University Admission Requirements

❗️SQE fees are going up again❗️ And it does make you stop and ask a wider question … is this still an attainable route for socially mobile candidates? Because on paper, the SQE is designed to widen access to the profession. A single, standardised route into qualification. More consistency. More opportunity. But in practice, the cost of getting there continues to rise. And that matters. Not just in terms of the exam fees themselves, but the wider reality of preparation courses, resits, and the overall financial commitment involved in qualifying. I’ve been reading the latest report from the Junior Lawyers Division alongside this, and some of the findings reflect what many candidates are already experiencing: pressure, cost concerns, and a lack of support in parts of the process. That combination is where the tension sits. As a solicitor apprentice, I can see both sides. The SQE has genuinely opened doors that would previously have been much harder to access. That shouldn’t be overlooked. But access isn’t just about whether a route exists. It’s about whether people can realistically go through it without disproportionate barriers. And I think that’s the question that keeps coming up. Not whether the SQE is the right idea in principle. But whether, as it develops, it’s still doing what it was meant to do in practice. #SQE #SolicitorApprenticeship #LegalCareers #FutureOfLaw #SocialMobility #AccessToLaw #EarlyCareers #LegalEducation

I watched a brilliant student get rejected from every PhD program they applied to. Their GPA? 3.9. Research experience? Extensive. GRE scores? 95th percentile. The problem? Their letters of recommendation were academic death sentences disguised as compliments. Here's what I learned after reviewing PhD applications : The difference between acceptance and rejection often comes down to 3 pieces of paper most students completely mismanage. Let me share the framework that turned my "nice" letters into admission gold: THE RAVING FAN RULE I made a critical mistake early on. I asked my most famous professor for a letter—someone who barely knew my name. His letter: "Sarah was a good student in my class of 200." Compare that to my lab supervisor who wrote: "In 3 years, Sarah is the only undergraduate who caught a calculation error in a published paper. She approaches problems like a seasoned researcher." The lesson? Choose advocates over celebrities. Every. Single. Time. THE 12-WEEK STRATEGY Most students ask for letters 2 weeks before deadlines. I asked 12 weeks early with a complete "recommendation packet": → My statement of purpose → Transcript with key courses highlighted   → Sample research paper → Specific talking points about my strengths → My submission timeline (not their deadline) One professor told me: "This is the most organized request I've ever received. It made writing a strong letter effortless." THE ANECDOTE ADVANTAGE Generic letters say: "She's hardworking and intelligent." Winning letters say: "When Sarah's experiment failed after 6 months, she didn't give up. She redesigned the methodology, discovered why it failed, and turned that failure into her thesis chapter. She's in the top 2% of students I've mentored in 15 years." Stories stick. Stats don't. THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH Sometimes you'll be asked to draft your own letter. Yes, it's awkward. But it happens more than anyone admits. When it happened to me, I used this 4-part structure: 1. How we know each other + clear endorsement 2. One specific story with measurable outcomes 3. Evidence I'm ready for graduate-level work 4. Comparative ranking ("top 10% of students") My recommender made minor edits and submitted it. I got into 4 out of 5 programs. THE FOLLOW-THROUGH After acceptance, I sent handwritten thank-you notes to every recommender. Two years later, one became my PhD advisor at a different institution. Another connected me with my current research collaborator. Letters of recommendation aren't just about getting in—they're about building relationships that shape your entire career. --- Your move: If you're applying this cycle, what's one specific story that showcases your potential that you'll make sure gets into your letters? Drop it below—I'll help you refine it. 👇

One of the most overlooked parts of graduate school applications is the Letter of Recommendation (LOR). LORs can either make or break your application. Week Three – How to Get Strong Recommendation Letters These letters are the only part of your application that comes from someone else. They carry a different kind of weight because they show how professors, mentors, or supervisors, i.e., people respected in their fields, view you. A strong recommender can highlight qualities you may not have mentioned in your documents. This is what I did to secure stronger letters: 1. Reach out early: Don’t wait until two weeks before the deadline. Good recommenders are busy. I reached out at least 1-3 months in advance, giving them time to say yes and plan. 2. Pick the right recommenders: I did not just go for the “highest-ranking mentors.” Although that is beneficial, I reached out to people who: ✅ Know me well and can write in detail ✅ Have supervised my coursework, thesis, or projects, or worked with me. ✅ Can give specific examples (use the STAR method) ✅ Have some online visibility (Google Scholar, university/verifiable organization affiliation) ✅ Who value me and can speak for me N.B.: If you need three letters, it is advisable to get two/three from academics (lecturers or professors who supervised you) and maybe one from a professional mentor. 3. Make it easy for them: Recommenders are busy. So I sent them my: ✅ Academic CV and LinkedIn profile ✅ SOP ✅ A list of programs and deadlines ✅ A bullet-point outline of the LOR to help them write something authentic More info: https://lnkd.in/ersGWzgH 4. What to include in the outline: I left these prompts ✅ Relationship: How they know me, which courses/projects, and for how long ✅ Academic Performance: Grades, intellectual curiosity, and quantitative ability (math, R, Python, Stata, etc.) ✅ Research & Resilience: Independent research skills, persistence, and handling challenges ✅ Projects: Specific papers, projects, internships, or collaborations we did ✅ Leadership & Community: Extracurriculars and volunteering ✅ Comparative Ranking: Where I stand among peers they have taught ✅ Fit: Why they believe I will thrive in a PhD/Master’s/MBA, and what unique perspective I would bring to the program 5. I stayed connected during this process: ✅ Reach out 4–8 weeks before deadlines ✅ Confirm their availability (disappointment is real) ✅ Follow up politely with reminders as deadlines get closer ✅ Keep relationships alive (emails, birthdays, conference updates) 6. Gratitude Matters: After they submit, I always send a thank-you message. When you get your offer, remember to appreciate them and keep nurturing the relationship. The best letters might not be from the most famous mentors/professors but from those who really know you, believe in you, and could back up your story with details. See you next week! #JenniferScholarshipSeries | 3 of 10

Many parents, with their children about to make important career choices, believe that "Law mai bahut scope hai". Following this idea, they opt to choose their children's career in law, increasing the number of candidates appearing for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), an entrance exam conducted by a consortium of 22 NLUs (National Law Universities) across the country. Unfortunately, many law aspirants are unable to secure admissions or afford education at premier institutes in our country. This increasing demand for law education has led to the mushrooming of private law colleges in every other 'galli-mohalla'. It is a sad truth that the education offered in the majority of law colleges is not adequate for modern-day legal careers. The traditional law school system in India based on class lectures and cursory knowledge of Bare Acts does not prepare young lawyers for real-world challenges. Only a handful of law schools in the country can equip students with the required exposure, knowledge and skills for well-paying jobs. Young law graduates aspire for jobs with fat salary packages and placements in law firms and MNCs. But only a very small percentage can achieve that. Recruiters offering high salary packages prefer candidates who utilise their time at law school diligently. Tier-1 law firms generally hire candidates who have a stellar academic record, good research skills and publications, moot court experiences, and exposure to the real world with Internships during semester breaks. There is another noble career choice for lawyers that has existed since time immemorial—‘Advocacy’ or ‘Vakalat’. It's exciting, challenging, and perhaps the most rewarding career choice. Again, the quality of education in law schools in India has been so alarming that the Bar Council of India (BCI) was forced to introduce the All India Bar Exam (AIBE) in 2010. AIBE is an open-book certification exam to assess the basic knowledge of all law graduates and to lay down a minimum benchmark for entering into practice. But its not all roses after entering into active litigation practice. Due to a lack of monetizable and practical skills, young graduates associate themselves with the chambers of more experienced lawyers to learn the tricks of the trade. But this learning curve is rather long. It takes at least 3-5 years for a young lawyer to obtain enough practical knowledge about the court procedures, court appearances and arguments, drafting of petitions and applications, and client counselling to stand on their own two feet and practice independently. A long haul awaits students gearing up for their career stepping stones as it is admission season across the country. If the quality of legal education does not improve in our country, I fear that it will be the next ‘Engineering Degree’, wherein the majority of graduates from ill-equipped and mismanaged colleges, end up jobless. My views expressed in Dainik Bhaskar, National Edition - 19.06.2024.

𝗜𝗳 𝗜 𝗛𝗮𝗱 𝗧𝗼 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗔 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗨𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗟; 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗪𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗲 𝗠𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 I’ve read, written, and reviewed countless recommendation letters for graduate school, scholarships, and fellowships. The truth? Most letters fail because the recommender doesn’t know what committees are really looking for. Here’s my exact checklist when writing a powerful recommendation 👇 ⸻ ① Credibility of the Recommender ➜ Admissions committees want to know who is vouching for you. ↳ I establish my role, my relationship with the student, and my experience supervising or mentoring them. ⸻ ② Academic Strength & Intellectual Curiosity ➜ Grades are on the transcript, but letters must bring them to life. ↳ I highlight how the student asks sharp questions, engages deeply with complex ideas, and shows promise for graduate-level research. ⸻ ③ Character & Integrity ➜ Committees want colleagues, not just scholars. ↳ I write about reliability, resilience, teamwork, and how the student shows up when things get tough. ⸻ ④ Evidence of Leadership & Impact ➜ Did they lead a project, mentor peers, or start something new? ↳ I give specific examples: “She organized a health campaign that reached 4,000 people” instead of vague praise. ⸻ ⑤ Fit for the Program ➜ The best letters connect the student’s potential to the program’s strengths. ↳ I explain why this student is a good fit for that program and how they will contribute to its academic community. ⸻ ⑥ Beyond the CV ➜ A recommendation letter should add new depth; not just repeat the résumé. ↳ I tell stories the admissions committee would never see in the application: late nights in the lab, initiative during fieldwork, or resilience after setbacks. ⸻ ⑦ The Memory Test ➜ After reading, what do I want the committee to remember? ↳ A sentence like: “I would rank this student in the top 5% of all I have ever taught, and I would recruit them to my own team without hesitation.” ⸻ 📌 A strong recommendation isn’t flowery adjectives. It’s credibility, specificity, and a clear case for why this student deserves a seat at the table. ⸻ 💬 Applicants: always share clear talking points with your recommenders ♻️ Repost this to help someone strengthen their recommendation letters. #GraduateSchool #PhDApplications

Fantastic to see this work from the Junior Lawyers Division on SQE - the legal profession should sit up and take notice as the findings are really important. With 476 candidates taking part in it, this is one of the largest independent surveys of SQE candidates to date. Here are five findings that stood out for me: 1. Four in five candidates don’t consider it fit for purpose. 📋 79.78% of respondents felt the SQE is not working as it should. That is not a rounding error but suggests there are structural problems to address 2. The mental health toll is severe. On a 0–100 wellbeing scale, the median score was just 17. Over three-quarters of respondents scored 30 or below. Exhaustion, isolation and financial anxiety were recurring themes throughout 3. Reasonable adjustments are failing half of those who need them. ⚠️ 50% reported they were not provided adequately with adjustments requested - this is an access to justice issue before candidates have even qualified! 4. The booking system is broken. Over half of respondents experienced difficulties booking their assessments - some queuing online for hours, only to find no test centres within a reasonable distance 5. The “SQE is cheaper” argument simply doesn’t hold up. Nearly 44% of respondents spent over £10,000 on the process. Over three-quarters spent more than £5,000. The route is still expensive and financial barriers remain On a more positive note, I was genuinely encouraged to see that the majority of employers provided adequate qualifying work experience opportunities and that employer sponsorship remained the most common funding source. That goodwill exists, but it needs to translate into far greater flexibility and day-to-day understanding of what candidates are going through. I was someone who studied at night and worked full time during my legal education and it was really tough - we need to bear this in mind when designing the candidate experience and help set people up for success The report included 8 recommendations - they deserve a formal response and, ideally, implementation Report link in comments below 👇 Well done to everyone involved in producing this important report - this kind of evidence-based advocacy is exactly what the profession needed to improve the qualification process. 💪 #LegalProfession #SQE #JuniorLawyers #LegalEducation

𝙔𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙖𝙮, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙚𝙡𝙝𝙞 𝙃𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙤𝙣 𝙇𝙖𝙬 𝙀𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙏𝙚𝙨𝙩( 𝘾𝙇𝘼𝙏) 𝙄𝙣 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝘾𝙖𝙣'𝙩 𝘽𝙚 𝙖𝙣 '𝙀𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝘽𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙧' 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙎𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙄𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙄𝙣 𝙊𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙇𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙩𝙤𝙠𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. On the face of it, this looks like a great solution to increase accessibility to applicants. However, it is a consisten tokenistic measure adopted without addressing the deep-rooted challenges of the exam: 1) CLAT, as a whole, charges a whopping 4000 INR for General students and 3500 INR for SC/ST/BPL/PWD category candidates. I still remember how it was so difficult to arrange for AILET, CLAT, SET and thousands of exams' fees for many of us. 2) Most of the colleges which provide entry through CLAT charges more than 3 Lacs per Annum. Just for comparison: The US-based Pew Research Centre projected the pre-Covid strength of the Indian ‘middle class – defined as those earning between 3 lacs to 6 lacs – at about 10 crores. This exam and fraternity as a whole exclude a major chunk of the population from accessing law schools. 3) As per NUJS Diversity Report, 2019 , less than 6% of students had medium of instruction without English. And all the respondents who were toppers at NUJS studied from those schools which had English as the Medium of Instructions. Even if students who are able to make it to 'premier institutes' will they get capacity-building support after reaching these colleges? 4) Five subjects of CLAT judge students largely on comprehension-based questions. These comprehension-based questions ensure that it is also reading the English fast test besides your aptitude test. Additionally, this comprehension based testing gives students with disability just 20 mins extra per hour which is bare minimum and most students with disability even with scribe support( which is also very very poorly managed) are not able to finish the paper. 5) If CLAT is prepared in regional languages, what sections will go in regional languages? Will English as a subject go into regional languages, too? Ideally, there should be a systematic discussion on the kind of students are able to afford quality legal education. If we really want a diverse audience to join legal spaces, the first question starts with CLAT as an exam, its fees, the law schools' fees, the curriculum and then comes vernacular justice and amalgamation of languages. An excellent example of such model is Vinayaka Mission's Law School (VMLS) providing entry on Tamil and English but also conducting moots, adrs in Tamil and systematically shifting the discourse in Tamil Nadu. #CLAT #accessibility #legalreform #NLU #diversity Law Firm Ready Awaaz Leadership Labs

When I founded LawyHer, I knew I wanted to center the people most often left at the margins of conversations about who gets to become a lawyer. Sure, we hear encouragement for women or people of color broadly—but within those categories are so many intersecting identities that are rarely considered. One of those is undocumented students, including DACA recipients. That’s why we created The Undocumented & DACA Recipient’s Guide to Navigating Law School Admissions. We know many in our community feel—especially now—called to use their education to fight back, to advocate, and to build power. Whether as immigration lawyers or in other capacities, their voices matter deeply in the legal profession. This guide isn’t just information. I am proud to say that it reflects the voices and lived experiences of those in our community. We featured three student stories of individuals who have walked this path, because their wisdom and resilience are as important as the step-by-step resources. I hope you’ll take time to read it. More importantly, I hope you’ll share it with your networks so that aspiring undocumented lawyers know they are seen, supported, and not alone. What guide should we make next?👀 https://lnkd.in/ea9pZAtJ

Letters of Recommendation Season is upon us. The rules are simple, but not apparent. Here’s a review on the Hidden Curriculum of LORs so you can navigate this process like a pro. 1️⃣ Before you write someone’s name down as a reference, ask. You may not ever skip this step. Never. Ever. 2️⃣ If your email to request a LOR starts with, “Hi, My name is…” Please don’t. The person should already know you. You still have time to develop relationships! Go to office hours (even if you were in their class last semester). Invite them to Flunch. 3️⃣ You should be specific about what you need. “Would you be willing to write me a strong letter of support?” This tip is a little controversial, but a lukewarm LOR is a disservice to you, and some people are willing to write not awesome letters. If they can’t agree to write a strong LOR, you either (a) walk away, or (b) be prepared for what you’re actually going to get. 4️⃣ Help your letter writers. Give them the basic information they’ll need such as, due dates, whether they should expect an email from an organization, what the program is, and why you want to take part. Pro Tip: Tell them why you’ve asked THEM, in particular, to write for you. Is it because you revealed in your amazing paper that not only are you a great writer but that you can translate difficult topics to a broad audience? Is it because you improved over time, and they can speak to your tenacity? What do they know about you that other writers may not? You can help writers customize their letters and provide updated and accurate information about what you’re up to. 5️⃣ I cannot understate this: Do not be afraid to ask the same people for multiple letters. Intuitively, you feel like you’re bothering them, but a person who has already written for you can do some quick editing. It’s not a big deal as long as you give them plenty of time to edit/update. 6️⃣ Waive your right to see your LORs. Again, this is counterintuitive. But by waiving this right, you’re saying that your letter writer doesn’t have to worry about you finding out what they said about you. Waiving is also a signal that you have cultural knowledge in this domain of life. 7️⃣ Thank your letter writers and update them. No matter what happens—if you get the opportunity or not—tell your letter writers. It’s the polite thing to do, and it builds trust for future asks. Here's a form that I’ve created to help students help me help them. https://lnkd.in/eBCrgUix What questions do you still have about this process? (The only dumb question is the one unasked...)

"Dear Admissions Committee...." That's right, it's #college & #university application season. Students are submitting college & postgraduate applications (& I'm preparing to receive a lot of them as we open admissions for the Cambridge Security Initiative programs). Students are trying to figure out who their recommenders should be; I get this question A LOT. I read a lot of rec letters, so let me pull back the curtain & tell you what I'm looking for... And what most admissions committees are looking for too. So, herewith some guidance for students applying to academic programs: 1. Let's start with the biggest mistake: Students thinking that a "big name" recommender is important. Here is the truth: Unless that big wig really knows you & has evaluated your academic work (ideally several research-intensive works if you're applying for an MA or PhD), this isn't a great choice. It would be better to have a recommendation from a TA who who knows you well in a classroom setting than a celebrity academic or person with a fancy title or who used to have an important position. Ask someone who knows you well versus asking a person with a lot of fancy letters after their name. 2. Length of relationship: The longer the recommender has observed you & evaluated your work, the better. For the MA/PhD level, I realize university / dept size plays a part in how often you might have the same professor twice, but you should have at least a semester (preferably 2) academic relationship with the recommender. It's better if the recommender has evaluated your work over time & can attest to improvement or intellectual maturation. 3. Comparative benchmarks are hugely helpful: The recommender needs to have evaluated your work in relation to your peers. It's ideal to have this type of sentence: "I have taught hundreds of students in X course and [student] received Y grade in this course which is Z higher than the course average. S/he is in the top X% of all students that I've ever taught. S/he developed intellectually over the course of X semesters where I have taught her/him and s/he improved her/his already excellent marks from X to Y in the second semester." That shows student performance improvement on their own & also in relation to peers. Specific examples are helpful. 4. Avoid begging questions: If you're in the final year of your history BA & are applying for an advanced degree in history, are your recommenders primarily historians? If not, that's a red flag (at least for me). Why am I getting a letter from your cooking class professor? Are they best placed to reassure me that you're a promising historian who deserves the place the most? *Finally, a note on enthusiasm for the subject: I would rather teach a student who is passionate about intelligence than a brilliant student who isn't fired up. I'd rather accept a 75th percentile student who digs into the readings and comes to class excited to learn than a 99th percentile genius who comes unprepared. Good luck!