Woman PA @T1, I have a radical opinion. Let's allow only top ten NLUs and a few private universities like Jindal and Symbiosis to run the 5 year law course, while statutorily shutting down the junk colleges. This way, the legal market is kept reserved for the meritorious elite and not flooded by low-quality scums begging around for internships / jobs.
Agreed. Tier-3 NLUs are the biggest roadblocks for a quality legal education. I have met some toppers of DSNLU,DNLU, MNLU Nagpur and NUSRL- and trust me the toppers and professors are not quite impressive there, especially the last two. Some batches are an exception, but the latest two or three batches are not worthy.
we need quality lawyers, shutting down useless law colleges would not solve the problem of 'low-quality scums begging around for internships / jobs.'
Instead, I would propose that we have a common entrance test for law like NEET (in multiple languages, ones accident of birth should not be determinant of ones intellectual potential, a common entrance exam is going to weed out the most useless of law aspirants who want to do law to stay in the hostel or stand in for student union elections), mandatory annual NIRF for continued registration (irrespective of the rampant abuse towards NIRF it is still a useful exercise as it keeps some sort of data check on the law colleges, you would not believe but many law colleges in Chattisgarh run from literal cowsheds), gold plated BCI inspection (we should have some role for the MM, also mandated as per statute), structured mandatory internships (we should ape the medical internship model but spread over 4 quarters), regular AIBEs with Japanese style difficulty or UK style SQE I and II (this is where a lot of the problem lies, the exam needs to be tougher to ensure only those who have paid at least 40% attention in the class pass).
Agree with most of the pointers, but having a good command over the English language is a must if one wants to practice law. This is why I would never support conducting CLAT in local languages. Rather, address the root issue and promote English-medium schools.
Why is English essential for practising law? There are many trial courts and lower courts that operate on the basis of the vernacular language. Your opinions don't reflect the grassroot level reality in the country. Very ivory-towerish and elitist, not to mention full of privilege.
just interested in knowing how do you categorise a NLU as T3 or T2 or T1? what are the objective parameters or are you just going with the 'popular' trend
Yo get into the top ten nlus, you don’t need money- you need a good IQ and perseverance which the Tier-2/3 nlu students lack. Stop making this an issue about money
I get the whole "let's be exclusive" vibe, but limiting legal education to a select few institutions ignores the fact that not everyone gets the memo about entrance tests. It's like expecting everyone to know the secret handshake.
Many talented folks, due to various reasons, miss out on the CLAT memo. Narrowing down options just amplifies the existing inequalities. Let's not turn law education into an invite-only party; brilliance exists everywhere, not just in the elite club.
Instead of gatekeeping, let's tackle the real issues. Spread the word, offer support, and ditch the VIP entrance mentality. A diverse legal community beats an exclusive one any day. Plus, let's not forget that not everyone can jet off to study – hometown brilliance deserves the spotlight too.
Agree with the 'cancerous Calcutta University' bit because I have myself graduated from this college and boy is it a pain.
That said, I did not know of CLAT and had missed the opportunity to sit for the same. Did manage to get my BALLB done from a govt college under Calcutta University and managed to break into a corporate law firm job with a fairly decent pay. Quite a few of my batch-mates have made it to CAM, LKS, Aqui and the like despite being from an university that produces graduates like rats.
Why should I, or any of my peers who were actually focused about our acads and CV suffer just because we cannot afford law ed at private/NLUs for various reasons. Also, taking this argument into consideration, how many NLU grads actually move into litigation? We both know it is very hard to justify the low payment of chambers, especially if you have had to resort to education loans.
Radical view? Yes. Maybe important too. I would definitely want my university to revise the standards and the syllabi, which will probably not happen for another 10 years. But just acads is something you do not mark your associates on, do you? A lot of this flamboyance you are hinting comes from being able to communicate fluently in English, and an overall exposure to the better side of life that sadly only few have had the good fortune to experience. Elitist much?
Well, but there are many bright candidates amongst them.
I know many candidates who had family crises / Life-threating disease or severe financial crunch during their peak career / formative years.
There is a reason why Govt has also fixed age for UPSC till 32 & Judiciary till 35.
We all have our different timelines to bloom .
Just because things were right and favorsble for 90% and they could get right mentoring at the right time, is not a good enough reason to disown rest 10% of candidates.
You can not silence the remaining 10% because they did not had means. It is really not about perseverence and IQ dear. They just did not had means and mentorship at the right time.
Simple answer: There is a huge demand for lawyers that a few universities cannot fulfill. There are thousands of clients who need lawyers. Not everything is about law firms and corporate jobs. Will an NLU grad graduate and practise in the local trial court?
Bhaiya, I had no money that's why I left those top 10 NLUs to study at a public university with affordable fees. Some of mates and seniors did the same. Hum kya kare? Vakalat chhod de?
Accha? Itna kya problem aa geya bhai. And you could have easily taken loans. It gets repaid if you do well from a tier-1 (oh wait you didn’t get into a tier-1). There you. Problem solved
Dear mod, please unfeature this thread. There is no end to such discussions. Further, please feature and bump threads asking for info. Threads by students asking for Firms , and Resources.
Instead, I would propose that we have a common entrance test for law like NEET (in multiple languages, ones accident of birth should not be determinant of ones intellectual potential, a common entrance exam is going to weed out the most useless of law aspirants who want to do law to stay in the hostel or stand in for student union elections), mandatory annual NIRF for continued registration (irrespective of the rampant abuse towards NIRF it is still a useful exercise as it keeps some sort of data check on the law colleges, you would not believe but many law colleges in Chattisgarh run from literal cowsheds), gold plated BCI inspection (we should have some role for the MM, also mandated as per statute), structured mandatory internships (we should ape the medical internship model but spread over 4 quarters), regular AIBEs with Japanese style difficulty or UK style SQE I and II (this is where a lot of the problem lies, the exam needs to be tougher to ensure only those who have paid at least 40% attention in the class pass).
Many talented folks, due to various reasons, miss out on the CLAT memo. Narrowing down options just amplifies the existing inequalities. Let's not turn law education into an invite-only party; brilliance exists everywhere, not just in the elite club.
Instead of gatekeeping, let's tackle the real issues. Spread the word, offer support, and ditch the VIP entrance mentality. A diverse legal community beats an exclusive one any day. Plus, let's not forget that not everyone can jet off to study – hometown brilliance deserves the spotlight too.
That said, I did not know of CLAT and had missed the opportunity to sit for the same. Did manage to get my BALLB done from a govt college under Calcutta University and managed to break into a corporate law firm job with a fairly decent pay. Quite a few of my batch-mates have made it to CAM, LKS, Aqui and the like despite being from an university that produces graduates like rats.
Why should I, or any of my peers who were actually focused about our acads and CV suffer just because we cannot afford law ed at private/NLUs for various reasons. Also, taking this argument into consideration, how many NLU grads actually move into litigation? We both know it is very hard to justify the low payment of chambers, especially if you have had to resort to education loans.
Radical view? Yes. Maybe important too. I would definitely want my university to revise the standards and the syllabi, which will probably not happen for another 10 years. But just acads is something you do not mark your associates on, do you? A lot of this flamboyance you are hinting comes from being able to communicate fluently in English, and an overall exposure to the better side of life that sadly only few have had the good fortune to experience. Elitist much?
I know many candidates who had family crises / Life-threating disease or severe financial crunch during their peak career / formative years.
There is a reason why Govt has also fixed age for UPSC till 32 & Judiciary till 35.
We all have our different timelines to bloom .
Just because things were right and favorsble for 90% and they could get right mentoring at the right time, is not a good enough reason to disown rest 10% of candidates.
You can not silence the remaining 10% because they did not had means. It is really not about perseverence and IQ dear. They just did not had means and mentorship at the right time.
Hope you understand soon.
The solution is better education not shutting down Universities. Not everyone can travel, relocate or pay high fees and cost of living.
Colleges like GLC and ILS have gone to shit academically because of crappy teachers and horrible management. Unko penalise karo, students ko nahin.