In the interest of elevating discourse in this thread above political side shows and trolls, haven't read the article due to paywall but wasn't the previous SCBA dispensation very publicly political and pro-government, as is the BCI for the most part? Makes sense to argue that a more oppositional SCBA might not be a bad thing in a democracy where the constitution is arguably under pressure, which is what the first paragraph is saying.

What exactly is wrong with that? Kian might have written the same in an editorial. Serious answers only please, trolls will (likely) be moderated.

Simple: your comment is still up, and you get the troll tag, which you wanted in the first place when bringing up the moderation topic again. Just screaming about freedom of speech and repeatedly playing the censored victim card is not intelligent discourse and is boring and uninteresting for most readers except the most meta readers and some edgelords.

Please stay on topic, don't be a bore, and be helpful, kind and polite. It's not too much to ask. If you can't take that or make your points less antagonistically please do leave or start a more toxic echochamber yourself where you can rail against all bad things that upset you.

Moderation is there to make LI more respectful, not to give every political operative with an opinion or person itching for a fight a platform.

What is this question supposed to prove? Im dark skinned- do you think I want men to be guilted or manipulated into dating me despite their preferences? Do you think I go around calling them bigoted for not wanting to date me? I have some self respect. I dont go around trying to force men to date me who would rather not. For any reason. If someone doesnt want me why the hell would I want them? There are plenty of people who dont think the color of my skin is offensive, ive actually never been in a situation where ive wanted someone and they were put off by my skin color. Its only incels that try to guilt women into having sex with them who would rather not. them and transwomen.

Besides skin color isnt a sexuality. Im a woman- i dont think black men are inherently unattractive, many of them are, many white people are attractive, many asians- whatever. Individual people from across different races are unattractive too. Thats just me though. If thats not what it is for you- have at it. Why would I want to force men into dating women they dislike? That is just putting those women in danger.

"Where are all these hundreds and thousands of people? The only transpeople I read about involved in attacks are the ones attacked by people with the kind of prejudice and hatred that's all over this thread."

"I've never heard of anyone being called transphobic for exercising their autonomy over who they want to have sex with. So bizarre. These projections often are."

Are you not seeing the denial that transwomen commit crimes or are you wanting to see the denial? are you moving goalposts? It is obviously inaccurate to say no one ever said that these people dont commit crimes when there are these posts on this very thread? Ive only responded with reduxx links and terfisaslur.com links to these posts.

Where is the proof that its overexagerrated? Do you understand how numbers work? https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/ Here is one link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/24/government-figures-70-per-cent-of-transgender-prisoners-are/#:~:text=figures%20have%20revealed.-,At%20least%20181%20of%20the%20244%20transgender%20inmates%2C%20more%20than,grievous%20bodily%20harm%20and%20robbery. Here is another

Here is a third: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
A fourth: https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

- i can provide more. Half of the males in prisons who claim they are trans have committed and been convicted of sexual crimes and that rate for non-trans males in prisons is 17%. That is a significant difference. That means these are not over-exaggerated. The propensity to commit sexual crimes for the trans identified males is literally statistically higher compared to regular "cis" men. And regardless- even one is too many. even one woman being assaulted by a transwoman- a male in a womens space is too many and its not just one. Its a significantly higher number than that and its more likely to happen with a transwoman than with a "cis" man.

California prisons are providing women prisoners with condoms because 40 males are at last count in womens prisons. why provide all women with condoms? because its not likely that he will just rape one and leave it be. And these women are in prison- they cannot leave. And many of the women are in prison after a long history of dealing with male violence and when they go to prison they get told they will still have to deal with male violence so they best carry around condoms so at least they dont get pregnant. This should turn your stomach.

https://www.iwf.org/2024/03/19/why-are-womens-prisons-in-california-passing-out-condoms/
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/ca-womens-prisons-anticipate-pregnancy-sb123

What youre arguing- is that for all the rapes and sexual crimes women have to endure- transwomen only commit a small percentage- so they should get a pass to be in sex segregated spaces. How many rapes do you think are acceptable risk? Do you know that for all the people who own guns very few actually end up using it on another person? do you think we shouldnt have gun control laws then? or do you think the small minority of mentally ill people who murder school children by the hundreds mean that we should actually have gun control?

Thats how safeguarding works- you recognise broad patterns in criminality and then exclude anyone from that group and you do background checks. So everyone who might have serious mental illnesses is excluded from owning guns, and everyone who has a history of domestic violence is excluded from owning guns. And everyone with a male body is excluded from sex segregated spaces.

This is why there are sex segregated spaces in the first place. Not all men harm women- most men do not- but we have sex segregated toilets and prisons and rape shelters and schools to protect from the statistically significant percentage of men who do harm women. If a statistically significant percentage of transwomen are in prison for sexual crimes- and that is proven by authenticated government backed studies- then thats enough justification for excluding transwomen from sex segregated spaces.

If you learn the history- we had unisex bathrooms and prisons and schools and sports and the like before- the reason we moved away from that was because women were being harmed and were being disadvantaged. I cannot believe we have to relitigate it because some males say they feel like theyre "a woman on the inside". Every predatory male has an incentive to say that because then he is put in the womens space- its a nothing statement that requires no surgeries or hormones or medical interventions at all- its purely an internal state that is unverifiable. You leave the door open to that when you decide to prioritise claims about identities and genderfeels over biological material facts like sex.

Of all the men who rape women- im willing to bet that disabled men and old men are a very small number- but we dont allow disabled men and elderly men into womens spaces and womens prisons and rape shelters and toilets do we?

Youre essentially arguing "not all transwomen" when no one has argued all transwomen- we've only argued that there are enough- that there are statistical material facts that warrant sex segregation and safeguarding. And that these studies and numbers and the reporting of all of these incidents is blacked out or it is attributed as "womens" crimes. It gets harder and harder to tell these truths. That is why reduxx exists, as distasteful and "phobic" as you might find it. A phobia or a sceptre- is fear or something thats not real- this is not a phobia or a sceptre- its fear of something that IS real.

Just because transwomen might be subject to male violence doesnt mean women have to sacrifice their hard won rights for sex segregated spaces and safeguarding and sex based rights to accomodate them. Gay men are subject to male violence, pedophiles in prisons are raped consistently- that doesnt mean we put them all in the womens prisons because gay men and pedophiles and transwomen (conceding that these are distinct groups) are still male- and they still can and do harm women, we should find another solution.

To argue that the solution then is for women to give up their protections and rights is to argue that women have to perform penance for the crimes still committed by men. I reject the idea that any woman anywhere is responsible for the criminal actions of every man.

My solution to this problem is to have single occupancy third spaces for any male that feels threatened in the male space. I agree with you- even one male bodied person getting raped because he wore a dress that day or because hes gay is too much- im not comparing harms- you are dismissing harms to women. Im suggesting that the solution isnt to erase womens sex based rights. Rights arent pie generally- until you want a piece of the pie I have specifically carved out for me. Everybody has a property right- but nobody has a right to come on to my property and claim it for themselves or demand that we share- to argue that that is legitimate- is to argue that there are no property rights except for the people who feel comfortable ignoring property rights.

But of course you will find that trans activists and trans people oppose this solution. They dont just "want to be safe" or "want to pee" they want to be validated as "women" by being in womens sex segregated spaces. its the validation theyre after- not just the safety. Safety is a concern easily addressed. All of this money that goes into stonewall and ACLU, and human rights watch and all of these organisations who spend hundreds of millions arguing that sex isnt real- take that money and build third places for gender non-conforming males.

Validation requires that women give up their language, their sex based rights, their sex segregated spaces, their safeguarding and even their bodies to please males. No one in a free society should have to validate the internal psychological states of anybody. Not at this cost and not at any cost.

The problem with surgeries at "too young an age " is not that the surgeries could go wrong. its that children are not capable of understanding the implications of these surgeries and are therefore unable to provide informed consent. All children. And then that the surgeries even when they go perfectly- do not do what they are claimed to do. You cannot actually change sex- every cell in your body is coded xx or xy. You will be a permanent patient by doing this. You can gain a superficial appearance to a sex organ by moulding your body through surgeries- but neo-phalluses dont function like regular penises and neo-vaginas have nothing in common with regular vaginas at all- real vaginas self clean, they expand and contract as necessary, they help shed the uterine lining, they dont close up on their own, they dont tear up to have fecal matter from intestines spill into them. neo vaginas do none of those things. Quoting andrea long chu- its a wound thats carved into your body that the body will forever try to heal from. The organic body parts are signs of a healthy body. Modification procedures almost always result in ill health. Even hormone therapies. Exogenous hormones produce cancer, they produce osteoporosis, they might even impair brain development. There is a reason that we decided to prevent adult athletes from taking exogenous hormones- because they were killing themselves by taking these drugs trying to win competitions. It is impossible for a child to understand what the loss of sexual function, the loss of orgasm, the loss of fertility can all mean. It is impossible for children to consent to this just as or even more than it is impossible for children to consent to alcohol or cigarettes or tattoos or sex.

"Gender fluidity" implies that male children should be allowed to wear dresses and girl tomboys should be allowed to climb trees without being punished. I agree with that- most gender critical terfs agree with that. Where we disagree is telling children that just because a boy likes pink and playing princess and a girl might like trucks and playing sports means that those kids actually belong to the opposite sex and should be validated as such, that their names and their bodies should be changed, that they should be put on a pathway to transition including puberty blockers, exogenous hormones, and harmful surgeries. I want those kids to completely be themselves , and I want those kids thought that there are no "male" behaviours and "female" behaviours- they can be as masculine or as feminine as they like- that doesnt change their sex or who they are. I want to abolish gender- you want to reify it to be so important it requires sex changes and body modification.

This is exactly what the cass review found- they found that when children were found to be behaving in "gender nonconforming" ways, they would get primed and asked by their teachers and by care workers if they were sure of their "gender identity" and prompted to go on a "gender journey". Kids being kids would see that gay and trans kids were getting praise and attention for being brave. Social contagion is a real thing. Young girls would think " i dont look or feel like a kardashian- i must be a boy". Mermaids- the leader of ngos in youth gender stuff- literally told young boys and girls- that there are GI joes and barbies- and if they are male and think they arent like GI joes or theyre female and they dont feel like or relate to barbie- they should go on a gender journey. That prompts kids to think that the sex their born with is something they should change to match more closely their personality. https://www.transgendertrend.com/questions-school-mermaids-training-teachers/ This is harmful. This suppresses gender nonconforming behaviour in the worst possible way. considering this is mostly being done to kids who will grow up to be gay or are autistic- this is literally conversion therapy and conversion surgery. https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-new-gay-conversion-therapyhttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gidshttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2024/03/inside-the-collapse-of-the-tavistock-centrehttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

Medical professionals knew they were doing this- and they continued to do it until those evil bigoted terfs stopped them. The cass review found this and the World professional association for transgender health- the WPATH had its files and emails leaked where doctors were joking about how these kids cannot consent and how they were "transing the gay away".

You think that trans people in india may not buy into child transition- but they absolutely have. Hook line and sinker- there is no dissent in the community because one usually doesnt find dissent in religious groups- because their entire movement is aping what their counterparts in the west did. Do you remember when "Vqueeram" aditya sahai was outed as a fetishist by right wing groups because he was tapped to write a guidance on gender inclusion in schools? Im sure you felt outrage at that. Did you read what was in the guidance? I did. https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Inclusion_of_Transgender_Children_in_School_Education.pdf Here is a copy. Look up "puberty blockers". The guidance literally says that school teachers- you should know how capable school teachers in india are of making medical diagnoses- should talk to gender non conforming kids about the availability of puberty blockers. that they should " Convey that these are available and accessible for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, who may later identify as transgender persons. ". 80% of children and adolescents experiencing dysphoria end up not transitioning- puberty actually solves the dysphoria and they realise they are just gay, regular old boring gay. He wanted to give the same drugs we give to castrate rapists and to cancer patients to those kids. Why? because they acted a little flamboyant?

Do you know what the original reason for puberty blockers and prescribing hormones to kids was? it was because trans identified males were upset they didnt "pass as women" - to the eye in their appearance- because puberty had given them obviously male characteristics- wouldnt it have been wonderful if they had never had those characteristics or were able to block those characteristics from forming so they could have different more feminine appearance. This is a cosmetic intervention. It has nothing to do with suicidality. Children by and large dont commit suicide and when they do the causes are very complex and knotted, and like i have shown elsewhere- not just for children but even for adults- transitioning doesnt lower the risk of suicide infact it may increase it. Because living in a mutilated body that makes you a permanent patient has got to be awful.

This is madness- and this suppresses gender nonconforming behavior through the worst ways- and it wont stop itself if we dont seriously and skeptically reconsider the idea of sexed souls and gendered identities.

Notice- through all of this- I havent denied or compared harms the way you want me to. Im not denying that trans identified males may face harms. Im denying that the solution to those harms is to follow blindly whatever trans people might want- regardless of what rigorous science says or what other groups might be affected. You have an all or nothing approach. I dont. You have decided that anyone who disagrees with you must hate gender nonconformity or hate trans people. You decided at the very outset that disbelief in gender souls was "hate speech". Hate speech used to mean threats, incitement to violence, and slurs. I havent done any of those things. But you have consistently admonished me to be kind while the other guy gets to say women are irrational because of their periods, that we're all bigots for disagreeing, that we're all hateful for daring to have a different opinion and that we're all too stupid and dumb and we dont read because we dont buy the bullcrap judith butler sells. You have done nothing to police his/her tone have you? its only my tone you find objectionable. Because appearing to care about trans people and going on about how beautiful and brave and stunning these people are is more important than actually caring about what happens to women in prisons or children who might be homosexual. That is your measure of kindness and I reject it entirely. Dissent by itself is not unkind unless you are in a religion where apostasy is criminal.

If the only claim of "transwomen" was that they needed protection from discrimination based on gender performance- nobody would disagree. But their claims dont stop there. Its not just- "hijras should be able to get a job" its not just " men who wear dresses should be able to go to universities like everyone else. They arent stopped from those things. Its " you must treat us as women because we say we are women", "why cant we change sex on government ID". The claim isnt " we want separate spaces for protection" or " we want open categories in sports" its "we want to go into the womens room and into womens rape crisis shelters and womens schools and we want to compete in the womens category". No body is protesting trans people competing in open categories- the problem is that male bodied people want to compete in female categories. The problem is that there are no sex segregated spaces anymore because "identity" which is unverifiable undetectable and unfalsifiable is supposed to be more important than sex - which is a material fact in every single mammal. There is only one oppressed community on this planet that you can identify your way into and none of us can say boo according to you- thats women. why is that?

No one is saying we must ignore the material oppression of trans people where this oppression is found- but arguing against discrimination or arguing against material oppression doesnt require i believe their shoddy philosophy or their religious beliefs or practice their rituals. I dont need to believe "trans women are women" to think they shouldnt be raped- I dont think men should be raped. I dont need to believe they are women to think they should be allowed to go to school and get a job like everyone else- they should and people who traffic kids and prevent them from going to school should be jailed and everyone regardless of sex who is trafficked should be offered ways to come out of that "profession" including adult education and skilling and vocational education and university education if theyre capable. You only need to believe that they are women to believe that sex doesnt matter. Male people have all rights every male person has ever had. No male has rights that are exclusive to women- adult human females. thats all im saying- that sex matters.

You need to stop thinking you know what the right answers are or youre on the right side of history because of vibes. All evidence would show that the gender critical terfy side are actually maybe the ones on the right side of history. You cannot be accusing me of hate and ignorance and policing my tone when you cannot honestly say youve considered and read any of the literature ive brought up in this exchange before forming an opinion. I have read judith butler and I proved, I am familiar with statistics on this stuff, I am familiar with the medical aspects of it- i have bothered to find out what hijras are and what intersex is, and ive read studies and papers on gender medicine. I have been in very lib-fem spaces that are all gaga over gender identity nonsense and now im an apostate because- one night- i said - im so sure about this stuff I bet I could listen to what evil terfs say and counter everything. And I couldnt. And I had the decency and honesty to change my mind when confronted by evidence and arguments I had not considered. You dont have that decency or honesty - which is why instead of saying "youre right and im wrong". Youve made it about tone. Instead of acknowledging when I have facts that dont bode well for your argument- you have shifted goal posts.

Transwomen dont harm women- not enough transwomen harm women- not all transwomen harm women- even if they do harm women women should put up with it- youre only concerned because you hate trans people (because its inconceivable someone would actually be concerned about women)- even if they do harm women- those women are probably bigoted anyway so it doesnt matter. This is the narcissists prayer redone. And it follows exactly the pattern your arguments have followed in this exchange. Go look in the mirror.

Didn't intend to wade in this deep but no one ever said in this thread that trans people NEVER commit violence, just that it's often over-exaggerated for rhetorical reasons by their opponents. What the trans community seems to be objecting to is that every time the toilet access issue is brought up, for instance, they might be confronted with the case of a possible trans person committing a crime against women in a toilet, which is often invoked as a spectre. Of course it happens but it's obviously relatively rare amongst literally millions of assaults, just as Florida Men are real too amongst millions of Floridans (didn't know about that reason for that, that's interesting).

It's possible to empathise that some women might feel discomfort with the toilet issue, which is a little complicated, and not saying it doesn't happen, but then the question also arises of how many times do trans women get violently or sexually assaulted in men's toilets and should we compare harms in order to decide whose claim is more 'valid' or who 'wins'? And should feminists stand with or support trans women who get assaulted in men's toilets? Should they do so if they perceive this to increase risk to themselves? Is this a legitimate fear that is statistically backed or more of a spectre? Does it compare at all to the risk of being assaulted in a bathroom by a non-trans man, which happens all the time too presumably?
Surely any assault in a bathroom by anyone against a woman, whether trans or born woman, is one too many, and it might seem likely there's some natural middle ground there between the camps but ironically this is one of the biggest dog whistle topics that everyone feels most strongly and gets toxic about.

Gendered prisons is, of course, a similarly fraught issue though you wouldn't deny that trans women also face violence in men's prisons, right?

Likewise, many trans people would presumably be critical on gender reassignment surgeries at too young an age too, and no one is denying that there are cases when it goes wrong and real damage is done. Likewise no one is denying that completely suppressing the existence of gender fluidity in children or denying medical advice to them can lead to a higher risk of suicide, for instance. But that is something for the medical and psychological establishments to work out a bit and for more research to be done on (and yes, some research already exists which suggests in some places the pendulum has swung too far). But hopefully that will sort itself out with time.

The problem with your posts are not your arguments but your tone, such as your last paragraph. Everyone understand that you have legitimate reasons to be angry but you're trying to constantly 'win' an argument where wanting to 'win' on such issues seems to carry with it a 'loss' to trans people, (falsely) trying to make this into a zero-sum game.

Do you accept that trans people too, much like women, face violence, harrassment and discrimination? Do you think something should be done to protect that community? Do you have any practical suggestions on a middle ground or compromise that would protect both communities' rights and concerns?

Or do you believe being trans is a 'made up thing' and trans women are men who don't need any additional protection. If that's the case, there is perhaps very little common ground to be found or won in this, in which case it's better to stop talking... But judging by your engagement and research on the issue, you have thought about more practical solutions.

The Tamil Nadu National Law University charges less than INR 12-13 Lakh. First year students will have to pay INR 2,23,000. The rest of the four years, one has to pay INR 1,93,000. Total - INR 9,95,000 (2,23,000 + 7,72,000).
Admissions Brochure (2024) can be accessed here - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y9yboqnuoC1RxTX_QtLWuwLZxXOlKZFh/view

If this is any indication of the bar exam serving as a filter, allowing entry only to those with basic knowledge and aptitude for practice, I have no complaints.

As an underemployed and seemingly unemployable lawyer (at a T1-T3 kind of setup) who has been sacked from every job I've ever had (sacked thrice so far), living off crumbs from here and there under the guise of being "independent," with no substantive work prospects currently on the horizon, I'd say such filters are necessary and for the greater good. Without them, you'd have a system packed with dalals/brokers and incompetent lawyers (like myself) who could potentially bring irreversible harm upon their clients and disrepute to themselves and this noble profession.

I have only stuck around and survived in this profession for this long to genuinely help litigants who were not being meaningfully supported by their lawyers. Weak cases have a way of paying decently. To my credit, I have consistently been useful. But make no mistake, I don't believe I belong. A functional system should have weeded me out long ago and made those deserving (who have lots of work) more accountable to their clients. The problem with this profession, like most service-oriented businesses in India, is that most clients don’t pay or believe in paying for the service their issue/case needs/deserves. This pushes practitioners (especially the ones who oversell themselves) to take on more work than they should and not give the time and attention to detail it deserves. I have lots of empty time, and it has served me well in getting into the depths of the law and facts in every case I have ever taken on, and securing good orders in several cases where the opponent had a shot at a decisive victory.

There are 1800 law college.

Conduct a proper quality audit.

Atleast 1000+ of these sham law colleges will shut down.

Except NLU's, Select private colleges (SLS, JGLS, Christ) and TLCS (GLC Mumbai, ILS Pune, SOEL Chennai) student quality at most Indian law schools are pathetic. As a recruiter I always had this feeling.

Idk. do what students who dont want to learn in law school do- live a mediocre life ripping of the work of better people and fill your time with sex, drugs, alcohol, and netflix.

If you actually want to become a good lawyer- you have to put in the work, go back and learn the things you were supposed to, follow course outlines of courses where you cheated. you will have to teach yourself now that youve left law school. cant download info to your brain- itll take some hard work and pain.

I get it man. Same.

I think if you want to form original thoughts, reading more helps. Reading widely as well.

Think of things you find interesting, just generally, even outside of law. Maybe sports lets say.

As a side, read about legal aspect of sport (basically sports law). Why is sports important, what’s the hostory? How does it work now? How different sport that you watch are structured.

Take a moot proposition from sports law moot and from it.

This will not be directly useful from the perspective of what you may be doing right now. However, this whole exercise will teach you a lot about research, and will definitely make you more curious about different aspects of law, which may seep into the practice you do right now.

Other than that, think about how you can improve drafting rn. What can make it better. Can you make it shorter and say the same thing? Can you write creatively within the limit of the pleadings?

Reading and curiosity is most important.

It all lies in your ability to be a patient listener, being aware of your privilege, being self reflective of your actions, being comfortable in following the lead of the other et al.

The above is a short primer. You can give Pedagogy of the Oppressed a read for greater depth.

Without being more specific it can be anything from 9:30-8/9 PM (most working days) to 9 to “ridiculous early hour of the morning”. Plus there's always 3-4 hours of work on the weekends and holidays. I understand that it is very very stressful but in the end it’s all perspective. I just appreciate the free time I do have more than my friends in other teams/firms/professions. And it’s not forever.

There is no doubt that this is hard. Facing rejection is part of getting into a career in law, it seems. A thought, though: have you considered that perhaps you have been sending in a very large number of applications? Might it be better to send in a smaller number of, but more high quality, applications? Are you absolutely sure that some of what you are writing in each application isn't generic, considering the number you seem to be sending in?

Hats off to MS and the firm. Some interesting learnings for us:

- inspiring to see that it’s the “Asia’s biggest professionally managed firm”. So it’s bigger than not just TL but many of the UK and US law firms having their offices in Asia

- refreshing to see that even if the firm has borrowed the name of the managing partner, it is a professionally managed firm with all senior partners having a say in its operations and management.

- they are continuing to do 1 bn dollar transactions. Check out that bit when Kakkar walks in.

Like literally everyone in India is buying one these days! Even people aged 25 and even people in tier 2 cities. I’m told the rule is that your car should be worth 8 to 10% of your net worth, so a 1 cr Merc should be bought only if you are worth 10 cr. But what if you WILL earn that much as a partner in FUTURE, so you take a loan as a 25 year old associate on the basis of projected net worth? Or is it better to wait till you hit 30?

Waiting to hear your stories!

Hey, I'm the from AP here,

I know that one can do so, but it's risky, specially:

1. People who are from OMS may face economic issues, considering the living cost in Mumbai. Better they would have gone for Private colleges.

2. Not everyone is same, if you have made into tier 1, through your capabilities doesn't ensure that the whole batch has made so.

3. Moreover, in these colleges, there is no suprervision on students, you believe it or not but it has impact of atleast some people's thought process.

4. And, not everyone comes to Law for corporate.

Hi, 1st year Nujs student here (now going into 2nd year). The 1st year dorm situation is not the best, not going to lie. There are 3 dorms which have 10-15 girls each. It is daunting at first but you do end up managing. Honestly speaking, while taking a PG might seem like a good option, as a first year, it is really easy to get isolated especially if you are not living in the hostel. The dorm system allows you to befriend a lot of people, and in first year most people tend to hang out with their roomates mostly. Moreover, there is a lot of change and adjustment that takes place in your first year and living in a PG is not a headache you want on top of all of that. If you are still adamant on wanting to live in a PG I would suggest, atleast living in the dorm for one semester, just enough to know and familiarize yourself with everyone and everything.

Ps. Yes the conditions do get better 2nd year onwards as you are allotted a double sharing room, and from 3rd year onwards you get the option of having a single room