As someone from a Tier 1 university myself, I’ve also noticed this trend, particularly in Bengaluru. It’s surprising how students with primarily trial court, High Court, or smaller firm internships often end up getting internships at top-tier firms like Trilegal and CAM. I’m not sure if it’s because of personal connections or if these firms have an informal system where they reserve a few months specifically for students from Tier 1 NLUs and keep the rest of the year more open to students from lower-tier universities.

It just gets really frustrating sometimes. You put in the work, follow all the right steps, try to build a solid CV and then you see people with minimal relevant experience or completely unrelated internships somehow landing positions at top firms. It makes you question whether merit really counts at all. The lack of transparency in the selection process doesn’t help either it often feels like you’re just shooting in the dark, hoping someone somewhere picks your application at the right time.

Let me be clear from the outset: this is a hard response, and I’m offering it only because the original post shows unnecessary disdain for students from tier 3 institutions. There’s a line between expressing personal frustration and dismissing an entire group of people who are trying just as hard—often harder—to break into the same profession. That line was crossed. The post didn’t just question the system; it demeaned fellow candidates purely because of where they studied, as if institutional branding is the only thing that defines worth. That kind of arrogance needs to be checked.

Here’s the truth: if you strip everything down, the only thing that separates you from many of the people you’re mocking is a better CLAT rank on a particular day and access to a stronger alumni network. That’s it. The playing field levels out pretty quickly once you’re in law school and thrown into internships, research, and real-world application. Some of these Tier 3 students go on to outperform peers from tier 1 law schools because they’re sharper in interviews, hungrier to prove themselves, and better prepared to contribute meaningfully from day one.

You mention having a below-average rank at a top 3 school and yet seem baffled that people from “lower-tier” colleges are landing jobs ahead of you. Why wouldn’t they be? Firms don’t owe you anything just because of your college. If someone with a less elite degree but stronger presence, better communication, or more maturity gets the job, it’s because they earned it. Internships don’t mean much if you didn’t stand out. You can’t hide behind logos and expect them to substitute for drive or performance.

This industry doesn’t reward entitlement. It rewards value. If firms are consistently choosing others over you, it’s time to stop blaming the system and start asking why. Maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s you.

To reduce everything to “they’re from a Tier 3 school, how dare they get selected over me?” is both elitist and factually empty. You’re not entitled to someone else’s opportunity just because of where you studied. And frankly, many of these so-called Tier 3 students have every right to be where they are—

because unlike you, they didn’t stop at the brand name. They built their credibility brick by brick.

If you're truly frustrated, good. Use that. But direct it toward improving yourself and refining your approach and not belittling others who are grinding just as hard without the benefit of a high CLAT rank or a powerful alumni base. Because once you graduate and enter practice, nobody cares where you came from. They only care what you can deliver. That’s the reality. Everything else is ego.

Truly

A tier 3 kid who works at a tier 1.

I'm from a "top three" uni myself and every single person I know from SLS, Christ etc who has managed to get even an internship alongside me at T1 firms, let alone placements, has done several months of internships at different firms ranging from T1 to T2 to local & boutique ones, across different areas of law coz they can't afford to be picky. Moreover, a lot of them need to do 6 month long post class internships to get placed unlike us who only need 1-2 internships or even just DayZ and post DayZ interviews to convert at a T1 firm. So maybe stop running your mouth about this and cooking stuff up; it's more likely that you have nothing while these kids have loads of internships (and just haven't filled out their LinkedIn or wtv).

I agree with most of the points raised in these threads, though one important nuance keeps getting missed. My concern isn’t just about being passed over; it's that many of those being selected ahead of me often haven’t done any substantial or relevant internships. In several cases, it’s just an internship with an NCLT lawyer or a small local firm in Jaipur, followed by a sudden leap into a tier-1 internship at firms like SAM. That trajectory understandably raises questions about the criteria being used. Someone asked how I know I’ve demonstrated consistent effort, it's because I’ve been interning consecutively during off months, sometimes three to four months in a row. That’s far from common practice, even among students from tier-1 colleges. I also want to be clear, this isn’t about looking down on students from non-NLUs. I’ve always respected them, fully aware of the relentless work it takes to break into the corporate sector, especially when only about 2 out of every 100 law graduates make it there. My frustration lies not with individuals but with a system that often overlooks sustained effort and merit in favor of less transparent factors.

People will now say that this dude is being elitist and whatnot but honestly, you’re one hundred per cent right. 90% of people at tier-1 law firms aren’t from tier-1 or even tier-2 NLUs. Law firms would rather have these tier 3 kids who won’t leave than someone from a top university.

LOL!

Tell me you're a self-absorbed narcissist without telling me you're a self-absorbed narcissist.

No T1 law firm or any other law firm in general owes you anything simply because you hail from a so-called top law institute.

Performance on an entrance exam nearly half a decade ago is no indicator of current academic prowess or professional skill.

You claim to have "demonstrated sustained effort to grow in this field" and yet, are unaware of the simple fact that the legal profession, like most other professions operates primarily on ones skills, experience & willingness to learn and NOT only on the pedigree of the college they study in.

Most of the best lawyers in this country (corporate and litigation) did not attend NLUs and have managed to do extremely well for themselves.

You do not know what kind of experience or skills these other candidates possess and you'd be better off not trying to make improper assumptions when the fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of students out there who manage to get relevant work experience, build meaningful relationships, AND secure top ranks in their college. The fact that you have not been able to do the same is not a shortcoming on their end but on yours.

While it is certainly alright to vent out frustrations, misplacing your anger in those who managed to secure limited, coveted internship spots is neither helpful not healthy.

Instead, try to improve your batch rank, and ensure that you show up to your next internship with a better and more humble attitude than the one you have put on display here.

The legal industry is all about CONNECTIONS and if you do somehow make it to a T1 firm, you might most likely find yourself in a situation where your colleagues/SAs/PAs/Partners or even Senior Partners belong to one of these so called "Tier 3 institutes" like Symbi or Christ. I'd hate to see you get humbled in a much more humiliating and public manner in such a situation.

Sincerely,

T1 Associate.

What seems to be broken, are your grades, my man. These firms receive thousands of applications. Hundreds with the experience, and pedigree, that you possess. Why should they prefer you? The one-eyed men among the blind in unis like Christ and SLS would land these roles of course - that's on their merit, their luck. You chose to be a part of a quality institution. Why not behave like you're a part of it? The world owes you absolutely nothing.

Frankly, I’m reaching a point of utter exasperation with the selection practices of so-called Tier 1 firms. It’s baffling, and frankly infuriating, to see candidates from what are widely considered Tier 3 institutions, like SLS and Christ, consistently landing roles at these top firms despite having little to no relevant internship experience.I, on the other hand, belong to one of the top three law institutions in India, yes, with a below-average rank, but why should that singular metric overshadow everything else? I’ve completed internships at highly reputed Tier 1 and Tier 2 firms, built real, relevant experience, and demonstrated sustained effort to grow in this field. Yet, I’m being rejected time and again by these very firms that claim to value merit, exposure, and competence.What exactly are these firms evaluating? Because it clearly isn’t the quality of experience or institutional pedigree. If a student from a top law school, with a solid record of internships, is still being passed over while someone with far less relevant exposure is chosen, then something is fundamentally broken in the way recruitment decisions are being made.