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?
I need some real, structured advice on how to go through this, and I'd be grateful for any help/advice. Thanks in advance!
Regards,
A completely clueless law student who really wants to be in this space
The concept of people getting into university teaching prior to a PhD and doing a PhD as a sort of top-up degree for promotion purposes is not the way it works outside India. They don't have no UGCNET etc. The PhD is the basic degree you need to even get started on the academic ladder. In other words, a PhD is an essential requirement for full time academic positions with the scope for promotion, even very juniour ones. Therefore, unless you are ready to put in the years of study required to get both an LLM and a PhD, your ambitions would be very hard to fulfil. True, in markets like the UK, you would still find some professors with extremely good research track records without PhDs. But if you take the extra second to notice things about them other than the fact that they haven't gotten a PhD, you will notice something else: that they are usually old enough that they would have entered the academic market in the 1970's or 80's, when academic recruitment in the UK without a doctorate was possible. It is so vanishingly rare now - speaking from personal experience, as one working to get into the UK academic market - that you should pretty much treat it as impossible.
My advice would be to treat Singapore and the U.S. in the same way. Let's just say that Singapore is likely, because of the ranking of its unis, to operate in a way similar to the British. As for the U.S.? We can begin by chuckling gently at the mere thought of any sort of relaxation of standards there. They are extraordinarily insular as it is. The UK/Singapore concept of being able to get into their academic market with a foreign qualifying law degree and U.S. postgraduate law degrees is, in any case, not there. You tend to need an American JD anyway for that (there might be a few people who got in without a JD, but those are exceptions that prove the rule). Usually, American law professors have a PhD in a non-law subject (e.g., philosophy), followed by a JD.
Just like he did it with