Jennifer Doudna, the Nobel Prize-winning Berkeley scientist known for pioneering gene editing, summarized the concern in a letter to the regents this summer.

“The test-blind policy was a well-intentioned experiment,” she wrote, “but the reality in our classrooms shows that it has failed.” Admitting students who are unprepared, she warned, “sets them up for discouraging struggle. … We cannot afford another cycle of administrative delay.”

https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2026/08/15/uc-berkeley-sat-test-blind-admissions-math-scores/

So this brings us back to the universal debate that is waging both in India and the US: are we seriously compromising on merit if we admit people solely because they are from a lower social or economic background?

It’s also interesting that these policies are followed in the US, UK and India, but perhaps not in the EU and definitely not in countries like China, Japan, Korea. What explains this? Is it populist vote seeking that prompts these policies without much thought?

the point is if you are an NLU you made that choice, most mumbai colleges cost nothing ( gov ones) and then shared room etc means cost of attending both are same or even cheaper for mumbai gov colleges.

I mean the entire premise is if you want to get a job, you either go to the best universities or work for long enough that your ability and CV speak for itself, that is how it works all over the world, people at hofstra get into tier 1 finance entities due to proximity, guys from harvard do cause of their brand, do you hear about guys from university of arkansas becomming a ceo of a fortune 500 company? No right, because you have one of two routes in the world.

Expectating the best of both is ridiculous and if you didnt have either by going to a no name college is a tier 3/4 city you anyway were never contending for t1 jobs ( it should not be this way in an ideal world because there very well could be exceptional people anywhere, but that is just how the market works)

The man enjoys being Chancellor but does zilch about the accumulated and continuing rot at NUJS. You should also check his past record of not so tacit support to the corrupt and questionable at RGNUL. Not everything gets reported in the media. Don't worry about Greatness. Will get a cushy sinecure.

Seriously why the indulgence? He got RS so there is a possibility that he wasn't seen winnable for LS but had to be rewarded. So many others could have been rewarded. But why him? Irrespective of his (fake) apology, cockroaches must not soft pedal but instead swarm him out of all positions.

Not sure whether these women are 1st gen, but you see them enough in court rooms and you sigh saying “god is a woman”. I am talking about a few awesome ladies at dhc bar i have seen in commercial and main building. As for offering strength, i realise there aretwo ways to survive, first is obvs lawfirms and second and more difficult is building connections for referrals and getting empanelled. The career trajectory would look upwards soon thereafter. Godspeed sister!

I am an A1, at a T1 transaction team, my teammates are shit toxic, dont like me for I dont even know what reasons. I fear that they wont give a good feedback about me to the Partner and the Partner will ask me to leave. I am anxious because of that all day long. Other than the shit team, work is really good, I am liking it and learning a lot of things. Please tell me how to survive bare minimum for an year.

Fresher kid, just joined a respectable boutique disputes team in delhi. Want to shift to tier 1 asap. I know will have to put in at least a year but how does lateral shift even work? Like are there headhunters or you just apply or what? Please guide - serious advice only. Thanks

It depends on the judge's chambers. However, I believe mailing the designated mail ids of these offices would help you better. I know HMJ KVV's office and HMJ R Mahadevan's office regularly accepts interns who mail them. Also, follow the judges' clerks' profiles on LinkedIn, they regularly post call for applications. All the best!

Why is nobody reading this fucking article? They are cutting on administrators, not teachers. I will say that, once more, very slowly, very quietly, for the deliberately unintelligent of this forum: HARVARD IS CUTTING ON ADMINISTRATORS, NOT TEACHERS. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE FULLY!!!

Hey, how did you apply for the internship? Ive tried the official mail in the website, and there's just an automated response stating that applications for summer 2026 are closed (when i've applied for winter 2026). Is there any other application process or did you get in thru contacts?

Like everybody else has already said, there is no such thing as being cut out for it. Be thorough, run through the checklist, and escape the perfectionism trap. You have to like the work, not the people doing the work. As long as you're genuinely interested in whatever you practice. One bad senior is not going to make a big impact in your long-term career. One last thing: create boundaries and set clear expectations with your senior. Hold your line and clearly tell him that negative criticism or yelling in front of everyone does not work for you productively. Prepare checklists run through them with him. If he's genuinely willing to mentor you, then he'll do that. Otherwise, just move on, find another senior/firm.

As someone who has gone through this exact same thing, once you put your mind to it, this entire process is not going to take more than six months. You'll stop making mistakes, your drafts will improve, and you will eventually become the senior dealing with people making mistakes, so don't stress it.

Hey okay so i was in a office and what i noticed is that all the people there who got an internship was through connection including me. Then eventually i cleared the clerkship with decent rank but didnt get through the interview as previous LC and people with proper connection and rank got it. TBH the job is good as it gives a very good experience but after the 3 year judiciary rule the applicants have increase 4 fold. I hope it helps

First gen lawyer from a decent local law college in Bangalore, currently in my third semester. I have been getting literal palpitations thinking of my future, lots of people from great law schools are finding it hard and someone like me who is liable to experience a institutional disadvantage is even more susceptible to shortcomings. I am currently placed in the top 5% of my batch, I have been interning under decent lawyers, joined clubs, working on legal writing. Should I venture out of law or accept that I would have to go through this rough patch?(Want to join a t2/t1.5 corporate law firm)

Seems like a lot of people have left in the last 1-2 months, especially in June and July. From what I can see, quite a few associates, principals and other lawyers have moved out. The team hardly has 2-3 lawyers left.

Anyone here knows what is going on?

Is this just normal attrition or has something happened internally? Seems a bit unusual for so many people to leave around the same time.

Would be interested to hear from anyone currently at Lexygen or anyone who has recently left.

Why should everyone protest with them ? Are you their parents or their teachers ? If grown adults with developed pre frontal cortices think there is something legitimate to protest about the CJI - then I’m not sure where we are anymore. The man hasn’t done any conduct unbecoming of his office

So Chandrachud ? Turn about is fair play ? Everyone has a party they vote for - the question is if you can point to a judgement that was unfairly decided because of bias. Judiciary isn’t supposed to be antagonistic to government. It’s supposed to be a check and balance - there’s a difference.

If only “VIBES” were enough to take care of us in this tough economy. Don’t speak for us that we were okay with the pay cuts or whatever. I wasn’t at least. And has the bar become so low that having a non-toxic work experience could be traded with below industry standard and non-transparent pay?

Both the left and right are responsible.

The left for hiring someone who was not suitable, just to quickly meet DEI targets. Then ignoring the criticism and accusing his critics of being racist. Then disowning and condemning him once it was found that the criticisms have merit.

The right for shifting from objective criticism to mockery and ridicule, branding him as a woke DEI hire. Such things can bring shame and affect a person’s mental health.

NUALS Kochi has still not sent the prize money for an ADR Competition held back in February, 2026. Even after multiple follow-up throughout the last 6 months by all of the winners time and again. I think naming and shaming their admin is the only option left for us.

Also is there any other recourse? Please advise.

Thank you so much! Since I’m currently pursuing an IPR LL.M. from a Tier-1 law school, I’m trying to understand the practical reality of breaking into this such law space as a fresher. Would you recommend that I focus primarily on getting internships with TMT teams/offices and converting one into a PPO, or should I also be applying directly for full-time roles? Given how niche the market is, what route would you realistically consider the most viable for someone in my position? Thanks

We have 25 in total as of now for BO 27

3 in AZB (All GC)

4 In CAM

5 In King and Patridge (All Day Z)

Rest 13 are PPOs from long term internships

5 CAM (3 Real Estate, 1 GC, 1 Disputes)

1 SAM (GC)

3 KCO (All Real estate)

1 JSA (Employments)

2 Trilegal (1 Cap marks, 1 Infrastructure)

1 Poovayya (Disputes)

i dont think the consortium has sufficient spine to take on MM

even within BCI there are few who can take on MM

only the cockcroaches can take him on, perhaps a twitter poll by the CJP handle asking if he should resign would be sufficient for MM's malik to drop him, he has finished his usability and if one looks at the loose cannon that he is (and the damage he can do the brand) mota bhai may decide that its better to cut him loose

There's no legal requirement to be member of a bar association to practice law - most corporate lawyers, for e.g., are not members. If you're a litigator though, it has some benefits (parking, access to libraries and consultation rooms, eligibility (however illusory) for chamber space), depending on the city / association.

Because IIMs have a million times the prestige and brand value.

Difference:

- National institutions

- Strong faculty

- Top business people in the country on governing bodies, especially IIMA

- Alumni actively involved and have a seat in the governing body

- No disruptive students and profs fighting woke culture wars

Compare with NLUs: absolute clown show, barring NLSIU to an extent under Sudhir.

Here's the NDTV Profit news report on this development. At 9:05, the interviewer (a lawyer) actually asks the question to the interviewee, "You could have gone to law school; why did you choose IIMA?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6qrYLlHy0s

This Man did zilch to another dinosaur (▮▮▮) who was intimately connected to the perp involved in the horrific rape at South Kolkata Law College among other shenanigans spanning nearly a decade. Different matter that the Party with (no) Difference is also indifferent after winning.

This Man has been made. Quite self made actually. Let's just help nature and let gravity do the rest.

With all due respect, please spend some time actually reading about these buzzwords. What does "combining" TMT with data privacy/AI/Tech law even mean!? 99% times, when anyone says they do TMT law, all of this forms the bread and butter of what you do - there is no "combining", this is core TMT.

With a few exceptions, same goes true for IP too: most TMT lawyers are fairly well versed with copyright law because you need that everytime you advise on content related media / ad laws, including basic aspects like software/content licensing, ownership over AI-generated content, ad advisories, endorsement deals etc. What TMT teams don't typically also do is things like trademark registrations or patent filings or disputes on these. That's typically handled by an IP team. Very specific partners do all of this, and that's typically what is referred to as a 'TMT/IP' team. And yes, everything in my previous comment continues to squarely apply to these teams too - it's too small and niche a market, there's not enough partners, and noone wants to hire a fresher outside of PPOs. You'll have 50x more chances at M&A, if you pivot. Maybe you still want to do this - and I can respect that and related to it, but you should know the facts before you take that decision. All the best.

Bhai/behen, as a Nalsar alum, I can comfortably say that there is a 99% higher chance of a person in/eyeing a legal leadership role having gone to IIMA rather than DOMS, NALSAR for getting themselves equipped for the role. Noone has ever claimed that DOMS and NALSAR are even in the same conversation when it comes to business management education.

Fundamentally, any master's course/certification/diploma at that stage of your career is not meant to demonstrate legal competence - that is assumed at that stage (and even if it isn't, noone expects any law school to actually impart the practical legal skills needed to be a GC).

So obviously, a place that has better creds for an MBA was chosen. It would've been absurd for CAM to invest into DOMS, Nalsar without there being a steady track record of successful alumni or interest.

Hi, I am a 3rd year student at a T-3 NLU. I wanted to ask whether judges actually take interns through the Google Forms floated, or is it merely on the basis of connections? Or is there any other way of applying, if the same does not work? Also, if you could share your experience working with a particular judge, it'd be really helpful! Thanks.

Is that all you guys ever think about? Is this how small your life is? Is having a semblance of a better college in a poor education system overall that comforting to you! Is this all you are? Do you not feel pathetic about yourself? You use the incredible human capacity of spatial imagination to make up imaginary competition in your head all day? How do you even ▮▮▮?

to a great extent the procedural faults in BCI's notice have been highlighted by Anand Singh in India Today - '

Manan Mishra lowered the Bar with NALSAR threat. Shouldn't he pay for it?' https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bci-nalsar-row-supreme-court-questions-manan-mishra-order-bar-council-india-cji-surya-kant-2971115-2026-08-14
==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================

CJI has now played an Uno reverse on everyone: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-surya-kant-disapproves-bci-action-against-nalsar-students-say-they-have-right-to-protest-545766

Hello folks, I’m a 3rd-year law student pursuing a 3-year LL.B. I haven’t had the opportunity to intern with a litigation lawyer practicing in the High Court or District Courts.

I’m keen to learn the practical aspects of litigation, especially court procedures and drafting nuances, from someone with regular practice.

If anyone can point me towards a lawyer in Delhi who might be open to having a student intern/assist them, I’d be really grateful.

TIA!

Its because it was a less toxic firm. The vibes were good, the people were nice, work life balance was decent and it just felt like a law firm without the unnecessary toxicity of a CAM SAM. People were okay with the pay cut because all said and done at least we were not as miserable as other firms.

The CJI did far more to undermine public trust in his office than these students. Nor are the students asking for the resignation of the CJI, just exercising their right not to take their degrees from him. Not sure how this affects one's perception of the profession of advocates.

Moves happen all the time. People move for all reasons. Maybe it is just too many in a small period of time that is causing all the furore. Whenever big institutions go through such periods, there is a storm. Institutions that weather such storms and in doing so, course correct are the ones that live on.

1. Where are BA LLB supporters? Well, here's one: me.

2. There is a comprehensive argument to study each and every one of the subjects you have listed, but I am going to give you a pretty persuasive one for only one of them: philosophy. Here's an article from The Economist, 24th June 2026. It tells you everything you need to know. If you think about it, you are the one who looks like an idiot, not anybody else.

Why big AI labs are hiring so many philosophers

The technology presents all sorts of thorny problems—a philosopher’s favourite kind

Jun 24th 2026

Ten years ago, as the ai revolution was gathering pace, arts and humanities students were told that, if they wanted to make themselves employable, they should “learn to code”. That may have been bad advice. These days, it is programmers who are nervous about ai taking their jobs.

They might consider learning to philosophise. Earlier this year the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published figures showing that American philosophy graduates are more likely to have jobs than their peers who studied computer science. In 2024, the most recent year for which numbers are available, 7% of those who had studied computer science were unemployed, against just 5.1% of philosophers.

Many are being snapped up by ai firms themselves. Students get job offers before they have graduated, says Luciano Floridi, a philosopher at Yale University. Academics are moving, too. Dr Floridi describes the scale of departures from philosophy departments as a “haemorrhaging”.

Some of the lessons that philosophy can offer ai researchers are ancient. The Socratic method—as described by Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher—uses feigned ignorance and sequential questioning to clarify meanings, spot contradictions and reveal ramifications. Many current ai systems tend towards sycophancy. Models trained in the Socratic method, says Jörg Noller, an expert on philosophy and ai at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, are less keen on people-pleasing and more willing to pursue the truth.

Then there is the idea of “Socratic ignorance”. In the “Apology”, Plato has Socrates claim that his wisdom consists mostly of being aware of how much he does not know. Implanting that humility into a model can help limit overconfidence, a common flaw that Dr Noller describes as “ai immaturity”. Iason Gabriel, a senior philosopher at Google DeepMind, an ai lab based in London, attributes an industry-wide decline in hallucinations to such efforts. More broadly, he says, philosophy lessons are “a powerful mechanism” for improving long ai reasoning processes known as “chains of thought”.

Philosophical training can also affect a model’s outlook in more specific ways. Feed an ai legal assistant the writings of John Locke, says Thomas Powers, a philosopher of technology at the University of Delaware, and it will favour robust property rights as an underpinning of political liberty. And if you don’t like those principles, the model-makers have others. The “Granite” series of models from ibm, an American computing giant, come with dials that let business customers better align outputs with their own corporate philosophies. Francesca Rossi, ibm’s head of responsible ai, says these can let users choose where to strike the balance between philosophical trade-offs, such individual agency versus social harmony.

Philosophy can help with safety, too. Researchers have documented all sorts of ominous behaviour in ai models, including attempts to evade oversight and even blackmail their users. One way model-makers try to discourage this sort of misbehaviour is called ai constitutionalism. This involves building a model around a scaffolding of rules and principles culled from philosophical writings with legal or moral authority.

Anthropic, an ai lab based in San Francisco, is one proponent. Constitutions for its Claude models have incorporated material from sources as diverse as Immanuel Kant, Apple’s terms of service and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The latest iteration, led by Anthropic’s top philosopher, Amanda Askell, was published on January 21st. Some staff at Anthropic have nicknamed the 78-page constitution Claude’s “soul doc”.

The biggest question, though, is what sorts of rules should be put in those constitutions in the first place. Philosophers have zeroed in on two main ethical frameworks. One is deontology. Popular with Kant, among others, this imposes strict rules that prohibit things like lying, coercion and treating people as a means rather than an end, even if it is for a greater good. Anthropic’s constitution incorporates many deontological strictures. These can make ai behaviour more consistent, says Dr Powers—a plus for deploying robots in homes and public spaces.

Models with a deontological take on the world have other benefits. One is greater honesty, a trait widely noted in Claude. Models that are more truthful, says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, are less likely to mislead their users. Inflection ai, another Silicon Valley lab, imposes deontological constraints onto its Pi chatbot, which is designed to provide emotional support. Sean White, its boss, says Pi is good at spotting users at risk of harming themselves or others. Deontological constitutions also help with legal compliance, says Dr Floridi.

The other approach to ethics of interest to philosophers of ai is called consequentialism. It weighs costs against benefits to decide what to do. Models more sympathetic to consequentialism include OpenAI’s Chatgpt and Google’s Gemini. Google’s ai models are designed to produce “likely overall benefits [that] substantially outweigh the foreseeable risks”, a classic consequentialist goal.

Consequentialist algorithms are also crucial in software for autonomous vehicles: if an accident is unavoidable, a decision must be made on the least tragic way to crash. Chris Gerdes, a senior engineer at Waymo, which makes self-driving cars, says the trend is to make driving software more consequentialist. Consequentialism is also central to ai weapon systems. Military objectives must be weighed against possible civilian deaths, says Jack Shanahan, a former head of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Centre, which studies ai for America’s armed forces.

Thorny problems abound—a philosopher’s favourite sort. Are there cases when deontological rules should be overridden? How do you make decisions when the consequences are unclear? Should ai systems take into account animal welfare, or the state of the environment? Would it be morally acceptable, asks Stefan Heck, a philosopher and the boss of Nauto, which makes ai-powered safety systems for lorries and other commercial vehicles, to prioritise young pedestrians over old ones? He predicts ethically fraught lawsuits: consequentialist algorithms, after all, explicitly permit one harm as long as it is designed to avert a worse one.

Critics fret about “moral deskilling”: if computers increasingly make ethical calls, might people become less willing to make their own judgments? Roman Yampolskiy, an ai theoretician at the University of Louisville, argues that morality “is historically unstable, culturally variable, strategically manipulable, and often only retrospectively legible”. Unemployed coders take note: there seems to be no shortage of work for philosophers of ai. ■

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/06/24/why-big-ai-labs-are-hiring-so-many-philosophers

3. This commentary of yours also displays a profoundly ignorant understanding of how university governance works. It also displays something shocking: an inability to read a two-page article.

(a) As somebody has written on LinkedIn, nobody in western higher ed making these kinds of decisions about cuts really wants to do this. There are external pressures on university finances (in the case of the UK, perhaps also in the U.S. case, I don't know) and regulatory pressures (in the U.S.). That person in fact said very beautifully that trying to get into these stupid and reductive conversations about defending the humanities with administrators which you have raised is pointless, because it is preaching to the quire.

(b) The earlier point is justified if you actually read the article. Neither you nor the OP seem to have done. They have given a breakdown of who was asked to go. Mainly admin positions. So even what Harvard is actually doing does not seem to be supporting this absolutely stupid crap that has been published here.

Moderators, the fact that you didn't point this out in the case of the OP commentary (by use of a 'trollish' tag or at least a 'contested') is pretty surprising to me. If only the article had been posted without commentary, I would have understood. But commentary has been posted clearly pointing in the direction of an opinion.

lets play you game

what is the legal basis (appropriate section or rule) for the BCI to intervene?

if this is allowed to stand, can BCI tomorrow stop enrolment of a law student who puts forward any politically inconvenient views?

what is the objective standard of determination of what hurts the public confidence in the profession?

no whatsapp forward please; the notice does not really illustrate any meaningful regulatory foundation, a few sections are thrown about and a case is cited, classic pray and spray, hoping something will stick

just because they dont serve your capitalistic overlords doesnt mean they are useless. Education exits to expand you mind and make your life more meaningful through your own deepened understanding of the world. Not everything is a 'tool' to make money. You are free to choose whatever you want to do but its alarming that you think its your place to tell other people to follow in your footsteps and be soulless. its is alarming that the west is cutting down on arts program and its directly related to the economic and human rights decline they are experiencing due to late stage capitalism, the solution is to increase social security benefits so people want to live a full life not become corporate slaves due to poverty.