Columbia's Clerkship Office is Awful Forum

[Anonymous User]

CLS alum, clerked on CA2. ~3.7 was basically table stakes, and people we seriously considered were usually well above. A+s were not a requirement and were only a meaningful boost if they were in a real class.

Two main problems I saw with CLS apps:
- Lack of meaningful faculty support, including perfunctory letters and failures to call. Some of the bigger names at CLS wrote letters that actively harmed the applicant. This happened everywhere, but it seemed to happen very frequently at CLS.
- Notably stupid course selection relative to other schools. My hypothesis was that this came from some (incorrect) perception that getting Kent is all-important, even if achieved through fake grades. We saw tons of transcripts with maybe 2 or 3 exam classes across 2L/3L, with the rest some combination of Note credit, RA credit, clinics, and non-rigorous seminars. Those people got rejected. The clerkship office is doing applicants a disservice if they're not qualifying "get Kent" advice with "in real classes."

This is so true. My judge was not overly familiar with Columbia (we got a lot of apps from CLS every year but it wasn't one of the 3-4 schools he most commonly hires from), but he knew Kent = "good" and he'd ask us to flag the Kent applicants. Then he'd complain that none of the Columbia transcripts had any real classes on them, and we'd be off to calculating GPA's from Penn by hand (Penn registrar, if you are reading this: your policy of giving letter grades but not calculating GPA in order to avoid disadvantaging your students is the single dumbest and most obnoxious thing any law school does. And it takes a lot to beat Chicago's system.)

What would be a good rule of thumb for course selection? Is there a minimum number of BLLs to take each semester/each year?

[Anonymous User]

CLS alum, clerked on CA2. ~3.7 was basically table stakes, and people we seriously considered were usually well above. A+s were not a requirement and were only a meaningful boost if they were in a real class.

Two main problems I saw with CLS apps:
- Lack of meaningful faculty support, including perfunctory letters and failures to call. Some of the bigger names at CLS wrote letters that actively harmed the applicant. This happened everywhere, but it seemed to happen very frequently at CLS.
- Notably stupid course selection relative to other schools. My hypothesis was that this came from some (incorrect) perception that getting Kent is all-important, even if achieved through fake grades. We saw tons of transcripts with maybe 2 or 3 exam classes across 2L/3L, with the rest some combination of Note credit, RA credit, clinics, and non-rigorous seminars. Those people got rejected. The clerkship office is doing applicants a disservice if they're not qualifying "get Kent" advice with "in real classes."

How many real classes do you need to take 2L? OJC says 4 is solid, is that wrong?

[Anonymous User]

I wholeheartedly concur that CLS gets burned by the fact that Professors often refuse to deviate from The Plan. This also adds an added element of unfairness because whether you get a clerkship can depend on which section you got sorted into as a 1L, which seems quite wonky. CLS would be better off if the admin would tell professors it is ok to write letters. I don't think any other schools have such strict adherence to The Plan.

[Wild Card]

The issue is that we are borrowing $400,000 at 7% interest and not receiving commensurate services from our judicial clerkships offices and faculty members.

That said, countless other law schools provide nowhere near the support that the T6/T14 law schools do.

Even adjusting the letterhead of letters and paying for postage, is something. Though it's still not enough.

[Anonymous User]

The issue is that we are borrowing $400,000 at 7% interest and not receiving commensurate services from our judicial clerkships offices and faculty members.

That said, countless other law schools provide nowhere near the support that the T6/T14 law schools do.

Even adjusting the letterhead of letters and paying for postage, is something. Though it's still not enough.

CLS stopped processing applications after June 15 so students have to handle all of that on their own now. I understand that other schools have to do that, but it seemed pretty shitty for them to shut it down when pre-pandemic they would pay to send out applications for students year-round.

[Anonymous User]

I wholeheartedly concur that CLS gets burned by the fact that Professors often refuse to deviate from The Plan. This also adds an added element of unfairness because whether you get a clerkship can depend on which section you got sorted into as a 1L, which seems quite wonky. CLS would be better off if the admin would tell professors it is ok to write letters. I don't think any other schools have such strict adherence to The Plan.

The Yale faculty strictly adheres to The Plan. Off-plan hiring goes through FedSoc (or other external channels) without the support of professor recommendations.

[Anonymous User]

How many real classes do you need to take 2L? OJC says 4 is solid, is that wrong?

Different clerk, but hopefully helpful. 4 BLL classes is necessary, but I’d say to be actually competitive you’d need around 6-7 classes or “things” that my judge respected. This means 2 BLL classes, and then usually seminars with professors that judge respected and that didn’t sound like you spent the entire semester holding hands and talking about your feelings. This isn’t to knock the public interest clinics and externships people did — my judge actually values and tries to promote students going into public interest. But you need to take real classes too.

But even a Note with a professor that Judge respected could count -- though the advisor writing a glittering recommendation on behalf of the applicant would be mandatory.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I went 2 BLL per semester and filled the rest of my credits in with a Note, a TA gig, and a serious seminar each semester. I should mention that I had one of my recommenders explain the topic of my seminar paper, which was something that judges liked.

[Anonymous User]

How many real classes do you need to take 2L? OJC says 4 is solid, is that wrong?

Different clerk, but hopefully helpful. 4 BLL classes is necessary, but I’d say to be actually competitive you’d need around 6-7 classes or “things” that my judge respected. This means 2 BLL classes, and then usually seminars with professors that judge respected and that didn’t sound like you spent the entire semester holding hands and talking about your feelings. This isn’t to knock the public interest clinics and externships people did — my judge actually values and tries to promote students going into public interest. But you need to take real classes too.

But even a Note with a professor that Judge respected could count -- though the advisor writing a glittering recommendation on behalf of the applicant would be mandatory.

It's so hard to do 6-7 at CLS if you're a public interest person who needs to take experiential stuff both semesters and also write a note.

Edit: Like 2 BLL and an externship each semester gets you up to 11-12, then a Note/RA position is a couple credits...is the expectation that we would max out on credits each semester?

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I went 2 BLL per semester and filled the rest of my credits in with a Note, a TA gig, and a serious seminar each semester. I should mention that I had one of my recommenders explain the topic of my seminar paper, which was something that judges liked.

I did even less, but I'm probably an outlier. 2 per semester sounds about right to me.

[Anonymous User]

How many real classes do you need to take 2L? OJC says 4 is solid, is that wrong?

Different clerk, but hopefully helpful. 4 BLL classes is necessary, but I’d say to be actually competitive you’d need around 6-7 classes or “things” that my judge respected. This means 2 BLL classes, and then usually seminars with professors that judge respected and that didn’t sound like you spent the entire semester holding hands and talking about your feelings. This isn’t to knock the public interest clinics and externships people did — my judge actually values and tries to promote students going into public interest. But you need to take real classes too.

But even a Note with a professor that Judge respected could count -- though the advisor writing a glittering recommendation on behalf of the applicant would be mandatory.

It's so hard to do 6-7 at CLS if you're a public interest person who needs to take experiential stuff both semesters and also write a note.

Edit: Like 2 BLL and an externship each semester gets you up to 11-12, then a Note/RA position is a couple credits...is the expectation that we would max out on credits each semester?

There is no "expectation," you can do whatever you want. If multiple black-letter courses per semester isn't something you want to do, or isn't compatible w/your professional goals, or w/e, that's perfectly fine.

But my chambers wouldn't interview you without it. Like, ultimately it's your job to persuade us that you're an exceptional student--that you're near the top of your class notwithstanding a rigorous courseload. And a bunch of A-range grades in clinics, graded notes, and squishy law-and seminars doesn't do that.

Like, look at it from chambers' perspective: There are 3-4 spots, and a million applicants from across the T14. Way more people with great grades in hard classes from good schools than we could ever possibly interview. Maybe you would have got those great grades in rigorous classes, but maybe you wouldn't have. Why take the risk that you're a dud, when we can go with the real deal?

(The purpose/effect of this isn't to exclude people who do clinics. A lot of people do clinics and take multiple black-letter classes---I can say that w/a ton of confidence, having reviewed their applications.)

[Anonymous User]

How many real classes do you need to take 2L? OJC says 4 is solid, is that wrong?

Different clerk, but hopefully helpful. 4 BLL classes is necessary, but I’d say to be actually competitive you’d need around 6-7 classes or “things” that my judge respected. This means 2 BLL classes, and then usually seminars with professors that judge respected and that didn’t sound like you spent the entire semester holding hands and talking about your feelings. This isn’t to knock the public interest clinics and externships people did — my judge actually values and tries to promote students going into public interest. But you need to take real classes too.

But even a Note with a professor that Judge respected could count -- though the advisor writing a glittering recommendation on behalf of the applicant would be mandatory.

It's so hard to do 6-7 at CLS if you're a public interest person who needs to take experiential stuff both semesters and also write a note.

Edit: Like 2 BLL and an externship each semester gets you up to 11-12, then a Note/RA position is a couple credits...is the expectation that we would max out on credits each semester?

There is no "expectation," you can do whatever you want. If multiple black-letter courses per semester isn't something you want to do, or isn't compatible w/your professional goals, or w/e, that's perfectly fine.

But my chambers wouldn't interview you without it. Like, ultimately it's your job to persuade us that you're an exceptional student--that you're near the top of your class notwithstanding a rigorous courseload. And a bunch of A-range grades in clinics, graded notes, and squishy law-and seminars doesn't do that.

Like, look at it from chambers' perspective: There are 3-4 spots, and a million applicants from across the T14. Way more people with great grades in hard classes from good schools than we could ever possibly interview. Maybe you would have got those great grades in rigorous classes, but maybe you wouldn't have. Why take the risk that you're a dud, when we can go with the real deal?

(The purpose/effect of this isn't to exclude people who do clinics. A lot of people do clinics and take multiple black-letter classes---I can say that w/a ton of confidence, having reviewed their applications.)

Yeah, I get that you need to get As in 2 BLL per semester. I'm asking if 2 per semester, but no more, is an okay look if you're taking an externship and writing a note.

[Anonymous User]

How many real classes do you need to take 2L? OJC says 4 is solid, is that wrong?

Different clerk, but hopefully helpful. 4 BLL classes is necessary, but I’d say to be actually competitive you’d need around 6-7 classes or “things” that my judge respected. This means 2 BLL classes, and then usually seminars with professors that judge respected and that didn’t sound like you spent the entire semester holding hands and talking about your feelings. This isn’t to knock the public interest clinics and externships people did — my judge actually values and tries to promote students going into public interest. But you need to take real classes too.

But even a Note with a professor that Judge respected could count -- though the advisor writing a glittering recommendation on behalf of the applicant would be mandatory.

It's so hard to do 6-7 at CLS if you're a public interest person who needs to take experiential stuff both semesters and also write a note.

Edit: Like 2 BLL and an externship each semester gets you up to 11-12, then a Note/RA position is a couple credits...is the expectation that we would max out on credits each semester?

There is no "expectation," you can do whatever you want. If multiple black-letter courses per semester isn't something you want to do, or isn't compatible w/your professional goals, or w/e, that's perfectly fine.

But my chambers wouldn't interview you without it. Like, ultimately it's your job to persuade us that you're an exceptional student--that you're near the top of your class notwithstanding a rigorous courseload. And a bunch of A-range grades in clinics, graded notes, and squishy law-and seminars doesn't do that.

Like, look at it from chambers' perspective: There are 3-4 spots, and a million applicants from across the T14. Way more people with great grades in hard classes from good schools than we could ever possibly interview. Maybe you would have got those great grades in rigorous classes, but maybe you wouldn't have. Why take the risk that you're a dud, when we can go with the real deal?

(The purpose/effect of this isn't to exclude people who do clinics. A lot of people do clinics and take multiple black-letter classes---I can say that w/a ton of confidence, having reviewed their applications.)

We know you need multiple BLL per semester, but do you need *more* than 2 per semester, assuming you are taking clinics/externships and writing a note?

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I dunno how to answer these questions other than, "More black-letters is always better."

Like, if you do four black-letters across two semesters, get all A-range grades, and fill out with "real" seminars, a note, and the clinic, that looks pretty good.

If you do the same thing but get two B+s, an A-, and an A in the black-letters, it looks not-so-impressive. Then if some of the seminars are eye-roll-y, and your 1L year wasn't amazing...

Personally, I looked at two per semester as the minimum, and not the best strategy for maximizing clerkship opportunities.

Hopefully that's helpful.

EDIT: Also just want to emphasize--not trying to be condescending/hostile. This is a tough process, I was pretty stressed all through law school, had similar questions.

EDIT 2: Basically agree w/subsequent post quoting this one.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I dunno how to answer these questions other than, "More black-letters is always better."

Like, if you do four black-letters across two semesters, get all A-range grades, and fill out with "real" seminars, a note, and the clinic, that looks pretty good.

If you do the same thing but get two B+s, an A-, and an A in the black-letters, it looks not-so-impressive. Then if some of the seminars are eye-roll-y, and your 1L year wasn't amazing...

Personally, I looked at two per semester as the minimum, and not the best strategy for maximizing clerkship opportunities.

Hopefully that's helpful.

It's so much more what you take than a rigid formula. Take Fed Courts and Admin and do well in both, and that's a great foundation for many judges. Legislation, conflicts, crim pro, advanced civ pro, and "serious" conlaw classes are all solid courses that look good on a clerkship resume. If you have a lot of classes like these, you can probably afford to take fewer overall BLL classes. Other BLL classes like T&E, tax, environmental law, international law, labor law, family law, etc. will all look much better than joke classes but won't jump off the page. There's also a big difference in how "real" and "fake" seminars will be perceived. A transcript heavy on "real" seminars, especially with profs who have written good LoR's for you, and with good grades in the core BLL classes, isn't going to be a problem for most judges.

[Anonymous User]

What are “real” seminars? I want to take advanced legal research because it looks useful but am worried it isn’t considered substantive.

[Anonymous User]

What are “real” seminars? I want to take advanced legal research because it looks useful but am worried it isn’t considered substantive.

You can take Advanced Legal Research, but it isn't going to move the needle at all -- which is fine, I took Sports law as an example. Roughly speaking though, substantive seminars are ones that don't have weird-sounding names, are taught by big names on the faculty, and require a ton of writing.

[Anonymous User]

What are “real” seminars? I want to take advanced legal research because it looks useful but am worried it isn’t considered substantive.

to give a few examples -- Sentencing, Judge Sullivan's jurisprudence class, Appellate Advocacy, the various Supreme Court seminars taught by Verrilli/Metzger/DC appellate partners

you could do a lot worse than Advanced Legal Research though. heard decent things, probably useful.

[Anonymous User]

What are “real” seminars? I want to take advanced legal research because it looks useful but am worried it isn’t considered substantive.

You can take Advanced Legal Research, but it isn't going to move the needle at all -- which is fine, I took Sports law as an example. Roughly speaking though, substantive seminars are ones that don't have weird-sounding names, are taught by big names on the faculty, and require a ton of writing.

Yeah I wouldn't worry about taking a few "easy" seminars/gut classes (and I'm not sure I would consider Advanced Legal Research in that category). If the course seems interesting, enroll. Just don't also enroll in three other seminars.

[Anonymous User]

It's so much more what you take than a rigid formula. Take Fed Courts and Admin and do well in both, and that's a great foundation for many judges. Legislation, conflicts, crim pro, advanced civ pro, and "serious" conlaw classes are all solid courses that look good on a clerkship resume. If you have a lot of classes like these, you can probably afford to take fewer overall BLL classes. Other BLL classes like T&E, tax, environmental law, international law, labor law, family law, etc. will all look much better than joke classes but won't jump off the page. There's also a big difference in how "real" and "fake" seminars will be perceived. A transcript heavy on "real" seminars, especially with profs who have written good LoR's for you, and with good grades in the core BLL classes, isn't going to be a problem for most judges.

I did not go to columbia, but we reviewed CLS packets and interviewed a couple CLS candidates when I clerked on 2/9/DC (non-feeder). I am sure there is some amount of deviation between judges, but this sounds right for my judge. We really cared that you had admin and fed courts and did well in them. I don't think most people appreciate how helpful having good foundation in admin is for clerking on a COA at least; maybe it's different at a D.Ct.

Outside of that, a transcript not looking "soft" (i.e.: not filled with seminars that sound like jokes) was more important than, say, a transcript full of the hardest BLL classes possible if that would result in more than marginally lower grades. If we had a Kent with half hard BLL classes and half joke seminars, and a low/mid stone with all hard BLL, the Kent is almost definitely getting the harder look all else equal; there isn't enough time to review apps to dive into the precise difficulty-of-transcript for every packet that comes through. Of course if the goal is feeder, maybe you need all the hardest BLL and to have killed it in each of them; I don't know, since I didn't clerk for one. I suspect that it's much more about impressing the right people who will got to bat for you and/or having fedsoc connections.

[Anonymous User]

Outside of that, a transcript not looking "soft" (i.e.: not filled with seminars that sound like jokes) was more important than, say, a transcript full of the hardest BLL classes possible if that would result in more than marginally lower grades. If we had a Kent with half hard BLL classes and half joke seminars, and a low/mid stone with all hard BLL, the Kent is almost definitely getting the harder look all else equal; there isn't enough time to review apps to dive into the precise difficulty-of-transcript for every packet that comes through.

Right, do'nt think anyone was saying "take BLL and that'll save your low/mid Stone GPA," more "you're not fooling anyone with a 3.7 based on gut classes." like, the 3.7 cumulative is necessary, and so is the rigorous courseload. neither is sufficient.

I was stressing this BLL point earlier in the thread because our chambers saw a good number of applications from CLS students w/average 1L grades, and amazing (on a GPA basis) 2L and 3L grades, but w/maybe five black-letter classes total across four semesters, and a bunch of nonsense seminars.

To the extent that there was some (mis)understanding among the CLS student body (perhaps created by OJC) that Kent = competitive clerkship, regardless of coursework, I wanted to correct that. That's all.

[Anonymous User]

Above-quoted anon: that makes sense. Just trying to prevent overcorrection -- grades are still the first cut, so some of the advice upthread (not sure by you or others, since we're all anon) to maximize BLL above all else struck me as probably bad strategy. Also FWIW none of my coclerks were from CLS and I don't think any of us had heard of this "2 BLL per semester" thing or applied it. The only point at which "difficulty-of-transcript" really came in was in the second round of review (i.e., after we had trimmed from 500+ apps to 30-40) and it was a much more intuitive scan (does this transcript look artificially inflated by floofy seminars) than anything else.

[Anonymous User]

What are “real” seminars? I want to take advanced legal research because it looks useful but am worried it isn’t considered substantive.

to give a few examples -- Sentencing, Judge Sullivan's jurisprudence class, Appellate Advocacy, the various Supreme Court seminars taught by Verrilli/Metzger/DC appellate partners

you could do a lot worse than Advanced Legal Research though. heard decent things, probably useful.

I'm the anon who referenced real and fake seminars and listed class examples and want to clarify that I didn't go to CLS, but just reviewed a lot of CLS applications as a clerk.

These here all sound like good examples of seminars that would impress my judge. Something that sounds academically rigorous, involves a lot of writing, is on a very practical topic like sentencing/death penalty/the FRCP etc., or is taught by a big name professor (or even better, a judge) will not be viewed as a soft class. The stereotypical "and the law" courses, or seminars that sound like undergrad sociology and philosophy classes, will.

[Anonymous User]

I think the Kent issue at CLS is that it's a pre-determined target rather than a percentage of the class. So we'd see applicants with just below Kent grades in the fall, and then in the spring they'd take a bunch of joke classes to make sure they got Kent. In most cases, they would have been better off taking a rigorous spring courseload: They could make up for a good-not-great semester with a strong followup performance in tough classes, but a joke semester was (at least sometimes) itself grounds for elimination.

This wasn't a hard-and-fast rule, and if we had a 3L applicant with good performance in real classes for 3 semesters and then one blowoff semester it wasn't the end of the world. But for 2L applicants in particular, one fake semester would be more than enough to get put in the discard pile. As people have said upthread, desirable clerkships get many more "qualified" applicants than there are slots; it might seem unfair, but we had to find ways to cross people off the list.

TL;DR: Some applicants seemed to think a 3.80 in fake classes was better than a 3.79 in tough classes, because Kent is all-important. That was generally not the right way to think about it.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I dunno how to answer these questions other than, "More black-letters is always better."

Like, if you do four black-letters across two semesters, get all A-range grades, and fill out with "real" seminars, a note, and the clinic, that looks pretty good.

If you do the same thing but get two B+s, an A-, and an A in the black-letters, it looks not-so-impressive. Then if some of the seminars are eye-roll-y, and your 1L year wasn't amazing...

Personally, I looked at two per semester as the minimum, and not the best strategy for maximizing clerkship opportunities.

Hopefully that's helpful.

It's so much more what you take than a rigid formula. Take Fed Courts and Admin and do well in both, and that's a great foundation for many judges. Legislation, conflicts, crim pro, advanced civ pro, and "serious" conlaw classes are all solid courses that look good on a clerkship resume. If you have a lot of classes like these, you can probably afford to take fewer overall BLL classes. Other BLL classes like T&E, tax, environmental law, international law, labor law, family law, etc. will all look much better than joke classes but won't jump off the page. There's also a big difference in how "real" and "fake" seminars will be perceived. A transcript heavy on "real" seminars, especially with profs who have written good LoR's for you, and with good grades in the core BLL classes, isn't going to be a problem for most judges.

As of next year, CLS is apparently no longer offering Admin Law.