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?
a. If NALSAR is investing in these in-house profs by paying them stipend for their phd, they should have a preferntial claim to be retained if not regularised.
b. There have been instances before where integrated LLM-Ph.D students have been hired as assitant professors before completing their phds (and they have done phenomenal work).
c. Students claim that they must be consulted even though there is no positive obligation on the university (via UGC regulations) to consult them during the hiring process.
d. The last round of recruitments, as many at NALSAR claim, has been questionable. And, NALSAR has been bleeding of good faculties since Fuzzy's term was not renewed.
What is LI's take on this?
It was because of our efforts that the admin is poaching senior profs from top NLUs.