Here are a couple of reasons why you may not have been hired.
1. The vacancy ceased to exist. The firm decided to promote someone internally and not take the risk of hiring someone else and test waters and eventually arrive at a culture shock.
2. The firm opted for someone who had more PQE than you and that trumped your candidature.
3. If it was a client transaction that had drove the decision to hire, maybe things did not work out with the client and hence the aftermath?
State University is always a thing. You will make it big in your career if you keep at it but it takes time and a lot more effort than what others needed. This is in addition to discounting your years of experience when you join a tier 1 law firm and all the BS like that.
For all those who ask "Why did you not retake CLAT?" Let's lay the tables, shall we?
i. Paisa baby. Not everyone of us is born in the lush comfort of Rupee bills.
ii. We may have older parents whom we can't leave behind.
iii. In addition to both, some people just are not comfortable moving out. Yes, they choose to remain inside their shells or well, just like you throw a spear of an absolutely unwarranted and unrelated question everytime someone talks about the hardships faced by state university student.
I do support the advice you gave, and with the second paragraph in general.
Mere do paise on this:
1. The top tier firm law partners who are non-NLU were so before NLUs become relevant. If you were to judge based on that criteria alone in today's time, we still have T1,2 and 3 NLUs, where the lowest rung NLUs suffer just as much as outlier colleges.
2. Litigation has always been dominated by state unis for the same reason. Also, the kind of money that is spent in NLUs to obtain the degree, it is generally hard for the NLU grad to shift to litigation with its low paying culture and survive for a significant amount of time before the dice starts rolling.
3. Regarding rigour of NLUs, this is something that most state unis do not get. Your courses are tougher than ours, with dozens of research papers, assignments, moots, paper presentations, seminars and what not.
[I guess] the point that OP is trying to make is that even after doing everything you said in the second paragraph (and as someone who has personally done that to separate myself from the crowd at my state uni), there are still biased notions that are held on by most law firms (not referring to tiers here). Its not like they are not insurmountable, they just require a lot more time than what someone else starting further from the starting line would need. On top of that (as far as LI threads have reported) there is also this particular habit of tiered law firms to discount the years of experience when laterally shifting for better pay and for obvious ambition.
Big dogs are sniffing for the wrong things is what we mean mostly. Am I equivalent to the top crop of NLUs? Probably not. But a lot of students from NLUs who do get hired sometimes do a shabbier job than a big bunch of us and that is where the systemic problem lies.
1. The vacancy ceased to exist. The firm decided to promote someone internally and not take the risk of hiring someone else and test waters and eventually arrive at a culture shock.
2. The firm opted for someone who had more PQE than you and that trumped your candidature.
3. If it was a client transaction that had drove the decision to hire, maybe things did not work out with the client and hence the aftermath?
State University is always a thing. You will make it big in your career if you keep at it but it takes time and a lot more effort than what others needed. This is in addition to discounting your years of experience when you join a tier 1 law firm and all the BS like that.
For all those who ask "Why did you not retake CLAT?" Let's lay the tables, shall we?
i. Paisa baby. Not everyone of us is born in the lush comfort of Rupee bills.
ii. We may have older parents whom we can't leave behind.
iii. In addition to both, some people just are not comfortable moving out. Yes, they choose to remain inside their shells or well, just like you throw a spear of an absolutely unwarranted and unrelated question everytime someone talks about the hardships faced by state university student.
-Toodles!
I do support the advice you gave, and with the second paragraph in general.
Mere do paise on this:
1. The top tier firm law partners who are non-NLU were so before NLUs become relevant. If you were to judge based on that criteria alone in today's time, we still have T1,2 and 3 NLUs, where the lowest rung NLUs suffer just as much as outlier colleges.
2. Litigation has always been dominated by state unis for the same reason. Also, the kind of money that is spent in NLUs to obtain the degree, it is generally hard for the NLU grad to shift to litigation with its low paying culture and survive for a significant amount of time before the dice starts rolling.
3. Regarding rigour of NLUs, this is something that most state unis do not get. Your courses are tougher than ours, with dozens of research papers, assignments, moots, paper presentations, seminars and what not.
[I guess] the point that OP is trying to make is that even after doing everything you said in the second paragraph (and as someone who has personally done that to separate myself from the crowd at my state uni), there are still biased notions that are held on by most law firms (not referring to tiers here). Its not like they are not insurmountable, they just require a lot more time than what someone else starting further from the starting line would need. On top of that (as far as LI threads have reported) there is also this particular habit of tiered law firms to discount the years of experience when laterally shifting for better pay and for obvious ambition.
Big dogs are sniffing for the wrong things is what we mean mostly. Am I equivalent to the top crop of NLUs? Probably not. But a lot of students from NLUs who do get hired sometimes do a shabbier job than a big bunch of us and that is where the systemic problem lies.