Columbia's Clerkship Office is Awful Forum

[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.

What do law students know? I'm not defending her "dont clerk if you want academia" advice (I think its wrong as well). And maybe she was condescending; I wasn't there. But I dont get this whole "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." If you don't value adjuncts, dont talk to adjuncts. The idea a lowly adjunct can't know more than you smacks of elitism.

[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.

My tax prof had a PhD...

[Anonymous User]

What do law students know? I'm not defending her "dont clerk if you want academia" advice (I think its wrong as well). And maybe she was condescending; I wasn't there. But I dont get this whole "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." If you don't value adjuncts, dont talk to adjuncts. The idea a lowly adjunct can't know more than you smacks of elitism.

You're reading way too much into what I'm saying. I'm not dunking on adjuncts; I've had plenty of great adjunct professors. My point was just that it's silly to say that you know about the law teaching market simply because you're an adjunct professor. That means nothing. Adjuncts haven't been exposed to the tenure-track hiring process; being one doesn't make them inherently more knowledgeable about legal academia than a law student. Now, if she'd said "I've spoken with many people who've gone through the hiring process, and this is what they've told me", I wouldn't be complaining. But that's not what happened. She basically just said that she's a professor and therefore knows what she's talking about.