Who said anything about being upset? You are really good at putting words in peoples' mouths, aren't you? That habit will get you into trouble one of these days, my friend.

PS: A quick hint. Sometimes people use words for persuasive effect, rather than because they reflect the exact feelings within a person's inner self at that precise moment. You should know this by now. If I were your parent or guardian, I'd be very concerned indeed about the potential ROI for your education, even if you were at Harvard or Yale Law for the JD.

As someone with a sense of the process, you all give too much weightage to how much a person's institution plays a role in their selection. Yes, it is all elite institutions because of how these networks operate and that certainly plays a role, but within those, no one is keeping score. Not to mention the honest effort being put into finding candidates from across institutions.

If a candidate's biggest achievement is the exam they cracked in 12th standard, they do not stand a chance.

Just write it down: it WILL go to NLSIU this year. I am literally willing to bet money on it. There are many things in NLSIU's favour this time:

- Quality of candidates

- Mentorship by Sudhir

- Help from alumni

- Simple principle of probability and balancing the deviation of the past few years. In other words, it's mathematically impossible that GNLU and NLUD will keep being rewarded and NLSIU will be ignored. The law of averages HAS to catch up.

I saw the comment before the laughable redaction! The tagging of this as 'trollish' is cringeworthy, comical, disappointing and disheartening (a description that can, of course, apply to most manifestations of this forum's continuing existence).

The comment gets one thing right: it is a world-class institution and a selection from there (all things considered) is surprising, as this is intended for applicants from India who studied law in India (I am an Indian national and a law student at another of the London law schools also interested in LLM/graduate study opportunities, but I would never apply for something like the Rhodes, primarily because that isn't intended for people with access to opportunities like mine).

The thing that this gets wrong is the assumption about the selected candidate’s undergraduate institution. It has become so commercial law-focussed in the last few years, from my observations, that there is almost no chance the individual in question would have been able to study modules on the topics in question. I myself looked at their "Transnational Law" LLM pathway, which is intended for human rights people, and frankly the offerings (or at least the ones I saw last year) were a joke! Certain academics I know--criminologists there—left on mass in 2014 because of how little importance was being given to their research, demonstration enough, I think, of what direction that particular law school is taking.

Yes, but if you are a good enough spindoctor to show as if you've carved out a plan on how you can use your commercial law career to save the world (I don't know, by perhaps talking about how commercial law and human rights questions are inextricably bound up or something and how you plan to combine both in your research and practice, just randomly bullshitting here :)), you may just be able to crack it! NB, there are plenty of people who've had commercial law careers both before, and after, Rhodes! Rahul Bajaj (India and Linacre 2018) was an A0 at Trilegal for a year before getting the Rhodes, and I remember reading in an archived version of some sort of newsletter for Australian Rhodes alums of an Australian guy who remained in the UK to work in Baker McKenzie's London office after completing his studies at Oxford.

If further reassurance is needed, please remember the case of Ronald Dworkin (very different circumstances and times, of course, but still contributes to the point I am making), who worked at Sullivan & Cromwell for many years before becoming the giant of legal theory we know today.

Typical troll to believe that when NLSIU doesn't get the scholarship, then that is because it is being punished and when it does get the scholarship, that's because merit is being rewarded. Lol, previous applicants from NLSIU in the last decade were not the best candidates, hence they didn't get it. As simple as that. If someone good enough applies, then they will get it.

This year will be NLSIU’s year by the sheer law of averages alone. 8 years is just too long a period for a Rhodes drought and it will have to end now. If the intention was to diversify the Rhodes pool and punish NLSIU for past hegemony or arrogance, that has been done. Point taken, now let’s move on and select objectively on pure merit.

Can't give you a definite answer because I don't know exact details, but I don't see why not. If you want to become a commercial lawyer and you can justify that in your personal statement and interview(s) (if you get that far) by (i) explaining how going down that pathway would make you do all the grand stuff the Rhodes Trust expects scholars to do (in terms of having a 'mandate' to make the world a better place or whatever); and (ii) more importantly, showing that you have a genuine interest in commercial/corporate law.