What does it take to be the kind of candidate who gets feeder/competitive clerkships? Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is a topic that has come up over and over again in various clerkship threads—you'll see candidates who are top 10%+ at their T-14 wondering why they haven't gotten any interview bites from feeder/semi-feeder/generally competitive judges. By this, I mean the judges who are even more selective than your traditional Article III clerkship.

There's the obvious profile markers you can aim for: graduate #1 in your T-14 (and even better if it's summa at HLS or equivalent at Y/S/Chicago), be EIC of flagship law review, have feeder professors at your school go to bat for you, publish an award-winning and novel note, etc. Ideally, all of the above.

But my question is antecedent to that: What do you think it takes to become the type of person with those stats? Is it really achievable through a matter of hard work and dumb luck? Anecdotally, it seems like you either need to be (a) the type of person born into generational connections, i.e., your parent was a SCOTUS clerk or judge, or (b) the type of person who overcame truly difficult life circumstances. In other words, is it really possible for the "average joe" (no compelling story, no compelling connections) to get those "gold star" clerkships?

[Anonymous User]

This is a topic that has come up over and over again in various clerkship threads—you'll see candidates who are top 10%+ at their T-14 wondering why they haven't gotten any interview bites from feeder/semi-feeder/generally competitive judges. By this, I mean the judges who are even more selective than your traditional Article III clerkship.

There's the obvious profile markers you can aim for: graduate #1 in your T-14 (and even better if it's summa at HLS or equivalent at Y/S/Chicago), be EIC of flagship law review, have feeder professors at your school go to bat for you, publish an award-winning and novel note, etc. Ideally, all of the above.

But my question is antecedent to that: What do you think it takes to become the type of person with those stats? Is it really achievable through a matter of hard work and dumb luck? Anecdotally, it seems like you either need to be (a) the type of person born into generational connections, i.e., your parent was a SCOTUS clerk or judge, or (b) the type of person who overcame truly difficult life circumstances. In other words, is it really possible for the "average joe" (no compelling story, no compelling connections) to get those "gold star" clerkships?

Yeah, it's possible. I graduated from NYU Law a while back and three people from my graduating class ended up getting SCOTUS clerkships. One was sort of well-known as the token conservative of our class. He got the award for third highest GPA, was really smart, and had recommendations from several professors who I'm sure were convinced he was stellar. The second had high grades but was not at the tippy top of the class; she already had a Ph.D. in a humanities subject. She was just a really smart, nice person who lots of people liked. The third received the award for highest GPA in the class but didn't really have anything else going for her that was immediately apparent to me (unlike the other two). I believe the first two had already published academic scholarship during law school but I don't believe the third did.

Obviously, you have to be smart enough but after that a whole bunch of other factors out of your control determine whether you ultimately get it.

[Anonymous User]

People get SCOTUS and feeder clerkships without those; plenty are very good but not necessarily exceptional law students who land one for whatever reason, even if they’re not super-connected. That’s easier to do the better your paper resume is, of course.

In particular, if you are conservative and in the top 10% at HYSC, you have very good odds of a feeder and probably 50% odds at SCOTUS. The same, probably moreso, if you are a URM.

Both feeders and the justices hire as if there is a large difference between T6 schools and the “lower” T14.

[Anonymous User]

I think the thing you’re overlooking is that people can make connections in school through being super smart. You don’t have to have connected parents or a compelling “overcome adversity” life story to get the top grades in the class, or become EIC of LR, or make good connections with profs.

Obviously those other factors help, but they’re also not sufficient. Connections or a compelling life story won’t make up for you being a doofus (although they probably make up for not being at the absolute top of the class).

Also those other factors look over-represented in top clerkships because they’re over-represented in top law schools in general. Law is relatively egalitarian in that if you have top stats, you can go to an elite school regardless where you come from, but the truth is that where you come from often influences where you go.

[Anonymous User]

This is a topic that has come up over and over again in various clerkship threads—you'll see candidates who are top 10%+ at their T-14 wondering why they haven't gotten any interview bites from feeder/semi-feeder/generally competitive judges. By this, I mean the judges who are even more selective than your traditional Article III clerkship.

There's the obvious profile markers you can aim for: graduate #1 in your T-14 (and even better if it's summa at HLS or equivalent at Y/S/Chicago), be EIC of flagship law review, have feeder professors at your school go to bat for you, publish an award-winning and novel note, etc. Ideally, all of the above.

But my question is antecedent to that: What do you think it takes to become the type of person with those stats? Is it really achievable through a matter of hard work and dumb luck? Anecdotally, it seems like you either need to be (a) the type of person born into generational connections, i.e., your parent was a SCOTUS clerk or judge, or (b) the type of person who overcame truly difficult life circumstances. In other words, is it really possible for the "average joe" (no compelling story, no compelling connections) to get those "gold star" clerkships?

Yeah, it's possible. I graduated from NYU Law a while back and three people from my graduating class ended up getting SCOTUS clerkships. One was sort of well-known as the token conservative of our class. He got the award for third highest GPA, was really smart, and had recommendations from several professors who I'm sure were convinced he was stellar. The second had high grades but was not at the tippy top of the class; she already had a Ph.D. in a humanities subject. She was just a really smart, nice person who lots of people liked. The third received the award for highest GPA in the class but didn't really have anything else going for her that was immediately apparent to me (unlike the other two). I believe the first two had already published academic scholarship during law school but I don't believe the third did.

Obviously, you have to be smart enough but after that a whole bunch of other factors out of your control determine whether you ultimately get it.

There were actually four people in that graduating class who got SCOTUS... last class from NYU to send anyone to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

I think the thing you’re overlooking is that people can make connections in school through being super smart. You don’t have to have connected parents or a compelling “overcome adversity” life story to get the top grades in the class, or become EIC of LR, or make good connections with profs.

Obviously those other factors help, but they’re also not sufficient. Connections or a compelling life story won’t make up for you being a doofus (although they probably make up for not being at the absolute top of the class).

Also those other factors look over-represented in top clerkships because they’re over-represented in top law schools in general. Law is relatively egalitarian in that if you have top stats, you can go to an elite school regardless where you come from, but the truth is that where you come from often influences where you go.

Agree, except that EIC of flagship LR so, so aggressively tracks non-grade metrics at this point that a significant number of conservative judges do not consider it in the slightest

[Anonymous User]

I think the thing you’re overlooking is that people can make connections in school through being super smart. You don’t have to have connected parents or a compelling “overcome adversity” life story to get the top grades in the class, or become EIC of LR, or make good connections with profs.

Obviously those other factors help, but they’re also not sufficient. Connections or a compelling life story won’t make up for you being a doofus (although they probably make up for not being at the absolute top of the class).

Also those other factors look over-represented in top clerkships because they’re over-represented in top law schools in general. Law is relatively egalitarian in that if you have top stats, you can go to an elite school regardless where you come from, but the truth is that where you come from often influences where you go.

Agree, except that EIC of flagship LR so, so aggressively tracks non-grade metrics at this point that a significant number of conservative judges do not consider it in the slightest

Fair enough, I was just discussing traditional brass rings (plus while I know there are more conservative feeders than liberal at this point, there are still probably some judges who like to see it).

[Anonymous User]

Feeder hiring is deeply entrenched in nepotism. This significantly narrows the available opportunities. Being well-acquainted with important professors and prominent law firm partners becomes markedly easier for those they prefer, while it becomes considerably more challenging for others. For example, professors often prefer to allocate their limited RA/TA positions to individuals with powerful connections, such as the Attorney General's daughter, Scalia's grandson, or the Vice President's daughter, who are practically assured to secure influential positions or have the attention of key figures, rather than taking a risk on other candidates

Additionally, consider that each Harvard Law class alone boasts 60 magna cum laude graduates, and some feeders believe that any Yale student, regardless of their grades, is superior to students from other institutions. Therefore, merely being in the top 10% of a T6 is not inherently impressive. Pre-law school accomplishments also play a significant role. For instance, graduating summa cum laude from Harvard as an undergraduate and serving as a Green Beret will attract more attention and leniency compared to graduating magna cum laude from a state school and merely being in the top 10% of your T6 law school. Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

[Anonymous User]

Feeder hiring is deeply entrenched in nepotism. This significantly narrows the available opportunities. Being well-acquainted with important professors and prominent law firm partners becomes markedly easier for those they prefer, while it becomes considerably more challenging for others. For example, professors often prefer to allocate their limited RA/TA positions to individuals with powerful connections, such as the Attorney General's daughter, Scalia's grandson, or the Vice President's daughter, who are practically assured to secure influential positions or have the attention of key figures, rather than taking a risk on other candidates

Additionally, consider that each Harvard Law class alone boasts 60 magna cum laude graduates, and some feeders believe that any Yale student, regardless of their grades, is superior to students from other institutions. Therefore, merely being in the top 10% of a T6 is not inherently impressive. Pre-law school accomplishments also play a significant role. For instance, graduating summa cum laude from Harvard as an undergraduate and serving as a Green Beret will attract more attention and leniency compared to graduating magna cum laude from a state school and merely being in the top 10% of your T6 law school. Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

[Anonymous User]

Feeder hiring is deeply entrenched in nepotism. This significantly narrows the available opportunities. Being well-acquainted with important professors and prominent law firm partners becomes markedly easier for those they prefer, while it becomes considerably more challenging for others. For example, professors often prefer to allocate their limited RA/TA positions to individuals with powerful connections, such as the Attorney General's daughter, Scalia's grandson, or the Vice President's daughter, who are practically assured to secure influential positions or have the attention of key figures, rather than taking a risk on other candidates

Additionally, consider that each Harvard Law class alone boasts 60 magna cum laude graduates, and some feeders believe that any Yale student, regardless of their grades, is superior to students from other institutions. Therefore, merely being in the top 10% of a T6 is not inherently impressive. Pre-law school accomplishments also play a significant role. For instance, graduating summa cum laude from Harvard as an undergraduate and serving as a Green Beret will attract more attention and leniency compared to graduating magna cum laude from a state school and merely being in the top 10% of your T6 law school. Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

Both can be true at the same time. Many qualified applicants who could be said to have earned the spots.

[Anonymous User]

It's really going to be mostly connections and soft factors. It is very rare to brute force your way—so to speak—into a feeder clerkship. Whereas someone with top 5% grades at a T6 can likely eventually brute force their way into a clerkship. The feeders are picking from such a select few with institutional and heavy hitter support. I'm sure it happens, but wouldn't count on it.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

Because it’s not dude look at the scotus stats — it is by and large still a white boy’s club. No one at that level needs to bump an application.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

Well, the URMs benefiting are predominantly very rich and well-connected. Feeder hiring is quite disheartening when you see how the sausage gets made.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

Well, the URMs benefiting are predominantly very rich and well-connected. Feeder hiring is quite disheartening when you see how the sausage gets made.

So it’s crazy you single them out as unique versus just other scotus clerks. SCOTUS is not engaging in affirmative action, and if it is, it is all the people who are nepotistic hires—who are almost all white or “ORMs.” There are no slots “for” URMs—all of the slots are “for” candidates the justices like the most. Stop denigrating people who aren’t white but deemed more competent and qualified based on one (literally) person’s judgment. Like Brett Kavanaugh is right there as “lower grade standards” but it’s URMs…the only affirmatively known justice who is below average, grade wise. racist idiots.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

The racism is implying the URMs are less qualified (“lower grade standards”). Anyone who knows anything about scotus hiring would know that the vast majority of “under qualified” applicants given a boost are white (or nepotism, your choice of words). Identifying URM clerks as reserved spots with lesser standards flouts empirics, history, and reason. This is the court that killed affirmative action after all.

Every year, ~80% of clerks are white. Many, many of them had connections. From my Y/S—plenty feeder clerks got their roles without even submitting an app. I do not know a single URM who was so lucky. But it’s URMs at SCOTUS earning their roles with considerable grace. Please.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

The racism is implying the URMs are less qualified (“lower grade standards”). Anyone who knows anything about scotus hiring would know that the vast majority of “under qualified” applicants given a boost are white (or nepotism, your choice of words). Identifying URM clerks as reserved spots with lesser standards flouts empirics, history, and reason. This is the court that killed affirmative action after all.

Every year, ~80% of clerks are white. Many, many of them had connections. From my Y/S—plenty feeder clerks got their roles without even submitting an app. I do not know a single URM who was so lucky. But it’s URMs at SCOTUS earning their roles with considerable grace. Please.

New poster. I think you're missing that both points can be true at once. Are URMs subject to lower grade standards than their white counterparts in elite clerkship hiring? Yes, undeniably. Are URMs still underrepresented at SCOTUS? Also, yes, undeniably.

Elite clerkship hiring is nepotistic. URM clerks benefit from nepotism less, on average, because they have fewer connections, on average. At the same time, most justices and feeders would love to have more URM clerks. SS and KBJ in particular both heavily favor non-white applicants, even reaching a bit in some cases.

All this sets up the punchline. Who is the most disadvantaged by this system? Moderate, liberal, white men from well-to-do backgrounds with no meaningful connections in law. Yet that is also one of the most common groups at SCOTUS. Why? They are the archetypal "gunner," there are a lot of of them, and for complex social and cultural reasons they are overrepresented at the top of the grade hierarchy.

These are just the facts, though. Whether any of this is desirable is a different question.

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

The racism is implying the URMs are less qualified (“lower grade standards”). Anyone who knows anything about scotus hiring would know that the vast majority of “under qualified” applicants given a boost are white (or nepotism, your choice of words). Identifying URM clerks as reserved spots with lesser standards flouts empirics, history, and reason. This is the court that killed affirmative action after all.

Every year, ~80% of clerks are white. Many, many of them had connections. From my Y/S—plenty feeder clerks got their roles without even submitting an app. I do not know a single URM who was so lucky. But it’s URMs at SCOTUS earning their roles with considerable grace. Please.

New poster. I think you're missing that both points can be true at once. Are URMs subject to lower grade standards than their white counterparts in elite clerkship hiring? Yes, undeniably. Are URMs still underrepresented at SCOTUS? Also, yes, undeniably.

Elite clerkship hiring is nepotistic. URM clerks benefit from nepotism less, on average, because they have fewer connections, on average. At the same time, most justices and feeders would love to have more URM clerks. SS and KBJ in particular both heavily favor non-white applicants, even reaching a bit in some cases.

All this sets up the punchline. Who is the most disadvantaged by this system? Moderate, liberal, white men from well-to-do backgrounds with no meaningful connections in law. Yet that is also one of the most common groups at SCOTUS. Why? They are the archetypal "gunner," there are a lot of of them, and for complex social and cultural reasons they are overrepresented at the top of the grade hierarchy.

These are just the facts, though. Whether any of this is desirable is a different question.

LMFAO

[Anonymous User]

Finally, feeders often prioritize class diversity. When they allocate a significant number of positions to friends and seek to fill a few slots with URM candidates, for whom they may lower grade standards considerably, the remaining opportunities become exceedingly limited.

I hate how racist you all are. They’re not “reserving” seats for URMs—URMs earn the already exceedingly limited seats.

“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”

If it is in fact the case that feeder judges *were* reserving seats for the most qualified URMs, would that even be such a bad thing? For centuries, rich white men have benefitted from connections through means largely unavailable to the rest of us. If a feeder judge wants to fill some sort of URM quota to balance the scales, I would argue that's totally fine. To suggest that every single URM who ends up in an elite position does so for reasons that 100% have nothing to do with their race is delusional and if you think it's offensive to point that out, then you're following the same logic of right-wing people who argue that the very concept of affirmative action is offensive to URMs in the first place.

The racism is implying the URMs are less qualified (“lower grade standards”). Anyone who knows anything about scotus hiring would know that the vast majority of “under qualified” applicants given a boost are white (or nepotism, your choice of words). Identifying URM clerks as reserved spots with lesser standards flouts empirics, history, and reason. This is the court that killed affirmative action after all.

Every year, ~80% of clerks are white. Many, many of them had connections. From my Y/S—plenty feeder clerks got their roles without even submitting an app. I do not know a single URM who was so lucky. But it’s URMs at SCOTUS earning their roles with considerable grace. Please.

New poster. I think you're missing that both points can be true at once. Are URMs subject to lower grade standards than their white counterparts in elite clerkship hiring? Yes, undeniably. Are URMs still underrepresented at SCOTUS? Also, yes, undeniably.

Elite clerkship hiring is nepotistic. URM clerks benefit from nepotism less, on average, because they have fewer connections, on average. At the same time, most justices and feeders would love to have more URM clerks. SS and KBJ in particular both heavily favor non-white applicants, even reaching a bit in some cases.

All this sets up the punchline. Who is the most disadvantaged by this system? Moderate, liberal, white men from well-to-do backgrounds with no meaningful connections in law. Yet that is also one of the most common groups at SCOTUS. Why? They are the archetypal "gunner," there are a lot of of them, and for complex social and cultural reasons they are overrepresented at the top of the grade hierarchy.

These are just the facts, though. Whether any of this is desirable is a different question.

LMFAO

There is a legitimate empirical debate to be had regarding these issues.

See this piece by Richard Sander: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2023/03 ... e-thought/

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions in the above piece, but, at the same time, you can't really credibly dismiss the above poster's point with a "LMFAO".

Just food for thought.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, you can pretty easily dismiss the claim about over representation of“[m]oderate, liberal, white men from well-to-do backgrounds” in the top grade brackets being “just the facts.”

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, you can pretty easily dismiss the claim about over representation of“[m]oderate, liberal, white men from well-to-do backgrounds” in the top grade brackets being “just the facts.”

You're so far left you don't even see that you're undermining your own position. Table the empirical point for a minute. Do you or do you not believe that structural biases exist in law school that favor--all else equal--white folks over BIPOC folks, wealthy folks over less-wealthy ones, etc.? If you do, then surely you'd predict a statistical skew at the top of the curve. If you don't, great! No need for affirmative action or preferential hiring by law firms or judges. It has to be one of the two. Pick your poison.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, you can pretty easily dismiss the claim about over representation of“[m]oderate, liberal, white men from well-to-do backgrounds” in the top grade brackets being “just the facts.”

You're so far left you don't even see that you're undermining your own position. Table the empirical point for a minute. Do you or do you not believe that structural biases exist in law school that favor--all else equal--white folks over BIPOC folks, wealthy folks over less-wealthy ones, etc.? If you do, then surely you'd predict a statistical skew at the top of the curve. If you don't, great! No need for affirmative action or preferential hiring by law firms or judges. It has to be one of the two. Pick your poison.

Different person, but as far as I'm aware, the top 10 for my graduating year at a T-14 didn't skew noticeably male or female, liberal or conservative, moderate or radical, wealthy or not wealthy. So color me a bit skeptical about that statement being "just the facts."

[Anonymous User]

Depends on what we mean by "feeder." If you're just talking Katsas/Thapar/Sutton-tier consistent feeders, then most of what I've seen from my HYS class have been fedsoc/fedsoc-proximate, mostly (but certainly not exclusively) white, straight, and male.

If you spread the definition to judges who have indirectly fed or feed more rarely (e.g. Walker/Barron/Tymkovich) the population of clerks are much broader and more diverse.

Frankly, the issue is that feeder hires are done in the shadow of SCOTUS, and while not all SCOTUS hiring is ideological, enough is that conservatives (who skew white and male) will be massively overrepresented. If you're a judge that wants to place clerks on the Court, you will naturally swing to hire those candidates that you think stand a reasonable chance.

I do recall that, at least in my class, conservative white men also tended to be near the top of the grades spectrum, especially those who (a) had significant pre-law work experience (particularly vets) or (b) had parents who clerked. If you cut those two buckets out the remaining population looks considerably more diverse while still skewing a bit white, straight, and male.

[Anonymous User]

[deleted]