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?
P.S- I am asking this here instead of a mail for both transparency and the benefit of anyone who might be interested in working with you
At the end of day, political trolling and bona fide debate are a bit like obscenity: you know it when you see it (and we regularly seen a lot of attempts at the former here).
1. There is a genuine problem with certain scholars' views being suppressed while others are cited too much. In British, U.S. and (as has been pointed out by another comment author) even Indian academia, that bias is totally in favour of the left. An equivalent article could (and should) be written if academia in any country goes in the opposite direction (as it did in Germany, 1933-45) and people like Butler are suppressed/almost never cited.
2. Lawyers partly help shape, and are partly shaped by, the social context, as McCrudden has pointed out. Therefore, as Cotterrell says, viewing the law (and the world) through a "sociological imagination" is very important. This means requiring to think from an interdisciplinary perspective. Therefore, the precise opposite of what you said (that this is unlikely to be helpful) is true. People such as Jonathan Sumption, the former UK Supreme Court judge, who read history at Oxford (and even taught it there for a while before moving to law) already accuse lawyers (or at least those who took a law degree as their first degree at university after leaving school) of lacking awareness of the world in general and lacking culture, cultural knowledge and cultural sensitivities, leading to Graham Virgo (the former Cambridge VC and a trusts law scholar of formidable repute) responding with a funny (but ultimately ludicrous) defence of lawyers and their cultural engagement by talking about their engagement with the world of film. Therefore, the situation in terms of how our intellectual strength is viewed (even among our colleagues in other humanities and social science disciplines) is not fantastic. Why would you, of all people, want to make that situation worse?
You would have been aware of these perspectives and still could become aware of them if you read some of the books in the Cambridge University Press Law in Context series. The best advertisement for the series is what is written on the book covers/jackets for each book in the series:
The Law in Context Series Editors: William Twining (University College London), Maksymilian Del Mar (Queen Mary, University of London) and Bronwen Morgan (University of New South Wales). Since 1970 the Law in Context series has been at the forefront of the movement to broaden the study of law. It has been a vehicle for the publication of innovative scholarly books that treat law and legal phenomena critically in their social, political and economic contexts from a variety of perspectives. The series particularly aims to publish scholarly legal writing that brings fresh perspectives to bear on new and existing areas of law taught in universities. A contextual approach involves treating legal subjects broadly, using materials from other social sciences and from any other discipline that helps to explain the operation in practice of the subject under discussion. It is hoped that this orientation is at once more stimulating and more realistic than the bare exposition of legal rules. The series includes original books that have a different emphasis from traditional legal textbooks, while maintaining the same high standards of scholarship. They are written primarily for undergraduate and graduate students of law and of other disciplines, but will also appeal to a wider readership. In the past, most books in the series have focused on English law, but recent publications include books on European law, globalisation, transnational legal processes and comparative law.
Your thinking, as evidenced by your response here, is the precise opposite of the "contextual approach" advocated for in that extract.
3.
(a) To the extent that the OP has used their own words, I agree the tone does seem rather on the rough-edged side. But considering how polarised this debate has become and your levels of complicity in making it even more so (see your response here, e.g.), isn't that something we can cut some slack for?
(b) The tone might sound jaded, but to accuse them of propagandising or trolling is a very, very big statement. I cannot see any evidence for that in the post. Therefore, unless you are maintaining observations on IP addresses of those using LI and see this as (in and of itself harmless) post as part of a pattern of (cumulatively) more harmful content with an agenda, you should so state.
4. Finally, your statement, "... and this wokeness thing only such a disproportionately big deal because MAGA and the anti-woke activists have made it their main thing", is very interesting, not because it is incorrect or untrue, but because it is an incomplete account of what's happening.
(a) MAGA/Reform UK and others are partly getting away with what they are doing because we, as liberals, have allowed them to do so. We have created the conditions for that to happen. We have pushed our philosophies to all sorts of new limits at breakneck speed which has been too much for the overwhelmingly centrist populations of most countries, who have, because of feeling left behind by that, have gravitated to the right. It's not just cost of living or other economic issues that's doing that, it's other stuff as well.
(b) It is also, in part, factually incorrect. Major liberals have sounded alarm bells about this for a while now. These have included Brian Leiter, the great legal realist at the University of Chicago. A very good (if very angry) example of him doing this is an article he wrote called "Mindless jurisprudence-bashing on Twitter". It was in response to a lot of criticism of a scholar called Stephen Sax, who, in a Harvard Law School jurisprudence class's syllabus, had included many very cannonical legal philosophers, such as Hart and Dworkin. The response by Leiter to all that criticism is available at:
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2023/09/mindless-jurisprudence-bashing-on-twitter.html
And if you think people like him are soft liberals and at-heart conservatives, just read his blog properly. Always found the subcategory of posts called "Merciless rhetorical spankings of fanatics, villains and ignoramuses" to be quite entertaining reading and very revealing. Here's a sample:
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/03/smear-merchants-at-campus-watch-object-to-being-correctly-described.html
You might also want to read his book, Naturalising Jurisprudence, where he is very critical of Hart.
And he is not one of a kind. He's one among many liberals who believe the world has gone too far. One other is Sir Kerr Starmer, the current British PM, who is pursuing a strategy based on that philosophy being correct (himself a Leads man as an undergraduate, and spent time at Oxford doing the BCL, while also being the author of a leading human rights law textbook). And yet, he is pursuing Palestinian recognition, which is not a traditionally conservative position, therefore showing that he hasn't, in his efforts to meet conservative folk where they are, "become rightist" himself.
For more about this philosophy of relaxing a bit on the woke front, taking it more slowly and meeting people of our societies who don't agree with our stances half way, look up the writings of Maurice Glasman (the founder of the so-called "Blue Labour" movement and of J.D. Vance - especially the profile interview of Glasman that the same newspaper the OP cited and quoted, The Times, did.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/unit/human-resources/HQ-AND-CO-COMPENSATION-SCALES
Can’t say the same for Ananya and Pallabi’s team. Known to be partial and personal
KCO have heard different perspectives - driven by internal politics and favouritism
nice
The website does not offer much information, and the one that's provided is not sufficient enough to clarify doubts.
Asking as a newly graduated law student, any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
But the news report shows there is some hope, if people can form such groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXcMgL2G0Aw
The good thing about USLLS is it’s locational advantage and the time and freedom it offers you to pave your legal journey on your own, which the other aforesaid law schools may not offer. USLLS does not have the resources that a lot of other aforementioned institutions may offer its students to equip them with necessary skills and knowledge and the college also doesn’t really help you with your career in anyway except maybe a few internships (it’s all based on how you manoeuvre through the next half decade). Also, the crowd is seemingly ambitiously, academically and intellectually bankrupt barring 15-20 students in a batch of ~130 so the classes aren’t something to look forward to. So if you look forward to an academically stimulating environment, this is not a place for you. However, if you want just a degree, locational advantage of easily interning in Delhi for being employable without the help of the law school, and a little bit more freedom than the NLUs, USLLS might just be okay.
Evidently, there’s a lot of weighing in between the little differences and advantages that other law schools might offer.
Any leads will be helpful!
You haven't been selected for DJS, yet.
It's the toughest judicial exam in the country. Please don't waste the prime years of life chasing a competitive exam.
Besides, how can you be so sure that you'll survive the first 3 years of litigation (experience needed); if you feel that even a firm job is stressful.
This right now isn't about "settle for less", people are not even getting jobs in this day and age regardless of the degree or skills they hold. If you find job in a firm, please take it.
The exposure to diverse kinds of work here is truly unique—especially if you are part of the Himanshu Sinha sir's team.
PS: Himanshu Sinha Sir has expertise in both Direct and Indirect Tax. He handles Indirect Tax litigation as well as advisory.
https://www.takelegal.in/network-for-lawyers/
https://digilawyer.ai/
https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceIndia/