We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.