IIM Rohtak is starting a 5 year BBA-LLB course and will admit students through CLAT. The total fee is Rs 30 lakh tuition + Rs 20 lakh hosts etc = Rs 50 lakhs.
IIM Rohtak is not a big brand, but what if IIM A/B/C/ follow? Maybe NLSIU, NALSAR and NLUD are big enough brands to compete with IIM A/B/C, but surely no student will prefer the other NLUs over IIM A/B/C? Also, IIM Rohtak will perhaps be preferred over around 10-12 bottom-ranked NLUs?
The other factor is that IIMs are central institutes with INI status and lots of cash. The infra should be better. Plus, good faculty will prefer IIM jobs to NLU jobs.
This is great for the ecosystem. I wish IIM ABC follow suit, this will bring greater attention to law programs leading to overall improvement for the ecosystem. Also, while top NLUs have a great job, there is no doubt that the profession will only improve with some competition.
The top IIMs did not even agree to start Integrated BBA-MBA course when IIM Indore tried to do so. The integrated program at IIM Indore failed to be a success both in terms of attracting students and placements. The program is likely to be shut down soon.
IIM Rohtak is just another new IIM desperate for money. They tried the IIM Indore model, started the integrated BBA-MBA program and had very few takers. Now perhaps they're floating another crap program.
That is precisely why they charge so high fees in the range of 20-30 lacs. Older IIMs are anyway self-financing. Newer IIMs also stop receiving any funds few years after inception (land, building etc.).
Once again... NLUD students / alumni showing their insecurity & comparing it with NLS NALSAR NUJS and saying it is comparable to IIM. Waah, NLUD, waah!
I doubt that the OP is an NLUD troll, given that the entire point of the post is IIM Rohtak's new programme. I would wager that the problem lies in you being obsessed with trying to spot NLUD trolls/ trolls from NLUs other than your own (if you are even from one). You just concluded, based on one single mention of NLUD in a post about IIM Rohtak, that the OP is related to NLUD and the main purpose of the post was to put it at the same pedestal as NLS and NALSAR. I hope you realise how absurd you sound.
Their highest MBA package far exceeded NLS. On what grounds do you say that their IPM will be crap.Pls Indore's IPM too exceeded NLS's top package. Yes, their fees are high, but calling established IIM's crap seems woefully ignorant lol.
Bhai as much as I respect NLS, don't compare it to top 3 IIMs, especially IIMA. Are you kidding me? NLS in same league as IIMA. That is just insane. To start with unlike the dubious claims made by law school where law school guard placement stats as if it is a national treasure (despite there being the same handful no of employer visiting each law school) IIMs have placement audits and their placement records are public document which anyone can take a look at. The lowest package at IIMA is 16lpa (this is not CTC but guaranteed cash component) with median and average to be around 25 lpa (again GCC not CTC) and highest going to be 70lpa (Domestic not international). And don't be the stupid guy quoting Alma Maters here, the stats as I said earlier are public and you can check them for yourself.
Sorry, but NLSIU is much better than IIMA if you look at alumni achievements. IIMA grads just end up working for banks and MNCs. NLSIU grads have become judges, Senior Advocates, ASG, QC, Rhodes scholars, Oxford professors, Time magazine top 100 newsmakers, founders of law firms like Trilegal, Magic Circle partners etc.
Are you insane? IIMA is a world renowned institution. Arguably, the best institution of the country. Ever heard of Monetary policy committee? It consists of a IIMA professor. Wver heard of RBI Governor? IIMA Alum (Raghuram Rajan) has been one. Ever heard of CEO of a top brand? Indira Nooyi has been a CEO of Pepsico. Even CEO of mastercard was an IIMA alum. Please, do some research before making a stupid claim like this. There might be one or two NLS gards who featured in TIME. Rest all of them are mostly from IIT and IIM. Every year, there are atleast 5/6 of them from IIMA.
Also, unlike NLS grads, IIMA grads do no need to go to Oxford to put a brand name on their CV, their institution is a brand in itself.
IIM A grads have become CEOs, Founders, IAS, Policy heads, government advisors, cricketers, economists as well as co founders of top universities like Ashoka. It might be tough for NLS to compete against the university founded by IIM A alumni, let alone IIM A. Leave academics, IIM A alumni are top authors, musicians, actors and what not. Don’t be a troll.
Bhai tu iss page se bahar nikal ke kisiko ye baat bolega, toh log tujhe pagal samajh ke kutte chod denge. as great as nls is, to compare its brand name with that of iim A's is borderline delusional
this is definately the CTC plus other variable bonuses And the lowest packages are just 8-10 lpa, dont go by the inflated placement records Many students are just forced to join somewhere are however meagre salaries to glorify the IIM with a 100% placement.
Untrue. See the audited placement reports below. The lowest salary package of 12.4 lacs excludes variable pay, and often the companies that go on the last day are startups that have a low fixed pay but higher share of ESOPs. Besides, what you should look at is the median (which is 22.5 lacs excluding variable pay). A top tier placement like McKinsey will have an effective CTC of roughly 35 lacs in the first year.
IIM-A is a great college but I am sorry the fact that the lowest package is of 16 lakhs is just wrong. May be one fine year it might have happened, but we should do at least a study of last 5 to 7 years. Mostly the lowest is in the range of 8 to 12 lakhs. How many get 70 lakhs domestic package? May be 1 or 2. Again reading from the audit reports itself. High chance those 70 lakhs are CTC and not the actual salary. May be huge one time bonus component or stock options that will mature after 5 years are included in that. Now let us talk of the reality. There are a lot of IIM-A grads who get a 15 to 25 lakhs per annum package and that is the median. Most of these people have two or three or even more years of experience. It is a post grad degree remember? So 15 to 25 lpa after 3 years of work ex and 2 years of PG (total 5 years) is pretty obvious. A 5 year PQE associate will also earn the same, and would pay a lot less as tax, as lawyers are considered professionals and are on retainer.... not employees like IIM-A grads. I am not belittling IIM-A by any stretch. It is a great great great institute. It is also more than 60 years old, NLS,NALSAR and other NLUs will catch up on the prestige level. There is no need to belittle any IIM or any NLU... they are all great institutes.
Only anon commentators on LI think NLUD is a better brand. Nobody else in the actual legal industry does. You keep harping about domicile quota everywhere, but there is not the slightest evidence to show that it has brought down any NLU's graduate outcome at all.
LOL. NLS (or Law School as you call it) is an older brand. Not necessarily that much better anymore.
And when every law school has a domicile quota, it’s not like it makes a big difference. But colleges like NLIU have shown that the quota can be detrimental.
Lol at your assumptions. I don't call NLSIU Law School nor consider the entitlement of its students or alumni a desirable trait, but it is a point of fact that the place is ahead of other NLUs when one counts overall grad outcome, alumni advantage, legacy and faculty repute in general. These are what a brand is made of. The NLIU example is a red herring. NLIU faltered because of other parameters where it lacked, not because it had a domicile quota. NLSIU and NUJS have domicile quota now, so does NALSAR and their grad outcomes are not getting affected by that at all.
Yeah, you just reaffirmed that it's ahead because of its older alumni base and its legacy. All of which are owing to the fact that it was the first NLU established and had a fair head start. The faculty repute was quite crap for a long time until recent hires by the new VC.
But are its rival tier-1 NLUs necessarily less of a brand considering they're much younger than it? No. From my experience and many of my friends/colleagues, I've not seen anyone being denied the same opportunity just because they're from NLUD (or NALSAR/NUJS for that matter). Maybe that was the case 10-15 years ago but times have changed. This is like arguing that IIT Kharagpur or Madras should perpetually be better than IIT Delhi because it was established earlier.
Not only those two. NLSIU is perhaps the only NLU that does not undergo a lot of changes in practice simply because of a change of the admin head. This has, however, changed arguably for the better once Sudhir took over. Had someone like that taken over from RS at NLUD, then it would have become a lot better. That didn't happen, so it is gradually slowing down and focusing on status quo. Sad, but true.
Ah, yes. The "actual legal industry" - whatever the heck that means. When all the facts speak otherwise, including NLUD's scholarships, moot/ADR wins, civil services domination, research activities and even increasing corporate placements, just throw in a vague "legal industry doesn't agree" to make your point. You're running out of arguments, pal. I think you'll find "the industry" doesn't share your view. And even if it does, we'll be doing alright.
What you are saying itself proves the point. Be it scholarships, moot wins or placement, NLUD students aren't ahead in any of those fields compared to those from NLSIU, NALSAR or NUJS. Your own parameters show that. It is only in civil service exams that their students fare better, and that is certainly not due to any university brand. Compared to that, the actual legal fields where university reputation counts, including the ones that you yourself referred to, won't show NLUD to be ahead of the other three. As for faculty research goes, there I agree the earlier faculty group at NLUD, together with funding and admin backing, were doing a better job, although that was less about a culture and more about having some good people. Almost all of those have left other than Anup now, and so has the research output dwindled accordingly. That's a fact. You may agree or not, I don't really care. Both of us are anon individuals and our opinion here actually counts for zilch.
I honestly don’t care for rankings or even your opinion but your farcical attempt to try and discredit the achievements of NLUD needs to be countered.
Are NLUD students doing much worse than the older 3 despite being decades younger is the question you should ask. And that answer is an obvious no. There’s enough data to back this claim up. We have nearly double as many international moot/debate/ADR wins as NALSAR despite being 10 years younger. Scholarships are not that scarce either. We’ve also seen how placements take off when alumni enter senior positions (look at GNLU, for instance). And as a university and not in terms of individual student achievements, NLUD is doing better than NUJS and NALSAR as an ecosystem for learning and research. I don’t see why NUJS is considered in this debate considering the various threads where their own students are calling out its inadequacies but for the sake of argument, I’ll engage.
My point is that NLUD has built its brand despite the competition from other older law schools that were established decades back. NLS had no competition for the first 15 years of its existence and capitalised on a booming economy in the 90s. The same for NALSAR. Now you can say that it was only because of RS or the fact that the law school is in Delhi or any other lame excuse. But the fact remains that it’s not any worse than its older rivals. So the crap about the legal industry not agreeing is BS in my opinion.
No, no "delusion of self-grandeur". Just facts. Not to say that NLUD doesn't have its own shortcomings in various areas but anyone who's studied there will testify that it does focus on both research and academic rigour.
That’s subjective to your experience. You haven’t interacted with the entire spectrum of NLUD graduates to make a generalised opinion. Obviously, I can’t speak for everyone since I’m sure individual graduates might have their own idiosyncrasies. This is the case for every other NLU as well (or any other top university). But the university itself does emphasise on academic performance and issues like non-plagiarism/originality of research and the like.
Discredit NLUD's achievements? The less you speak about placement the better. You fudge placement data annually to give wrong median salary. That's a proven fact. That NIRF does not verify any data itself is enough reason to ignore it as any reasonable metric.
I don't justify or support the college administration putting out that figure and I never even mentioned NIRF as the most credible ranking. That's your own assumption and I don't really care for your insinuation. But the fact remains that NLUD's placements have consistently been improving since 2013. You can remain in denial of that, I'm not trying to convince you. But the all-round achievements speak for themselves.
Improving, maybe. In the same league as NUJS, NLSIU and NALSAR, not yet. And it's very easy to simply brush aside institutional malafide behaviour by saying that you do not approve of those, but would keep advocating for the supposed institutional excellence in that field nonetheless.
I actually never even said that NLUD had the best placements compared to the older ones. Maybe you should learn to read more carefully before jumping to your conclusions. That’s probably one area where there’s still room for improvement relative to other older NLUs. But in any case, the percentage of people getting placed is similar to older ones now even if absolute numbers are less. NLUD’s batch sizes have also been less than NUJS and NALSAR so far.
Placements aside, I don’t see any metric where NLUD is worse off than its nearest rivals even factoring in their much older alumni base. We’ve pretty much undisputedly overtaken NUJS at this point and there’s little to choose between NALSAR and NLUD.
I think it’s quite petty on your part to continue to assert some kind of superiority of some outdated older top 3 while poorly rationalising NLUD’s sustained improvement and achievements as the result of just some NIRF fudging. The students have no control over what the administration wants to present to the public but speak to anyone who’s studied there and they’ll testify that it’s a top place. And many of us have rejected the other top NLUs to choose NLUD so it’s not that we didn’t have a choice between other good places for law.
Overtaken NUJS in which field of student achievements exactly? If all the other benefits don't actually lead to you producing better students, then what use are those?
Student preferences to be precise. The majority of kids who get into both NLUD and NUJS end up choosing NLUD now. 5-10 years ago, this difference wasn't as stark even though I remember many people who still left NUJS to join NLUD. And contrary to the popular belief, most serious kids don't go by the NIRF ranking. Many of them do speak to seniors or ask questions on forums like this before choosing their college.
I'm not saying that individual NUJS graduates are any worse. I'm speaking about the issue from an institutional standpoint and there are enough threads on this site alone to show that the academic standards at NUJS are declining. In my interactions with other NLU graduates (even from places like GNLU and NLUJ), I hardly ever found any of them to be any worse than someone from another top NLU. As far as the benefits go, I don't think you can quantitatively assess them in a generalised manner (unless you're counting placement numbers alone) but one of the main reasons for NLUD's rise in a short period of time and with intense competition from rival NLUs, is because the institution has committed itself to a certain standard of decent academic exposure for its students.
The question was not about what CLAT aspirants think, but any actual parameter where the NLUD students are ahead. If the so-called better rankers are choosing NLUD and then getting all those supposedly extra rigour and still not turning out to be better than NUJS students, then clearly either they were not actually better or even similarly placed students to begin with, or else the rigour is misconceived, or it is actually no different than at NUJS. That's what logic says.
How do you quantify being "ahead", exactly? You name the parameters since you're the one obsessing over NLUD graduates being certifiably ahead of NUJS ones. Would you as a NUJS graduate accept that people who graduated from NALSAR and NLS are absolutely ahead/superior to you in any certain metric since their institutes are older and generally deemed to be better and more preferred compared to NUJS? I don't think it's as black and white.
There are also a number of areas across various law school activities where NLUD has been doing as well if not better than its other tier-1 rivals. I'd already pointed out the moot wins, ADR wins and debating success despite being much younger. And honestly, apart from top foreign LLMs, UPSC and maybe an MBA here and there, the graduation outcomes in the legal field are hardly varied. A graduate of say, Cornell or Princeton, will probably end up doing the same thing as a guy from Harvard but Harvard is still the better institution in the eyes of most people.
When I speak of being ahead, I mean from an institutional standpoint. Personally, I feel NUJS still benefits from its alumni base formed during its first decade and of having had 3 proactive VCs then with lesser government interference. The current state of affairs is not as optimistic and if it continues over a long period of time, I think it can change the quality of graduates from the institute for the worse compared to its nearest rivals. We have seen how JGLS has now improved on its placement opportunities and despite the criticism of its huge batch size, placing 100-odd graduates is no joke considering the tier-1 firms can also choose folks from other top NLUS if JGLS grads were deemed not good enough. The point is that an institution can decline or improve if given time and the outcomes are not always immediately visible but over time, graduates do benefit from institutional strength.
But by your own logic, NLUD has been been all these advantages over NUJS for a decade now. Why aren't the grads doing more. Winning more moots, getting more scholarships, jobs etc.? Because we again come back to the same issue, if having better facilities don't make you perform better but just comparably the same, then those facilities were never instrumental to your performance to begin with.
I can't really buy your logic and that's mainly because NUJS wasn't that far behind NLUD in the past decade to begin with. One of the main reasons for NUJS becoming one of the top NLUs in the 2000s was because Madhava Menon was the founder VC and followed it up with decent VCs in BS Chimni and MP Singh. Would the same NUJS students of that period have achieved as much in their initial years if the VC was someone who wasn't proactive and the facilities and support system at the college was entirely lacking? Take the example of MNLU which appears to have entirely stagnated despite relatively high CLAT rankers (AIR ~500 rankers) preferring the college for its prime location.
My point is that NUJS did have decent facilities which helped the students establish its brand initially (atleast vis-a-vis other rival NLUs). NUJS benefited for its first decade due to proactive leadership in its administration. Even until around 2011, MP Singh was still the VC, if I recall. It's after that that the college has somewhat deteriorated in certain areas and this decline has meant that colleges like NLUD have become more preferred for various reasons.
Your argument that better facilities should lead to numerically better outcomes else they mean nothing is conveniently leaving out context. NLUD has been competing with older NLUs that had minimum 10 to 20-odd batches out before the first batch graduated. NUJS only had 3 others when it began of which NALSAR and NLIU are merely 2 batches older. The first-mover advantage is one of the main reasons that NLS is also still arguably the top law school. The point is that recruiters have more choice today and competition for scholarships and the like is also more fierce. So, standing out is not a mere consequence of facilities alone but also alumni base and certain legacy preferences. Regardless, there are many areas where NLUD has measured up to older NLUs already, and if given time and sufficient administrative support, it "may" overtake them over the next decade.
If we are going by anon posts commenting about university inside stories, then LI itself has covered multiple instances of discrimination, sexual harassment and assault and other horror stories about NLUD in the past, by the way.
IIMs have 400-500 students in each batch, and have three kinds of hirings It is just 10-12 students who are hired on the first day of recruitment, who are offered the figures cited above, another 10% are offered something barely over a lakh, and so on to 75k, 50k, 25k...and yes, lower....and then there are nearly 25% of the total students who are literally pushed into places, through special contracts with the respective IIM, to beautify and boast a fake placement stat......ask any, literally any, IIM grad, they will tell you the same thing, if not something worse
I have studied at IIMC after law school. I assure you, the placement scene is considerably better than what has been portrayed above, although 100% placement is obviously not achieved on the first day of placement itself.
NLSIU is at par with IIMA and IIMB, above all the rest. In other words, it is better to be an NLSIU alum than an IIMC, IIML etc alum.
As for NALSAR and NLUD, I would way they are below IIM A/B/C, above IIML and others. Hence, it is better to be an IIM A/B/C alum than a NALSAR/NLUD alum, but it is better to be a NALSAR/NLUD alum than an IIML etc alum.
As for other NLUs, none are comparable to any IIM, even lower ranked ones, in terms of prestige and brand value, though it's possible that NLUJ/NUJS etc placements may be comparable to newer IIMs like IIM Jammu, IIM Kashipur etc.
This is my opinion based on my industry knowledge and perception.
I am willing to bet that you haven't been taught at any of the NLUs or the IIMs that you have mentioned. Therefore, everything that you say about any or all of them doesn't really merit any consideration.
What are you talking about?? Iim indore's ipm programme is valued a lot both by students and companies (the remaining iims are shit i agree)and it's not getting closed anytime soon. It was and is nothing short of a success. I personally got into nujs Kolkata and nlu delhi, and I'm leaving them for ipm iim indore or jadavpur university electrical engineering (let's see what i do)
IIM Rohtak is not a big brand, but what if IIM A/B/C/ follow? Maybe NLSIU, NALSAR and NLUD are big enough brands to compete with IIM A/B/C, but surely no student will prefer the other NLUs over IIM A/B/C? Also, IIM Rohtak will perhaps be preferred over around 10-12 bottom-ranked NLUs?
The other factor is that IIMs are central institutes with INI status and lots of cash. The infra should be better. Plus, good faculty will prefer IIM jobs to NLU jobs.
https://www.iimrohtak.ac.in/index.php/programmes/ipl
https://indianexpress.com/article/education/iim-rohtak-introduces-5-year-integrated-llb-admission-through-clat-score-iimrohtak-ac-in-7233938/
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/iimrohtak-to-offer-law-degree-11615974927110.html
https://www.ndtv.com/education/iim-rohtak-invites-applications-for-integrated-programme-in-law
https://www.news18.com/news/education-career/iim-rohtak-launches-five-year-integrated-programme-in-law-for-class-12-pass-3540503.html
I think they should have a dual degree.
Law+MBA.
that would even belittle NLS
IIM Rohtak is just another new IIM desperate for money. They tried the IIM Indore model, started the integrated BBA-MBA program and had very few takers. Now perhaps they're floating another crap program.
Also, to be clear, IIM do not get great funding from the government. Refer: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/govt-decides-to-stop-funding-to-newer-iims/articleshow/66645046.cms?from=mdr
That is precisely why they charge so high fees in the range of 20-30 lacs. Older IIMs are anyway self-financing. Newer IIMs also stop receiving any funds few years after inception (land, building etc.).
To start with unlike the dubious claims made by law school where law school guard placement stats as if it is a national treasure (despite there being the same handful no of employer visiting each law school) IIMs have placement audits and their placement records are public document which anyone can take a look at.
The lowest package at IIMA is 16lpa (this is not CTC but guaranteed cash component) with median and average to be around 25 lpa (again GCC not CTC) and highest going to be 70lpa (Domestic not international). And don't be the stupid guy quoting Alma Maters here, the stats as I said earlier are public and you can check them for yourself.
Also, unlike NLS grads, IIMA grads do no need to go to Oxford to put a brand name on their CV, their institution is a brand in itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIM_Ahmedabad_alumni
And the lowest packages are just 8-10 lpa, dont go by the inflated placement records
Many students are just forced to join somewhere are however meagre salaries to glorify the IIM with a 100% placement.
https://web.iima.ac.in/iprs/gallery/2020/IPRS%20_PGP%20Finals%202020.pdf
Comparable to NLS NALSAR NUJS lulz
And when every law school has a domicile quota, it’s not like it makes a big difference. But colleges like NLIU have shown that the quota can be detrimental.
But are its rival tier-1 NLUs necessarily less of a brand considering they're much younger than it? No. From my experience and many of my friends/colleagues, I've not seen anyone being denied the same opportunity just because they're from NLUD (or NALSAR/NUJS for that matter). Maybe that was the case 10-15 years ago but times have changed. This is like arguing that IIT Kharagpur or Madras should perpetually be better than IIT Delhi because it was established earlier.
Are NLUD students doing much worse than the older 3 despite being decades younger is the question you should ask. And that answer is an obvious no. There’s enough data to back this claim up. We have nearly double as many international moot/debate/ADR wins as NALSAR despite being 10 years younger. Scholarships are not that scarce either. We’ve also seen how placements take off when alumni enter senior positions (look at GNLU, for instance). And as a university and not in terms of individual student achievements, NLUD is doing better than NUJS and NALSAR as an ecosystem for learning and research. I don’t see why NUJS is considered in this debate considering the various threads where their own students are calling out its inadequacies but for the sake of argument, I’ll engage.
My point is that NLUD has built its brand despite the competition from other older law schools that were established decades back. NLS had no competition for the first 15 years of its existence and capitalised on a booming economy in the 90s. The same for NALSAR. Now you can say that it was only because of RS or the fact that the law school is in Delhi or any other lame excuse. But the fact remains that it’s not any worse than its older rivals. So the crap about the legal industry not agreeing is BS in my opinion.
But in any case, the percentage of people getting placed is similar to older ones now even if absolute numbers are less. NLUD’s batch sizes have also been less than NUJS and NALSAR so far.
Placements aside, I don’t see any metric where NLUD is worse off than its nearest rivals even factoring in their much older alumni base. We’ve pretty much undisputedly overtaken NUJS at this point and there’s little to choose between NALSAR and NLUD.
I think it’s quite petty on your part to continue to assert some kind of superiority of some outdated older top 3 while poorly rationalising NLUD’s sustained improvement and achievements as the result of just some NIRF fudging. The students have no control over what the administration wants to present to the public but speak to anyone who’s studied there and they’ll testify that it’s a top place. And many of us have rejected the other top NLUs to choose NLUD so it’s not that we didn’t have a choice between other good places for law.
I'm not saying that individual NUJS graduates are any worse. I'm speaking about the issue from an institutional standpoint and there are enough threads on this site alone to show that the academic standards at NUJS are declining. In my interactions with other NLU graduates (even from places like GNLU and NLUJ), I hardly ever found any of them to be any worse than someone from another top NLU.
As far as the benefits go, I don't think you can quantitatively assess them in a generalised manner (unless you're counting placement numbers alone) but one of the main reasons for NLUD's rise in a short period of time and with intense competition from rival NLUs, is because the institution has committed itself to a certain standard of decent academic exposure for its students.
There are also a number of areas across various law school activities where NLUD has been doing as well if not better than its other tier-1 rivals. I'd already pointed out the moot wins, ADR wins and debating success despite being much younger. And honestly, apart from top foreign LLMs, UPSC and maybe an MBA here and there, the graduation outcomes in the legal field are hardly varied. A graduate of say, Cornell or Princeton, will probably end up doing the same thing as a guy from Harvard but Harvard is still the better institution in the eyes of most people.
When I speak of being ahead, I mean from an institutional standpoint. Personally, I feel NUJS still benefits from its alumni base formed during its first decade and of having had 3 proactive VCs then with lesser government interference. The current state of affairs is not as optimistic and if it continues over a long period of time, I think it can change the quality of graduates from the institute for the worse compared to its nearest rivals. We have seen how JGLS has now improved on its placement opportunities and despite the criticism of its huge batch size, placing 100-odd graduates is no joke considering the tier-1 firms can also choose folks from other top NLUS if JGLS grads were deemed not good enough. The point is that an institution can decline or improve if given time and the outcomes are not always immediately visible but over time, graduates do benefit from institutional strength.
My point is that NUJS did have decent facilities which helped the students establish its brand initially (atleast vis-a-vis other rival NLUs). NUJS benefited for its first decade due to proactive leadership in its administration. Even until around 2011, MP Singh was still the VC, if I recall. It's after that that the college has somewhat deteriorated in certain areas and this decline has meant that colleges like NLUD have become more preferred for various reasons.
Your argument that better facilities should lead to numerically better outcomes else they mean nothing is conveniently leaving out context. NLUD has been competing with older NLUs that had minimum 10 to 20-odd batches out before the first batch graduated. NUJS only had 3 others when it began of which NALSAR and NLIU are merely 2 batches older. The first-mover advantage is one of the main reasons that NLS is also still arguably the top law school. The point is that recruiters have more choice today and competition for scholarships and the like is also more fierce. So, standing out is not a mere consequence of facilities alone but also alumni base and certain legacy preferences. Regardless, there are many areas where NLUD has measured up to older NLUs already, and if given time and sufficient administrative support, it "may" overtake them over the next decade.
It is just 10-12 students who are hired on the first day of recruitment, who are offered the figures cited above, another 10% are offered something barely over a lakh, and so on to 75k, 50k, 25k...and yes, lower....and then there are nearly 25% of the total students who are literally pushed into places, through special contracts with the respective IIM, to beautify and boast a fake placement stat......ask any, literally any, IIM grad, they will tell you the same thing, if not something worse
As for NALSAR and NLUD, I would way they are below IIM A/B/C, above IIML and others. Hence, it is better to be an IIM A/B/C alum than a NALSAR/NLUD alum, but it is better to be a NALSAR/NLUD alum than an IIML etc alum.
As for other NLUs, none are comparable to any IIM, even lower ranked ones, in terms of prestige and brand value, though it's possible that NLUJ/NUJS etc placements may be comparable to newer IIMs like IIM Jammu, IIM Kashipur etc.
This is my opinion based on my industry knowledge and perception.
Iim indore's ipm programme is valued a lot both by students and companies (the remaining iims are shit i agree)and it's not getting closed anytime soon. It was and is nothing short of a success.
I personally got into nujs Kolkata and nlu delhi, and I'm leaving them for ipm iim indore or jadavpur university electrical engineering (let's see what i do)