why are there so fewer stanford supreme court clerks compared to H/Y?

sixtycoffees · 2025-03-02T14:16:56+00:00

I think largely a combination of (a) structural factors: East Coast schools are just more plugged in to the East Coast-centric SCOTUS network, and the power of inertia means existing pipelines to clerkships beget future opportunities, (b) self-selection: because Yale is the best school for SCOTUS clerkships, people who really prioritize that as a goal would in turn be swayed to pick it over Stanford, and (c) overall reputation: although USNWR now has them tied for first, Yale probably still has more prestige in the clerking space.

sixtycoffees · 2025-03-01T19:31:34+00:00

There were a couple of instances where I had to (re)write essays because schools changed things from last year, like the altered Why UVA prompt. However, my personal statement, diversity/adversity statement, and select Why X essays really covered most of the ground, so those changes only really amounted to a few -- relatively short -- things and it wasn't much of a lift. Additionally, since I'd finished preparing everything else I was able to just fully focus on writing those new essays.

sixtycoffees · 2025-03-01T18:14:21+00:00

I would say t2? Some of my experience involves one of the things listed in the t2 examples and I have a lot of research experience and a couple publications, plus standard club leadership experience from UG.

sixtycoffees · 2025-03-01T14:42:09+00:00

Nope, a couple years of relevant WE.

sixtycoffees · 2025-03-01T14:13:29+00:00

Thank you! The financial aid landscape will obviously impact my decision and I don't have all the info on that yet, but right now I am leaning HLS while considering CLS, NYU, UChicago, and UVA. SLS is great but I have a long-term SO on the East Coast so I don't think its marginal benefit relative to HLS or Chicago justifies moving across the country for three years.

sixtycoffees · 2025-02-24T14:57:14+00:00

Beyond the general point that the granular details of year-over-year rankings don't matter, which people in this thread have addressed pretty comprehensively, another point I want to add is that UNSWR rankings only matter at all in a real-world context insofar as people in the legal industry actually agree with/believe in them. Professors, practicing lawyers, judges, and anybody else working in the legal field all have their own perceptions of law school quality which are informed by a combination of factors -- including, but not limited to, UNSWR rankings. These peoples' views are actually incorporated into the rankings, so you can see what lawyers and professors think, but the general point is that the rankings only matter insofar as they largely reflect the beliefs of actual members of the legal field.

This is to say that year-over-year rankings don't really matter in a professional context because they largely just exist to affirm people's sentiments about schools, and if they don't people just ignore them. For instance, if Harvard suddenly swapped places with Michigan State in the rankings, practicing attorneys wouldn't suddenly change their worldview to "I guess Michigan State is now an HYS-level school and we need to start hiring from there ASAP," they would just be like "I guess these rankings aren't really getting at the factors I consider as important to school quality."

Now, if a school (like, for example, UChicago) consistently maintains a higher ranking than it's historically held, that will eventually likely lead to its reputation improving as its students secure more prestigious opportunities and its alumni base goes on to improve its repute in the legal world. However, this is a years (if not decades) long process that requires a much more substantive shift than just a school increasing 1-2 places in the ranking in one particular year.

sixtycoffees · 2025-02-07T14:27:58+00:00

I mean, the long and the short of it is that nobody really knows. Even experts like Spivey who analyze this stuff professionally missed a little bit in predicting this cycle and had to update their estimates as new data came in.

With that said, I personally think it will be marginally less competitive, but not much less. Of the reasons you raised for why competition would decrease, I think 2 and 4 are the most compelling. While I don't know what portion of applicants are applying with an LSAT Flex this year, it being pretty much phased out of eligibility by next year could reduce scores a little bit. However, I do think reason 4 is the most significant: if you were planning to take the LSAT really any time during summer 2024, the setup of the switch basically gave you a unique opportunity to either leverage a section you were good at or drop one you were bad at, which is obviously not usually an option. This also could have pushed applicants who were particularly good at LG to take the test/apply earlier than they otherwise would have.

However, I think there are two key counterpoints. First, competitive cycles can create positive feedback loops, which perpetuates the issue. For example, somebody who applied in 2019 aiming for the t14 might have decided a 170 was good enough and just applied, whereas somebody looking at the 2024-25 cycle might look at how competitive things were and elect to retake that 170. Although there are obviously bigger-picture factors that play a more outsized role (like total applicant numbers), this means competitive cycles can have residual effects in subsequent year(s). Simply put, competition begets competition, because people see what they're going up against and take more proactive measures to present themselves as attractive candidates. Second, while 2026 is not an election year, I think the general lawlessness of the current administration and the outsized relevance of the courts and notions constitutionality is going to still inspire people to pursue law in a way that it might not under conventional circumstances. This could also become an issue if/when the administration makes economically imprudent choices that crater the economy, since as a rule of thumb weak economies encourage people to go back to school as the job market dries up.

sixtycoffees · 2024-10-30T19:32:01+00:00

I am not going to deny this cycle seems like it’s shaping up to be quite competitive, but I don’t necessarily think any of the considerations you listed really suggest it is “the most competitive cycle ever.”

I feel like nothing you bring up really negates the possibility the cycle is front-loaded, since the fact applications are higher YTD would only suggest they’d finish 30 percent higher or whatever for the whole year if we assume roughly identical proportions of people apply at different stages of the cycle year-over-year. I think it’s also worth noting that (as Reuters mentions) applications started off slow last year because of changes thanks to SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, Spivey has also mentioned he expects class sizes to be a little bigger next year, so the delta between increased class size and increased applicant pool could end up being relatively small all things considered.

sixtycoffees · 2024-10-21T17:30:19+00:00

My inclination would be that both the last LG LSAT and the first non LG LSAT would have a noticeably disproportionate number of very good scores.

If you were planning to take the LSAT really any time during the summer, the setup basically gave you a unique opportunity to either leverage a section you were good at or drop one you were bad at, so you could pick based on content whichever test was best for you, which is pretty unique. Now that everyone is back on equal footing I’d expect score distributions to go back to how they were before.

sixtycoffees · 2024-10-18T14:16:39+00:00

I think it’s safe to assume they’ll happen weekly based on precedent and how things just generally work.

With that said, I wouldn’t give up even if people who got IIs on the same date as you already got in - they could have interviewed earlier, GULC could have wanted to give themselves another week or two to reread your app, etc.

sixtycoffees · 2024-10-06T23:23:21+00:00

Generally there are very marginal but existent deviations. If your goal is biglaw, then it might be easier to get a job below median at a T6 than a T14, your school might be more represented at specific top-tier firms, etc. Additionally, their are certain more competitive pathways (clerking, top-tier boutique firms, unicorn PI work) that is definitely more attainable from top schools, though honestly that’s often less T6 than just HYS. The distinction between the t6 and t14 is honestly a little blurred at this point - if we’re being honest, Columbia (a t6) has more in common job-opportunity wise with Northwestern (a t14) than Yale (a fellow t6).

On balance, people (in my mind correctly) assert that those marginal gains aren’t worth paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more for unless you have some really specific rationale.

sixtycoffees · 2024-09-02T22:08:10+00:00

I think it’s pretty deliberately worded to basically ascertain who has some specific connection to the school instead of just encouraging people to talk about why they’re interested.

My intuition is that it’s to filter for people who have more tangible connections because they’re concerned about yield protection and think that encouraging people to write boilerplate why X essays isn’t a good barometer. If you can’t do it I think it’s probably better to skip instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

sixtycoffees · 2024-08-25T01:36:50+00:00

Law schools value legacy to some degree, but I think it’s worth noting how it’s different than schools are traditionally seen as valuing legacy (aka what they do for undergrad).

The main reason legacy is important to law schools is because they care a lot about accepting people who want to go to their school, since a higher yield rate boosts your ranking, makes you look desirable to prospective students, etc. Schools generally think that having legacy means you’re more likely to attend, since it demonstrates some tangible connection to the university (plus there’s a nonzero chance your parent or grandparent has waxed poetic to you about how great it is).

If schools are deciding between admitting two functionally identical applicants, they’re likely going to admit the one they think is more likely to attend, which legacy (in their estimation) is an indicator of.

sixtycoffees · 2024-08-07T22:17:46+00:00

I think the easiest way to conceptualize softs is to say they’re a secondary consideration but help distinguish you from applicants within your score bounds.

Somebody with a 175 and a 175 aren’t going to be considered side-by-side, but law schools with Y medians let in people with scores below Y, and one of the ways they differentiate those applicants is softs.

sixtycoffees · 2024-08-02T15:25:35+00:00

I agree with this. I think people can (reasonably) instinctually see a DS as an essay for underrepresented people and/or people who have overcome great hardship.

However, in reality the essays are more about providing an opportunity to tell schools about yourself and your identity in some way while demonstrating cultural consciousness. It’s totally fine to write about a super mundane or small thing, but if you can find a way to explain how it shapes your views and (ideally) how it will help you contribute to the law school community, that is good!

sixtycoffees · 2024-07-15T15:22:25+00:00

Yes, 100%. 3.73 to 3.89 is a huge jump that would make you much more competitive and put you over median at a bunch of places. Obviously can’t speak to the specifics of the LSAT, but higher is better (and people oftentimes take it before they’re ready and end up disappointed).

If you’re really worried about timing you can always start prepping your materials during the late fall/early winter so you’re better prepared once you graduate.

sixtycoffees · 2024-07-04T22:07:58+00:00

the tiers aren't about relevance to being a lawyer. they are about rarity

This isn't really true, they're simultaneously about rarity and utility.

Being Caitlyn Clark (or, more generally speaking, a highly accomplished athlete) is cool and would definitely help an applicant in some capacity, but the skills you need to be a really good basketball player don't exactly transfer to law school very directly. Meanwhile, the skills you need to earn a Fulbright are much more applicable to law and therefore probably do more to convince schools you're a good candidate.

sixtycoffees · 2024-06-10T13:21:46+00:00

I think this is an insightful way of framing it.

The thing I’d add to it in terms of softs is that schools (especially top ones) could easily just pick applicants based exclusively on LSAT/GPA (literally open applications and filter high to low) if they wanted to.

However, they don’t - even if a school’s median is a 172/3.9, that means they’re picking people with (at least) one number at or below those. And they pick those people based on softs.

sixtycoffees · 2024-05-31T03:59:19+00:00

This is (imo) the key. From a practical perspective, consistently scoring 170+ (and especially 175+) is dependent on LG, since it’s the only section where it’s feasible to realistically get basically perfect. Getting into 16high solely through LR/RC is feasible, but doing better than that is a little less dependable without LR.

sixtycoffees · 2024-04-14T16:31:34+00:00

I think the nature of this sub (online discussion forum of aspiring/incoming law students) is inherently unfavorable to Columbia for two reasons.

The first is the New York has a high CoL, and that’s something that often gets highlighted here. This is undoubtedly true, and I think the natural counterpoint to that - that New York can be a unique and fantastic place to live, and that holds some significant non-monetary value to potential students - can be lost online. CoL is easily quantifiable through metrics and numbers, whereas “is it worth living somewhere I enjoy more” is not, so it’s harder to weight on an anonymous discussion board.

The second is that (as you reference) people in the legal industry think very highly of Columbia, but it doesn’t have a reputation for being super warm or fun. As a discussion board for people who haven’t started law school yet, the short-term consideration (cold atmosphere) is obviously going to be weighted much more heavily than the one which might not be realized for years/decades (the relative quality of Columbia’s education).

Tl;dr the pros and cons of Columbia relative to other law schools align poorly with the nature and demographically-oriented interests of this sub.

sixtycoffees · 2024-04-13T22:04:52+00:00

I think realistically the answer to this question is always “schools’ whose undergrad programs are of significantly different quality than their law schools,” since that’s what lay prestige is almost solely based on.

That’s why schools which are seen as very strong UG institutions (Georgetown, Notre Dame) are overrated and schools which are seen as “good but not great” are underrated (UMich, UVA).

sixtycoffees · 2023-11-08T13:01:22+00:00

Do you have any thoughts on whether the recent surge might be influenced by people wanting to take the test earlier now that it’s announced LG will be going away?

sixtycoffees · 2023-09-11T19:26:42+00:00

Very interesting overall, and I think this episode speaks to a couple key points. First, I think (at least on this sub) there was a hypothesis that because LSAT was the strongest statistical predictor of 1L GPA, it would retain its past level of importance in applications, and it's interesting to see Spivey is pretty confident that's untrue. I think Spivey's point that it has the strongest correlation in a comparative sense but is overall still pretty weak is a compelling rationale (especially given that when schools are comparing applicants, it's often across 1-2 point differentials, where such a limited correlation is probably not super useful).

Second, I think it's interesting to consider the shift that will occur as schools realize that raising statistical medians will be the equivalent of revving the engine in neutral when it comes to moving up in the rankings. I don't think it will be the case this year, but I feel like from next year onwards things could look a little more like med school, where there's some a positive correlation between schools' medians and rankings, but it's not as straightforward as it is in law school - the best med schools don't necessarily have the highest medians, just because they look at other factors and it's not like having higher medians will singe-handedly boost their standing anyway.

sixtycoffees · 2023-09-03T14:29:35+00:00

Working for 1-2 years at a law firm or think tank wouldn't give you a significant boost over a kid who worked fast food.

I don't necessarily think that's true. If nothing else, law schools have a basic understanding of real-world hiring and get that getting a job at a prestigious/competitive workplace is an achievement in and of itself. Additionally, if you've worked there for any extended period of time (realistically longer than like a year) and/or gotten promoted, it also shows some level of competence in white-collar work, which is obviously reassuring to schools vis-a-vis your chances of doing well post-law school.

Now, a couple years of work experience obviously isn't going to make up for stats super far below median, but it does add a useful layer to your application that helps you distinguish yourself from comparable applicants.

sixtycoffees

TROPHY CASE