Ah, fall: the season of new school supplies, new facebooks and clerkship applications.
Now that the deadline for applications has passed and interviews are starting, we would like to add some transparency to the process.
Last year, between applications and interviews with judges, Dean Anderson interviewed around six students so she could decide on whose behalf she would call judges. Word from last year is that she ended up calling for three people (she called one judge per person). It is our understanding (which might be wrong or slightly misinformed as we are only as good as the info we receive) that almost all of the people interviewed were on law review and had a 4.0 or almost a 4.0 gpa. All three people Dean Anderson called for received clerkship offers.
In previous years, under the watch of Dean Booth-Glenn, there was a committee of faculty members who attempted to arrange calls for all students who were applying for clerkships. This process involved pairing students with judges and evaluating the various relationships with judges. Despite its flaws, it sounds like there was some level of transparency and fairness because of the number of people involved in the process.
All we have heard about the process this year is that Sam Sue is working with Dean Anderson.
We are, given the purpose of the blog, for processes that are transparent and accountable.
What do you think?
----
9/15/08 UPDATE:
Sam Sue, allegedly the real one, left the following in the comments section about this process:
"It's mistaken to think that high grades and law review were the only factors that go into this. As a matter of fact, there were about 14 students who applied. Support from the Dean could have been in the form of a Dean's letter being sent to the top 20 judges identified by the student and/or in the form of the Dean calling 2-3 judges for a smaller subset of these students. Those students who provided me a list of their top 20 judges got a Dean's letter of support sent to many of the judges in their list. There were other students who got phone calls made--not everyone who got a phone had the highest grades. There were some that were 4.0's but there were many getting the Dean's support who were below that as well. Law review membership was a factor as much as publishing an article or being a research assistant to a judge. These are factors because being a good writer is THE most important factor. Certainly having good grades is a factor. There is little mystery and great transparency in the factors as they were factors in a scoring system chart that was set forth in the clerkship handbook that students had in hand.
There were some students who had not evidenced writing ability either through law review membership, publishing and/or serving as a research assistant and they did not make the cut and that was a very small number.
Other students who didn't respond to my request for a whittled down list of 20 judges, also were left out since letters couldn't be sent out to the 100 or so judges they had applied to.
The process has been as transparent if not more than in the past. Dean Glen handpicked students who applied and match them up after meeting with students. Dean Anderson based on the criteria above supported applications either through letters and/or calling the top judges of the applicant's choosing.
The criteria that is used is realistic in light of the rather hyper-competitive federal application process. We try to be supportive in different ways to all students and help them with getting the best materials out there. In fact, this year we paired up most of the applicants with CUNY alumni who had previously served as clerks. This appeared to help enhance the quality of the applications and the competitiveness of CUNY candidates.
By the way, this is the first posting ever made by me on this blog. I've noticed a previous posting under my name, but that wasn't from me."
Posts
The Harlem Community & Academic Partnership (HCAP), Manhattan HIV Care
Network, East Harlem Community Health Committee Inc., Human Services
Consortium of E...
2 months ago
33 comments:
Wherever you go, there is always that handful of people that always seems to get "picked" for everything: these are the Student Government officers, the speakers at events, the favorites, and at the Law School there are already those ten or so students in each class who have been selected to receive free tuition and a stipend, just for choosing CUNY Law. Indeed, there was scant transparency in choosing these Scholars, and in some cases peers don't even know who the Scholars in their class are.
It is in this same spirit of secrecy that is perpetuated by these "phone calls" made by Dean Anderson, which again has a potential to be diluted by the same favoritism which holds so many back from critical, career-making opportunities. It is practices like these which may hold many back from even applying for clerkships, because they may figure: "what's the point, anyway?" How many of those selected for clerkships will be students who are already Scholars and have had the free tuition and stipend to give each of them a leg up? It is these who likely have not had to work a part-time job to make ends meet, perhaps resulting in better grades. And it is the rest of us who may be left, yet again, on the lower half, separated and compartmentalized.
This practice of one individual delegating her "Chosen Ones" does against the spirit of CUNITY and community of which we are all a part. This practice should be abolished, and the old, collaborative system under Dean Glenn should be reinstated, with appropriate modifications. Something so important as a clerkship cannot be left to one person, as checks and balances to power are needed, even at CUNY Law School.
If we disagree with this current practice, what steps can we take individually and as a community, to petition Dean Anderson to surrender some of her autonomy and allow others to work with her in the clerkship selection process?
It's patently unfair to compare the admittedly questionable clerkship assistance process at the law school with the graduate fellow program.
it seems it's not comparing both programs as being the same, it's just noting that those picked for clerkships are probably graduate fellows, just like how they have 4.0 GPA's and are on Law Review. These things go hand in hand, and it perpetuates the divide between the Dean's favorites. that seems to be the point of this initial posting. graduate fellows already have an upper hand, and this necessitates the need for transparency even more in the clerkship selection process.
One thing does not lead to another, unless there's a correlation between being a graduate fellow and obtaining clerkships (which might well be the case). As far as transparency goes, I believe the graduate fellow program and selection process is explained in the school's website and in the application materials.
There doesn't seem to be any info at all about CUNY Law School graduate fellows on the website after a quick google search. The inference seems to be that those who get clerkships are also graduate fellows. This may be worth investigating via a FOIL request. Where's our resident FOIL expert when we need him?
Information about the graduate fellows program on the schools website:
See: http://www.law.cuny.edu/admissions/AdmittedStudents.html
if you are interested in clerkships then you have already submitted to the values involved in the selection process of most judges: high grades and membership in things like law review. Why should the school vouch for someone who does not have these credentials when the selection is based on such credentials? That makes no sense and makes the school look stupid in the judicial community.
If you didn't have high grades then don't blame the Dean for not calling on your behalf.
aren't student government members democratically elected?
"The inference seems to be that those who get clerkships are also graduate fellows. This may be worth investigating via a FOIL request."
Grad fellows get picked based on grades, LSATs, and public interest credentials. It's not surprising that a disproportionate number later get clerkships -- which tend to be awarded based on similarly conventional status indicators (er, minus the public interest credentials).
That said, not all of last year's crop were grad fellows, nor are all the people the Dean is calling for now. Not all are on law review. I don't know if anyone at the school has a 4.0.
I appreciate the impulse to make the process a bit more transparent; I think using a screening committee could help. But CUNY can't make the process fair; federal judges are old white guys from Yale.
Judge Ellis isn't white. And if Dean Anderson only calls white guys from Yale, then that is just another symptom of CUNY Law School's institutional racism. Does anyone dispute that having free tuition and a stipend would provide anyone with an added incentive and a means to achieve better law school grades?
I don't really think that transparency is the bugaboo here; it's not really any of my business who gets recommendations from whom, or who pays what for tuition.
I am bothered that this Dean has decided to be a little stingier with her recommendations than Booth-Glen (if I understand correctly that the old dean made all the calls after the faculty committee paired people up), but I guess that's her prerogative since it's her personal endorsement. and people are free to get recs from other sources, right?
Does the CUNY Law Blog know what the success rate of clerkship applications under the old method was? Are less people being placed because of this? Is a call from the Dean likely to outweigh a less-than-4.0 gpa or lack of Law Review credentials in the selection process? If so, it is indeed unfortunate.
by the way, Anon 1, lots of people get tuition rebates or pay nothing at all for various reasons: employers give tuition assistance, firms pay for people's bar prep and even law school, some people have in-state privilege and get reduced tuition and TAP, or GI Bill benefits. Just for choosing CUNY. In fact, there are TWO sets of people who get free tuition - Grad Fellows and Dean's Scholars. It's not clandestine, it's just not everybody's business. Also, the dean doesn't pick the clerks, she makes the call as to who she wants to make the calls for -- the "lower half, separated and compartmentalized" are actually way more marginalized by the judges and their arguably flawed selection criteria than they are by the dean exercising her personal judgement as to whom to recommend.
and, "Sam Sue", people would do well to remember the "lesliehkys berlslins" debacle and NOT post under pseudonyms that might lead to lawsuits or TOS boo-hooing to Google.
Gotta love that anonymous comment option.
Anyway, as for the NY Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), there is a sample FOIL request buried somewhere on this blog if someone wants to use it as a template. It was seeking an AALS report, see http://cunylaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/aals-report-on-cuny-law.html.
Second, grad fellows are technically working for CUNY and therefore their salaries are public record and FOILable.
Third, cuny salaries from last year were foiled by some right-wing group and are cataloged on their site, see http://cunylaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/payroll-database-for-cuny-law.html. For any new or older grad fellows, a FOIL request will have to be made. (Don't be shy, Greg Koster and Franklin Siegel love to hear from students - its their job!)
Last, I'm not sure how you would get the yearly list of students who got clerkships but I'm sure Sam Sue knows. Might try just asking. Maybe they are FOILable - I'm not sure - might be worth a try. So I'm not sure how you could get the info to cross reference grad fellows with students that received clerkships. Let me know if I can be of service.
Dan
btw, how about some pictures on this blog?
I did not apply for clerkships last fall but had heard that none of the individuals who were selected had had the dean call on their behalf.
Also, for those 3Ls not sure about whether to apply for clerkships, keep in mind that there are many effective and inspiring public interest advocates out there who did NOT do federal clerkships:
• Ralph Nader, instrumental in passing the Clean Air Act, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), etc.
• Sarah Weddington argued and won Roe v. Wade at age 26.
• Constance Baker Motley, wrote the complaint for Brown v. Board of Education and was the first African American woman named a federal court judge
• Karen Gargamelli, Jay Kim, and Michael Wang founders of Common Law Inc. and recent CUNY alums
"lesliehkys berlslins" debacle ????
Damn this is such a useless post. Does this blog have any standards at all? Its becoming a vehicle for whiney and unqualified b.s.
"Indeed, there was scant transparency in choosing these Scholars, and in some cases peers don't even know who the Scholars in their class are."
Mmmmaybe because students don't want their finances picked over by their classmates. Not all of us want to subject ourselves to jealous hostility coming from a few people at the school.
The "lesliehkys berlslins" debacle refers to last year when a graduated 3L named Leslie had her name mentioned as the author of a post which she did not actually write. It was clearly a facetious joke, but Leslie was unhappy and made complaints to Law School administrators.
As a result, the Law School cited this incident as part of its rationale in demanding that the CLB change its name. However, the CLB stayed the course, stayed strong, and remained true to its commitment to the people; the CLB administrators added a disclaimer, and they thereby refused to give in to the draconian tactics occasionally put into practice at CUNY Law School. And FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
"Damn this is such a useless post. Does this blog have any standards at all? Its becoming a vehicle for whiney and unqualified b.s."
That's the point in having a BLOG, is to offer a SAFE space, with no fear of retaliation, where we can all be ourselves and say what's on our mind. This post clearly meets the very criteria which you have described -- "whiney and unqualified b.s."
Thanks you for participating in the movement.
Let us not forget that many CUNY students that aren't dean's scholars or grad fellows are neither poor nor disadvantaged.
And many are...
From: "Michelle J. Anderson" anderson@mail.law.cuny.edu
Sender: "Fsculty" staff@mail.law.cuny.edu
Subject: A New Semester Begins!
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:51:39 -0400
To: Faculty faculty@mail.law.cuny.edu, staff staff@mail.law.cuny.edu
Full Headers
Undecoded Letter
Dear CUNY School of Law Community:
As we begin a new academic year, looking forward to the arrival of 1Ls and the return of rising 2 and 3Ls, I thought I’d take a moment to reflect on what we did together last year and thank you for your contribution to the collective endeavor.
Last year the Law School obtained membership in the Association of American Law Schools. We worked hard as a community to achieve this milestone. We should extend special gratitude to Penny Andrews who led our efforts to obtain membership. Although we have appropriately viewed mainstream legal education with some wariness, it is fitting that we should become full members of the AALS as other law schools gravitate toward our innovative approaches.
As we began to prepare for the ABA Site Visit in 2010, we took the momentum of the AALS application process and drafted and adopted an aspirational Strategic Plan for the Law School grounded in our mission. We engaged students, faculty, staff, and alums in helping us craft a collective vision for the future of our highest ideals. Special thanks go to Victor Goode for shepherding that process to completion.
Last year we welcomed three new faculty members: Carmen Huertas, who will launch the Community Economic Development Clinic this fall, Julie Krishnaswami, Faculty Research Support Librarian, and Nancy Macomber, Director of Library Technical Services. We searched for and found another new faculty member, Richard Storrow, who joined us this summer. We welcomed a new Director of the Child Care Center, Carol Wasserman, a new Assistant Director of Student Events, Charles Johnson, a new Coordinator of Alumni Affairs, Ansley Davenport, a new Director of Communications, Emily Sachar, a new Assistant to the Dean of Admissions, Beverly Ellis, a new Webmaster, Joseph Lynch, a new Coordinator of Prospect Research, Cindy Rodriguez, and two new Faculty Support Staff, Siddika Sultana and Maggie Ruperto. We also welcomed at least ten new college assistants: April Bing and Colleen Burke in the library, Roula Vlahos and Danvers Budhwa in IT, Eleni Karapiperis in personnel, Amanda Katz in security, and Moussa Conde, Ritha Romero, Tobrise Jerry Otomewo, and Jorelk Monkayo in reprographics. Whew! (If I’ve forgotten anyone, please forgive me.)
Additionally, a number of our beloved colleagues on the staff and faculty assumed new roles within the Law School with new titles and greater responsibilities. Perhaps most importantly, we launched the Center for Diversity in the Profession, directed by Pamela Edwards, and will launch the Center for Latino/a Rights and Equality (CLORE) in the fall, directed by Jenny Rivera, who we proudly welcomed back to the fold after her service as New York’s Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Our Bar Exam performance continues to rise. After a record-breaking July 2006 first-time New York State Bar Exam pass rate of 77%, we again broke all records in July 2007 with an 83% pass rate. As a result of this strong performance, for the first time we bested the New York State average pass rate of 79%. No one in the building takes these results for granted and we recognize that our bar pass efforts, coordinated and led by the indefatigable Mary Lu Bilek, must strongly continue. It is clear that the path to diversifying the profession runs through the Bar Exam. We as a community should be proud of our successful years-long collective efforts to lower this barrier to entry.
Our employment numbers are outstanding. After a record-breaking 2007 nine-month post-graduation employment rate of 93%, we again broke all records in 2008 with a 95% employment rate. We are ahead of many area law schools (Touro, Pace, New York Law School, and Hofstra) in helping secure our graduates’ employment. Other employment news was likewise excellent. A record forty-one CUNY students were selected for NYU Revson Fellowships in public interest law, many graduates received clerkships with state and federal judges, one graduate received a Skadden fellowship, and another received admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Honors Program at the Department of Justice. We remain the school with the greatest percentage of graduates entering public interest practice of any law school in the country. We are proud of all of our graduates, especially those who work on the front lines of civil and criminal legal services.
As you know, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement in Teaching praised CUNY Law for our innovative pedagogy in its 2007 book on legal education. As a result of that praise, last year Stanford University Law School and the Carnegie Foundation invited CUNY Law to participate in a three-year study project with nine other law schools that will make recommendations to the academy on the future of legal education. This initiative offers us an opportunity to learn from like-minded educators, to contribute our innovative approaches to the broader legal academy, and to remain on the cutting edge of legal education.
Last year, the Pipeline to Justice Program saw its first class enter and complete its first year of law school. In part due to the Pipeline program, last year’s entering class was a very strong 43% students of color. The first generation of Pipeline students outperformed their indicators, and we completed a second cycle of the Pipeline Program, the graduates of which will join us this week. We are a stronger community and truer to our core mission as a result of the Pipeline. We look forward to its growth in future years.
Last year we received extraordinary, positive media coverage. We enjoyed 78 positive media stories; for example, the Law School was featured and quoted in six New York Times articles. We constructed and launched an entirely new website and developed (and continue to develop) a range of new areas on the site to make it more user-friendly. Our goal is to convey our social justice commitments to prospective students, employers, and other members of the bar. Positive media coverage and a web presence that is worthy of this community are essential strategies to meet that goal.
Last year we enhanced our collaborative efforts with other CUNY colleges. Ruthann Robson packed a room at the CUNY Graduate Center teaching a “Sexuality and the Law” course there for the first time. Angela Burton will teach a “Children and the Law” course at Brooklyn College this fall and she serves on the Executive Committee and core planning group of the CUNY Children’s Studies Institute for Research, Policy and Public Service. Steve Zeidman received a CUNY Collaborative grant with faculty at John Jay College for research on sexual predator laws and recidivism.
Last year we greatly enhanced our nascent development operation. We increased fundraising by 11% and alumni giving by 37%. Structurally, we recruited six new Foundation Board directors. We overhauled the Board’s structure, adopted new Bylaws, secured Directors and Officers’ insurance, and adopted Conflict of Interest and Whistle Blower Policies. We also launched an online giving program on the website.
Finally, we raised $50 million dollars from the State of New York to begin to build a new Law School facility in a site that is closer to Manhattan on major transportation lines. While this is not the entire sum that we need to build a new facility, this amount speaks volumes to the strong support we currently enjoy both at CUNY Central and at the State level. In an end of the year letter to me, Chancellor Matthew Goldstein wrote, “All of us look forward to the school’s new facility, and we are moving aggressively to make that happen.” We are currently working to secure a new location in Long Island City. Soon we will be able to build a new home for our community of justice, one that is more closely tied to the needs of our students, clients, and social justice allies.
It has been an honor to work with you on all of these initiatives. Many of you devote yourselves to work at the Law School without any public recognition. Our strength resides in the collective commitments that cannot be cataloged in a list of achievements. Nonetheless, we should be proud of what we have done together in the last year and look forward with vigor and excitement to a new one.
Before I close, I want to extend special thanks to two groups of folks. Thanks to the hardworking maintenance and operations engineers, carpenters, and laborers who have literally moved this place around and lifted it up in so many ways over the summer. Thanks also to the hardworking custodial crew for making the School look wonderful for the new semester. We could not ask for more from the Law School’s great staff!
Yours,
Michelle
--
Michelle J. Anderson
Dean and Professor of Law
CUNY School of Law
65-21 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
(718) 340-4201 phone
(718) 340-4482 fax
anderson@mail.law.cuny.edu
DEEPTHROAT WHO ARE YOU?
I know who Deepthroat is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Mark_Felt
WOW, what if Sam Sue really DID write the posting here? That means that we have an official commentary about the clerkship selection process. Someone should ask Sam Sue if he is responsible for this posting and then get back to the rest of us. Even if he did not write the posting, we should also find out if Sam endorses what the poster has alleged, that high grades and law review are prerequisites to obtaining a clerkship.
"Even if he did not write the posting, we should also find out if Sam endorses what the poster has alleged, that high grades and law review are prerequisites to obtaining a clerkship."
Sam's statement doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. I appreciate concerns about process and transparency, but that won't change the fact that federal judges use grades as a filter. If you read OSCAR posts, most of them say so.
The whole clerkship system is based on status, grades and participation in things like law review.
The system is unfair and elitist but it is doubtful that even a call from the dean could change the reality of such requirements.
I think the point of the original post was to focus on the internal CUNY process rather than the larger clerkship process. We have no control over what Judges look for in clerks, but it seems problematic that the Dean's process is arbitrary.
From last year, it seems like the Dean's process is based on personality rather than some objective criteria. Though i would be concerned if the dean only called on behalf of the top few students, i am more concerned that there are no standards and no accountability.
I understand that the Dean has discretion because of her position, but she should excersize it in a uniform manner.
Is it actually problematic? Or just sort of crappy? "Transparency" and "accountability" are great buzzwords, but what do they mean here? Accountable to whom? Why? Maybe I am misunderstanding the process, but isn't it a personal recommendation from the Dean (as opposed to an institutional letter of good standing)? Doesn't that mean she gets to pick? If her standards mirror the standards of judges picking clerks, I guess its a shame, but I also sort of doubt that a judge will disregard other factors to choose someone based on a recommendation (unless they're personal friends or something, and that's a whole other ball of wax).
And isn't personality always a factor in recommendations? I might be wrong, but I have a sense that if you walked into the office of every single prof you got an A from and asked for a recommendation, some might decline for personal reasons. I can't even begin to think of what "standards" would look like (actually, I can: 4.0 gpa and law review editor...). I think that by allowing it to be discretionary, it might actually leave more room for students to get recommendations "ex aequo et bono" where they might not have under the inevitable GPA cutoff + prestige points requirement.
And why would it be in the best interest for everyone to know who got a call and who didn't? So that the people who didn't can be publicly shamed and the people who did can be sour-graped out of their satisfaction by people sniping on CLB? It's the same reason grades continue to be anonymous once they're posted - leave people some privacy! Eesh!
I just think that you can generally count on institutions to implement "Standards" in the most quantifiable, concrete way possible, and thus this might be a "be careful what you wish for" situation.
I had a big LOL at the "abolish the practice" and "surrender autonomy" comment, which I can only surmise was a joke. Surrender autonomy in making choices about personal recommendation?
People seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. Is it too arbitrary? Or too seated in Standard Indicia? Maybe it's both - of the people who are "well qualified," she chooses some, based on a deanly "je ne sais quois," perhaps they are polite or dress nicely or have good taste in music, for whom to make calls. To me, that sounds like exactly how people get recommendations in every other context. Am I wrong?
cuny law review does not consider good grades at all in their selection...so it's not really fair that it is used as a judge of who is the best at cuny law.
and, since good grades and law review ARE what judges look to the most, dean anderson's assistance could probably most help the person who maybe didnt make law review or who didn't have a stellar grade in one class.
Dean Anderson's judgment is her own - I think she should be free to recommend who she wants. After all, if the person royally fucks up later, it's her good name that is also tarnished.
My guess is that she writes letters to the judges that the candidates want, which often WILL be the old white guys from Yale.
The school should do institutional recommendations as well, if that's what people want. That would provide more people with recommendations based on a set criteria.
It's mistaken to think that high grades and law review were the only factors that go into this. As a matter of fact, there were about 14 students who applied. Support from the Dean could have been in the form of a Dean's letter being sent to the top 20 judges identified by the student and/or in the form of the Dean calling 2-3 judges for a smaller subset of these students. Those students who provided me a list of their top 20 judges got a Dean's letter of support sent to many of the judges in their list. There were other students who got phone calls made--not everyone who got a phone had the highest grades. There were some that were 4.0's but there were many getting the Dean's support who were below that as well. Law review membership was a factor as much as publishing an article or being a research assistant to a judge. These are factors because being a good writer is THE most important factor. Certainly having good grades is a factor. There is little mystery and great transparency in the factors as they were factors in a scoring system chart that was set forth in the clerkship handbook that students had in hand.
There were some students who had not evidenced writing ability either through law review membership, publishing and/or serving as a research assistant and they did not make the cut and that was a very small number.
Other students who didn't respond to my request for a whittled down list of 20 judges, also were left out since letters couldn't be sent out to the 100 or so judges they had applied to.
The process has been as transparent if not more than in the past. Dean Glen handpicked students who applied and match them up after meeting with students. Dean Anderson based on the criteria above supported applications either through letters and/or calling the top judges of the applicant's choosing.
The criteria that is used is realistic in light of the rather hyper-competitive federal application process. We try to be supportive in different ways to all students and help them with getting the best materials out there. In fact, this year we paired up most of the applicants with CUNY alumni who had previously served as clerks. This appeared to help enhance the quality of the applications and the competitiveness of CUNY candidates.
By the way, this is the first posting ever made by me on this blog. I've noticed a previous posting under my name, but that wasn't from me.
Thank you for the clarification, Real Sam Sue.
What if you want to request institutional or dean support for your application to another type of job?
It would seem strange to me that it's only available if you're applying to this particular type of difficult to attain position. There is a lot of competition for jobs in the public interest world. What other "off the menu" items are there for students to pursue?
Post a Comment