Again, not doubting your credentials, but anonymous posts aren't really the way to go here. Until there is some sort of a verifiable registration process for sitting for recruitment, one would have to take the percentage of total jobs/total students only. That's the only verifiable stats.
You're right. There's no way for anyone to verify this. But, I am an NLUD student and based on the number of people who've joined the recruitment pool in my batch, the earlier figures for NLUD quoted on LI do seem very accurate.
NUJS reveals the pool size like all the others. Not that it means that the revelation shouldn't be taken with a pinch of salt just like that of others too.
No, what cannot be proven is that if a university placement cell manages to place 40 out of the 60 interested students, and then pads the figure by saying that only 45 students formed the original pool. Since the other 15 would eventually opt for litigation or other career options once they realise that they aren't getting a good enough firm job. So this declaration of recruitment pool doesn't really mean anything, because it cannot be verified.
That's the thing, NUJS's percentage cannot be calculated because they never reveal the size of their recruitment pool. NLS, NLUD and NALSAR do, so their percentages can be calculated. If the 80% figure is indeed true, then I'll happily admit that NUJS is doing better than the other three.
I calculated that percentage on the basis of numbers reported on LI articles. You're welcome to verify them for yourself. NLS, NLUD and NALSAR all hover around the 65% mark. So, my friend, it certainly can be proven.
the comment literally says law schools don't excel in binaries, and I fail to understand why this standard doesn't apply to NLS when it claims excellence in a binary?
Honestly, it is also untrue that you will earn a lot more in London. The cost of living is way too much in London. Taxes take away more than 35% of your annual income, compared to almost 7-8% for Indian lawyers. Plus, you will earn bare enough to live during 2 years of TC and just a living stipend for 2 years earlier during the course of SQE. You will have to get a decent amount of money from your parents for 2 years of SQE study. Mind you, your expenditure for these 2 years will be very high as living in London is very expensive compared to other towns like Oxfordshire or Cambridge. Plus, compare the A0 salary of a Magic circle associate with an SA1 in an Indian law firm (Basically that means 4 years out of law school). You will find Indian lawyers will be earning way more in terms of purchasing power of their salary.
I understand that there is a glory associated with a Magic Circle lawyer but there would hardly be any sensitive lawyer who would think an MC A0 is better than SA at a big law firm in India. If you return back to India, unlike what most others think, Indian law firms discount their PQE simply because the first 4 years of their service do not count as PQE. Imagine coming back to India and working as an associate under a partner who was your batchmate. However, most of them do not come back and slog as associates for years without even knowing if they will make partners.
Prospects of making a partner are very bleak. You have very few prospects of a lateral shift in any other firm in London because most of them (Especially big US firms in London) prefer Oxbridge candidates only.
I fail to understand why people with such good intelligence still prefer MC firms over Indian ones.
To be blunt: It is because these jobs are considered cool and basically ensure that you are the envy of all your batchmates and the God for all your juniors. I know people who show little to no inclination towards corporate practice taking up these opportunities just so that they can get a good ego boost out of it. To be fair, this is something true for law firm jobs in general, but once you hype that up by a count of 5-6 given the 'London' tag associated with it, the charm becomes irresistible for many. After all, you are only 20 when you complete your vacation scheme, and sadly or otherwise, many decisions at that age are made without considering the full ramifications of it.
A TC is two years, not four - after which they're dual qualified and earn a lot more money. Also the culture of Indian law firms is pretty toxic, it makes sense if they want to do corp long term.
NLUD does have very good recruitment though. Sure 25 out of 80 does not sound very good, but the criteria should not be 'number of students placed out of total batch size'. Rather, it should be 'number of students placed out of number of students who wished to be placed'. That is how unemployment rates are also calculated in economics. If you see the percentage of students placed in high paying law firms as per the latter criteria then NLUD is right up there with NLS and NALSAR at around 65% of the recruitment pool. NLUD will always have absolute low numbers because corp jobs are not popular here to begin with and a majority of the batch wants to pursue other things like UPSC and litigation.
Just a genuine question- Why are people still interested in Magic circle firms knowing that they will have to spend 4 years before they qualify as associate?
They can make better money and earn better position in law firm hierarchy in India. Plus, they would have way better prospects of making partner.
If at all intersted in foreign law firms, will lateral entry not make better sense? Atleast, they wont have to discount 4 years of experience. Just curious!
I like how people just downvote when someone talks about NLUD's performance. Can't accept facts it seems. Get rid of your perception that law schools excel in binaries.
NLUD has the most number of Vac Schemes for the 2022 batch. 3, one from HSF, Linklaters, A&O. Cute that you think NLS, NALSAR & NUJS constitute as Big 3. NLUD outperforming them
Have heard rumours that Allen and Overy, Linklaters and Norton Rose have offered a large number of training contracts to 2022 grads in the big 3 i.e. NLS, NALSAR and NUJS. Vacation schemes have also been offered a few members of the 2023 cohort. Is this true? Can someone please confirm this?
I understand that there is a glory associated with a Magic Circle lawyer but there would hardly be any sensitive lawyer who would think an MC A0 is better than SA at a big law firm in India. If you return back to India, unlike what most others think, Indian law firms discount their PQE simply because the first 4 years of their service do not count as PQE. Imagine coming back to India and working as an associate under a partner who was your batchmate. However, most of them do not come back and slog as associates for years without even knowing if they will make partners.
Prospects of making a partner are very bleak. You have very few prospects of a lateral shift in any other firm in London because most of them (Especially big US firms in London) prefer Oxbridge candidates only.
I fail to understand why people with such good intelligence still prefer MC firms over Indian ones.
Why are people still interested in Magic circle firms knowing that they will have to spend 4 years before they qualify as associate?
They can make better money and earn better position in law firm hierarchy in India. Plus, they would have way better prospects of making partner.
If at all intersted in foreign law firms, will lateral entry not make better sense? Atleast, they wont have to discount 4 years of experience. Just curious!