Note: This article is not meant to demean those who did well in CLAT 2010. It’s a purely personal opinion of the test.
Well, I resisted dissing this whole CLAT rigmarole for a while because I did not want to sound like I was moaning and making excuses if I didn’t get through. But it turns out that I did well enough in the paper.
So now it’s time to rip that horrendous test to bits.
Seriously, what were they thinking? That they’d pick the best lawyers in the nation based on a set of dates and some ridiculous facts? When pyorrhea features in the logic section, you have much to be afraid of.
I wrote the LST mocks. They were “tough” too. But such a different kind of tough. If you didn’t score well in logic it was because you couldn’t work it out, not because you didn’t know the answer! If you scored badly over all, you blamed it on the fact that the paper was way too long to complete and that math was really tough (or something like that) not that you knew nothing. I’d much rather leave 5 questions undone than finish 20 minutes early and still not be able to better my paper.
Since when did we start measuring intellect by memory? For that matter, how do we even measure intellect? From which angle does CLAT test ANY of the skills required by a lawyer? Does it check one’s ability to form opinions? NO. Does it check one’s ability to write or speak coherently? NO. Does it really check one’s knowledge of important matters of local, national or international concern? NO. (At least, this edition of the test did not.) Does it check whether the candidate has the strength of mind and the ethics that a judge or a lawyer requires? NO.
I finished that paper really early. Since there was no way I could add value to any of my answers, I counted the number of history questions asked. There were around 20 out of 50. I’m sorry, but knowing when the University of Bombay was established, which country hosted the 1970 Asian Games, which year Prophet Mohamed was born, which year Akbar died, etc. is not (under any circumstance) a test of one’s aptitude for law.
I might sound bitter because I knew the answers to none of those questions but, trust me, even if I had got the highest score, I’d be saying this.
Add to all of this the fact that they do not give you the question paper (This, I’m afraid, I’ll have to term as sheer schadenfreude.) so you have no means of knowing exactly how much to expect. And there ARE times when multiple answers make sense in critical reasoning but there is no way of knowing what the right answers are. See, they even refuse to let you learn from your mistakes!!
If I got into NALSAR, it’s because I guessed well. I didn’t get into NLSIU: it’s because I didn’t guess well enough.
Okay, I’ll give myself a little more credit than that, but you get my flow.
Comments
During recruitment, employers will judge you based on your CGPA.
Its a way of life.
#2, I hate how I've got to take your point (not because it is YOUR point, but because of the point you made). At least one has a CV in the employment stage. CLAT is a different story.
But looking at the papers, that seems to be the only argument that can be made for the CLAT. So your point is well made.
Dansih, yeah I was talking to Kian about the same thing. The old NLS and NALSAR papers that I had worked out had a nice balance of brain work and mugging. Only memory based tests are slightly annoying, yes?
Even the current affairs in GK was ridiculous.
Raj Babbar, seriously? The Hindu (which is supposedly THE newspaper when it comes to preparation for such exams) last mentioned Raj Babbar in its news in 2006. :-/
CLAT's job is not to say what other exam results say. It's to pick the best budding lawyers. I don't see how any of the tests do that, apart from Symbiosis because they have another round after that.
1. Thank you for even bothering to read what I posted and debate out here. =)
2. I wish you'd read the post again, though. You'd then notice that I mentioned 'write or speak' with writing coming first. =P
3. Prepare hardest? RIGHT. I'm sorry but let us agree to disagree here because I worked for one month and got ranked in the top 0.45% of the CLAT takers. And I know 10 others who worked harder and know more than I do who didn't. CLAT gives hard work zero credit. Really.
4. I'm calm. I'd have written this if I were rank one. You may say 'yeah sure', but I mean it.
@ the guy who wrote #9 : Get a life mann...survival of the fittest and eintein had a disability...this futile stuff is not the point here. Its the quality of knowledge, the benchmark, the exemplar that legal education should be. If gimcracks continue to flood law schools who think NLSIU = Straberry feilds + Macho Smoking + plus beauties with brains + Bangalore rock circuit ++++(a whole lot of other pluses) and then legal sciences...the health of legal education is endangered.
Also, Albert Einstein abhorred exams. This one quote of his has held my fancy for a long time:
"One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year."
He really wasn't the exam sort.
AND to be a scientist it is more important to know your science than to express your self, while that is NOT the case for law. So I really don't understand what exactly it is that you are insinuating against me (and my kind of people).
And you don't write coherently if you pick out matter based (there was zero 'comprehension' in those questions, read the reviews if you wish) answers from a passage.
But they do not test you to select you on the basis of only your intellect... Its even hard work.... You need not have opinions.. We're not here to judge.. We're lawyers, to argue our case in our own style... And in fact it did check one's knowledge of important matters of local, national or international concern howsoever ambigious they seemed...
Luck is one of the strongest factors that make or break your situation.. Agreed.. But isnt that the case with all sorts of exams in general?
Well they test our hard work. And they set vague and absurd questions. So they want us to work hard on learning up absurd things? I really don't get it.
#9.
*takes a deep breath*
I am not losing my cool.
Or actually, I think I am. Right now.
You insist that this post happened because I'm terribly disappointed that I didn't make NLSIU. Alright. Go ahead. You don't know me. You don't know my name. Heck, you don't even know my gender, but you know why I wrote about what I believe is a flaw in the system, kudos to you! =)
And I know of at least 20 people who made NLSIU after studying seriously for only a month (as I did). So however silly that football analogy that you were suggesting is, I don't think getting into NSLIU is, at any point of time, impossible for someone who has studied for that month dedicatedly.
You seem to live in utopia.. You cannot except a totally flawless paper... Yes indiscriminate weightage has been laid to particular sections,but you have to be prepared for the worst.. Thats what all our mocks did...
Its impossible to just work for a month and crack it... that possibility is one in a million... Everyone gets their ass straight when it narrows down to just 30 days... You're undermining your own ability by criticizing the fact you yourself made it to an NLU with minimum effort...
clearly you've missed out on the note.
Also, call my world utopian, it's okay.
You'll find people in your batch at NLS like Aniruddha who got in after studying for a month. That's 1/17000 > 1/1000000. I'm sure there are more. Your senior Shreya cracked CLAT after one month of studying. She didn't know what she was going to do before that. 1/14000.
Please don't make arbitrary statements.
And minimum effort? Hell no! Just concentrated effort.
PS This is getting ugly..
To quote you : "Prepare hardest? RIGHT. I'm sorry but let us agree to disagree here because I worked for one month and got ranked in the top 0.45% of the CLAT takers. "CLAT gives hard work zero credit". "
To quote you again 7 posts later : "Well they test our hard work."
Oops. Is your foot in your mouth?
I guess it is.
"Well they test our hard work. And they set vague and absurd questions. So they want us to work hard on learning up absurd things? I really don't get it."
>> Nobody wants you to get it. By the time you'll get it, you'll be setting CLAT papers yourself. That's the reason you won't get it now.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen. :D
*BOW*
Luck has it's role to play.
Always has, always will.
PPS : Go ahead.. lose your cool.. Saint Basil viewed anger as a "reprehensible temporary 'madness'."
It really amused me! :D
Cheers!
Respect.
Conversation was between me and pig.on.wings. I guess she/he can speak for her/himself. As far as #21 is concerned. Speak to her.
and to pig.on.wings that 1/17000 > 1/1000000.. Love the sarcasm :P
You guys are gonna make fab lawyers.. All of ya'll :D
clat is not supposed pick up 'budding lawyers'
it picks up those who are best suited for law school, it picks up law students. and YES, it is not the same thing.
because law school is not same as practicing law.
from what i have read, there is a lot of rote learning in law school and a lotta hard work.
and clat filters these hard working people out.
and when it doesnt it doesnt because of the following reasons.
#1. clat is an aptitude test. regardless of how much one may study math/logic/english - it will be very hard for him to beat someone who has an intrinsically high iq and a higher analytical ability. the ones with higher iq.s have it easier than the hard workers, thats just how it rolls!
#2. because clat has no negative marking.
this in my opinion is the biggest glaring flaw in the paper. if 100 people sit for the exam and all of them encounter a question no one has seen before 25 of them will get it right.
theres no risk involved in flukes, so every tom,dick and harry has a go at it.
seriously wake up!!!! bba, fashion, engineering, hm entrances all have them for a reason - its to avoid those random people from 'guessing'.
i think nlu d was one of the most ideal papers, even clat 2009 did a decent job to pick out students best suited for law school. but yes, clat 2010 failed, i felt insulted when i saw the paper, like all my hardwork had gone waste.
if the math was as tough as 2009, it would have atleast ruled out those people who were miserable in math and took too much time in it/ or could never solve it.
i think a critical reasoning scetion like nlu d is something that should be there - it tests speed, analytical logic and english at the same time.
@the author - 20 out of 55? who are you kidding? i know atleast the top 20 have been studying the whole year because their name appeared on forums and lists.
heck, i know people who have been studying for two years to give it.atlest four or five of them from the top 30.
stop spoiling thier moment just cause you made it in a month.
i agree with you when you say the paper had random history questions - but i still maintain its not that easy to crack clat. even when 10% of the paper was pure never-before-seen-crap.
notice : my opinion has got nothing to do with the college im alloted.i wanted nlsiu, but i hold no grudges or resentment.
But it is wrong to say CLAT rewarded incompetent people. Smart people got in. Period.
Of course, I won't deny the role of 'luck'. I believe the top 300 ranks are definitely a notch above the rest. But ranks between them (top 300) is largely based on how well you did on D-Day.
The logic behind including static GK is to test how knowledgeable a person is. Many entrance exams including those for management (such as XAT, SNAP), civil services test static GK - Random arbitrary facts which may not be useful in real-life.
Maybe it was stupid to ask which year was University of Bombay established...or the question about 1970 Asian Games (when the 1970 games as such did not have any special significance) But any well-read, well-informed person would know that Shah Jahan's name is also 'Khurram' and that pyorrhoea is a disease affects the teeth.
(But again, which questions are totally irrelevant and which questions test how well-informed a person is, is subjective.)
An exam like CLAT is definitely a better way to select students for law-schools than taking board marks (GLC, ILS, ULC.. what are they even thinking?)
One more thing I noticed is nobody questions the logic of including the 'legal aptitude' section. How can one expect a 17-yr old to know contracts and torts? Is it fair to test their knowledge of family law? Doesn't this give an unfair advantage to those who have finished a yr of law and want to move from one law school to a better law school? (May be this section is to distinguish the serious candidates who prepare for the exam from those who just give it a shot along with 1000 other entrances?!?!?!?)
CLAT definitely needs to modify itself along the lines of LSAT - include more reading comprehensions, critical reasoning than spellings. I know how to spell 'cinnamon' but is that going to make me a better lawyer in the world of MS Office Spell Check? I think not.
I just read back to what I'd said to see if I was wrong...
I did not mention CLAT 2010. Phew! I know of people over say 4 years. Does that iron out kinks? I'm not insulting those who worked hard! Obviously!!
And I said it's easy? The way it came, it was the toughest I could've asked for. But that doesn't make it the most apt.
And I'm glad we agree about CLAT 2010.
Students do... they gain experience, perspective and knowledge... and after that they're capable of deciding whats right and wrong..... So don't go to law school being opinionated... doesn't help...
#33- I completely and in all totality, agree wholeheartedly..WINNING post! Nothing WINS an argument like quoting someone out of context and completely failing to understand sarcasm! My, who needs constructive argument and an iota of rationality when you can blow away your opposition with misrepresentation!
If you look at what the article states, it says that it is absolutely essential for the student to be able to make decisions and have an opinion... I totally refute... It'll take a while for us to learn and understand the process and the system... right now none of us are up to the mark... Infact there would be many of us who might shift our stream later on and get an MBA... You cannot assess at this point whether a person will be a good lawyer or not.. All that you can judge is merit...
As amusing as this discussion is, please stop indulging in repeated troll postings trying to create a mud-slinging match. Please try and discuss the issues intelligently rather than outright abuse of each other.
Cheers,
Kian
@Abhilasha
I said that forming opinions is a skill required by a lawyer. Look, one can form opinions regardless of training. One can't know The Indian Constitution without training. If we can be expected to know random legal facts, case studies and numerous other tit-bits of law, I don't see why you are this riled about forming opinions.
1) If you are "above-average-applicationtype" smart, it serves as a nice bubble-popper to the effect that it removes you from your comfort zone and throws you into the crowd.
2)Even though being a lawyer has a LOT to do with reasoning skills and application of knowledge, you will find that the most famous lawyers (Salve, Nariman) are renowned for their knowledge of the various acts and provisions, whether they've acquired that knowledge by ""mugging"" or out of years of experience is not within the scope of my statement. So the boring GK segment.
While you must understand that I'm NOT DEFENDING the question paper format or the basis of CLAT itself, I'm just saying that it's not as bad as people make it out to be. If you're smart AND/OR motivated, you WILL get in. note the AND/OR.
Of course, the writer knows a lot of people, because she must have studied with them in places like LST, or else she must be from DPS Rkpuram which has a considerable presence in NLS.
And be ready for what law school will question; you will almost wish for the Raj Babbar type questions again.
@49, there was no NLS v. NALSAR debate.
btw pigonwings.....like you as i may...i cant agree with this article on many counts...and i still think you have too much NLSIU regrets syndrome in you which i find loathesome....its not the only law school in the nation...
We all know you are going to NALSAR.
Rank innuendo 69?
@pig
There were some points in the 'small' discussion that caught my attention on that point, especially the NLS bashing/worshipping and the subsequent dragging of NALSAR into it. It is still nonsense.
So, are you from Rk Puram?
I can see myself thinking the same thing back when I was giving law entrances.
And no, CLAT does not test your skills as a budding lawyer, it clearly tests whether your powers of rote learning are good enough to help you sale through law examinations.(That is if your law school is the sort who does not allow open book exams so as to test your application prowess only).
Moreover, thanks to LST and the likes, a lot of people find CLAT easier of course, but as with any typical Indian competitive exam, it is the degree of difficulty which comes into play. I won't be surprised if the law entrance situation is bad as that of the Indian engineering colleges some 30 years down the line if CLAT will be in use.
All that you need to become a good lawyer is a fine command over English, especially comprehending and critically reading long, difficult passages. Besides, critical and analytical logic test your application abilities as well.
I suggest you check out the LSAT Pig. I know you're done with entrance tests. But seriously, go to the LSAT India website and try the LSAT sample paper- just for fun. Judging by the content of your post, i think you will quite enjoy it. LSAT in my opinion FAAAAR outweighs the CLAT when it comes to credibility and accuracy.
yeah i m goin to a certain law school and i made it amply clear didnt I?
what is 12% 5000?
@legally lackadaisical, I have checked out LSAT papers and agree with you wholeheartedly. They actually make you think. =)
@Cauvery, no I'm not from DPS and "If I got into NALSAR, it's because I guessed well. I didn't get into NLSIU: it's because I didn't guess well enough." Read that again. Now let me show you the stress word: 'guess'. So I was referring to the predominant luck factor in CLAT 2010. Please don't mistake it for NLSIU worship.
Now, isn't it now time to get back the descriptive section back into the law entrance paper?
Or how about a GD/PI after the exam based on the CAT principle?
Like completely
I agree with the blog
And yes, Higher Education in India is just A LIL bit screwed up, atleast.. in terms of 'the' CLAT. I mean they never ask questions they ought to ask i.e. to test the aptitude towards legal matter, the brilliant opinion forming process, the strategical thinking..You get my point hopefully.
I have reviewed some LSAT papers and there are HUGE differences.. negative ones. Period.
The questions they ask are for the purpose of understanding the psychological attentiveness and the hunger for legal knowledge. Here its just hard time slogging. I know its very necessary in Law Colleges.. but is this what education is about?
Will we ever experiment the way we want to.. starting off like this?
Period.
Well... thats what I wanted 2 say... sorry if this hurts anyone.. I just am generous with mah words
Cheers
I'm not the perfect person to ask.. I pretty much lack ANY qualification to make a comment. Yet I'll tell you what I think and it might sound stupid, forgive me for that.
First, legal reasoning and not legal GK. The former can be worked out the latter is pure mugging.
Next, I agree that general awareness is essential, but what do you call general awareness? Is a lawyer going to be benefited by knowing when the University of Bombay was established? I don't know for sure, but I think not. If only they would ask stuff that actually DOES test 'general awareness'.
If they have math then have MATH not a free for all score bank. This year's math section insulted the average student's intelligence. Square root of 400, indeed.
Also, GD/PI. I don't know if this is logistically feasible, but it does make sense for the given profession, yes?
I agree with those who believe that hard work is essential to crack an entrance exam, but why work hard on things that really don't matter at the end of the day? If I'd known that it was essential for me to learn up ridiculous things like which city hosted the 1970 edition of the Asian Games, I'd have worked hard at learning up such data (as the batches after ours are sure to do) but do you not think such work is rather futile in the grand scheme of things?
i completely agree.......my concentrated efforts for just 25 days after my boards got me into NALSAR!!!
i m happy enough...dis is far better dan haggling around with no concentration 4 two years nd getting nothing....
"and no one can ever get away widout hardwork..dere were times wen 2 cover d LST course i had 2 study for 12 hours..."
what else is Common LAW entrance test supposed to 'pick' if not aspiring lawyers?
it had ridiculously random history questions which in no way guarantee that the person getting them right is smarter than the 'rest'.
logical was not even close to tough or tricky which it should have been..hell ya THAT helps determining the daftness
english section had grammatical errors (questions) if everybody chose to ignore
i don't feel the need to mention the math standard.
so that's how we're picking out people who're ''suitable'' enough or ''smart'' enough for law schools? bullshit.
we're no more tested on opinions per say. instead we're given four clearcut options to highly debatable legal ''reasoning'' questions out of which one is correct (obviously), totally ignoring the loopholes.
apart from general knowledge, the paper should require some mental effort to be put in. CLAT 2010 was more like you know it or you don't. period.
in my opinion, that's SO not how it should be like..
NLU-D's was the best one so far
i'd say no more
its completely unfair. there is need to improve the standard of the paper have questions that count and actually make us think after all these law schools are the ones that will churn out the leading lawyers . so its important that they make the paper count.
i sincerely hope and appeal to the clat comitte to bring out a paper next time onward that will test the aspirants lest for the sake of my juniors and classmates at lst.
#9,
I am living and breathing proof that this is false. My NLU delhi rank:003. My CLAT rank:675.
A stark contrast.
Luck would move you by 300 ranks perhaps. I don't see it going much further, certainly not double.
Another thing, about hard work. I would support an exam that does test your hard work. I don't think CLAT did.
What is "hard work" here, meaning, in gk? Learn as many details as you can under the sun? No, and I'm guessing you agree anyway.
So what do you learn when preparing for a law exam? A list of Supreme Court judges of India? I would suppose so. With terms? Maybe. Ditto for presidents and the like. A list of Asian Games venues? Sorry. Maybe even the first ever held or the latest seems reasonable. Not otherwise.
And I personally am an Einstein fan. We, namely the ones who at least loosely agree with the author, actually want these exams to favour the mad-genius types, by being less arbitary and more aptitude-oriented.
Einstein? Not able to express himself? I beg your pardon? As a matter of fact, he was quite a master at doing so, much better than you or I. I would imagine that that would be the reason that different conventions across the world asked him to give speeches at their most prestigious functions, in fact; wouldn't you?
And as far as errors r concerned dey crept in CAT 2009 AS WELL......
"To err is human....To forgive is divine"
now dat all's over we'll get nothing by cursing d CLAT authorities.....
I agree that sm of d deserving ppl cudn't get through....bt d majority of us r still deserving!!!!!!!!!!!!..
its nt dat just becoz i m selected so i m blah blahing....bt all i write is what i believe!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because he thinks that's false.
[...]
same with me. scored decently well in NLU-D's paper, touched rock bottom in CLAT
CLAT was definitely a shame.
i wanted some opinions about the IP university (law)? who's in?
You copied in Delhi.
Or you fell asleep in CLAT. You are an exception.
I'm sorry it was you.
my, that's one ridiculous conclusion
not enough time to shade the ovals, bloody hell one will try to sneak peak at somebody else's OMR! yea right!
not to mention, there were different sets
tnx 4 clarification pig.on.wings
Sigh. If you're just going to negate what the other person says, or condemn it to be false, there's no point arguing at all.
I didn't copy in the NLU-Delhi exam. As said by #75, there were different sets of papers given to students sitting next to each other. No scope of copying. I finished with about 5 minutes to spare.
Contrary to CLAT, which i finished with a ridiculously whopping 45 minutes to spare.
Perhaps i AM an exception, I wouldn't know. That doesn't change the fact that the CLAT was inappropriately set. I'm not telling you to agree, but this is my story. Don't get why you're sorry. Not quite sure I want to, either.
I totally agree with the arguments pertaining the GK part.Instead of removing it,wouldn't it be better to keep a greater proportion of marks alloted for current affairs rather than static GK?
Current affairs questions will test the awareness of the law school aspirant which is pretty essential.
CLAT exam wasn't a total failure. No doubt it was easy and GK was inappropriate, english was of an average level and logical was decent(questions followed the nalsar patter).
Scoring well doesnt necessary mean someones lucky.
Taking the LST analysis of the paper, 32/50 was a good score in gk and an average score was 25/50.this would leave a person needing 112/150 or 119/150 to get into the top 3(NLSIU,NALSAR,NUJS). Considering math was the easiest it comes down to 92/130 or 99/130.This is what any person getting into top 3 had to score in english,logical and legal aptitude.Anyone who was well prepared in these areas(there was no useless questions or inappropriate questions in these as far as i remember) made the cut.Others including me didn't make it through. I got a mediocre score of 133 and i dont blame the CLAT paper for my horrible performance.