If you don’t realise studying “law” should be more than studying the bare act and cases. Why are you doing an LLM? The legal philosophy stuff isn’t limited to public law , I know for a fact that Nigam teaches private law and does plenty of legal philosophy. In any full time programme you shouldn’t have time to do ten other things unless you try really hard. If you don’t work hard- you shouldn’t get good grades. I don’t know what about this seems unfair to you. City planning is about the law actually, it’s about housing and sanitation and access to water and education and civil rights and a hundred other things that are intimately about the law. There’s plenty of written work backing this up and scholars in india who have done good work on this.
I’m glad folks who think law school is supposed to be an easy time that will allow them to do internships throughout the year and prepare for civil services and judicial services without losing out on getting good grades are getting discouraged. Good thing.
You only talk to people on campus who hate Sudhir. I’m on campus and know plenty of people who like him immensely.
You need to understand that an LLM is not an LLB. In one it might be reasonable to expect at least a few classes where the focus is on reading cases and bare acts. I did an LLM from one of those elite places- I never took a course where we did cases and bare acts. It’s an advanced degree- the level of study is in another gear. You’re supposed to research on your own and keep up with case law on your own. The profs are there to show you more advanced theory, show you how interdisciplinary perspectives on an issue work- things like that. A thing is not only about the law if you are name dropping sections and cases. If you’re discussing housing, schooling, sanitation, access to water, access to public transport, - yknow in essence things that make civil rights possible- you’re discussing a legal problem. It’s hard for me to imagine that discussion not being about the law.
You also seem to have a limited idea of what “ applicable in real life” means. thing is - not everyone is going to be a practitioner , people will want to work in research and policy and academia, and second thing is- the idea that you can effectively practice corporate law without understanding the theory behind juristic persons or the corporate veil is just soooo ridiculous. I know these faculty also- I have sat in their class- I know they don’t run away with philosophy without it tying to a better understanding of the law. Reading scholarly literature isn’t a bad thing. I know plenty of people who work with advocacy organisations who find solutions or notice problems because they have that rich background in scholarly work. And another thing is - if you want to just practice- you can do that with an LLB. You’re wasting your own time. An LLM is an advanced degree.
The Indian llm has for years gotten the stepchild treatment where administrators and academics don’t spend enough time developing curricula or enforcing rigour. If Sudhir is doing that- it’s better than most of the other universities out there. I know and have met very recently a number of llm students at NLS who like the changes. So idk your claim that you’ve spoken to every single one is suspicious. Is it your job to speak to every single one? Do you do this instead of studying? You’re kind of being ridiculous. If you think it’s representative- do an actual survey. Give Sudhir a report card. But I really doubt an actual survey would show people didn’t like him. Most of the people I know at nls seem to like him at least somewhat.
If you think of it as suffering sociology i dont know what to tell you. A masters programme is not for you. Interdisciplinarity doesnt mean you have sociology courses to check a box.it means that that interdisciplinarity is baked into every course you study. So when you study law and justice theres philosophy, when you study research methods theres literally all sorts of methods including sociological ones. When you study competition law youll study economics also. This is a good thing for the university. You seem to not want to study anything at all and have demonstrated a remarkable lack of intiative , judgment, and curiosity. I would suggest you reflect on why you want to do this degree in the first place. Youre wasting their time with this attitude.
The legal philosophy stuff isn’t limited to public law , I know for a fact that Nigam teaches private law and does plenty of legal philosophy.
In any full time programme you shouldn’t have time to do ten other things unless you try really hard. If you don’t work hard- you shouldn’t get good grades. I don’t know what about this seems unfair to you.
City planning is about the law actually, it’s about housing and sanitation and access to water and education and civil rights and a hundred other things that are intimately about the law. There’s plenty of written work backing this up and scholars in india who have done good work on this.
I’m glad folks who think law school is supposed to be an easy time that will allow them to do internships throughout the year and prepare for civil services and judicial services without losing out on getting good grades are getting discouraged. Good thing.
You only talk to people on campus who hate Sudhir. I’m on campus and know plenty of people who like him immensely.
A thing is not only about the law if you are name dropping sections and cases. If you’re discussing housing, schooling, sanitation, access to water, access to public transport, - yknow in essence things that make civil rights possible- you’re discussing a legal problem. It’s hard for me to imagine that discussion not being about the law.
You also seem to have a limited idea of what “ applicable in real life” means. thing is - not everyone is going to be a practitioner , people will want to work in research and policy and academia, and second thing is- the idea that you can effectively practice corporate law without understanding the theory behind juristic persons or the corporate veil is just soooo ridiculous.
I know these faculty also- I have sat in their class- I know they don’t run away with philosophy without it tying to a better understanding of the law.
Reading scholarly literature isn’t a bad thing. I know plenty of people who work with advocacy organisations who find solutions or notice problems because they have that rich background in scholarly work.
And another thing is - if you want to just practice- you can do that with an LLB. You’re wasting your own time. An LLM is an advanced degree.
The Indian llm has for years gotten the stepchild treatment where administrators and academics don’t spend enough time developing curricula or enforcing rigour. If Sudhir is doing that- it’s better than most of the other universities out there.
I know and have met very recently a number of llm students at NLS who like the changes. So idk your claim that you’ve spoken to every single one is suspicious. Is it your job to speak to every single one? Do you do this instead of studying? You’re kind of being ridiculous. If you think it’s representative- do an actual survey. Give Sudhir a report card. But I really doubt an actual survey would show people didn’t like him. Most of the people I know at nls seem to like him at least somewhat.
This is a good thing for the university. You seem to not want to study anything at all and have demonstrated a remarkable lack of intiative , judgment, and curiosity. I would suggest you reflect on why you want to do this degree in the first place. Youre wasting their time with this attitude.