I would tend to agree. WUSTL is a very well respected school. However, like all schools outside of the T14, it would only place the top 1/3 of the class in big law and probably only top 10-15% in major markets. As a transfer with a high GPA you might be within that group. On the other hand, firms might pass you over because you have not proved yourself at a T1 school. Presumably, you applied to other schools. If your question was should I go to GULC? My answer would be an emphatic yes. For WUSTL, the answer is still yes, but more cautious. 

The OP specifically said that he (or she) is "friendly and socially extroverted" and I will take the OP at his (or her) word. Moreover, the strategy could only offend an employer if the interviewee refused to provide his or her resume upon request (which would clearly be stupid and unprofessional). Not all interviewers immediately ask for a resume (many of mine did not). Consider the converse: "an average law school nerd" in the top 10% of his class at a top 10 school arrives at an interview and immediately presents his resume to the interviewer because the nerd is terrible at interviewing but knows that once the interviewer sees his class rank, a callback will be more likely forthcoming. Is that similarly disingenuous? Both the nerd and someone who uses the strategy are simply playing to their strengths.

From my experience, I agree with you that lifestyle firms in the sense of less hours are a myth. It's simple economics really. How can a firm compete in the marketplace if they do not require the work output that other law firms demand? Further, how can a firm afford to pay associates the going rate, for less work? The firm would have to pay less which would discourage some of the best students from going there.

What I think the notion of a lifestyle firm actually reflects is the firm's culture. Some firms are known for being more laid back than others. For example, some CA firms do not have a dress code. Associates can walk around in jeans and flip-flops. Other firms are known for being really good to their associates. They work just the same but they are not treated like sh*t at 4 a.m.

The only way to work less hours is to be in a practice group that is slow (like many corporate ones are right now). Of course the down side is that you might get laid up. In addition, I have heard that certain practice groups are more conducive to working regular hours. For example, litigation revolves around courts so usually there is not the sudden demand that a document be drafted in 48 hrs like often occurs on the deal side. That means an associate can manage their time more easily. 

Theoretically, yes, every single student at NYU can get a biglaw job in NY making 160,000. However, not every student at NYU is interested in biglaw. A significant number of students, probably 15-20%, voluntarily pursue public interest. In addition, many students decide to work at firms in DC, LA, SF, etc. So, while every student could choose NY biglaw, many do not for a variety of reason. Hence, although 95% is an exaggeration, it is a self-selected one.

Based on my experience with the same process, I would apply to both Federal District and Circuit judges. Your class rank and position on law review will make you a competitive candidate. However, that fact is that you will be competing for clerkships, especially circuit ones, with students from T14 schools with your same credentials. Thus, it will be important to apply to plenty of district judges. The most competitive circuits are DC, 2nd, 7th, 9th and those in big cities. Similarly, district clerkships in NY, SF, Chicago, DC, etc. are more competitive than in Fargo, Salem, etc.

I have not heard that a published note is requisite. Most judges ask for a writing sample as part of the application and I believe that they often do not want a completely vetted work product because they want to see your individual writing without outside editing. Finally, strong letters of rec are vital to securing the most competitive clerkships.

Good luck. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to apply.