Read 47 comments as:
Filter By
Can any HR, Associate, SA, Partner or MP here please tell the reason behind this phenomenon. Why is there such negativity surrounding LLMs in India even from premier institutes?
Exactly why do you want to do LLM from a "premier institute". Why are you giving importance to the "institute". I think that answers the question. People are doing LLM just to get the NLU tag. Knowing fully well that a 10 months vacation course can not replace the rigour of a half a decade program that too which involves the honing and training of young minds right after class 12th. There is a reason why CLAT UG is so competitive. You will see you can be a Partner in a T1 firm with just LLB, so it is clear that as far as practice is concern LLM is just an ornamental degree. Unlike PG in say medicine LLM adds no special value to your practice. That's the answer. So unless you don't want to go to Academia why are you doing an LLM in the first place? Also if you are talented then even a non-NLU LLB will not stop you from making big. So stop pursuing "name-tags" and start developing your own brand.
if you look at the syllabus of the LLM course at a premier institute in India, you will not find any substantial boost to knowledge parameters in any specialisation. There is hardly one module on research methods and thats it. What is the value addition by doing an LLM?

if someone goes abroad and does it without scholarship its mostly because they were papa and ma's farishta. also what does it add?
Largely, people in India have a "trading" mindset. Anything that does not automatically increase financial returns is looked down upon (not worth pursuing). An LLM does not in most cases lead to an increase in salaries, hence it is looked down upon. This phenomenon is not limited to law. In the IITs, M.Tech is looked down upon, while in IIMs Ph. Ds are looked down upon.

There are a few communities that are different. Bengal has given six Nobel Laureates to India (more than all the other states combined), but the traders do not care. Winning a Nobel is an intellectual pursuit, and Nobel laureates are not rich. With a trading mindset, one would rather be rich, than aspire to win a Nobel. You see how this works.
You cannot seriously be asking this question when every so often there are LLM students posting on here about how they dont want to study, theyre not interested in reading or learning, and that they only got admitted so they can have something on their cv while they prepare for exams or so they can take advantage of the brand value of a college without contributing to it.

No one is looking down on the couple of llm students at top institutions that actually want to learn and do a good job and work hard. People mostly admire them. We're looking down on freeriders. Dont be such a victim.
There are plenty of LLB posts to similar effect here too. Including from the top NLUs. Does that mean that their BA LLB degrees are useless too?
it means I can look down on llb students too. But the problem is much much worse with llm students. most llb students will try in some courses- maybe corp or mergers and acquisitions or international law or constitutional law. They will try and do well at one thing during law school. Very few students from llb batches dont try to do anything at all. The proportions with llm students are wayy off. and youre being dishonest if you dont see that as well.
I can look down upon you for missing apostrophes. You won't care of course. Nor should others if you look down upon them in general. Generalisation ill becomes a professional.
Sorry- just to be sure - your response is that my arguments aren’t valid because I didn’t have perfect grammar writing on a random post on a nearly defunct chat room ?

People generalise. People stereotype. It’s an evolutionary mechanism to do so. And pointing out that a greater proportion of llm students than llb students seem to be non serious to me is not generalising and saying they all are. It’s explaining why a prevailing opinion exists- which is what the post asks. Why ask if you don’t want to be told ?
It's an academic degree, should be used only for academia, is being used for everything other than academia.
Corp law in India is a joke. Anyone can do it, what do you add to the firm by doing another degree as compared to the other guy who has billed double your tution fees in the meantime for the firm.
Tell me something first. What purpose does an LLM serve unless one wants to go into academia? Beyond the tag of some foreign university and the networking aspect (mostly boot licking with English), how does it actually help one in India?
Indian law schools - premier or otherwise, do not teach advanced courses well enough to substitute actual work experience, and so nobody values an LLM. It's only to add a brand to your name when you go to a "premier institute", but the industry perception is that LLMs from these so-called premier institutes aren't at par with the LLBs, and having seen some LLM interns it is tough to disagree.
But even these LLM people have LLB degrees right. So what's the problem?
LLB peeps get degraded enough once they graduate. Please don't pile on our misery any further.
LLM - academia & research with a further PhD.

No LLM - experience over everything else for litigation, Judiciary, law firms, inhouse & CSE.

Simple as that. Rest are just BS-ing !
A good LLM is never looked down upon.

In a country like us where 90% law colleges simply give degrees and no legal education, a good LLM adds value to graduates of these colleges.
No LLM, whether from NALSAR or NLS adds any value to your CV if you want to practice. There will be no day zero and you will earn no brownie points for an LLM with a T1 firm recruiting partner. LLM is beneficial only if you want to enter academia. You will not be treated like an NLS or NALSAR product in the market if you do LLM or MBL or whatever other courses they offer.
A 25-word comment posted 2 weeks ago was not published.
A 19-word comment posted 2 weeks ago was not published.