Don't make "taking-CLAT-and-not-doing-well" as your core competence. You are like that mouse who keeps running vigorously in the same place not moving an inch forward, but still believing that he is putting effort into getting that motion (and feels happy about it). You are wasting your youth years - even if your parents are rich.
65 out of 130 students from my school graduated at 17 years of age and hardly 10 percent took a drop year. All my closest friends from college working at T1, T2 law firms and in litigation graduated along with me at either 22 or 23 years old. Taking a drop is a big thing, don't know why people keep encouraging it.
Worth it to get NLS if you're at some bottom of tier-3 NLU/no-name private. But not worth it if you're (and doing well) at solid or upper Tier 2 NLU or above.
Aren't most of them already are? I graduated from school at 18, almost all my friends did at 19, and some even at 20 - not sample bias, other schools have almost the same scenario. People taking drop for JEE/NEET are already 19/20.
At worst he would be one year behind comparatively, assuming he graduated from school at 18.
Absolutely fine it is. However, do not take a drop!
Consider me, took CLAT'20 without much prep - didn't get anything. Took CLAT'21, will probably get into a Lower NLU and I'm going to take it again, primarily, because I had a retarded invigilator and center for which I made quite a mess.
Honestly, CLAT doesn't require a full-time prep; people manage CAT, GMAT, and LSAT (US) while working!
So, do take it again! Even if you get into a good Law School at 20 it would be worth it. But, as I said earlier, do NOT drop, get into decent law school, or perhaps get any other degree, and prepare in parallel - at least that is what I'm going to do.
Also, even if you and I - unfortunately - didn't manage to crack it again for some reason, then at least we would have something to fall back upon!
However, if you plan to get into litigation then DON'T because ultimately you'll be trading your 'practice' years for CLAT preparation - a year 'wasted' at another school which, I believe, isn't a wise decision.
Doesn't seem worth it unless you really really want to do only law. Assuming kids do some sort of undergrad alongside just do a three year law degree after. If the undergrad uni is good you'll develop a broader understanding by knowing some other subject as well, underrated imo. Especially if it's a public policy academia side of law, invaluable to have a broader knowledge base. For corporate law which mostly people are only in for the money why wait till 24 to graduate by just wasting two years? The other route works as well or just do BBA BComm Hons, then MBA, even more money there. I don't see the point in giving clat thrice at all basically. Litigating lawyers donr care that much at all about nlu or not. So overall, sure it's okay to do that but why would you??
At worst he would be one year behind comparatively, assuming he graduated from school at 18.
Only 1 guy I'm aware of joined college at 17.
Consider me, took CLAT'20 without much prep - didn't get anything. Took CLAT'21, will probably get into a Lower NLU and I'm going to take it again, primarily, because I had a retarded invigilator and center for which I made quite a mess.
Honestly, CLAT doesn't require a full-time prep; people manage CAT, GMAT, and LSAT (US) while working!
So, do take it again! Even if you get into a good Law School at 20 it would be worth it. But, as I said earlier, do NOT drop, get into decent law school, or perhaps get any other degree, and prepare in parallel - at least that is what I'm going to do.
Also, even if you and I - unfortunately - didn't manage to crack it again for some reason, then at least we would have something to fall back upon!
However, if you plan to get into litigation then DON'T because ultimately you'll be trading your 'practice' years for CLAT preparation - a year 'wasted' at another school which, I believe, isn't a wise decision.
Godspeed!