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?
Would you say British administration was efficient? In many ways, it was. They created infrastructure that has lasted almost 2 centuries, unlike bridges that don't manage to survive a single rain. However efficient was the administration, it wasn't "us" ruling ourselves. The decision making primarily was done by the Brits.
UK had colonialism and racism within its borders
India had caste oppression
All the problems that DEI policies are trying to fix arise from one of the above.
None of these were present in China, Japan, Korea, or most of the EU
“The test-blind policy was a well-intentioned experiment,” she wrote, “but the reality in our classrooms shows that it has failed.” Admitting students who are unprepared, she warned, “sets them up for discouraging struggle. … We cannot afford another cycle of administrative delay.”
https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2026/08/15/uc-berkeley-sat-test-blind-admissions-math-scores/
So this brings us back to the universal debate that is waging both in India and the US: are we seriously compromising on merit if we admit people solely because they are from a lower social or economic background?
It’s also interesting that these policies are followed in the US, UK and India, but perhaps not in the EU and definitely not in countries like China, Japan, Korea. What explains this? Is it populist vote seeking that prompts these policies without much thought?