Hello, please refrain from attributing an individual's accomplishments to their universities. When you’ll mature out of your little shells and accomplish something, you will realise how infuriating it is to have one's efforts directed against their colleges. You'll understand how little a part universities played. If you believe that if nobody from DSNLU has earned a scholarship (hypothetically), the institution or its students are inferior than yours, you are incorrect. They were just not founded in 1993 and lacked guidance from seniors. If you believe that my “elite” university had any influence in my scholarship (which was not a Rhodes, albeit a “prestigious” one), you are mistaken. Professors at NLS or academic programmes had no part in my scholarship. I created relationships with seniors who had received scholarships and solicited their cooperation in assisting me with my SOP and application (something that a DSNLU lacks because it was established late). I authored research articles entirely on my own, with no assistance from anybody at the institution. I sat in the gruelling interview, was not trained by a university professor. I sought my seniors for recommendations, which my institution did not facilitate. I had the courage to decline a job offer in order to pursue a scholarship and LLM overseas. Stop limiting my efforts and the anxiety that I single-handedly went through by attributing my little success to my university. Nobody should be discouraged by what certain trolls on LI say; universities have a little influence in scholarship distribution.

Until five years ago, and even today, any employment statistics may be ascribed to a university’s “reputation”, which again is due to the alumni's strong relationships with the juniors, owing to our institutions' long history. However, the dynamics are shifting; I often meet with colleagues to discuss how kids from a certain set of colleges including my juniors are extremely self-absorbed during internships to the extent that it now seems that they are just freeloading onto the success and efforts of their alumni. You enter a room as though you own it. I'd want to inform you that the dynamics are shifting. These kids from NLUD, HNLU, NLUO, NLUAA and JGLS, among others, understand the value of what they are conferred with and what is expected of them. These kids outperform a large number of students representing "elite" institutions. They're soon going to have what you've been casually riding on, which is alumni. Therefore, keep an eye out for them. Do not be thrilled about your university's renown/reputation and do something to help retain it. Everybody saw what happened to NLIU.

Anyways, do anything but stop attributing an individual’s efforts to their universities. Rivalry is nice and sweet but obsession becomes toxic. Trust me, there’s a lot to discover in life. 5 years down the line you’ll feel silly about all of this. I am saving you some time and thoughts.

If the institution does not play any role in the achievements of the individual, then why would people be interested in competing to get into those? You actually mentioned those very factors that are institutional USPs, such as time of existence, established alumni, reputation and so on. If nothing that has been taught to you at the institution has been of any help to you at all in your career, why didn't you choose to study at a local law college at 10% of the cost instead? The reason is that certain institutions make certain opportunities available. The student of course still has to utilize those opportunities by themselves to make those count. If you are saying that the administration does not play a key role in the career of the students, that's more believable, but the institution isn't solely the administration. However, NLSIU alumni aren't going to treat you in general like they would treat their own juniors. There are exceptions, but not enough to be generalised. Same thing works for most top NLUs.
In addition, I don't disagree with the entitlement issue the you pointed out. However, the effect that you said that it produces is yet to be visible, since those same alumni still recruit in bulk from NLSIU, NALSAR and NUJS, instead of doing the same numbers from the other places that you mentioned. If you want the entitlement to go away, then show that you are willing to punish it. Hire from elsewhere, take interns from elsewhere, give deserving students from other NLUs the recommendations and refuse those to entitled students from your own NLU while telling them clearly the reason for your decision. Till the point when a considerable number of people in the industry start doing that, the reality will not change to what you are claiming it to be.

No, you missed the point; I said that institutions are irrelevant for scholarships and that they are relevant for jobs at the moment, but this will not continue long. Because you cannot freeride on alumni accomplishments because they will ultimately be acquired by everyone, take a cue from Europe. Educational infrastructure, faculty, and memorandums of understanding, among other academic and non-academic programmes, are institutional USPs, not the era in which they were formed. Again, I am comparing institutions that offer equal educational infrastructure, for example, a NLS and an NLUO; how does a local college come into consideration when it may lack teachers capable of teaching me? If you assert that certain institutions provide certain chances, you must substantiate your assertion.

We cannot just cease recruiting students from universities one day. Your batch sizes have stayed same, but work opportunities have multiplied. Students from all institutions are being considered; at this point, we do not hold grudges against students by refusing to recruit from a particular university, but things change. Five years ago, you would have been recruited only on the basis of your NLS status; that is no longer the case. You are no longer automatically eligible for a PPO. To illustrate, a very good friend and senior at NLS, Vijay Sambamurthy, started Lexygen, a legal practise that is thriving and pays on par with tier 1 businesses. Take a look at the associates and tell me how many are from NLS, despite the fact that it is located in Bangalore. You'll discover students from UPES, GLC, Christ, and Jindal, among others. And no, nothing is kept against NLS or students; if a deserving NLS student interns and performs well, they will be hired. It's just a fair playing field for everybody. And this trend will eventually be reflected in larger legal firms as well.

And we are all graduates. We were at the location. That is to say, they ride on our backs. No, this is not your unique selling proposition. We'd be happy to assist you with anything, but you must demonstrate a desire to do so. And, most importantly, quit demotivating others; almost no one outside India is aware of Indian law schools. You might be a graduate of any legal school and yet be eligible. Indeed, contrary to common belief, if you are a Harvard graduate, your chances of receiving a scholarship fall. Scholarships were created to further equality; yet, if you have sufficient privilege in the form of an education from a prestigious university, they may be reluctant to award you one.

Why are you saying that the fact that certain institutions provide certain opportunities need to be proven, when you are in essence claiming the same thing (re your institutional USP point)? If you are saying that the older institutions need to ensure that they are doing such things and not simply rely on their date of establishment, then I agree. As for alumni reliance, sure newer places will get the necessary alumni to rely upon in a few years, but by then most of the reputed older places will get even more, since they are not really showing any sign of slowing down in terms of industry recruitment.
As for scholarship, let's give an example. If you are from NLSIU, then you can depend (on theory at least) to rely on advice given to you by some of the 25 Rhodes scholar alumni that they have. Simply because your own institutional status makes that first intro possible. You are going to get moot training (by people who have actually won/done well in good moots), policy body internships, excellent guest lectures throughout the year, opportunities to serve as RAs to foreign scholars. These will simply be around because you are part of an institution that has that kind of culture, though as you said (and I agreed with) that you will still have to utilise it fully to make it count. (NLS also has alumni coordination and cohesion that other older NLUs lack, which makes it even better for the NLS students.)
Compare this with a lower rung NLU or a private college. A student might have done as well as you given this same exposure and opportunities and culture, but they are now at a competitive disadvantage. The institution cannot simply reproduce all of this simply by spending capital. All of these add up to your chances of securing that scholarship. Is this an ideal position? Not really. Is it real though? Very. That's one of the reasons why private operators (I won't name any, but I am sure you know of them) are now praying upon the insecurities of those other students by offering to 'level the playing field' through their courses and programmes and mentorship 'beyond law school'.
As for recruitment, sorry to say that I don't agree with you. Lexygen as an example just does not fit here, since it is yet to reach anywhere within visible distance of the tier one firms (much as I like their approach and the recent transparent behaviour of the head on this very forum). If you check the T1 firm recruitment, the older NLUs still lead by a huge margin and frankly, students from top NLUs rarely consider T2/T3 firms as potential recruiters (foolish, but true) if they can help it. Nor is your argument of work load and batch size really valid. Firms need enough good people for their work every year, right? So why would it matter to them if they stop hiring from NLU X and hire instead from Amity, JGLS and lower NLUs exclusively if they believe that those places can give them better candidates (with less entitlement)? Yet that's not happening. I don't know of any time period when being an NLS student automatically made you eligible for a PPO, not 5 years back, nor 10. However, if you consider the internship policies of the various T1 firms, you will find that there is still a huge bias in favour of NLUs in general and certain NLUs in particular. Ask any student without contact from a private law college but with a decent CV how difficult they find to secure a good internship in one of those firms that their NLU friends take for granted, and they will tell you. Again, I totally agree with you that this shouldn't be the case. However, it still is. I recently recommended an alumna from a private law university for an in-house position, simply because she was so much better than her NLU contemporaries whom I knew, but was told by the in-house people that unless she's from a reputed NLU, her chances are really slim, which was rank stupidity on their part. You can call it alumni influence, organisational snootiness, whatever you like. You are saying that it is gradually going away, and I would really like to see that too, but my experience says otherwise. Until the point that NLU alumni after reaching a decision-making position in their career, stop thinking of the institutional affiliation of their interns/freshers, and instead start focusing on objective parameters, it will continue. In addition, the older NLUs aren't really letting go of their advantage anytime soon, but that can be compensated for, as NLUD and JGLS have shown already. I am not counting the latter fully because very few students with real drive and hunger can afford to study there, and their education model isn't really something that will be worth emulating for public universities.