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?
But more than this, I want to highlight that - as a soon-to-graduate senior from NALSAR, I can confirm that I've seen far too many famed over-achievers come to nalsar from reserved category admissions, across batches. In fact, it's widely acknowledged that CLAT is an imperfect test that primarily evaluates your grasp of English and (supposedly) logical reasoning — but someone with enough money and social capital would come from a far better schooling and get far better coaching than their peers. This would, and indeed does, enable the privileged aspirants to game the system and thereby get a better score — in reality, a majority of the people from unreserved category at NLS/NALSAR/NUJS come from certain privilege. I can attest to this for Nalsar, particularly after the pattern changes etc. So, their CLAT rank is very likely not a reflection of "inherent intelligence", but rather firstly of privilege (of better schooling, coaching, having knowledgeable people guide you, likely money etc), and then merit.
Moral of the story? Don't take CLAT ranks to your heart. Once you're in the college, they're irrelevant.
On the other hand, in my humble opinion, what you've described in your struggles could be because of a plethora of reasons, ranging from (i) possible limited access to the best schools, whereas your general category friends from Delhi-Bombay very probably did, and that changes everything from how confident you feel to how much "new" efforts you need to put for exams due to how used to "faffing" you are, which practically gives most of the marks in law school; (ii) possible limited access to as good an amount of competitions promoting overall development and English proficiency as your peers likely did, and (iii) maybe you aren't as outgoing and befriending as some of your overconfident general category peers, who might be getting the simple advantage of asking the right seniors about notes, advice, and help etc.
I could be wrong about some of those inferences about you, but in general, most of such reasons as applicable to you are - crucially - not about "inherent" intelligence, but rather stemming from the fact that perhaps you weren't on a level-playing field as the people you want to compete with. That's understandable, and alright — but what you must do, is shift the focus from questioning any "inherent intelligence" and get into the groove of putting efforts to level your own playing field. In that light, a lot of the "inherently intelligent" people do not become great lawyers; it's far more about "capability" of putting the hard work in a smart manner that helps those working above you — which can only be developed, in due time. Your internships are intended to test this capability, and yes, smartness can help, but ultimately, almost everyone would be far more likely to give job offers to a very hard-working person with baseline smartness, rather than a smart but lazy intern.
So, buckle up. Everything's fine. The roadmap can be found in the comment I've attached. This comment should be enough motivation and clarification for the other concerns. The rest is in your hands :)
On the other hand, I can witnessed people around me get noticeably better. I saw people get published at increasingly better places, winning increasingly better competition. It's not like I have not tried, I have. I don't know what to blame it on, so I have decided to put it on inherent lack of capability/intelligence in me. It makes sense too. I can from reservation, where my general batchmates ha to get an under 100 rank, mine was around 700. That too after multiple attempts. Logically, that makes me 7 times worse at everything law school than them. 7 times worse English skills, 7 time worse comprehension, 7 times worse retention capacity, 7 times worse writing ability, 7 times worse conversation and speaking skills, and so on. I have tried very hard and things don't seem to get better. My GPA keeps tanking every semester no matter what i do, and I'm never satisfied with the amount of work I put in. It's cyclic in a way i believe, where capable people upon getting more positive feedback from their endeavours get further motivated to do something even better, whereas i, on consistent failure, find it impossible to even gather enough courage to start, try a new thing. I don't know what to do, and if things continue the way they are, I'm afraid i won't be employed. I have loans to pay and a family to feed (papa retires in 2 years), so not sure how that'll turn out. Rant over.