In other words, is the GLC model actually better than the NLU model? NLU grads seem to have a lot of arrogance and use terms like "intersectionality" and "Sanskritisation" in conversations, plus namedrop Marx, Foucault etc. No doubt they deserve 100/100 for "intellectualism" and wokeness, but much law is they actually know? Is their knowledge of CPC, drafting, due diligence etc the same as GLC grads who have more internship experience and picked up law on their own?

You learn what you want to. Regardless of where you study. NLUs do offer a wider range of opportunities and often somewhat better informed faculty to learn it from, but the onus still lies firmly on you to get the best out of those opportunities. You can study for 5 years, learn the theories, intern during breaks and learn the practical aspects. However, none of that will happen if you are not putting enough effort and diligence, whether you study at NLSIU or Jhumri Tilaiya law college.

Valid question, but that is what NLUs were designed to do, no? If you wanted to follow the pre-1986 model of legal education of learning from practice with the LL.B. enrollment being a joke, one could always choose GLC over NLS. That model was there before the NLUs and that model will be there after the NLUs.

The point of NLUs was to teach you (not you in particular) the social context of law - to think and challenge whywhat we do is done. If you think that NLU graduates quote Foucault and Marx, and are representative of intellectualism and wokeness, I think the NLU model succeeded, right? One always has to measure success towards the aims it was intended to achieve. Otherwise you would just be chastising IIT students for being bad painters.

"Are NLUs useless because they give a holistic learning experience (that is useful for analysing the bases of the laws themselves), instead of just ratta maro-ing the laws to be a parrot"?

There, fixed it.

P.s - love how RW people use woke and intellectual as an insult.

What sets nalloos apart from non-nalloos is that nalloos know how to think. NLUs teach them that. Non-nalloos can be good worker ants if there is procedure and a roadmap in front of them, but in my personal and limited view, nalloos would perform better in uncharted territories because they are taught how to think at NLUs.

Excuse me, a majority of the population of law students in this country is "non-nalloo", including myself. It is an incredibly elitist and narrow minded thing to describe all of us "good worker ants" and to make such generalizations about anyone who did not study at an NLU. Being from an NLU does not give you the liberty to degrade others. People who are smart and hard working will make it anywhere, regardless of their institute. Seems like your woke "nalloo" education about Karl Marx has failed because you remain a monopolistic, elitist person who is stuck in an ivory tower of their own head.

The focus should be on bettering legal education across the country rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few elite institutions. Honestly, this thread is demonstrative of the fact that NLU kids are just threatened by students who didn't go to an NLU but are also doing equally well.

It is obvious from this site that people seek different things from education. It is great that there are credentialing institutions and practice-oriented institutions, in addition to the more interdisciplinary, theoretically grounded ones. Best to let them be instead of trying to make the NLUs cater entirely to litigation or law firms, or force traditional universities to teach in ways that are difficult if they can't hire faculty with the capacity to do it.

GLC isn't a practice oriented institution. It simply does not care about its students and lets them figure things out from outside the best they can, finally handling over a degree to them. If the Indian legal system allowed one to give the bar exam straight without having a law degree, then places like GLC would have to shut down shop immediately.

nope. being able to recite case law and sections of acts by rote memory isn't what legal education is about. believe it or not the study of law should include a training in understanding legal interpretation that includes understanding why and how laws are made and how they work, being able to analyse them and being able to construct creative arguments. rote memorising the law is rubbing two sticks together in the woods and what nlu students are taught is at least having a zippo lighter.
The NLU education does make a ton of difference, at least when you're talking about the top 2/3 NLUs. the professors you have push you and you actually do learn from them, you want to be in their classes, its stimulating and engaging and even often thrilling. so no. you cant do that with self study. the other thing that works in an NLU environment is that other students wont leave you alone, you get to form fierce rivalries and friendships both, so you have people to compete with and people to collaborate with that are always trying to improve their game. you dont get that with self study either.
and the final thing is- this doesn't necessarily hold good for students who did a bulk of their education in online mode- they've largely been left by the way side. and that is proof that self study- while it may work for a few (very few) people, by and large does not have the same benefits as a proper rigorous education.

No the reason for the wide gulf is because most people don’t have the privilege to go to an NLU. Or even a good school where they would learn all this. Not because the knowledge is inherently useless. So the average practitioner isn’t exactly a beacon of legal knowledge or analysis. NLU grads aren’t supposed to be the average practitioner.
Learn our history some. Before this jugaadu know- nothing sakar came into place- a lot of our public work and legal practice came from deep public discusssions about philosophy. And understanding how legal institutions could help further the national project or the equality project. Our judges at Supreme Court and high courts were on average far more well read. And leave alone all the golden age stuff- even today a lot of NLU grads initial reaction after leaving college is “ oh I know so much more than my peers because our education is so different”. And the best lawyers you know today- didn’t get that way because they just practiced. They got that way because they came from good education. They know how to think and how to make arguments and how to pick apart the other guys arguments. They learnt that somewhere. They might not have learnt it at an NLU- they might have learnt it on their own- but all an NLU education tries to do is make it possible to learn this stuff.

The idea that the only thing you can do with a law career is to practice at the nearest civil court where you rob clients blind , keep asking for continuances, and barely practice the law is so outdated. You can do new and exciting things provided you have skills and critical thinking. So no. This is the rant of the typical law student who doesn’t want to study and thinks they can figure everything out on their own- it’s just not true.

It really isn’t self defeating. You can be that kid reading under a streetlight who will build rockets. But if you don’t have the right teachers - you can technically still do it, but it’ll be much harder.
Students tbh don’t know what they should read and how they should read it. How are you supposed to when you’re teenagers ? Faculty’s job is to ensure you read the right stuff - the rigorous high quality stuff. And that you don’t just consume that information, but learn to reflect on it, identify the arguments, identify the purpose of what you’re reading, connect it with other readings , be able to analyse that reading with some rigor and consistency. NLU students get that a lot more easily sorry to say. But this question isn’t about whether NLU students are inherently better - it’s about whether they get an education that’s different and worthwhile. They do.
It’s not just the reading- NLU students are constantly writing - if nothing than assignments for course work- you do something a hundred times - you’re gonna get better at it. And they have a peer group that’s equally competitive- invested in self improvement- and they have opportunities to do new and exciting things and exposure to identify those opportunities that they wouldn’t have gotten elsewhere.

Look NLU education isn’t perfect and I can give you a laundry list of things wrong with it. But it’s just as much a lie to claim it’s worthless.

I agree with you that NLU education is great, but the truth is that not all law students have access to an NLU education (for a variety of reasons). It is therefore terrible and elitist to downgrade those who don't have access to it, especially if they're also willing to work hard and educate themselves like their NLU counterparts.

The NLSIU model teaches soft law, the GLC model teaches hard law that you will need in the real world. That's why NLSIU toppers become law professors abroad, while GLC toppers become Senior Advocates and judges. That's why GLC graduates are the ones you call if you need to sue someone or transfer property, while NLSIU graduates are the ones you call if you need a lecture on whether property laws are patriarchal and casteist.

Right. And who do you call when you want to change the property law in the country? Do you call the guy who has been getting by on jugaad and some memorised sections and case law ? Or do you call the guy who can think about what the law does well and what it doesn’t do as well and what alternatives can there be and how do we find out which one is the best and how do we convince a world of people to compromise and go along with a plan? And who do you call when the case is in an appellate court and the case will turn more on argument than fact ?
People can look up cases and sections dude. It takes a lot more work to discipline your mind.
This idea also that NLUs don’t teach hard law- they do. Students at law school read tons and tons of cases and laws before they graduate. Most of the course work is core subjects that includes studying a specific area or the law. They’re just asked to understand and not memorise them cases and the laws. The average non-NLU law student however memorises textbooks and not much else. That’s all the difference is. Are students more excited to talk about the courses where they learn interdisciplinary stuff and learn theory that helps them make sense of the law ? Yeah. Is that all they do? Hell no.
Also- Maybe the goal of NLUs isn’t to churn out the average law grad who will make property deeds and deal with petty matters his whole life ? Maybe the goal is to create lawyers who are trained enough to be useful and exceptional and aware enough to spot and create better opportunities for themselves?

Bro what do you mean by "who you call when you have to change those laws?". GLC graduates drafted the constitution and laws for this country way before NLUs existed lol. Also how many NLU grads choose a career which makes any real impact? Majority of them work in corporate with all their "training". The truth is no one would have joined NLUs if it wasn't for their lucrative packages. Colleges in India are nothing but placement agencies be it IIMs, IITs or NLUs. All of these institutes focus on theory none of them make you job ready. So imo it's better to adopt the GLC model and get job ready before job as NLUs grads learn everything on the job while you know it already.

We need to distinguish between NLSIU and other NLUs. NLSIU faculty has historically been a class apart and emphasised the social context of the law. Post-Sudhir, faculty are dominated by alumni trained by such people, who have also studied abroad and bring greater global context their teaching. In contrast, other NLUs have mostly stale TLC wallahs as faculty who focus on the ratta maro DU/GLC model, barring honourable exceptions like Anup Surendranath and Siddharth Chauhan.

Clearly you have not seen examination papers from even the newer NLUs. There are always ZERO questions which ask you about the law - they are always the case method. Facts are provided to you and class mein jo seekhe ho apply karo.

If you do rote learning, you are fucked.

Source: Graduated 5 years ago from one of the fairly newer NLUs.

Naah
NLUs are more academic only. If you think about it, only about 2000-2500 students go to NLUs. All the other law students all across the country go to non-NLUs. And a lot of them are doing quite well, regardless. Sure, NLUs have a culture of being academic and there is more access to opportunities, but what you learn on the field you will learn on the field only.

The GLC model is superior. What use is a heart surgeon who cannot perform an operation but instead gives you gyaan on the history of heart surgery? The success of NLSIU has less to do with the success of their model but more to do with the fact that they attract brilliant students. It's time for all NLUs to switch to the GLC model. In fact, Madhav Menon had proposed a hybrid model some years ago, where you complete your BALLB in 4 years and then do internships for a while year. This model would be excellent.

Lol what false equivalency. You know how much heart surgeons study? They don’t just go in there and cut shit up. They go to classes , they ace their exams, they work their buts off and then they ace all their practical’s and internships and residencies and do multiple post graduate degrees. They don’t do this GLC jugaad life.

The more equivalent comparison is - someone from GLC maybe got an MBBS degree, you’ll go to them for a cold a cough a fever, maybe even for an ache or a skin abnormality, they’ll patch up wounds , they’ll sew up cuts, they might even help you set a bone or two. They’re vital to public health. And sure a few of them might turn out to be geniuses who will then go on to specialise in heart surgery- but you wouldn’t go to your medical clinic uncle around the corner and trust him to cut you up because they spent technically more time practising medicine.

But if you’re suddenly seeing blood in your pee - you want to pay a little more - go to the doctor who will be able to diagnose a complicated disease and might at least be able to put you in touch with others who might be able to help- that’s your average NLU fresh graduate- they’ve got a little more analysis, a little more exposure. But even they aren’t heart surgeons.

But if you got a cancer diagnosis , or you need heart/ brain surgery- you’re gonna want the best guy who has been doing this for so many years and been so successful at it- you don’t even want to know where he studied, you don’t care and neither does he- his track record stands on his own and he doesn’t need to use the name of his college to prove himself superior. At that point its like a seasoned lawyer whose reputation is spotless, who is known to be good at what he does, and who has outgrown His undergraduate institution a long time ago not just because he practices , but also because he stays current with scholarship and literature and policy on his own.

Your focus on random shit like wokeness is what is holding you back.

Do your job and you will prosper. No one really gives a flying duck about all this shit.

NLUs work because the kids are more driven and competitive. When you're in a shark tank, you survive if you become a shark. Can't say the same for the droves of uninspired and people from normal colleges who lack drive.

NLU model was there for two reasons - one to set up centres which would produce better advocates, and two - to change the way law is taught by bringing in a 5 year integrated course, helping in better learning. Both of these because the traditional law colleges were ailing from bad faculty, lack of resources and infra, etc. These TLCs had mind u the best professors and produced the best lawyers/judges/jurists india ever had. Hwoever, those reasons made them bad and smart minds could not study there - yet they allowed people to deal w real issues. NLU has failed in the first objective - they only produce corporate law clerks who have not contributed to law. Very few in litigation exists. Even to this day majority of NLU Crowds, esp the good NLU ones go to law firms - so long as this is the case, the newer not so good NLU alumni would produce better advocates than NLU ones. TLCs will however continue to dominate till the date these NLU folks decide to ▮▮▮

Why don't you check the career trajectory of law graduates in litigation after 2000 and see how your claim about TLCs doing better than NLUs falls flat on its face? You are just jealous of NLU students who are doing well in all the spheres of legal careers. When is the last time you heard of a good student from a TLC joining a good policy body? How many of them get foreign scholarships or do well in academia because their institution helped them? TLC students achieve success despite their universities, not because of them. The point is simple. NLU students have the choice to join whichever stream of legal career they want. TLC students lack that choice at present. You ask any student and they would prefer the former. People only join TLCs because they couldn't make it to a good NLU. That clearly shows what students want as well as the reality.

Although I agree with everyone else that the NLU critical approach had great value, I think you are reacting more to the arrogance and conflating it with the education and goals of the NLUs. As an NLU grad, I want to apologise for the arrogance. I hated it in my first year, and I still believe that we have no right to behave disrespectfully. There is great value to what we learn. I enjoyed the education and draw on it still, but it is not a justification for looking down on others. I hope that you run into the many of us who get this. I have worked with GLC grads who I admire deeply for their understanding of the practice and community we work with. It is just apples and oranges. These institutions are trying to achieve different things, and together they create a diversity in the legal profession, which I personally enjoy.

Slightly tangential, but I wish I had gone to my lectures / classes more.

Getting an education, even an average quality one, is a privilege, and I squandered it by being lazy, having a conceited view of myself (oh, the folly of youth!) and by exaggerating (in my mind) the tedium caused by the mediocrity of Indian colleges. I wish I had attended all my lectures in all my subjects diligently. I really like the law and I think I have missed the only opportunity to learn the basics of this great field in a structured manner and in a broadly conducive environment.

Another thing is that being a bad student becomes a bad habit which is particularly difficult to shake off. A good lawyer is always learning and if you take an early view that you can only be taught by a certain type of persons (e.g. only by the very smart and very polished) or in a particular manner (e.g. only in interactive, stimulating sessions as opposed to boring, one-way lectures), you take away your ability to be humble and grab every learning from whoever, wherever (e.g. learn something interesting from a dull client who nonetheless came to know something very useful from another of her cases / transactions handled by someone else).

SO, DEAR READER, DO NOT SKIP LECTURES EVEN IF YOU THINK IT IS NOT WORTH IT OR IF YOU THINK YOU ARE "TOO COOL FOR (THE ACTUAL LAW) SCHOOL". NLU or non-NLU. You take 100% of what life has given you for your three or five years of law college.