#LLM ADMISSION

[cpjcollege]

Top Strategies to Secure IPU LLM Admission in 2024

The Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (IPU) is a beacon for aspiring legal professionals, attracting students from across India. Its LLM program is particularly prestigious, offering specialized legal knowledge and excellent career prospects. However, securing a seat in this coveted program is no cakewalk. With the 2024 admission cycle approaching, you need to be well-prepared and strategic to stand out from the competition.

Here's your roadmap to success:

1. Academic Prowess is Key:

Stellar LLB Grades: A strong academic foundation is non-negotiable. Aim for a high CGPA in your LLB degree, as this is the primary criterion for IPU LLM admissions.

Entrance Exam Excellence: IPU conducts its own entrance exam for LLM admissions, known as IPU CET. Focus on strengthening your legal aptitude, analytical skills, and general awareness through rigorous preparation and mock tests.

2. Craft a Winning Application:

Showcase Your Passion: Your Statement of Purpose (SOP) should reflect your genuine interest in pursuing an LLM and your chosen specialization. Highlight relevant experiences, internships, or projects that demonstrate your commitment to the field.

Recommendations that Resonate: Choose referees who can speak to your academic abilities, research potential, and overall suitability for the program. Strong letters of recommendation can significantly boost your application.

3. Elevate Your Profile:

Legal Internships: Gaining practical experience through internships at law firms, NGOs, or legal departments of companies demonstrates your commitment to the legal profession. It provides valuable insights and strengthens your application.

Research and Publications: If you have the opportunity, engage in legal research, contribute to legal journals, or participate in conferences. These endeavors showcase your intellectual curiosity and dedication.

4. Master the Interview:

Prepare for the Unexpected: IPU's LLM interview panel will assess your legal knowledge, analytical abilities, communication skills, and overall personality. Brush up on current legal issues, and your chosen specialization, and be prepared to articulate your career goals.

Confidence and Clarity: Approach the interview with confidence, maintain a professional demeanor, and communicate your thoughts clearly and concisely.

5. Stay Informed and Organized:

Official Website is Your Guide: Regularly visit the official IPU website and the dedicated LLM admissions portal for the most up-to-date information on important dates, eligibility criteria, syllabus, and application procedures.

Organized Approach: Keep all your documents (academic transcripts, certificates, entrance exam scorecard) readily available and create a checklist to ensure a smooth application process.

Beyond the Strategies:

Network and Connect: Attend LLM-focused webinars, connect with IPU alumni, and engage in online forums to gather insights and tips from those who have successfully navigated the admission process.

Believe in Yourself: A positive mindset and self-belief are crucial. Stay focused, dedicated, and persistent in your efforts.

The journey to securing an IPU LLM seat requires diligent preparation, a strategic approach, and unwavering determination. By focusing on your strengths, meticulously crafting your application, and presenting your best self, you can significantly increase your chances of success in the 2024 admission cycle. Best of luck!

[klelawcollege1122]

Induction and Orientation | top law colleges in india

The induction programme introduces the students to the programme of study and the facilities available to them. The objective is to prepare students for their course of study and ensure a smooth transition into college life.

[sageuniversitybpl]

Grab endless Possibilities in the Legal Arena

Step into the world of law with SAGE School of Law & Legal Studies!

Admissions are open for BA LLB (Hons), BBA LLB (Hons), LLB, and LLM for the 2024-25 session. Ready to take the next step in your legal career?

Join us for the SAGE Entrance Exam on August 23rd & 24th, 2024. Seize your opportunity to shine in the legal field!

Apply Now: https://admission.sageuniversity.edu.in/

[niilmuniversity]

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Even if you think AI search could be good, it won’t be good

TONIGHT (May 15), I'm in NORTH HOLLYWOOD for a screening of STEPHANIE KELTON'S FINDING THE MONEY; FRIDAY (May 17), I'm at the INTERNET ARCHIVE in SAN FRANCISCO to keynote the 10th anniversary of the AUTHORS ALLIANCE.

The big news in search this week is that Google is continuing its transition to "AI search" – instead of typing in search terms and getting links to websites, you'll ask Google a question and an AI will compose an answer based on things it finds on the web:

https://blog.google/products/search/generative-ai-google-search-may-2024/

Google bills this as "let Google do the googling for you." Rather than searching the web yourself, you'll delegate this task to Google. Hidden in this pitch is a tacit admission that Google is no longer a convenient or reliable way to retrieve information, drowning as it is in AI-generated spam, poorly labeled ads, and SEO garbage:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/03/keyword-swarming/#site-reputation-abuse

Googling used to be easy: type in a query, get back a screen of highly relevant results. Today, clicking the top links will take you to sites that paid for placement at the top of the screen (rather than the sites that best match your query). Clicking further down will get you scams, AI slop, or bulk-produced SEO nonsense.

AI-powered search promises to fix this, not by making Google search results better, but by having a bot sort through the search results and discard the nonsense that Google will continue to serve up, and summarize the high quality results.

Now, there are plenty of obvious objections to this plan. For starters, why wouldn't Google just make its search results better? Rather than building a LLM for the sole purpose of sorting through the garbage Google is either paid or tricked into serving up, why not just stop serving up garbage? We know that's possible, because other search engines serve really good results by paying for access to Google's back-end and then filtering the results:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

Another obvious objection: why would anyone write the web if the only purpose for doing so is to feed a bot that will summarize what you've written without sending anyone to your webpage? Whether you're a commercial publisher hoping to make money from advertising or subscriptions, or – like me – an open access publisher hoping to change people's minds, why would you invite Google to summarize your work without ever showing it to internet users? Nevermind how unfair that is, think about how implausible it is: if this is the way Google will work in the future, why wouldn't every publisher just block Google's crawler?

A third obvious objection: AI is bad. Not morally bad (though maybe morally bad, too!), but technically bad. It "hallucinates" nonsense answers, including dangerous nonsense. It's a supremely confident liar that can get you killed:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/01/mushroom-pickers-urged-to-avoid-foraging-books-on-amazon-that-appear-to-be-written-by-ai

The promises of AI are grossly oversold, including the promises Google makes, like its claim that its AI had discovered millions of useful new materials. In reality, the number of useful new materials Deepmind had discovered was zero:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-centaurs

This is true of all of AI's most impressive demos. Often, "AI" turns out to be low-waged human workers in a distant call-center pretending to be robots:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/31/neural-interface-beta-tester/#tailfins

Sometimes, the AI robot dancing on stage turns out to literally be just a person in a robot suit pretending to be a robot:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/29/pay-no-attention/#to-the-little-man-behind-the-curtain

The AI video demos that represent "an existential threat to Hollywood filmmaking" turn out to be so cumbersome as to be practically useless (and vastly inferior to existing production techniques):

https://www.wheresyoured.at/expectations-versus-reality/

But let's take Google at its word. Let's stipulate that:

a) It can't fix search, only add a slop-filtering AI layer on top of it; and

b) The rest of the world will continue to let Google index its pages even if they derive no benefit from doing so; and

c) Google will shortly fix its AI, and all the lies about AI capabilities will be revealed to be premature truths that are finally realized.

AI search is still a bad idea. Because beyond all the obvious reasons that AI search is a terrible idea, there's a subtle – and incurable – defect in this plan: AI search – even excellent AI search – makes it far too easy for Google to cheat us, and Google can't stop cheating us.

Remember: enshittification isn't the result of worse people running tech companies today than in the years when tech services were good and useful. Rather, enshittification is rooted in the collapse of constraints that used to prevent those same people from making their services worse in service to increasing their profit margins:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/26/glitchbread/#electronic-shelf-tags

These companies always had the capacity to siphon value away from business customers (like publishers) and end-users (like searchers). That comes with the territory: digital businesses can alter their "business logic" from instant to instant, and for each user, allowing them to change payouts, prices and ranking. I call this "twiddling": turning the knobs on the system's back-end to make sure the house always wins:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

What changed wasn't the character of the leaders of these businesses, nor their capacity to cheat us. What changed was the consequences for cheating. When the tech companies merged to monopoly, they ceased to fear losing your business to a competitor.

Google's 90% search market share was attained by bribing everyone who operates a service or platform where you might encounter a search box to connect that box to Google. Spending tens of billions of dollars every year to make sure no one ever encounters a non-Google search is a cheaper way to retain your business than making sure Google is the very best search engine:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-feeling-unlucky/#not-up-to-the-task

Competition was once a threat to Google; for years, its mantra was "competition is a click away." Today, competition is all but nonexistent.

Then the surveillance business consolidated into a small number of firms. Two companies dominate the commercial surveillance industry: Google and Meta, and they collude to rig the market:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

That consolidation inevitably leads to regulatory capture: shorn of competitive pressure, the companies that dominate the sector can converge on a single message to policymakers and use their monopoly profits to turn that message into policy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/05/regulatory-capture/

This is why Google doesn't have to worry about privacy laws. They've successfully prevented the passage of a US federal consumer privacy law. The last time the US passed a federal consumer privacy law was in 1988. It's a law that bans video store clerks from telling the newspapers which VHS cassettes you rented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

In Europe, Google's vast profits lets it fly an Irish flag of convenience, thus taking advantage of Ireland's tolerance for tax evasion and violations of European privacy law:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/15/finnegans-snooze/#dirty-old-town

Google doesn't fear competition, it doesn't fear regulation, and it also doesn't fear rival technologies. Google and its fellow Big Tech cartel members have expanded IP law to allow it to prevent third parties from reverse-engineer, hacking, or scraping its services. Google doesn't have to worry about ad-blocking, tracker blocking, or scrapers that filter out Google's lucrative, low-quality results:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Google doesn't fear competition, it doesn't fear regulation, it doesn't fear rival technology and it doesn't fear its workers. Google's workforce once enjoyed enormous sway over the company's direction, thanks to their scarcity and market power. But Google has outgrown its dependence on its workers, and lays them off in vast numbers, even as it increases its profits and pisses away tens of billions on stock buybacks:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

Google is fearless. It doesn't fear losing your business, or being punished by regulators, or being mired in guerrilla warfare with rival engineers. It certainly doesn't fear its workers.

Making search worse is good for Google. Reducing search quality increases the number of queries, and thus ads, that each user must make to find their answers:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

If Google can make things worse for searchers without losing their business, it can make more money for itself. Without the discipline of markets, regulators, tech or workers, it has no impediment to transferring value from searchers and publishers to itself.

Which brings me back to AI search. When Google substitutes its own summaries for links to pages, it creates innumerable opportunities to charge publishers for preferential placement in those summaries.

This is true of any algorithmic feed: while such feeds are important – even vital – for making sense of huge amounts of information, they can also be used to play a high-speed shell-game that makes suckers out of the rest of us:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/11/for-you/#the-algorithm-tm

When you trust someone to summarize the truth for you, you become terribly vulnerable to their self-serving lies. In an ideal world, these intermediaries would be "fiduciaries," with a solemn (and legally binding) duty to put your interests ahead of their own:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

But Google is clear that its first duty is to its shareholders: not to publishers, not to searchers, not to "partners" or employees.

AI search makes cheating so easy, and Google cheats so much. Indeed, the defects in AI give Google a readymade excuse for any apparent self-dealing: "we didn't tell you a lie because someone paid us to (for example, to recommend a product, or a hotel room, or a political point of view). Sure, they did pay us, but that was just an AI 'hallucination.'"

The existence of well-known AI hallucinations creates a zone of plausible deniability for even more enshittification of Google search. As Madeleine Clare Elish writes, AI serves as a "moral crumple zone":

https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/260

That's why, even if you're willing to believe that Google could make a great AI-based search, we can nevertheless be certain that they won't.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/15/they-trust-me-dumb-fucks/#ai-search

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

--

djhughman https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modular_synthesizer_-_%22Control_Voltage%22_electronic_music_shop_in_Portland_OR_-_School_Photos_PCC_%282015-05-23_12.43.01_by_djhughman%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[ushamartinuniversity]

The Faculty of Law at Usha Martin University (UMU) is time tested legal institution of par excellence is promoting academic excellence, intellectual discipline and professional leadership. In the context of professional legal education, Usha Martin University is the best University in Ranchi has carved a niche for itself in the academic circuit and groom students to become the unified face of the Indian legal fraternity.

[ralfmaximus]

Meta has acknowledged that all text and photos that adult Facebook and Instagram users have publicly published since 2007 have been fed into its artificial intelligence models. Australia’s ABC News reports that Meta’s global privacy director, Melinda Claybaugh, initially rejected claims about user data from 2007 being leveraged for AI training during a local government inquiry about AI adoption before relenting after additional questioning.

That's called lying, Melinda Claybaugh.

Anyway, in an admission surprising absolutely nobody, your facebook & insta posts were scraped to train Meta's LLM. And there's nothing you can do about it.

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

Scrape

I want to talk about the recent news of Tumblr and Wordpress parent company Automattic being in talks to sell user content to AI companies OpenAI and Midjourney to train their models on. All that we know is currently in that sentence, by the way; the talks are still in progress and the company’s not super transparent about it, which makes sense to me.

What doesn’t make sense to me is the fact that a lot of Internet users seem to think this is outrageous, or new, or somehow strange behaviour for a large company, or that it is just starting. It seems obvious, given AI companies’ proclivities to go ahead and then ask forgiveness, not permission to do the thing, that Tumblr/Wordpress users’ public data has already been hoovered up into the gaping maw of the LLM training sets and this is a mea-culpa gesture; not so much a business proposal as a sheepish admission of guilt and monetary compensation. One wonders what would have happened had they not been called out.

When I was in publishing school back in the early twenty-teens, it was drilled into us that any blog content could be considered published and therefore disqualified from any submission to a publication unless they were specifically asking for previously published pieces. There was at that time a dawning awareness that whatever you had put on the internet (or continued to put out there) was not going to go away. Are you familiar with how Facebook saves everything that you type, even if you don’t post it? That was the big buzz, back then. Twitter was on the rise, and so was Tumblr, and in that context, it seemed a bit naïve to assume that anything written online would ever be private again (if it ever was in the first place…). It was de rigeur for me to go into my privacy settings on Facebook and adjust them in line with updates every few months.

So, for example, this little post of mine here wouldn’t really count as submittable material unless I substantially added to or changed it in some way before approaching a publisher with it. (The definition of “substantially” is up to said publisher, of course.) This might have changed with time (and depending on location), but my brain latched on to it and I find it safest to proceed from this assumption. For the record, I don’t think it’s foolish or naive for internet users to have the opposite assumption, and trust that the companies whose platforms they are using will handle their content in a respectful way and guard their privacy. That should be the baseline. It is a right and correct impulse, taken egregious advantage of by the morally bankrupt.

In any case, I at first have interpreted this whole debacle as …slightly empowering to users, in a way, as now there are opt-out procedures that Tumblr users can take to put the kibosh on a process that is already happening, and now this scraping of data will be monitored by the parent site, instead of operating according to a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy. I have to wonder if the same will be extended to Reddit users, or the commenters on CNN or Fox news. And whether my first impression will bear up under any weight of scrutiny whatsoever.

On social media, I assume that everything I post will always and forever be accessible to anyone with enough skills (or money) to want to access it. Same with email, anything in “the cloud” that is not hosted on a double-encrypted server, my search engine preferences, and really any site that I have a login for. My saving grace thus far has been that I am a boring person with neither fame nor wealth nor enemies with a reason to go after me. Facebook got big when I was in my undergraduate years; given that social media was extremely nascent back then, I put a lot of stuff up that I shouldn’t have. Data that I care about. Things I would like to keep secret, keep safe. But I’ve long made my peace with the fact that the internet has known everything about everything I was willing to put up about me for my entire adult life and continues to grasp for more and more. At least on Tumblr, I can say “no”, and then get righteously indignant when that “no” is inevitably ignored and my rights violated.

I hate this state of affairs. But I also want to be able to talk to my family, connect with other solarpunks, do research, communicate with my colleagues … to live in a society, one might say. I try not to let it bother me much. However, I DO sign anything and everything that comes my way from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization dedicated to legislating the shit out of these corporations that have given us free tickets to unlimited knowledge and communication for the price of our personal data, and effectively excommunicated anyone who does not agree to their TOS. The EFF is US-based, but given that most of the social media and AI giants on the internet are also US-based, I feel like it’s relevant.

In my solarpunk future, the internet does still exist, and we can access and use it as much or as little as we like. But it is tightly controlled so that the reckless appropriation and use of art, writing, content, personal data, cannot happen and is not the fee charged for participation in the world wide web. I want to live in a world where my personal data is my own but I can still reach out to my friends and family whenever I’d like, about whatever I want; isn’t that a nice thought?

[klelawcollege1122]

Admissions 2023-24 - BA LLB-BBA LLB-BCOM LLB-LLB-LLM- in Bangalore | KLE Society's Law College

KLE Society's Law College Bangalore is ranked as the 4th Best Law College in the South India. It offers BA LLB, BCom LLB, BBA LLB, LLB, LLM and other diploma law courses

Admissions 2023-24 - BA LLB-BBA LLB-BCOM LLB-LLB-LLM- in Bangalore | KLE Society's Law College

[sageuniversitybpl]

Admissions open for Law Courses at SAGE University Bhopal

Discover your Legal prowess with structured training programs at SAGE School of Law & Legal Studies. Our holistic curriculum sets the stage for your forthcoming achievements in the field Admission open now for the session 2024-25.

Programs Offered

1- BA LLB [Hons] 2- BBA LLB [Hons] 3- LLB [Hons] 4- LLM 5- PhD

To join, apply for #SEE today!

🌐: https://sageuniversity.edu.in/bhopal-admission/

[niilmuniversity]

Career in Corporate Law. #law #careeropportunities #LLB #llm #lawyers #advocate #careerinlaw