and sometimes reach out personally--which can really help move the needle. Setting aside the whining about mail merges, the title of this thread is entirely accurate, and it's embarrassing that a school of Columbia's caliber doesn't do better.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna blow your mind here, but maybe your specific experience isn't automatically everyone else's experience.

[Anonymous User]

Lol so much salt

[Anonymous User]

I'm a recent CLS alum (circuit clerkship, non 2/9/DC, 3.8 on the nose, no LR - so draw your conclusions about my in/abilities there).

My take is that Saavedra is not good with students. She is cold, standoffish, distant, oddly formal. (She once, I shit you not, started an email to me with "On opinion and belief," -- like, what are you doing?) However, she became ... very nice? An actual human being? once I got my clerkship. I don't get why she treats applicants that way. (Though CLS clerks who have seen her emails to chambers - she's gotta work on her people skills, for real, they're abysmal.)

Anyways, yeah, I think OJC's real job is to provide an honest 101. Nobody is shitting on Saavedra for not being able to pick up the phone and get Sack or Livingston to hire someone. But she doesn't give the basic info you get on TLS (it's all about professor relationships, take these classes, this is what you need for SD/EDNY, etc). If you don't have someone giving you that advice at CLS, you'll miss your chance without realizing it.

Re: the guy above who says you have to cultivate the relationship? That's insane, dude, her job is to do those things, you shouldn't need a relationship with the clerkships dean for her to help you. She's especially not the kind of person who invites building relationships.

[Anonymous User]

My take is that Saavedra is not good with students. She is cold, standoffish, distant, oddly formal. (She once, I shit you not, started an email to me with "On opinion and belief," -- like, what are you doing?) However, she became ... very nice? An actual human being? once I got my clerkship. I don't get why she treats applicants that way. (Though CLS clerks who have seen her emails to chambers - she's gotta work on her people skills, for real, they're abysmal.)

Not to dig up an old thread, but the one time I ever spoke with her, I mentioned my interest in legal academia and she immediately told me that clerkships were pointless for me, that I need to get a PhD, and basically ended any interest in me. When I pushed back on the PhD point, she told me that she's a professor and knows more about this than me, which I found both extremely condescending and ridiculous because she's an adjunct. I spoke about this experience to a young professor who both clerked and has a PhD, and he laughed hard and told me her advice was terrible. Haven't spoken with Saavedra since. I recommend Anne Green to anyone who wants to speak with someone at OJC who at least has some people skills.

[Anonymous User]

My take is that Saavedra is not good with students. She is cold, standoffish, distant, oddly formal. (She once, I shit you not, started an email to me with "On opinion and belief," -- like, what are you doing?) However, she became ... very nice? An actual human being? once I got my clerkship. I don't get why she treats applicants that way. (Though CLS clerks who have seen her emails to chambers - she's gotta work on her people skills, for real, they're abysmal.)

Not to dig up an old thread, but the one time I ever spoke with her, I mentioned my interest in legal academia and she immediately told me that clerkships were pointless for me, that I need to get a PhD, and basically ended any interest in me. When I pushed back on the PhD point, she told me that she's a professor and knows more about this than me, which I found both extremely condescending and ridiculous because she's an adjunct. I spoke about this experience to a young professor who both clerked and has a PhD, and he laughed hard and told me her advice was terrible. Haven't spoken with Saavedra since. I recommend Anne Green to anyone who wants to speak with someone at OJC who at least has some people skills.

Her advice is somewhat accurate if a little brusque: https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsbla ... ng-report/

Depending on your area of specialty, it would matter even more.

[Anonymous User]

Her advice is somewhat accurate if a little brusque: https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsbla ... ng-report/

Depending on your area of specialty, it would matter even more.

I'm very well aware of the Entry Level Hiring Report. I'm also in enough contact with young law professors to know that her advice was terrible. You don't need a PhD to become a law professor (which is what she was claiming). As one law professor I know put it, you should only enter a PhD program if you would have done so even if you didn't ever go to law school. PhDs do well on the law teaching market because they're afforded time to write academic pieces and build connections with faculty. But, there are many alternative routes.

Regardless, pursuing a clerkship isn't inherently a waste of time for somebody interested in legal academia, even if they're not a requirement or even helpful for attaining a tenure-track position. This is especially true for people who write about certain doctrinal issues (for example, I'd say somebody whose research focuses on Civil Procedure or Federal Courts would definitely benefit from a clerkship). Plus, depending on the judge, the experience could give you some time to focus on writing an article (especially if you're coming from big law) and give you a nice point to transition into VAPs or academic fellowships. Someone I know who was just hired as a professor ended up writing her job talk paper while clerking for an academic feeder judge who gave her time to focus on the article.

Sorry for the rant. This is just a touchy subject for me, lol. Always happy to receive pushback too; I don't claim to know it all. But, I think I know more than Dean Saavedra on this.

Edit: To add to this (and hopefully justify my frustration), she didn't even ask why I thought clerking would fit in with my plan to pursue law teaching. She just instantly wrote me off, as if there were zero justifications. That's just plain ignorant.

[Anonymous User]

Her advice is somewhat accurate if a little brusque: https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsbla ... ng-report/

Depending on your area of specialty, it would matter even more.

I'm very well aware of the Entry Level Hiring Report. I'm also in enough contact with young law professors to know that her advice was terrible. You don't need a PhD to become a law professor (which is what she was claiming). As one law professor I know put it, you should only enter a PhD program if you would have done so even if you didn't ever go to law school. PhDs do well on the law teaching market because they're afforded time to write academic pieces and build connections with faculty. But, there are many alternative routes.

Regardless, pursuing a clerkship isn't inherently a waste of time for somebody interested in legal academia, even if they're not a requirement or even helpful for attaining a tenure-track position. This is especially true for people who write about certain doctrinal issues (for example, I'd say somebody whose research focuses on Civil Procedure or Federal Courts would definitely benefit from a clerkship). Plus, depending on the judge, the experience could give you some time to focus on writing an article (especially if you're coming from big law) and give you a nice point to transition into VAPs or academic fellowships. Someone I know who was just hired as a professor ended up writing her job talk paper while clerking for an academic feeder judge who gave her time to focus on the article.

Sorry for the rant. This is just a touchy subject for me, lol. Always happy to receive pushback too; I don't claim to know it all. But, I think I know more than Dean Saavedra on this.

Edit: To add to this (and hopefully justify my frustration), she didn't even ask why I thought clerking would fit in with my plan to pursue law teaching. She just instantly wrote me off, as if there were zero justifications. That's just plain ignorant.

1. I agree all future litigators should clerk, and it's very odd for the clerkship dean at a law school to encourage people to not attempt clerking. It's also almost mandatory for plenty of academic jobs. But it's not odd to insist people serious about academia get a PhD as well. The vast majority of non-PhDs hired nowadays are either SCOTUS clerks or tax/business law professors. Law has become more much more empirical, and no one is getting hired as a Fed Courts professor nowadays.

2. Yes, you should only go to a PhD program if you would have gone without law school. Doing it just for the very unlikely event you will be in academia is a horrible idea.

3. Dean Saavedra is poor at dealing with non-superstar students and seems to underplay their ability to do almost anything, which is a real concern.

[Anonymous User]

If you came to Columbia to do academia, good luck to you.

[Anonymous User]

My take is that Saavedra is not good with students. She is cold, standoffish, distant, oddly formal. (She once, I shit you not, started an email to me with "On opinion and belief," -- like, what are you doing?) However, she became ... very nice? An actual human being? once I got my clerkship. I don't get why she treats applicants that way. (Though CLS clerks who have seen her emails to chambers - she's gotta work on her people skills, for real, they're abysmal.)

Not to dig up an old thread, but the one time I ever spoke with her, I mentioned my interest in legal academia and she immediately told me that clerkships were pointless for me, that I need to get a PhD, and basically ended any interest in me. When I pushed back on the PhD point, she told me that she's a professor and knows more about this than me, which I found both extremely condescending and ridiculous because she's an adjunct. I spoke about this experience to a young professor who both clerked and has a PhD, and he laughed hard and told me her advice was terrible. Haven't spoken with Saavedra since. I recommend Anne Green to anyone who wants to speak with someone at OJC who at least has some people skills.

She's an adjunct, what does she know? I'm a law student!

Also some of these young professors also give objectively bad (or at least unrelatable) career advice. I remember talking to one and it was basically "just do some groundbreaking research and someone will hire you. Thats what I did. Also probably helps if you clerked on SCOTUS like me, but not necessary." Like, ok bro I get that, but easier said than done...

IME, most professors tend to think everyone's a superstar (like they were). OJC and OCS tend (or pretend) to think everyone is mediocre, even when they're not.

[Anonymous User]

“Clerkships are useless for academia” is objectively horrendous advice though if the characterization is accurate. Academia is very hard in general, but academia without a Ph.D. and/or good clerkship is essentially impossible.

[Anonymous User]

She's an adjunct, what does she know? I'm a law student!

Also some of these young professors also give objectively bad (or at least unrelatable) career advice. I remember talking to one and it was basically "just do some groundbreaking research and someone will hire you. Thats what I did. Also probably helps if you clerked on SCOTUS like me, but not necessary." Like, ok bro I get that, but easier said than done...

IME, most professors tend to think everyone's a superstar (like they were). OJC and OCS tend (or pretend) to think everyone is mediocre, even when they're not.

What does an adjunct know about the law teaching market? Being an adjunct professor is a totally different role. To me, it was comparable to a partner at a firm giving me advice on becoming a law professor. I wouldn't even have been angry about it if it hadn't been totally unsolicited "advice". I went to speak with her about clerkships, and she spent the whole time talking about her takes on the law teaching market and how I shouldn't clerk.

I've spoken with a wide range of young professors. Sure, they all have different advice. But after speaking with so many, you at least gain some sense of the general trends of entry-level hiring these days. And I can guarantee you that none of them would have told me that clerking is a waste of time.

I'm not trying to attack Dean Saavedra on a personal level. I just want to make it known that Columbia has a Dean of Clerkships who tells some students that they shouldn't bother applying to clerkships (for what I believe are unjustifiable reasons). People can do what they want with that information.

[Anonymous User]

She's an adjunct, what does she know? I'm a law student!

Also some of these young professors also give objectively bad (or at least unrelatable) career advice. I remember talking to one and it was basically "just do some groundbreaking research and someone will hire you. Thats what I did. Also probably helps if you clerked on SCOTUS like me, but not necessary." Like, ok bro I get that, but easier said than done...

IME, most professors tend to think everyone's a superstar (like they were). OJC and OCS tend (or pretend) to think everyone is mediocre, even when they're not.

What does an adjunct know about the law teaching market? Being an adjunct professor is a totally different role. To me, it was comparable to a partner at a firm giving me advice on becoming a law professor. I wouldn't even have been angry about it if it hadn't been totally unsolicited "advice". I went to speak with her about clerkships, and she spent the whole time talking about her takes on the law teaching market and how I shouldn't clerk.

I've spoken with a wide range of young professors. Sure, they all have different advice. But after speaking with so many, you at least gain some sense of the general trends of entry-level hiring these days. And I can guarantee you that none of them would have told me that clerking is a waste of time.

I'm not trying to attack Dean Saavedra on a personal level. I just want to make it known that Columbia has a Dean of Clerkships who tells some students that they shouldn't bother applying to clerkships (for what I believe are unjustifiable reasons). People can do what they want with that information.

I am a JD/PhD graduate who clerked and will soon be on the market for legal academia. You are right that the advice not to get a clerkship, or the belief that having a clerkship does not materially help on the academic job market, is objectively terrible advice. It's somewhat shocking that someone put in that type of institutional role would say or believe that. It's borderline ignorant. (Both for tenure-track and adjunct positions.)