Hi all, I got a PM with some questions that I thought I'd anonymize and share the answers to with everyone - that way there's no special benefit to PMing.
1) I've heard that some classes are easier to get Hs in than others; do you happen to have a list off the top of your head? Do most people just find out from hearsay? (I definitely don't plan to take the easiest classes, but found it helpful in undergrad to know which classes were considered harder than others to set my expectations for time requirements accordingly
)
More than anything, I think this is the criticism leveled at YLS externally: that the grades are meaningless, and easy to manipulate. To a certain extent, this is of course true, and by design, since opaque grades make it harder to determine exactly how accomplished a given student is. But I think this is largely overblown. In spring of 2012, the administration cracked down on blackletter exam classes, strongly encouraging professors to stick to a 1/3 H curve (which is pretty similar to HLS, SLS, and Berkeley, the three other schools I know of with H/P type grades). I'm certain not every professor follows this - on the other hand, most seem to do so.
The larger reason why I don't think it's that easy to game the system is that YLS alums also know which classes and professors are demanding and which ones are easy, so there's a certain limit to how much you can fool the audience by selecting easy classes. And this is especially true for feeders and SCOTUS; anecdotally, I know of more recent YLS SCOTUS clerks who did NOT have perfect H transcripts than those who did. On the other hand, I've known a number of students with perfect H transcripts who didn't even score an interview. So I really don't think there's much to be said for trying to game the system.
And also note - grading curve and time requirements are not equivalent. The most time consuming blackletter I took at YLS had a comparatively lax grading curve, but it was a tremendously difficult class that required a very good exam to get an H. It just happened to be a class with a lot of very talented students who worked their butts off.
2) Someone on this site once wrote, "there are roughly 5-7 professors that sort of control the keys to the kingdom with the fanciest clerkships" and "several of the most valuable mentors are women who explicitly try to put deserving women in the best clerkships." What was your experience with mentors? And how did you go about finding one? Do you have any recommendations for certain faculty in particular?
I think it's certainly true that, just as there are feeder judges, there are "feeder professors." It's not hard to figure out who those people are, and I think a lot of students try to aim for them. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. The most in demand professors have lots of students to pick from for RAs, seminars, etc., and when they're used to seeing brilliant work, they will expect the same. I also know friends who DID NOT have those professors as recommenders but nonetheless ended up with great clerkships, etc. I think the best way to go about finding mentors is to seek out professors who share your interests, be genuinely interested in their work, and be patient. You will not click with every faculty member, nor they with you. To some degree, you can't force chemistry, nor should you want to. And I think many of them see through suck-ups. (But that said, I think many faculty are content to work with obvious suck-ups/gunners to the degree the students are genuinely talented - talent goes pretty far at YLS even when it's not in the nicest package (to quote Kanye, the prettiest people do the ugliest things...).)
All of that said, my sense is that professor mentors are a much more substantial part of YLS than its peer schools, so don't underestimate the value of getting to know and work with faculty. As you will see from my answer to question 8, below, I think this is the best advice anyway.
3) What do you think makes someone a good law student? What has worked for you? Any particular advice for STEM-type majors?
I can only provide an N of 1, but my sense from firsthand experience, observing my classmates, and now as a clerk, is that a good law student recognizes ambiguity, can play devil's advocate with multiple sides of an argument, knows how to deploy good arguments and acknowledge (but distinguish) bad ones, and understand how altering criteria/priorities/first principles can yield different preferred or dispositive outcomes. The hardest exam questions were the ones that had no "right" answer, or ones that asked you to provide multiple arguments and explain why each was comparatively more or less persuasive.
Anecdotally, I think STEM folks sometimes have a harder time transitioning to law school because they are used to clearly "right" answers and clearly "wrong" answers. Obviously, the law has plenty of those, too. But the interesting parts of the law less so: originalism and living constitutionalism each have compelling merits, and how you fall between them is as much the result of other judicial values or first principles as it is those arguments alone. The same goes for textualism vs. functionalism, formalism vs. legal realism, etc. I may be a "judicial moderate," but I think there are few burning questions in the law with straightforward and obvious answers, I think there's a lot to learn and consider from each of the major approaches to law and legal interpretation.
To that end, I'd strongly recommend getting "Getting to Maybe" at the end of your 0L summer. I think it's the most concise explanation of how to approach exam problems from this perspective. Understanding the importance of, and how to, show your work, and identifying the gray areas of a problem, are not only critical to acing law school exams, but to being a good law student (and lawyer) in general.
4) Which clinics / specialized journals did you do, and how was your experience with each? (Relatedly, is there anything you can do to prepare to apply for YLJ?)
I did two clinics, one client-centered and one non-client-centered. I enjoyed both, for different reasons. The client-centered clinic was incredibly intense, both because you are responsible for someone's serious life issues -- and that is a totally different kind of pressure than exams, making it on YLJ, etc. -- and also because their life issues often involve real-life trauma. But it was really empowering to learn how to be a real lawyer, take responsibility, and rise to the occasion. In many ways it was the most meaningful thing I did at YLS. The non-client-centered clinic was a much less exacting time commitment, but a lot more "fun." It was more intellectually interesting, with time to enjoy my peers and strategize about novel legal arguments. I would recommend everyone try to have both experiences if they can. The beauty of YLS is that it's really not that hard to have both kinds of clinical experiences over three years, and the clinical experiences at YLS are one of the strongest arguments for the school. I wish the Administration shared that view as much as my peers and I do...
As for journals, I did two specialized journals my 1L year and dropped both when I got on YLJ because that was enough of a time commitment, and I had a very time-consuming position on YLJ as a Second Year Editor, so YLJ already took over my life during spring 2L/fall 3L. I really enjoyed YLJ, but I recommend it more for people who enjoy academic scholarship and like to get ticky-tacky about legal arguments, sources materials, citations, and methods of proof. I also think everyone should sit the Bluebook exam 1L spring, because it's the only way you will ever force yourself to learn the Bluebook. However, I would NOT recommend getting super involved in YLJ for people who are more practitioner-oriented, as it is just NOT a good use of time compared to representing clients, getting more practical skills, etc. And I think its value for (non-Supreme Court) clerkships is overrated, which brings me to...
5) What did the clerkship application timeline look for you? I've read anything from starting end of 1L to a few years out...?
When I was applying, The Plan still existed, so my timeline is basically irrelevant to you. These days, my sense is that a number of circuit judges (and esp. a number of "feeder" judges) hire over 1L summer, and the rest hire early 2L spring (i.e. a few weeks from now) once 2L fall grades have come out. The latter approach is how my judge this year is approaching it, albeit for 1 year out of law school.
And yes, you can DEFINITELY get a clerkship after 2L fall - it just won't be for right
after law school. Then again, that's already true for many people, as judges seem to be hiring farther and farther out. I would worry less about getting a clerkship as soon as possible as about finding a judge that is a good fit for you. Clerkships are like apprenticeships, and my entire life is organized according to my judge's preferences. To that end, I'm incredibly lucky and thankful that I enjoy my judge's company and respect my judge so tremendously that I'm content to be a lemming for a year! But don't underestimate how much your experience will hinge entirely on your judge (and your co-clerks).
6) What do you think made you most successful in obtaining a clerkship? Is there anything you would have done differently?
I think success in landing a clerkship is some combination of grades, resume (including pre-law school), recommendations, connections and network, interview abilities, and the always-mystical "fit." Some of these things you can control more than others. Especially if you are conservative, connections and networking seem to matter more, as many conservative judges hire via the Fed Soc network and that can be an effective pre-requisite to certain judges. Liberals have no such equivalent mass conspiracy.
In my case, it was some combination of grades, resume, recommendations, and fit. I don't think you should underestimate how much grades lead to recommendations, however. I am 100% certain I got my clerkship as a result of doing very well in several blackletter classes. Precisely because YLS grades are an opaque morass, judges are very eager to hear from professors who can say "this student was in the top X% of my VERY HARD blackletter class full of Rhodes Scholars and Ph.D.s." (And I am not even making that sentence up - I read it in the recommendation letter from a professor at YLS for a student who applied to my judge.)
7) What are your suggestions for making the most of 1L fall since grades aren't a factor? (Besides spending lots of time socializing with classmates
)
In retrospect, I wish I had taken my first semester classes a bit more seriously, at least as an intellectual matter. Not so much from the standpoint of exams, but just soaking in the material more. I had a lackluster approach since I knew they were all pass-fail and I didn't love some of the subjects. On the other side of law school, I now would like to be proficient in every area of law, and so when I took the Bar I really had to re-teach myself some of the 1L fall classes. And there was a lot of time to soak it all in and think about how the different areas of the law connect together (or don't). After 1L fall, everything becomes a blurry haze of juggling obligations until you pop out the other side 3L spring and graduate. So just enjoy that period of time, as it's the most purely intellectual time you will have at YLS.
But yes, socialize with classmates should always be the number one priority! That's really the best part of YLS anyway... I feel so privileged to have been part of such a tremendously talented, thoughtful, and engaged community.
Finally, what was your favorite part about YLS (other than the students and the employment prospects)?
Other than the students, for me it was the professors. I respect so many of them so much, and for being so incredibly accomplished, they devote an incredible amount of time to their students. There are a few who are among the smartest people I've ever seen speak in my life, and I feel like my brain got a little bit faster/sharper just by getting to spend time listening to them. Of course, some are conceited jerks, and I think I got really lucky to get to spend time with so many of the great ones, but that place is just full of really smart, thoughtful, engaged people.
Hope these answers help!
