Top Law Schools

Hi Everyone,

This might be a stupid/silly question, or posted in the wrong place, but I dont know where else to post it.

Anyway, when comparing clerkship rates from each school, why do people only compare federal rates? Are state level clerkships not-competitive? or not conducive/prestigious/open any doors as opposed to federal clerkships?

State level clerkships tend to be less competitive and less desirable. State supreme court clerkships are closer on par in competition and desirability to federal clerkships, but the value of SSC clerkships is not nearly as uniform across firms.

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:Hi Everyone,

This might be a stupid/silly question, or posted in the wrong place, but I dont know where else to post it.

Anyway, when comparing clerkship rates from each school, why do people only compare federal rates? Are state level clerkships not-competitive? or not conducive/prestigious/open any doors as opposed to federal clerkships?

Federal clerkships are, generally speaking, more selective, prestigious, and desirable. Plus, firms generally pay bonuses only for federal clerkships (though some may pay bonuses for state supreme court clerkships).

So would fed clerkship open more doors than state level clerkships?

Like if one wants to be an academic, how big a difference would securing a federal vs state/state supreme be? Or thats too general a question and it would depend on the state.

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:So would fed clerkship open more doors than state level clerkships?

Like if one wants to be an academic, how big a difference would securing a federal vs state/state supreme be? Or thats too general a question and it would depend on the state.

Yes and large. If you want to be a legal academic you should aim for a federal appellate clerkship.

It's a fairly large difference. Even within federal clerkships, there are large differences between them for academics. SCOTUS clerks are much more successful as academics than circuit clerks who are much more successful as academics than district clerks.

But you can't look at things so uniformly. Clerking on a state supreme court might be more beneficial for getting a job in that state than clerking for a random district court on the other side of the country. In general a federal clerkship is going to be more transportable and desirable but the focus should be on what you are trying to get after the clerkship.

ph14 wrote:

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:So would fed clerkship open more doors than state level clerkships?

Like if one wants to be an academic, how big a difference would securing a federal vs state/state supreme be? Or thats too general a question and it would depend on the state.

Yes and large. If you want to be a legal academic you should aim for a federal appellate clerkship.

Sorry for the many follow up questions, but would be because of the different work required at the different clerkships? or because the federal appellate courts are just more "prestigious", so you make better connections etc.

bk1 wrote:It's a fairly large difference. Even within federal clerkships, there are large differences between them for academics. SCOTUS clerks are much more successful as academics than circuit clerks who are much more successful as academics than district clerks.

But you can't look at things so uniformly. Clerking on a state supreme court might be more beneficial for getting a job in that state than clerking for a random district court on the other side of the country. In general a federal clerkship is going to be more transportable and desirable but the focus should be on what you are trying to get after the clerkship.

Agreed, but keep in mind that it's really hard to break into academia, even if one were to say, have a SCOTUS clerkship. I know a SCOTUS clerk who was #1 in his/her class at HLS with a reasonably decent publication record (including writing prizes at HLS) and who only had one offer, from a school towards the bottom of the T50.

ph14 wrote:Agreed, but keep in mind that it's really hard to break into academia, even if one were to say, have a SCOTUS clerkship. I know a SCOTUS clerk who was #1 in his/her class at HLS with a reasonably decent publication record (including writing prizes at HLS) and who only had one offer, from a school towards the bottom of the T50.

This is true, especially in light of the enrollment crisis facing law schools

ph14 wrote:

bk1 wrote:It's a fairly large difference. Even within federal clerkships, there are large differences between them for academics. SCOTUS clerks are much more successful as academics than circuit clerks who are much more successful as academics than district clerks.

But you can't look at things so uniformly. Clerking on a state supreme court might be more beneficial for getting a job in that state than clerking for a random district court on the other side of the country. In general a federal clerkship is going to be more transportable and desirable but the focus should be on what you are trying to get after the clerkship.

Agreed, but keep in mind that it's really hard to break into academia, even if one were to say, have a SCOTUS clerkship. I know a SCOTUS clerk who was #1 in his/her class at HLS with a reasonably decent publication record (including writing prizes at HLS) and who only had one offer, from a school towards the bottom of the T50.

Understood, thanks!

I am more interested in just doing some adjunct teaching while practising, something of the sort.

lawschool2014hopeful wrote:

ph14 wrote:

bk1 wrote:It's a fairly large difference. Even within federal clerkships, there are large differences between them for academics. SCOTUS clerks are much more successful as academics than circuit clerks who are much more successful as academics than district clerks.

But you can't look at things so uniformly. Clerking on a state supreme court might be more beneficial for getting a job in that state than clerking for a random district court on the other side of the country. In general a federal clerkship is going to be more transportable and desirable but the focus should be on what you are trying to get after the clerkship.

Agreed, but keep in mind that it's really hard to break into academia, even if one were to say, have a SCOTUS clerkship. I know a SCOTUS clerk who was #1 in his/her class at HLS with a reasonably decent publication record (including writing prizes at HLS) and who only had one offer, from a school towards the bottom of the T50.

Understood, thanks!

I am more interested in just doing some adjunct teaching while practising, something of the sort.

That's much different. It's more important to have solid work experience and connections, in that case.

I think as a general principle, it's misleading to say that clerkships "open doors." They're a nice resume item, like law review, but most peoples' post-clerkship career path is going to be determined by their law school/grades. In particular, federal clerkships don't guarantee a big firm job for people who weren't already competitive for them: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p7606419.

So it's not so much that state clerkships don't open the same doors. It's that they're less competitive, so when we look at employment data, we can generally assume that federal clerks were competitive for a big firm, but can't assume the same thing about state clerks.

rayiner wrote:I think as a general principle, it's misleading to say that clerkships "open doors." They're a nice resume item, like law review, but most peoples' post-clerkship career path is going to be determined by their law school/grades. In particular, federal clerkships don't guarantee a big firm job for people who weren't already competitive for them: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p7606419.

So it's not so much that state clerkships don't open the same doors. It's that they're less competitive, so when we look at employment data, we can generally assume that federal clerks were competitive for a big firm, but can't assume the same thing about state clerks.

This.