Last week a Legally India reader confessed heartbreak after reading Professor Madhava Menon's views on the quality of Indian LLM degrees.
Now, as the LLM forum discussion nears 50 posts, we have asked Menon for his response on how domestic master's degrees have not been up to scratch.
Menon replies:
It is good to see people responding to points raised particularly in respect of my observations on LL.M. Let me give my reactions to the open letter of one of the concerned students.
'Just Curious' in the open letter raised many concerns of an LL.M. student in India. I would like to give my comments on a key issue he had raised.
How do Indian corporates compare LL.M. (degree of a University in India) in comparison to the LL.B. degree of National Law Universities? If you have a good LL.B. education, is it unnecessary to go for an LL.M.?
It is my considered view that a good B.A., LL.B. (Hons) Degree from the National Law School is enough and more for all professional purposes.
It is also my assessment supported by some empirical evidence that LL.Bs from National Law Schools seldom seek admission to LL.M., even in National Law Schools.
Some of them, very few, seek admission to LL.M. in some prestigious foreign law schools when they are offered scholarships.
I was surprised when they reported to me that they found many of the LL.M. courses, honourable exceptions apart, not very different from what they already studied at the National Law School while doing their B.A., LL.B. (Hons) degree!
However, in those exceptional courses, they found the education helpful for comparative scholarship and of some degree of specialization. They also claimed that they could learn much more about legal research and writing during their one-year LL.M. at the foreign law school.
LL.M. in Indian Universities including in National Law Schools has not received the attention it deserved, with the result that it did not attract talented LL.Bs particularly those graduating from National Law Schools.
In many places what is on offer is the same old curriculum covering subjects in the LL.B. programme perhaps with some additions. LL.M. in India is primarily intended to prepare teachers / researchers (which is the minimum qualification for appointment as lecturers).
Excepting in few places, there is no opportunity for students to get specialisation in subjects outside the LL.B. subjects. Two more years spent pursuing LL.M. in a good law school might help the average and below average students to improve their deficiencies, if they work hard.
Others may find it not worth spending the time and money and may opt for LL.M. through part-time or correspondence study (some Universities in India offer the degree through a correspondence course) if they have inclination for a post-graduate degree in law.
In view of the above, I still hold the view that a good LL.B. degree is enough for success at the bar and the bench. It is wrong to interpret the word “unnecessary” to mean that it is not good or useless.
However, to become a teacher it is very necessary to have LL.M. because UGC demands it. I would even prefer to take a good, fresh LL.B. as a teaching assistant in preparation of being appointed as a lecturer as my experience with many LL.Ms has not been very encouraging.
This is not to minimise or belittle post-graduate studies in law from good law schools; it is only to highlight the plus points of the five-year integrated legal education from the National Law Schools.
If my views have hurt your chances of a career in law, it is totally unintended and I would ask employers not to make their selections on the number of degrees a candidate holds but the abilities of the person for the job on offer.
Finally, I must confess that I could not myself do much to improve the quality of LL.M. education in the few law schools I served. This is an agenda receiving the attention of my colleagues now.
There is a felt need for good teachers and good researchers in law and I hope people like you who work hard and develop legal scholarship will be able to fill the void in universities and colleges teaching law.
Wishing you all the best,
Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon
Read last week's full interview with Menon discussing the history and future of Indian law schools and lawyers.
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Master's Programs designing is done in isolation and devoid of interface with civil society and industry, with the result that one starts to search at the end of the studies where to go, instead of the instituional linkages being lined up from the threshold. Net result is that Indian Law Students even at the Master's level suffer from the limitations in Capacity building and skill enhancement processes
24 months of mandatory pursuit, as per the requirements of UGC, becomes a mechanical follow up unless the planners of Master Degree Legal Education in various concerned Legal Education Institutions 'believe' that the period of time as well as the 'contents' of learning coupled with 'skills' enhanced are "real value additions"
In that context, in my view, Prof. Menon's views relating to a well crafted B.A., LL.B., do not completely fiit into the paradigm, for, across the world, a gradute degree is meant to provide the concept clarity and it is the master's degree program which provides the real space for unconditional research.
However, it is true that Indian Legal Education Planners need to look at a Tata Institute of Fundamental Sciences M.S.W. and see what really goes into when it comes to the Master's Students and their skills of research for societal and policy considerations
I am an LLM student of a National law School and I must also let you know that I come from a good and sound LLB background.
I found your post veru discouraging and biased. If the same college which promises to give quality education for 5 year course cannot make extra effort for the students (who already have clarity of the subjects ) to reach a platform better than the LLB students. I see that as autter failure on part of the administration and the teaching faculty of the Law schools.
Since, I am a student of one such school, I am shocked at the negligence we students face in comparison to the LLB's which is encouraged by the admisnistrationand the faculty themselves. We do not pay the colleges to help them place their LLB's better but for our own personal growth and education but unfortunately that is not what the National law schools beleive in.
Let me remind you Sir, that the faculty in law Schools are mostly never from any Law Schools from India or abroad and hence we fail to understand that negative attitude that prevails in them.
Lastly, instead of being so vocal of the situation of the LLM's in India(esp law school) and boasting of the LLB education here, you must try and let students know what are you doing to better the system and help the LLM students. If you can't make it better then you should scrap the course than making a ridicule of LLM students on a public forum. This just proves the inefficiency and lack of interrest of the Administration and Faculty system of Law School.
If you encourage students to go abraod and study, you must scarp the LLM course or charge minimum fees. After paying 1.5 lakhs per year, we expect better standard of education ane a more rigorous course than what we are provided. The students are ready, it is just the lack of interest of the faculty because of which students suffer.
I am a I Year LL.M. student at NALSAR University of Law. I was shocked to see your comments on LL.M. students. It was in fact quite demoralising to see such remarks from a learned person like you. It is indeed true that the LL.M. students are the most neglected species when it comes to legal studies. But is it the fault of the students? Isn't the administration answerable for the same? Don't the institutions owe a responsibility towards their students?
Sir, we are not the ones who design our curriculum. Being a masters course, it is quite obvious that curriculum includes more or less the same subjects as we studied in our LL.B.s.
Further, I was quite hurt by your statement that an LL.B. degree is enough and more for every professional purposes. If it is so, then sir, why even have the LL.M. course? why not just do away with it?
"However, to become a teacher it is very necessary to have LL.M. because UGC demands it."
Sir, in my opinion, there has to be some reason as to why the UGC demands an LL.M. degree. If the LL.B. is enough for any profession, why even have LL.M. in the first place? Or is it that you do not consider teaching as a profession at all?
"Two more years spent pursuing LL.M. in a good law school might help the average and below average students to improve their deficiencies, if they work hard."
Sir, it is sad to hear that from you. Its not that admission to LL.M. course is on first come first serve basis. No University would take average and below average students in any of its course. As you already know, sir, every student has to satisfy a minimum criteria of marks in the entrance exam. Admission to LL.M. course requires at least 55% marks in the LL.B.s, whereas admission to LL.B. course requires only 50% marks in the 12th standard. This difference of required marks itself explains the kind of brains required to pursue a masters course. No student below that score is admitted. I could see that happen, with certain exemptions made for special classes. I couldn't find the 'below average' category in the entrance exam brochure, though.
Sir, with due respect to your contentions, I am yet to understand your definition of 'below average'... may be the one's who weren't 'fortunate' enough to get enrolled in a national law school for their LL.B.'s? But if that is the only test of merit, how come such students even find a place in the national law schools? Sir, I would like to share that I myself haven't pursued LL.B. from a national law school, but still secured above 70%.
As stated above by my friend, we students would be more than glad to know what you are doing to better the situation, and to see that some positive steps are being taken in favour of the LL.M. students.
Having said that, Sir, I do not intend to hurt you or show any kind of disrespect towards you by my words or expressions.
Regards.
Let's face it, in many disciplines a year spent doing a masters is of less value than a year of practical experience.
Same in the law - a year doing corporate transactions and honing commercial awareness and the latest regulations will further your career more than a year spent in a library.
Do an LL.M. because you love the subject and want to learn more about it or want to spend some time learning about another jurisdiction.
Don't do it to get points for your CV - trust me, you will be better off employed in the field.
Honestly, as my brief experience as a practising advocate at High Court(before joining LL.M. @ a NLU) , teaches me, that there is no point in arguing with an individual who is not willing to appreciate the other view point.
No point in convincing a person who does not want to get convinced.
May be we should try to understand the position of Prof. Menon.
He simply cannot take back his words. His stature will not allow him to do so. A man of his standing cannot be wrong. Hence, if he has said something on a public forum, no matter how biased that opinion may be, he simply cannot take back his words.
My intentions of joining LL.M. at a NLU was not to compete with kids aged 18-22. I was already an Advocate with brief experience at the Bar. I was already 'an officer of the Court' on whose words a Judge has to have reliance and pass a judgement.
I was capable enough to represent my clients interests and help him in quest for justice. My shoulders became heavier with responsibilities, which helped me to understand that Law is not just about CGPA or Moots at international levels.
Law is not about making power point presentation in the enclosed world of 80 students.
Law is not about copy pasting few paragraphs from different articles with Bluebook style of footnoting and preparing a 'new' article and getting it published in 'reputed' journals.
Law is not about having a 'moot' court, arguing before 'Judges' who judge with an understanding that these are just students and no 'real life' stakes are involved.
I got the real feel of what Law, Legal system and the profession is only after I joined the Bar. It is a self awakening experience when you represent a client even for a bail application. That man's freedom is in your hand. It makes you realise the responsibilities one shoulders.
It also made me realise that the profession always appreciated the ones who had put in some extra effort for his profession. Meaning thereby, the LL.M. degree. Publicly, almost all advocates claim that LL.B. is the only required thing, but from within, all of them want their sons/daughters to get an LL.M. degree. It is the underlying jealousy which forces them to mock at LL.M. degree.
Prof. Menon says nothing new when he opines that LL.B. degree is sufficient for success at Bar. I knew it since I was 10 years old because my parents told me the same since they too belong to the same profession.
Yes, LL.B. degree is 'sufficient'. Even food, water and shelter are the basic necessities of life. We need only 6X2 feet of space when we die. But does that stop us from purchasing a beautiful house or strive for better standards of living? Do we need to stop at basic necessities?
As a student of Commerce (oops! I am not a 5 year 'law' student) I was taught in economics, that it is in human nature to strive for more. When a man achieves one thing, he strives for the better. It keeps on and on. And hence, his needs keeps on increasing and changing. Level after Level.
I felt the same when I completed my LL.B. To strive for excellence. It was so human on my part that I went on for improving my standards by joining LL.M. And return to the Bar with upgraded academic reinforcement and make a 'better' lawyer. I want to be lawyer by 'choice' and not out of compulsion.
Sorry, but I fail to see any such 'strive for excellence' in Prof. Menon's opinion. He seems to have 'satisfied' himself with whatever is offered at LL.B. levels. Somehow, the 'human nature' to achieve the next level does not get reflected from his opinion.
I can argue at length, but again, not when someone is not willing to get convinced.
But I am confused as to why Prof. Menon has not answered to my open letter in a precise manner. I have put forward specific questions and somehow, I did not find any appropriate answer to the questions.
It seems he does not want to answer those questions. Specially one which make him uncomfortable.
His response is not an answer to my questions but it is a mere repetition of his earlier stand.
I smell a business man's approach in this. I dont see an academician's approach in all this. It seems like a business man advertising for his 'product'.
Why doent he sound like a teacher who makes a point to help all his students, weak or intelligent, rich or poor, bachelors or masters. [...]
Pardon me if I am wrong, but the very 'objective' of NLS was to 'promote' 'research'. I may reproduce few lines from the preamble of the THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA ACT, 1986 which is as follows:
"the objects of which inter alia includes the establishment,maintenance and development of a teaching and research institute of higher learning in law with powers to award degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions called the National Law School of India in Bangalore;"
Can someone explain me what "research institute of HIGHER LEARNING IN LAW" mean? i dont think LL.B. degree alone stands and suffices for HIGHER LEARNING. Higher itself means something more than the 'basic' and that brings us to Masters i.e. LL.M.
In his previous expression, he gave an example of a student joining Amarchand. The BCI never intended to fund an institution which produced only Law Firm Associates who never join the Bar. It funded to raise the academic standards and research capabilities. Not an institution which takes pride in '100% Placement' in Law Firms.
How can he take pride in a student joining a Firm and not the Bar when he was himself was entrusted with the responsibilities of nurturing better advocates to join the Bar.
I believe that it is a sheer failure of NLUs in not creating a breed of better Advocates.
This words should have never come from a man instrumental in bringing NLS into existence. He ought to be more aware of the NLU objectives.
Have the NLUs lost their track?
Have NLUs reduced its standards to 'Employment Guaranteed" Institutions?
I dont know and am not the best person to opine.
Anyways guys, leave this discussion. No point in arguing. People have a rigid approach which will not change. Rather we should thank Prof. Menon for expressing his opinions.
I think the point of this entire discussion is not to turn it into a mud slinging match between LL.B.s who have opted to get into corporate law right after law school (you are obviously one) and (Indian) LL.M. degree holders (Just Curious and a host of others like me!)...so lets keep the discussion off CVs and the length to which one goes in our law schools to score points there!!
Now to respond to some of the issues you have raised...and I wanted to do this because I represent what one might refer to as the other viewpoint being someone who joined the LL.M. course at NLS because I "loved the subject" and saw myself specialising in it.
I take the liberty of concluding that every LL.M. student (especially of NLUs) would be really disappointed reading Prof. Menon's comments on the issue because they are laced with blanket statements and assumptions not about the effectiveness of the courses but about an implicit and frankly obvious allusion to the "quality" of students who opt for such courses.
I was also wondering whether Prof. Menon in espousing the noble cause of LL.B.s from NLUs took into consideration the fact that there may still be a rare breed of law graduates out there who "dont" see themselves as corporate lawyers...out of choice!! That they might want to do an LL.M. but due to circumstances (and not because they would not get scholarships had they applied for one) have only India as an option for higher studies!!
I am sure Prof. Menon did not quite consider the impact of comments such as his could have on former, current and prospective students. But Sir, is it not something that a person who is so highly regarded by students aspiring for a career in law, ought to think of as a moral and social responsibility?
And finally...to all LL.M.s out there...do not despair!! There is a life..and a good life after you pass out (provided you do well and have the quality to compete with NLU LL.B.s if required!!). I choose to interpret Prof. Menon's comments in the following manner:
That as an LL.M. from an Indian law school, one cannot take for granted that there will be a great job (usually with a corporate law Big 5 firm) waiting for you just by virtue of being from the NLU that you do. If thats what you want...you must get it through sheer ability. If its anything else you want...and I hope to God that most of you opt for LL.M.s because corporate law is not what you want...life will provide you with wonderful opportunities.
To Prof. Menon and everyone else who is in a position to make a difference to how LL.M. courses are taught in India - irrespective of whether a student is brilliant, sharp, average or below average, everybody deserves a fair chance (equality of opportunity I believe is what it is referred as) at a quality education. So lets work together to make some changes to the system. Kudos to everyone for making the LL.B. programme what it is but wouldnt you also love to boast of a great LL.M. programme in the NLUs.
Here are my two pennies on this.
When I was a 20 yr old kid in college, I made fun of the MTechs since they did not give the same JEE exam and would still get to use the IIT brand. I never understood why the Professors would go out of their way to market them as IIT engineers even though they did their BTechs from "lower" schools. IIT management were idiots. Fortunately, at least the short-visioned NLS founders think like the 20-yr old me.
What I did not realize back then, but I do now, is that I was at IIT because my parents made the right choice for me and pushed me to the JEE coaching classes. I was not a genius, just well guided. I bunked or slept through most of my classes since I knew, clearing the entrance exam would ensure a decent job for me.
On the other hand, the Masters students knew what they wanted, they had consciously left their jobs (and sometimes wife and kids) or other safe options and took the risk to go back to school to specialize. Masters program is about Research and self-study, you do not need an extra-ordinary curriculum but you just need to provide the infrastructure (library, internet, publications) and time to these students to soak what they specifically want out of the course. They don't care whether atoms contain protons and electrons or whether Rocky Mountains are in North America, they are not in high school anymore.
Fact#1 Nowhere in the world people do Bachelors and Masters from the same school - not Harvard, not Stanford. What is Prof Menon talking about? How can he expect an NLS LLB to do an LLM from NLS? If you are not happy with the course you created, you should shut it down for a couple of years and rethink what you want. If the course just needs improvement, just say that "it needs improvement" rather than demeaning all the LLM students you have taken money from and promised them dreams. By the way, your NLS Bangalore LLM students are doing pretty well professionally if you ever had time to check on them. They have scored great jobs and employers don't stop praising their "experienced" approach to most cases.
Fact#2 There are many NLS LLBs who get into US LLMs, very few in Harvards and Yales. Forget the scholarship part, barely any school gives any scholarships, maybe Assistantship (TA/ RA) money is what you are confusing with, almost every Indian student can get that. By the way, most of these people don't get a job or have to get into teaching jobs. I met a bunch of these kids last year, not a single one of them got a job in US (100% failure rate) and went back to India since the new OPT visa system doesn't allow them to stay here in US for long. LLBs directly getting into UK firms are much better off.
Fact#3 NLS LLB quota system is more corrupt than Indian Politics. No offense to the bright kids who cleared the entrance, but you guys have bucket loads of rich kids of influential judges, professors and what not. I wonder why. Plus everybody - my sister, her maid, her daughter, her boyfriend gives the NLS LLB entrance, mostly serious candidates try for an LLM. So LLBs, please stop bragging about 1/40 selection. Grow up. Its the same for IITs and I am ashamed of the fact that once upon a time I bragged about my JEE percentile in my Resume.
Fact#4 Recruiters who brag about just looking at the LLB school for selection are idiots. Actually not. They make their commissions for recruiting more people and with an LLB spending less than a year at any firm, recruiters get to make more commission every year for recruiting for the same positions again and again. Unlike committed and more decisive LLMs who do not give recruiters enough opportunities to make money.
Fact#5 Globally Masters course are also leveraged by people trying to switch/ start careers late in their life and our LLM courses in India provide the exact same opportunities to so many people with experience and from other schools. Prof Menon, please do not discourage these people by projecting a really biased and unfair image of this great opportunity you have provided them with.
To sum it all up, I expect a lot more from the visionaries of our nation and hope that their leadership doesn't lead our countries' 20-yr olds into the Pied Piper's River Weser. Go please get a management degree or do a marketing/ branding course or learn something from the top management at IITs and IIMs who understand the importance of each student and each course, executed perfectly or even when execution is a little less than perfect. LLM needs improvement like any other course, Agreed. Its a disaster or a cover up for below average students, thats just nonsense.
Thanks,
Just a neutral observer.
I am an LLB grad from NLS.......and to be perfectly honest, I consider the quality of the LLM course there to be abysmal to the point of being a total waste of time, but when I read this interview, I couldn't help being shocked at the utter insensitivity of Prof. Menon's comments!!! And I really couldn't help wondering as to why the LLM course was started (and continued) in the first place in NLS under his very able stewardship when all along, he has considered it "unnecessary" or as the refuge of poorly qualified undergrads.
I don't wish to join debate on the merits (or not) of doing an LLM in India, as the arguments for and against are rather limited......and done to death. Am posting merely to express my regret at such irresponsible and insensitive remarks coming from the founder and architect of my alma mater - who also happens to be someone I respect for his unrivalled institution-building skills.
What Professor Menon said is what everyone is afraid to say: most Indian LLMs just are not good enough right now. Not "all", only "most".
It takes guts for someone who set up some such institutions to criticise them openly and that's the only way change can ever come.
It is not an academic attitude to just bury our heads in the sand and act upset and offended by someone who gives fair criticism.
Read his views again and decide whether they are objectionable or actually objective.
He is saying LLB is all that is necessary to become a lawyer. Fact.
LLM does not mean "not good or worthless". Fact.
Most LLMs are not specialised enough. Fact.
Most foreign LLMs are better. Fact.
Professor Menon's colleagues are working on making the LLMs better. Hopefully a fact.
There is need for more good Indian legal scholarship. Fact.
Teachers should have an LLM at least. Fact.
Really, grow up and take his comments on board as objective criticism from someone who knows and has great experience and achieved a lot in the field.
Don't take them as a personal affront.
If he can't criticise the current state of affairs, who can?
I agree with the rest of your comments.
First of all please be clear about the issue by yourself before ascertaining other individuals comprehension capabilities.
The 'whole' debate IS on Mr. Menon's 'opinion' itself.
We do not want to go into 'facts', which you have attempted to bring to light.
Facts remain as facts, and nobody can dispute facts/statistics put forward by an 'appropriate authority'.
So, putting it that way, I hope you donot press for authenticity of the 'facts' determined by you.
And coming to the other issues you touched:
[What Professor Menon said is what everyone is afraid to say: most Indian LLMs just are not good enough right now. Not "all", only "most".]
This statement is an 'opinion' , not a 'fact'. Which is baseless without any concrete support of any kind. No data can be there to determine the 'quality' of students. And if there is any such survey, it needs to be made public. Again the words "not good enough" , "all" and "most" are all subjective , non-specific words. Can you elaborate what each of this words mean in exactitude? Loose words do not make a concrete opinions.
[It takes guts for someone who set up some such institutions to criticise them openly and that's the only way change can ever come.]
I hope you remember a very famous line "The easiest thing a human being can do is to criticize another human being." By Lynn M. Little. I wont say anything further.
[It is not an academic attitude to just bury our heads in the sand and act upset and offended by someone who gives fair criticism.]
Who is burring heads in sand? cant you see the quantum of posts and debate happening on this 'opinion'? Open your eyes friend! And how can you call it "fair criticism"? The whole opinion is "unfair" , I will show you how it is.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
@ Everyone
Let us analyse what Mr. Menon has said and how "fair" it is by any stretch of logics, statement by statement by statement.
Essentially, he made this statement terming LL.M. as 'unnecessary' : "If you give a good LLB education I would say it is unnecessary to go for an LLM."
Now let us go through the reasons he gives in support of his opinion.
1) It is also my assessment supported by some empirical evidence that LL.Bs from National Law Schools seldom seek admission to LL.M., even in National Law Schools. Some of them, very few, seek admission to LL.M. in some prestigious foreign law schools when they are offered scholarships.
This only speaks about STUDENT PREFERENCES. Not the Quality of LL.M. in India. Everyone is free to decide where he/she wants to, India is a free country. Simply because you decide to study in 1 school, does that make all the other schools bad in the whole of India ? He terms LL.M. unnecessary and then shows student preferences to justify his claim? how fair is this now? It illogical in totality. If you like Nokia phones, that, pre se, does not make Samsung mobiles inferior. Its a matter of choice.
2)I was surprised when they reported to me that they found many of the LL.M. courses, honourable exceptions apart, not very different from what they already studied at the National Law School while doing their B.A., LL.B. (Hons) degree!
Again, what logics? What does specialisation mean? It means, doing an Advanced, Indepth, Analytical, Comparative and Critical Study of the subject of which you have "basic conceptual understanding". In LL.B. you study only basic concepts. It is in LL.M. that you study the SAME subjects with higher degree of involvement. IF YOU STUDY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS AT MASTERS LEVEL, IT WILL BECOME A DIFFERENT DEGREE, NOT SPECIALISATION. AND HOW CAN YOU STUDY ADVANCED LEVELS WHEN YOU DONT HAVE BASIC CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING. SO YOU CANT STUDY "DIFFERENT SUBJECT" AT MASTERS LEVEL. IT HAS TO BE SAME SUBJECTS WITH ADVANCED ANALYSIS.
3)LL.M. in Indian Universities including in National Law Schools has not received the attention it deserved, with the result that it did not attract talented LL.Bs particularly those graduating from National Law Schools.
Whose fault it is? LL.M. students? And is it "fair" to pass a blanket opinion about their capabilities for the fault of the system? He expressly admits that the PROBLEM IS WITH THE SYSTEM, WHICH SHOWS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS.... THE SYSTEM...NOT THE STUDENTS. He criticises LL.M. because the system is at fault!!! how fair it is??? And the point of NLS LL.B. students joining or not joining NLS LL.M. is again a question of choice. Again to be fair enough to NLS LL.B. students, as my interaction with few of them goes, they spend almost 7 to 8 Lakhs during 5 years, which makes many of them reluctant in going higher education for 2 more years. Most of them want to start earning as soon as possible because of the cost incurred in 5 years. But still, after CLAT, things have changed, as for "fact", I can say atleast 10% of the batch in one of the top ranked NLU LL.M. batch comes from a top ranked NLU LL.B.
4) In many places what is on offer is the same old curriculum covering subjects in the LL.B. programme perhaps with some additions. LL.M. in India is primarily intended to prepare teachers / researchers (which is the minimum qualification for appointment as lecturers).
My arguments in point no. 2) will suffice. All I will add is, it is a very sad "Indian" mentality to term LL.M. only for academic purposes. In times when super specialisation is the buzz word, people should change their opinion regarding specialised education also. You cant have specialisation without specialised education or few years of experience. And again, if we take Mr. Menon's words meaning that LL.Ms are not upto mark, does that mean that NLU LL.Bs are being taught by "Sub-Standard Teachers" And if that is the case, how can he be SO SURE of the LL.B. students' QUALITY.
How can you have ARJUN without DRONACHARYA ????
5) Two more years spent pursuing LL.M. in a good law school might help the average and below average students to improve their deficiencies, if they work hard.
Sorry to say but MOST of the non-NLU LL.B. which join NLU LL.M. are gold medallists from their regional Universities. It will be a very BOLD statement, with utter disregard to the meritorious students and the Universities they come from, that they are "AVERAGE AND BELOW AVERAGE STUDENTS". And above all the students get admission after clearing CLAT since 2008 nationally. All students compete nationally and secure their seat in NLUs. I dont think that NLUs take in "average and below average" students through CLAT, and if at all it happens, same stands true for LL.B. also.
6) Others may find it not worth spending the time and money and may opt for LL.M. through part-time or correspondence study (some Universities in India offer the degree through a correspondence course) if they have inclination for a post-graduate degree in law.
This is out of discussion. Not relevant.
7) In view of the above, I still hold the view that a good LL.B. degree is enough for success at the bar and the bench. It is wrong to interpret the word “unnecessary” to mean that it is not good or useless.
Yes, we all know that LL.B. degree is enough for success at bar and the bench. Same stands true for LL.Bs from Non-NLUs, because they also have a LL.B. degree. In that case, he indirectly endorses that LL.B. simpliciter is enough. It hardly matters whether from NLU or non-NLU setup. All it requires it to be "good". Thank you Sir, you have appreciated my LL.B. degree also, cos I come from the most reputed law college in my state. And as far as "unnecessary" is interpreted, we generally understand it this way: "unnecessary=not necessary = not useful= useless = not good" Sorry if we misunderstood your word. We never realised that you will pick up an extremely narrow interpretation of the word used.
8) However, to become a teacher it is very necessary to have LL.M. because UGC demands it. I would even prefer to take a good, fresh LL.B. as a teaching assistant in preparation of being appointed as a lecturer as my experience with many LL.Ms has not been very encouraging.
There is a difference between "preparing notes" and "delivering lecture". And again, Mr. Menon seems to "BRAND" ALL LL.M. STUDENTS because he had some "not so encouraging" experiences. How far is this fair? Can all LL.M. students be branded because one person had "not so encouraging" experiences?? Wouldn't it be appropriate to specifically state that "I was not happy with the performance of LL.M. students I came across".
I am reminded of very appropriate quote of Mark Twain which is "All generalizations are false, including this one." So apt, So true.
9) This is not to minimise or belittle post-graduate studies in law from good law schools; it is only to highlight the plus points of the five-year integrated legal education from the National Law Schools.
Sorry, but whatever may have been Mr. Menon's intentions, he did it ultimately. Again I am reminded of one nice lesson we had back in school time.
One teacher drew a line on the black board and asked the students to make that line shorter. One student started rubbing it from sides. Teacher corrected and asked to shorten the line by not touching the line. All students were amazed as to how can it be done without touching? Another student got up and drew another "LONGER" line and said sir i have made your line "SHORTER". I hope I have made my point.
I think this much is enough for the topic. Enough has been said and criticised. Let the topic Rest In Peace.
And thank you RG for being so open minded and neutral observer and for making your point. I hope more people like you express their opinion. Do opine as to what you feel about this post of mine.
I dont have any grudge for or enmity against any individual, I just feel compelled to defend something which I value the most, my EDUCATION.
Regards,
Just Curious
8) However, to become a teacher it is very necessary to have LL.M. because UGC demands it. I would even prefer to take a good, fresh LL.B. as a teaching assistant in preparation of being appointed as a lecturer as my experience with many LL.Ms has not been very encouraging.
There is a difference between "preparing notes" and "delivering lecture". And again, Mr. Menon seems to "BRAND" ALL LL.M. STUDENTS because he had some "not so encouraging" experiences. How far is this fair? Can all LL.M. students be branded because one person had "not so encouraging" experiences?? Wouldn't it be appropriate to specifically state that "I was not happy with the performance of LL.M. students I came across".
I am reminded of very appropriate quote of Mark Twain which is "All generalizations are false, including this one." So apt, So true.
9) This is not to minimise or belittle post-graduate studies in law from good law schools; it is only to highlight the plus points of the five-year integrated legal education from the National Law Schools.
Sorry, but whatever may have been Mr. Menon's intentions, he did it ultimately. Again I am reminded of one nice lesson we had back in school time. One teacher drew a line on the black board and asked the students to make that line shorter. One student started rubbing it from sides. Teacher corrected and asked to shorten the line by not touching the line. All students were amazed as to how can it be done without touching? Another student got up and drew another "LONGER" line and said sir i have made your line "SHORTER". I hope I have made my point.
I think this much is enough for the topic. Enough has been said and criticised. Let the topic Rest In Peace.
Thank you RG for being so neutral in your post.
I have no grudge against any individual but I feel compelled to defend what I value the most, my EDUCATION.
Regards,
Just Curious.
AND after going through this grim and heated discussion, successful because of alll contributors, i wish to say that its not about degrees that one earns or the place (including institutions) that matter much. Only thing that matters is one's hard work, sincerity, dedication and above all justice to one's work.
thanks for appreciating.
But its not posted with any such intentions of impressing people. its just about feeling strongly about any unfair blanket statements and expressing one's opinions.
And as far as posting anything more is concerned, there has to be some post to argue or agree upon.
There has been some strange silence after my recent post for almost 2 days, for God known reasons. May be because I requested people to let this topic RIP.
And ya, I too agree with you as far as hard work, sincerity and dedication is concerned. All this qualities are sine qua non for any advocate to succeed in the legal profession. Amitabh Bachchan once said "there are only 3 rules for success, hard work, hard work and hard work"
b) that there was no separate classroom for LLMs. We were made to sit in whichever LLB classroom was vacant after their classes were over. There were instances where we were made to sit with LLB students on the ground that the subjects are common.
Ofcourse LLB is sufficient if the kind of education offered to LLMs is like the above in the best law school in Asia. Even I would as an LLB graduate come to the conclusion that LLM is unnecessary/waste if I were see the LLM students sitting in the same class as I. I raised this objection in the college and the answer that I got was this is what is being offered and this is what I will get. The founders have no locus standi to opine that the quality of LLMs in India is not up to the mark when they themselves have a lackadaisical approach towards the entire course.
I agree with Rittika and other similar views especially with that of Just curious as I too never pursued LLM for becoming a lecturer or researcher but to gain more knowledge. Law is a beautiful subject and I am very passionate about it. The founders of law schools should take post graduation courses more seriously and provide quality education to students.
A LLB degree is and for all technical reasons a very different educational course than other conventional undergrad professional courses. This is because an LL.B is already a pesudo-postgrad in every sense (as there has to be a basic undergrad in the first place to do a three year course or if you do a 5 year staright out of school course then you would spend 5 years effectively amounting to the time spent on a conventional undergrad plus a post grad).
So technically if you compare a post grad (LL.B) with another post grad (LL.M) and then say that the latter is not as good as the former, it doesn't make sense.
However if you consider the fact that an LL.M. is then a super post grad or a post-postgrad then it again doesn't make sense to compare LL.Ms to a professional degree as LL.B. A super post grad or post-post grads (such as a Phd.) are not the most professional course around. Their purpose is mostly to gain reserach based specialisation along with some basic understanding. These courses also offer an opportunity to people from a foreign background to get a glimpse or may be access to a different local jurisdiction (like an Indian law student getting research based specialisation in international law at a university in US along with an opportunity to qualify in NY and gain access to the professional practice in US).
On basis of the reasons noticed above it is right to say that for all professional practice purposes an LL.B degree in more than enough for practicing in India. That is why most of the talented students looking for a job do the LL.B and after they get jobs straight out of law school they don't want to do an LL.M in india as it is not worth it. However, a more specialised use such as teaching, research based work would be better suitable for an LL.M candidate. The firms are right to distinguish the degrees this way in India. If we study the legal education systems around the world, (including some superior legal education systems such as US and the UK), the opinions about LL.Bs and LL.Ms. are the same. All firms in US look for their J.D. (equivalent to LL.B) students for job purposes. In fact based on that sole reason almost negligible percentage of domestic students ever do LL.Ms there. The domestic students who do LL.Ms there have plans for Ph.Ds and teaching later on in their life. This straight jacket differentiation has put the two courses out of competition to each other.
Moreover, from a business point of view, an LL.M. is a cash cow for all universities in UK and US etc and even in India. This is based on the understanding that foreign students will be the only candidates for LL.Ms and the domestic students (if any) would be coming on scholarships. This lets them charge hefty amounts, far more than what they charge from JDs or LL.Bs. This is followed in India as well. Most universities are charging far more from LL.Ms than from LL.Bs. However, they have consistently failed to attract foriegn students due to obvious factors. This results in a dichotomy as LL.Ms expect to get jobs after spending a large amount of money and also start expecting their courses to be beyond the LL.Bs. However, this is never the case and it wouldn't be. It is a different course for a different purpose.
Unless we develop a practice in the study of law as we have in medicine where a specialisation is absolutely essential if you want to succeed and practice in a particualr area, I don't see a commercial benefit of doing an LL.M.
And if the general view of the people commenting on the topic is that INDIAN Law schools are not capable of adding value to there students (who stay on campus share same facilitities) in 2 years than they are as bad for a 5 year course.
Prof. Menon .... your comments convince me that the teaching fraternity at the Law schools is not half as good as the students (LL.B) as I know for a fact that at NALSAR (Top Law School) there are no teachers who are LL.B's qualified from a National law School. And what I can gather from your post is that the Exposure that a Indian Law school has to offer to gives to these teachers and the students ( excluding the LL.B ofcourse) is not worth a penny....only I fail to understand your inclination for proving that everything ( experience, degrees, training) except LL.B from a National Law School disqualifies one to work in a Law firm / corporate.
Some fact states ...."However if you consider the fact that an LL.M. is then a super post grad or a post-postgrad then it again doesn't make sense to compare LL.Ms to a professional degree as LL.B. A super post grad or post-post grads (such as a Phd.) are not the most professional course around. Their purpose is mostly to gain reserach based specialisation along with some basic understanding."
So now there comes another theory ...LL.B = Post Graduate in Law ..??? and LL.M = Post Graduate in law as well ...but for some reason Mr. Some facts thinks that the former post Grad is better than the actual post grad.
Most surprisingly ... "Their purpose is mostly to gain reserach based specialisation along with some basic understanding."
" The domestic students who do LL.Ms there have plans for Ph.Ds and teaching later on in their life"
Some Fact chooses to pronounce a career path for the people who do an LL.M ...they must be academicians ..... only, he is no authority.
Some Fact states "However, a more specialised use such as teaching, research based work would be better suitable for an LL.M candidate"
Some Facts does agree that LL.M 's have the basic knowledge of Law (He forgets that an LL.M is always a qualified lawyer an LL.B, may be from a University other than the National Law University) and a specialisation in the subject.
Some Fact States "On basis of the reasons noticed above it is right to say that for all professional practice purposes an LL.B degree in more than enough for practicing in India. That is why most of the talented students looking for a job do the LL.B and after they get jobs straight out of law school they don't want to do an LL.M in india as it is not worth it."
He chooses to decide without a rationale that LL.B is all one should stick to and studying futher is worththless. Education is worthless ...??? can someone agree with that.
Unfortunately the institutions supposed to promote legal education and scholarship in India has only one touchstone to measure their success..placement in law firms/corporates. Any layman reading this site can easily understand it. Following the pattern of IIMs is perhaps good, but then it should not reduce the legal profession to just business management. No wonder there are concerns being raised on why nobody wants to join the bar or why nobody talks about speedy justice delivery. Is it really the 'interest' that draws the majority of law students to 'corporate law' or it is the overall atmosphere (peer pressure, better possibility of landing in a job or simply, money)? I think the latter is true and I don't see anything wrong in it. But perhaps we should be a little more conservative is celebrating the success of the national law schools for they seem to be severely restricting themselves in their approach. It is good to cater to the needs of the corporates, but it is a failure for an educational institute to have a one sided approach.
Unfortunate, but true, in India one's success is directly proportional to his income. A corporate job is always preferable to teaching/research (genuine exceptions are there, but they too cannot escape from the value judgment surrounding them). It does not surprise me that 'research' receives the least of importance in the leading institutes of legal education in India.
Are we going to shape our legal education system entirely on the basis of what a handful of recruiters are looking for?
are you still curious or have figured out your life?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first