Hey, I am from a certain college that has bridge programs to UK LLM's wherein I save 1 year for an LL.M. (4 Y BALL.B + 1 Y LL.M) The top choice in the group of applications is Kings College London. I was just wondering whether it is worth it at this juncture. What are your opinions, wise sirs/ma'ams?
If this is an Indian college/university, then your LLB degree may not be BCI-recognised at all, since the integrated undergrad programme is required to be of 5 years' duration. Please check it with BCI once. There have been plenty of instances of spurious programmes having been hauled up later for no fault of the students concerned.
Dw about the logistics and the veracity of it, I have done my DD and the previous BCI order that you're referring to has been stayed. Substantively, wise sir/ma'am, what is your opinion if any
No, the BCI order that has been stayed is a different one talking about LLMs and integrated UG+PG. The one requiring BA/BSc/BBA/BCom LLB degrees to be five years is an old one back from the 1990s that's still very much in operation. But if you are saying that BCI has got your institution and its degree in its approved list, then that's fine. The LLM makes sense if you want to shift to academia or looking to enter the UK job market. Otherwise, for Indian job market and litigation, it is of no particular value in terms of recognition. Of course, a year at KCL will help you learn more and get better exposure on a personal front.
I understand a J.D is a great option considering it is a primary law degree in the US, however, I'm strictly averse to student debt and I don't come from money. Logically, New York will bleed me dry and 2 years in Cornell will too. I've calculated the damage from Kings, comparatively it suits my considerations more. Idk, im really torn up about it as well, the pressure is mounting everyday and it's too much.
Honestly, my deepest, albeit, submerged desire is to pursue Litigation and chip away time learning the nuances of my home jurisdiction. This remains a pipe dream though since my gut tells me that I need to move away to live upto my true potential. It is hard to articulate, but Im sure it's something we all face i.e. the endless and everlasting desire to ensure our expectations are realised in a particular dimension of our existence.
For OP: I'm not sure LI is the best place to seek advice for this (nowadays), as it is heavily dominated by 1st/2nd years. Plus, you are pretty much giving yourself away as JGLS student, so expect attacks on all fronts. Anyway, as someone with a bit of experience, this would be my advice:
- Whether the Cornell JD or the King's LLM, the job market in the West is not great for foreign lawyers right now, unless you are exceptionally bright. So be prepared to come back to India. There is a lot of demand for Indian scientists and doctors in the West, not Indian lawyers.
- In terms of the credentials of the faculty, quality of the courses, and academic infrastructure, you will find a top 20 QS law school like King's to be much better than any university in India. Note that this is not a colonial hangover, because there are NLSIU alumni teaching at Oxford and King's: but that's the thing, they are teaching there, not India.
- I am also sure that studying in London will be more enjoyable than studying in Sonipat.
- If you want careers in academics or policy research, then an LLM is always advisable. In law firms, it won't matter. An LLM from King's or UCL might be well regarded by law firms in Europe or Brazil or Russia or China or Turkey or Indonesia, but Indian law firms don't care even if you are a Harvard gold medalist. They would rather have a "lifelong intern" from GLC with five years of hands-in experience (obtained by bunking classes). This is the culture in India. It will take a generation to change.
Thank you for keeping it real, your advice is appreciated and understood brother. In fact, through a cursory Linkedin screening I found most of my seniors who had an LLM in the UK came back to join a tier 1-2 Indian law firm.
Just a follow up Q: Do you think it is better to work 2-3 years as a slave in a firm, then apply for possibly a better chance at a law firm in the UK? Also, do the benefits of saving a year while getting LL.M outweigh the normal route substantially? I've always regarded time as the most important consideration in law school, so Im jaded on whether I should go the normal route as it is.
if your goal is to get a law firm job in the uk, then IMO LLM isnt going to help you much, you can have a chat with HR at magic circle law firms or use linkedin and explore this avenue further before committing,
If money is not an issue, why not go for it? The experience of an LLM abroad is always very good. Yes, CAM and SAM don't care, but there is more to life than CAM and SAM. And BTW many law firm bosses are quite happy to send their own kids abroad for LLMs (not giving names) but when it comes to hiring others they will reject them.
1. so after a total of 5 years you get indian ba llb + kcl llm?
2. do you need to pay the international rate tuition at kcl?
3. why do you want to do llm? as in, what advantages do you think it will accrue to your career?
Honestly, my deepest, albeit, submerged desire is to pursue Litigation and chip away time learning the nuances of my home jurisdiction. This remains a pipe dream though since my gut tells me that I need to move away to live upto my true potential. It is hard to articulate, but Im sure it's something we all face i.e. the endless and everlasting desire to ensure our expectations are realised in a particular dimension of our existence.
- Whether the Cornell JD or the King's LLM, the job market in the West is not great for foreign lawyers right now, unless you are exceptionally bright. So be prepared to come back to India. There is a lot of demand for Indian scientists and doctors in the West, not Indian lawyers.
- In terms of the credentials of the faculty, quality of the courses, and academic infrastructure, you will find a top 20 QS law school like King's to be much better than any university in India. Note that this is not a colonial hangover, because there are NLSIU alumni teaching at Oxford and King's: but that's the thing, they are teaching there, not India.
- I am also sure that studying in London will be more enjoyable than studying in Sonipat.
- If you want careers in academics or policy research, then an LLM is always advisable. In law firms, it won't matter. An LLM from King's or UCL might be well regarded by law firms in Europe or Brazil or Russia or China or Turkey or Indonesia, but Indian law firms don't care even if you are a Harvard gold medalist. They would rather have a "lifelong intern" from GLC with five years of hands-in experience (obtained by bunking classes). This is the culture in India. It will take a generation to change.
Just a follow up Q: Do you think it is better to work 2-3 years as a slave in a firm, then apply for possibly a better chance at a law firm in the UK? Also, do the benefits of saving a year while getting LL.M outweigh the normal route substantially? I've always regarded time as the most important consideration in law school, so Im jaded on whether I should go the normal route as it is.