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 number of people who follow the Filmfare Awards and watch its nominated movies is probably much higher when compared to Cannes. Salman Khan has far more fans than your average European art film actor. Everyone in India will be able to identify Ekta Kapoor but not the girl who won at Cannes this year. But we all know which of the two awards truly recognises excellence and is truly prestigious.
There absolutely are people in this thread arguing that aspiring to the rhodes is an elitist snobbish bigoted (implied casteist) thing to do and that there is somehow more virtue to be found in being some "unsung hero" that is not there in being famous and still a hero. Growing up poor- i thought there was virtue simply in getting a job and working at it and paying taxes and helping the people around me, my dreams were somewhat small. And I thought that was somehow more virtuous than trying to be India's Bill Clinton- because I resigned myself to the idea that it would be impossible to break into that sphere of influence. But that was an adaptive preference, not a true choice. I was justifying my choices rather than actually being courageous enough to put myself out there and try and go for the gold. It wasnt virtuous- it was a self fulfilling prophecy.
The UPSC is accessible in that more people know what it is and how they could try to get in, but being successful in the exams and in your career still has many access barriers. If your parents cannot afford to support you for years while you do exam prep, if you cannot afford all the prep courses and materials, that is not equally accessible. And even if you struggle against that to get selected- you still might not have a very impactful career because you dont know how to play the political game right or because you might not have adequate protection from the political game because of your social status.
Given the odds, I think a young person in a law school in india today might actually have a better chance at the rhodes if they gave it a shot. Its not so hard to top exams at the university level or to obtain recommendation letters after internships, it might be a little hard to obtain information about the application process but most rhodes scholars are happy to share their knowledge with aspirants. You just need to pull up the courage to email them. When I was in law school, only one person found the courage to apply to rhodes and she got it. She wasnt top of class- but near enough (rank 6/7 if I remember correctly), she applied to internships in the regular way and earned rec letters and she hit the jackpot partly because she worked hard through the five years in law school in a dedicated way. Many of the people who topped then wished they had the courage to apply- they had the grades and the letters, but they settled for a bank job or a firm job or a litigation job because they were afraid to do this thing that seemed unreachable. Many more people didnt bother working hard through law school because they knew they only had to be in the top half to get a day z job and thats all they allowed themselves to want. In truth- i think ten/ fifteen people from my batch had the talent and capability to get rhodes if they had worked hard and been courageous and resourceful. Its shocking that even today, only two three people from each law school batch even entertain the idea of applying to the rhodes. Thats a problem, only if more people apply to the rhodes can the rhodes go to more and more diverse candidates. If you self select out- then obviously the pool of people who get it will not be as diverse. And calling people who value or aspire to the rhodes elitist snobs doesnt actually solve the problem.
As for the NLU thing, I think you're playing into (that comment's) OP's hands. Anyone who did some basic research would know that the NLU institutions are public. And you still haven't responded to the IDIA point. It is exactly the point the angry guy is making. IDIA may have been at a public uni, but it ain't government-supported.
And as for this entire thing of Free School Meals getting cancelled, that is doubtful (I don't know enough), and the UCU protest, I really get the anger on this one. Just because other countries have problems means we should as well? You UPSC types have learned way too well from the Russians. Classic Russian dark humour: things are shitty elsewhere, so let's not do anything to ensure they become less shitty here, as long as that means that our own lives are not-so-shitty. The classic UPSC mentality.
Not to undermine any of the Rhodes scholars. Feel free to admire them and aspire to it. The mistake this thread makes is in underestimating the UPSC's capacity to change your life and the power it gives you to change many people's lives.
Your precious Britain has had its school free lunch program cancelled and its university staff are out protesting because their work conditions are terrible. The irony is that this access to work you love so much is a public program. Rhodes scholars can't make that in India but bureaucrats and politicians can. If you want to sit somewhere else and complain, that's within your rights. You certainly have good reasons to complain. But it is these UPSC people you look down your nose at who might make things better. If you want to be childish enough to extend your ire against a few public servants into a vendetta against all of them, feel free.
I'm the first to admit that it takes an incredible amount of privilege to even dream of getting the rhodes scholarship. I went to law school not knowing what it is, and not even dreaming about applying because it just seemed so unreachable. Years later I wish I had given myself the opportunity to apply and to work toward it. It's a good goal. The worst thing about being poor is not really the lack of material resources- you can get around that. The worst thing is the soft bigotry of low expectations- from others and from ourselves. Even your dreams are poor. The system wins when poor people convince themselves they better not aspire to things like rhodes, that those things are not made for them and therefore aspiring to those things is not desirable, and in fact, people who think that those things are desirable must be bigoted and elitist and snobbish.
Getting the rhodes scholarship undeniably makes your life better and launches your career into a new and better stratosphere. You go from wanting a bank job to turning down offers from McKinsey. Rhodes scholars have undeniably greater impact in society than the thousands of IAS/ IPS/ IRS officers in this country. I couldn't name more than 5 top level IAS officers who have done things that have changed the course of history, I can name many many rhodes scholars who have done that, Girish Karnad, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Sagarika Ghose, Sanjeev Sanyal, Menaka Guruswamy in this country, but in other countries, I mean Bill Clinton, Hubble, Naomi Wolf, Ronan Farrow- American rhodes scholars alone have changed the course of history.
Why do poor students do this? why do we not give ourselves a chance and try and find virtue in a lack of ambition or a lack of traditional success? How is that not self injurious?
For what its worth, many wonderful rhodes scholars come from humble backgrounds. Girish Karnads mom was a poor widow all through his childhood, Sudhirs Krishnaswamys dad was a watchman, Bill Clinton was raised by a single mom on the brink of poverty. Rahul Bajaj went to- what? Nagpur University? And hes blind- and theres an aspirational success story if one wants it- im sure there are others but I wont go on. The point being- we need not constrain ourselves to only what society has deemed is good for us.
I really think we need to stop thinking about identity as destiny and burrowing into that.
Agar itne confident ho toh itne insecure kyun ho dear
Somebody once accused Sudhir of speaking with 'a characteristic sting'. Frankly, if you represent the average quality at NLS these days, you'll need 10 professors + Sudhir to have the balls to speak to you with a 'characteristic sting'. If you are not from NLS and you don't have professors who don't know what's what, I have no solution to save you. Tell me your name and you will be in my prayers every day. I will send you good thoughts every day.
Went to law school and thriving with all your ideas of ‘merit’
Don't give me that *** about internet connections etc. I am a blind person who comes from a well-educated family. The government (you so-called hard workers) did fuck all to ensure I got an education. My dad sacrificed hundreds of thousands of INR, and my mother her job and her time, to ensure I did. I showed gratitude to the right people who actually made sacrifices for me and deserved it by doing well in my studies and going to law school in England (where I am now). As we're anyway engaged in d** measuring, you want to know what the Limeys do? They actually pay for the special educational needs support that disabled citizens of their country or those with a right to permanent residence there have. And you know what is the only thing I get from the people to whom I, according to you, am supposed to show gratitude do? Ask my mother at Bangalore Airport every year when I come back for a short vacation, 'Ma'am, what is wrong with his [my] eyes?'. You don't deserve gratitude, you deserve a good tongue-lashing, which you'll never get in this country.
And before you can give me the entire 'Oh there are blind people being successful in India at our law schools', sure. I know a guy from a prominent NLU (one of the so-called T1 type) that was telling me that he'd have to pay for his own support assistant when he started in a job after graduating law school. He was supported by IDIA, a private organisation, during his university studies, not by those whom we're supposed to show 'gratitude' to. And look up Access to Work in Britain before giving me any further bullshit about gratitude. So go touch some grass and get in the bin.
Rhodes- A GLOBAL standard (as against a colonial Indian standard) of checking the overall academic brilliance of students basis his over all career and the entire span of graduation including marks scored as well as extra-curricular activities and other talents. It judges the overall personality and meritocracy of the candidate. He/she has to be among the best candidates in the country and in his/her chosen field of study with an overall life long demonstrated meritocracy (as opposed to one exam) and match with other peers in the world. A true test of education and finesse.
RHODES IS EASILY THE WINNER.
As someone who has worked for a major time in US, this is the first question I asked to a couple of General Counsels of Fortune 500 companies (who had also been attorneys in the past) that is there a craze for govt job in US like that in India?
The unequivocal answer I got is that there is literally zero craze. In fact generally people who cannot become entrepreneurs or professionals or join corporates try to be paper pushers in govt departments. Again generally, not always.
The craze is only for higher level political posts. NOT GOVT JOBS.
No where in the developed world like US and even in UK itself will you ever come across a concept like "IAS". Ofcourse they have civil and public services but no concept of a single country wide unified cadre like IAS which will sit at creamy posts across the nation. Stupidity. Promotes mediocrity. In fact in USA, govt services are not that hyped at all. It is the attorneys or doctors or startup and show biz guys and sports and entertainment industries that are the most sought after careers. There is no unhealthy obsession with govt jobs.
In UK and US a post like DM doesn't even exist. In US you can start as a patrol cop and rise all the way up to become police chief. These services were created by British to rule over Indian "slaves", the format of civil services should have been totally changed in 1947 and should have been built on a bottoms up approach. For eg you should start as Police Inspector and rise all the way to SP etc. Only in India you have this stupid concept of giving an exam for top post directly. If everyone rises from bottom to up, egos are less, efficiency is more. Recruit from Inspector level and make that exam very competitive. Any ways once you remove all the VIP giri from these posts, half of the so called people who want to "serve the nation", will not even sit for these exams. Indians' abnormal love affair with govt services should have stopped long ago. "Craze" is a sign of a mediocre country , we only need people who can serve the nation for actually serving. Those who will still serve the country if there is no corruption and no VIP giri attached to these posts those who are ready to start from the bottom and rise up.
Rhodes scholars are lucky nerds given scholarship to study at some university where thousands go every year anyway. Clearing UPSC sets you up for an upper middleclass existence at the very minimum for the rest of your life. If anyone says Rhodes >> UPSC it is quite clear that person will not go on to achieve in life, even with all the privileges in the world.
So you want to go to become a random scholar because you sold them some bullshit story with words like colonialism, post structuralism, humanitarianism thrown like confetti? Do it and boast and be happy in your Khan market parties
Of course it is very noble to get an elite scholarship instituted by a genocidal man and administered by a very elitist committee to study in one of the most racist institutions of the world.
I have nothing against Sudhir. He has proven himself to be much more than a Rhodes scholar especially through his institution building. You should ask yourself where your contempt for your own country and its people come from. Unless you are an upper class British man, the glorified peons are your people not the white racists however much you may wish otherwise.
Hence, the comments in LI nowadays reflect this changed demographic.
Check your privilege. Read a module or two which you probably skipped in law school cause you were too busy being cool and partying. Gosh.
- In Britain, look at who gets recruited to the diplomatic, civil and intelligence services: folks with good education (usually from Oxbridge or one of the other Russell Group unis).
- In the U.S., too, this similar trend can be seen. As a case study, take the profile of the first blind person to be recruited to the diplomatic service of the U.S. Department of State, Avraham Rabby. Rabby was born in Israel, was sent to school in England after his eyes' retinas were damaged and continued his studies there (reading French and Spanish at Oxford after school), before immigrating to the U.S., doing an MBA at Chicago, working for City Bank and only joining the State Department in his late 40's. Considering his background, he was fluent in four languages: English, French, Hebrew and Spanish.
Where you are right is that India has been unable to recruit people with the Rabby-type profile, because of the deeply problematic nature of our government recruitment processes. Therefore, instead of focussing on the origins of those commenting in favour of government jobs, comment on the mediocrity of those who are recruited (how come, e.g., an Indian IFS Officer isn't expected to know at least two UN working languages at the point of applying to the foreign service, where her UK or U.S. counterpart would have navigated such an expectation?). Focussing on the localities/origins of people who 'obsess' over these jobs would be like someone (using the example above) like someone saying Rabby was incapable of serving his adopted country because of his blindness (something which some, at the time of his recruitment (1989), did say unfortunately).
https://kashmirobserver.net/2024/05/18/yes-upsc-is-good-but-there-are-far-better-options/#google_vignette
You agree with this?