Sociologically speaking, why are some judges considered more prestigious than others in the same court? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

Yeah no doubt that they all do, but feel like hiring HLS summa is more of a statement about someone's intended selectivity than being one of the many judges that pulls from people who graduated magna and were on secondary journal or something

Yep, every HLS Summa from the past 15 years has clerked for SCOTUS with one exception.

Damn, really? What year was the one exception? What went wrong there? Not a big SCOTUS nerd but that's just statistically/sociologically interesting.

Pure speculation, but I imagine they just weren't interested in it

I know a Fay Diploma winner that never worked in law, became head of a real estate firm, and has a net worth of a hundred million or more. (He was also an absolutely terrible human being, but we don't need to get into that).

I'm honestly surprised more don't skip law entirely. If you are that smart, there is way more money to be had in other fields, and plenty of Yale Law grads go down that route.

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

I'd have some questions about why they were not hired by Srinivasan.

Same. I'd be curious who was the most recent HLS summa who did not get hired by the summer before their 2L year. Either this person had a killer 3L year or was unusually patient for a high-achieving person who would have had numerous feeder-level offers the year before if he/she had applied then.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

Important observation. You can have outstanding grades from a top school and not stand a chance. Add to your list the children of the above-named judges too (won't dox the judge or child, but you can find out through Google and Wikipedia).

is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

So, to answer this question having just stated the above, I would maybe prefer grades plus random COA over mediocre grades and Feeder. Wouldn't have people quietly wondering "how did they get that clerkship?" (where the non-0% answer is an unattainable personal connection). Possible that I would feel differently if I actually had a Feeder clerkship though.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

Not mine. At least 3/4 recent hires aren’t

[Anonymous User]

This entire conservation ignores the fact feeders become who they are because they are almost always well connected in the very small world of high end appellate litigation and politics, so they already have networks to grab top end students from day 1. They also spend a lot of time networking on behalf of their clerks. And naturally, those same people are more than happy to have their kids clerk for their friends. The only person who really breaks from this mold is Thapar, and he is a one of a kind networker that spent about a decade ingraining himself with that crowd.

Henderson doesn’t have the same cache because she’s not from that world and barely spends anytime in DC. Same with Wilkins, sorta Walker, probably Childs, and there’s a few more I’m sure I’ve missed. All that being said, it’s significantly better to have a clerkship with one of them than to not have one, and the idea firms are turning their nose up at a DC Circuit clerk on the whole is pretty laughable.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Better for what? Those are both great circumstances to be in. There isn't a neat hierarchy that governs all - it depends. Trying to parse things this finely is ridiculously pointless.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Better for what? Those are both great circumstances to be in. There isn't a neat hierarchy that governs all - it depends. Trying to parse things this finely is ridiculously pointless.

Better for elite lit options. I know it’s ridiculous to parse but I’m mainly just wondering if getting a feeder primarily through sheer good fortune makes up for below average grades, at least by typical elite lit standards.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

Not mine. At least 3/4 recent hires aren’t

At my HYSC, the people he’s hired are solidly within the top 10% and are what I’d call “feed candidates.”

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

Yeah Bibas hires candidates he’s unlikely to feed bc they’re liberal but that’s in part because he doesn’t compromise on grades

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

Yeah Bibas hires candidates he’s unlikely to feed bc they’re liberal but that’s in part because he doesn’t compromise on grades

I’m surprised he never hires people who ace his class but otherwise don’t have tippy top grades. I’ve seen judges who teach do this.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

Yeah Bibas hires candidates he’s unlikely to feed bc they’re liberal but that’s in part because he doesn’t compromise on grades

Now that he's fed to Kagan I wonder if he's attracting even more of the tippy-top liberals. There are only so many Srinivasan/Pillard slots.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Better for what? Those are both great circumstances to be in. There isn't a neat hierarchy that governs all - it depends. Trying to parse things this finely is ridiculously pointless.

Better for elite lit options. I know it’s ridiculous to parse but I’m mainly just wondering if getting a feeder primarily through sheer good fortune makes up for below average grades, at least by typical elite lit standards.

I'm not sure that it makes up for below average grades, but a feeder clerkship is valuable not just because of the prestige of the resume line, but because of the network that it opens up. Knowing a well-connected feeder judge and having them advocate for you throughout your career, plus being part of a well-connected clerk family, is extremely valuable. A lot of the most elite of elite lit jobs are filled through word of mouth. In an ideal world, it's good to have both tippy-top grades and the elite network to match, but count me among those who thinks that the social network will matter more, and longer, than the grades will.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the above (especially because “below average for a feeder” grades are still probably not actually bad grades).

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I am stunned that the prestige-obsessed netizens of TLS can be so clearly wrongheaded about this. The only situation where the marginal difference in prestige between appellate clerkships will matter will be when it comes to appellate litigation groups. And exactly zero partners in appellate litigation will consider a Henderson clerkship more favorably than a clerkship with Sutton, Wilkinson, Pryor, Grant, Oldham, Watford, Lohier, Bibas, Newsom, Barron, or even top district court judge like Kovner or Engelmayer. That takes nothing away from Henderson or any other DCC judge -- it's a tremendous experience and credential. But no one who actually cares about these things will be impressed by location or circuit, they'll be impressed by the fact that you came from the same judge as all the most impressive applicants (i.e., the feeders).

The most prestigious judges are the feeders, and that's because feeders get the highest-quality clerks. It's a chicken and egg problem -- is a judge a feeder because they recruited great clerks, or do they have great clerks because they have fed -- but at the end of the day, professionals who CARE about the prestige know these judges and they know where the best students are going. The real trick to this prestige thing is to look at the children and family friends of the most elite appellate lawyers in the country. Who are they clerking for? (All the judges I listed above, sans Henderson)

What if a person happens to get hired by one of those judges without the top grades or any connections? I have a close friend who got one of those clerkships cum laude from a T10 with no family or political connections. Good grades but not normally what you expect for a feeder. Is it better to have good grades and a feeder clerkship or great grades and a standard COA?

Bibas is more quirky than selective. Hires many good but not greats alongside legit feed candidates.

This feels off. He is known for caring much much more about grades than other judges. The people from my school he has hired have all been in the “feed candidates” category.

Yeah Bibas hires candidates he’s unlikely to feed bc they’re liberal but that’s in part because he doesn’t compromise on grades

I’m surprised he never hires people who ace his class but otherwise don’t have tippy top grades. I’ve seen judges who teach do this.

This isn’t true.