NLS grads are doing well because they have placements, network and brand value associated with NLS which is mostly present because you must crack a national-level entrance exam to get in.

The mere fact that NLS grads are successful doesn't mean it is due to the education that they received. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Legal education at NLUs and other colleges could certainly use some reforms to make students better lawyers.

Sudhir never mentioned about any focus on clinical study, nor has NLSIU during his time given any additional focus on that basic toolkit or craft of lawyering that you mention. By all means talk about the approach of the UK law schools to that effect, but don't conflate Sudhir's approach with that.

This thread randomly propped up on my feed somehow a while back, but I was pressed for time back then and couldn't respond to it, but thought about it, and am doing so now.

As someone who has read for a three year LLB in England at a Russell Group law school that isn't Oxford or Cambridge and who will begin an LLM in the UK this September, and who aspires to become an academic there (but who has explored both the solicitor and barrister career options), I can tell you that Sudhir seems to have the right ideas. For you to interpret him as saying 'don't focus on skills' or 'the best universities in the world don't focus on skills' is deeply problematic, because that's not what he (or frankly any head of a reputable law school here (usually distinguished by the 'Russell Group' tag)) is saying. The British are very clear about where skills fit in. A university education gives you some basic knowledge. The gaining of the knowledge happens in a problem-based environment where you apply yourself to problems, which helps you begin to develop certain skills. A good university doesn't try to turn out a finished product to the law firms or chambers, because law firms (and barristers' chambers, for that matter) are clear that that's not what they want; without blowing my own trumpet too much, I have been to a good university and spoken to recruiters from both branches of the profession, so am telling you this from personal experience. A good trainee solicitor or pupil barrister is someone who has strong conceptual knowledge and a toolkit of basic skills, which a law firm (in the case of a TC) or a chambers (in the case of a pupillage) will hone and add to during the training period, by getting that trainee/pupil to 'learn on the job'. The 'learning-on-the-job' process cannot happen until and unless the trainee or pupil has the basics right. Just like in Maths, you can't learn Calculus without learning addition or subtraction, similarly, according to the British way of thinking, you have to undertake three steps of learning, in a specific order: a qualifying law degree (or a non-law degree and a Postgraduate Diploma in Law, if you prefer), which teaches you the ABC's, the vocational component of solicitor or barrister training (which teaches you the basics of everyday practice grind) and the work-based component of solicitor or barrister qualification (a pupillage in the case of a barrister, and a TC in the case of a solicitor), which helps you to learn, in a problem-based environment where you apply yourself to problems, as you would have done at university or bar school/in solicitor training, the uk lawyer's equivalent of calculus.

To bust some myths here, if you think all we do at your typical British law school is to have seminar/tutorial discussions and write essays, that is absolutely not the case. Most UK law schools have law clinics, similar to their U.S. and Indian counterparts, where we do exactly what Sudhir is saying: focus, to the extent needed, on the 'craft' (to use his word) we would need as practitioners. Some universities, like QM, for example, have partnerships with law firms where selected students, after two years of study, paralegal at one of their uni's partner firms for a year and come back after the year to complete their final year of study. But do the firms consider people with such experience as finished products? No! They still offer them TC's, not jobs as newly qualified (NQ) solicitors, because they are clear that learning still needs to happen. This is, as Sudhir said, to give upcoming lawyers preparation for problems later in life that we just can't imagine in this day-and-age.

What this should show is that Sudhir (and heads of UK law schools) is (are) saying (correctly in my view) from his experience in Britain's NLSIU that the way the conversation about skills and the rhetoric about it is going in India displays confusion and a surprising (and disturbing) lack of clarity about what a university's place in the larger scheme of things is. I would really, therefore, advise you to think a lot more carefully, before attempting to use what the UK does (or at least the reputable law schools here do) as a justification in favour of an argument against Sudhir's views on this, because the British legal profession (universities/training providers, firms/chambers and regulators) are, and have been, very clear for some considerable time about what is what. Sudhir, even granting he may have other faults to which I can't speak because I don't know him, has got this right, and is trying to bring that same level of clarity to the discourse on skills in Indian legal education. True, while his understanding of what legal education requires is different from the British one to the extent that most UK law degrees have little to no component of non-law study, unlike at his institution, his thinking is much more aligned with the law faculty deans of an Oxford, UCL, LSE-type place than many might believe (or like to believe). If I were you, I'd listen to him, and maybe even take on board some of what he has to say; if you don't like it, that's your concern. And I certainly wouldn't abuse him anonymously. While I have defended him that way here, to be clear, if somebody asks, I would be more than happy to put my name to this, and give you a LinkedIn profile so you know who I am, but I know that doing this outright would not make our mods very happy. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading!

He's never taught at NLS as a permanent faculty. Nor at any of the other NLUs apart from NUJS, where he taught for less than 4 years. So within India, not really that much. Outside India, I don't know for sure and hence won't comment. Probably as visiting faculty to places mentioned in other comments. Not really enough teaching experience for someone at his level. Taught at Azim Premji for quite a few years, but that's not really a very reputed place for law.

You fanboys are the one who are claiming Sudhir is better than someone about whom you know nothing and are not qualified to judge their academic reputation or credibility. That makes you blind, not others. The Infosys prize is not a validation of his academic scholarship because once again, it's not been subjected to choice by experts in the field and like most Indian prizes, is the result of lobbying and mutual back scratching. You want to call it an example of his networking skill, please go ahead.

Dude, what pinch of salt ? What is your obsession with this ? Universities remove your profile from their website if you don’t teach there currently. It’s so prospective students know who is around to teach them and who isn’t.

Everyone here wasn’t born yesterday. Some of us were in academia when Sudhir was teaching at Oxford and Columbia and Brown. You’re welcome to google the same and you’ll probably see some evidence of that as well. This is straight up lying and defaming someone cause you have an axe to grind. Well - we can safely surmise you’ve not done a remarkable thing in your life except drag someone else down at this point.

Sudhir has written everything that has his name on it. I don’t know if that’s the case for other academics. And quality really does matter more than quantity- the stuff Sudhir writes gets read and cited by a lot of people. You don’t think he’s impressive because you clearly have a bias. You compare what he’s writing to the redundant nonsense that most Indian academics produce - you see that he really is one of the smartest people around in Indian academia. Tell me a book or an article which you think was poorly done and give reasons for it.

Why is the Infosys prize not validation ? Because you don’t like him ? Is that it?

And Academics move around - he’s taught at plenty of good places in his career. Get a life.

A. Infosys prize is not a validation of someone's academic prowess. Sudhir having taught at best universities abroad is also a claim best taken with a pinch of salt, since none of those universities ever acknowledged his name in their faculty list. The IIT guy's name is actually there in the place where he has taught. His publications dwarf Sudhir's by a huge margin. "Noted public intellectual" is very much an overreach, nor is Sudhir's bio impressive for an academic, with very few credible peer-reviewed publications featuring in it. He's taught at any Indian public university of repute for not more than 3-4 years in all.

Let’s see: On the one hand we have an Infosys Prize winner and Rhodes Scholar who has taught at the best universities abroad and is a noted public intellectual. On the other hand we have an IIT Delhi Director who did his BTech and PhD both in IIT Bombay (why not abroad?) and is merely an “honorary” (means unpaid) adjunct prof at Carnegie Mellon. The IIT guy’s bio is decent but obviously Sudhir’s bio is more impressive and his word carries more weight.

They had him on their website when he was working there you fool. It’s custom to remove folks who leave because you don’t want to misrepresent to students. An old version of Sudhir’s cab is still on the Watson institutes website. Here is a link at the Columbia university website that explicitly states that a b r Ambedkar chair professor is established https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/india-endows-chair-devoted-indian-constitutional-law-jagdish-bhagwati-fellowship

You are either an idiot or a straight up liar and no one should take you seriously. Get a life.

Not exactly. NLS's top litigation product (per appearance free + profile) is Gopal Sankaranarayanan who is 3 years after Sudhir.

NLSs top transactional lawyer (per deal average) is Raghubir Menon who is 3 years junior to Sudhir.

The top academics from NLS like Tarunabh Khaitan, Shyam Balganesh, Rohit De, Dev Gangjee and even Shamnad Basheer are junior to Sudhir.

That’s not true. It’s too early to judge the impact of Sudhir’s administration on graduate outcomes - but it’s just not true that Sudhir is just a theory person. This person founded clpr, he’s worked on several government projects he was on the Kasturirangan committee, he’s worked on urban planning in Bangalore even, and he’s on facebooks oversight board. He may not litigate - but his work as a public policy practitioner is considerable. He doesn’t fit neatly into a box of this or that - academic or practitioner- he’s done multiple things over his career.

But where did the IITD director say that people should learn practice before theory? He said that practical learning should be inculcated in existing classroom teaching. He said that IITD was also inviting alumni from industry. Sudhir then arrogantly dismissed what he said and said shallow version of craft etc. Sudhir has zero clue of engineering and what is taught at IITD. Why did he have to clap back like that?

This is so silly! Sudhir isn’t saying we should only teach theory idiot. He’s saying we should teach first principles before we teach other stuff. If you only chase trends you might as well be doing a certificate course. Clinical courses have improved since Sudhir came to nls. The legal aid cell does real work, there are more research centres on campus and more opportunities for students to get involved in real work, and there are better people applying to teach electives.

Understand that building a good clinical programme doesn’t happen over night. You need to consider the needs and wants of the community you’re trying to serve and build confidence with them which is hard to do when law students come and go and don’t really stick around for the long haul, you need to find someone to head the programme who is already quite established and trustworthy with the target population and that person needs to stick around a long while and be able to successfully guide students through a clinical course.

These things take time. There are more interests involved than just your CV.

And students in universities abroad do plenty of learning first principles and legal theory. No one jumps into practice without knowing the law. What would you even do ? Move paper around ?

"This Director guy" has actually taught at foreign universities, unlike Sudhir. Moreover, his list of top notch peer reviewed publications dwarf a large number of NLSIU faculty combined, including Sudhir. So keep your ridiculous claims to yourself. As for Infosys prize, lol! Since when is that an indicator of merit?

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TBpgZ0Jws&ab_channel=IndiaToday

IITD director: "My students worked on a sensor for a class project and received an award in France for innovation."

NIFT director: "My students designed materials for the G20 Summit"

Sudhir: "Shallow version of craft".

🙄🙄🙄🙄

Sudhir is a Rhodes scholar and was a research fellow at Columbia. This IITD director guy did his BTech, MTech and PhD all from IIT Bombay. So Sudhir has more global exposure and can speak about practices worldwide. Sudhir is also an Infosys Prize winner. So he's much more knowledgeable.

Placements this year have not been very good. Sudhir needs to quizzed on his stand. He was arrogantly mocking the heads of colleges like IIT Delhi (Rangan Banerjee) for emphasising practical education in the classroom, saying NLSIU does not believe in a "shallow version of craft". No doubt NLSIU is very reputed, but so is IITD. Is it blasphemy to suggest that NLSIU can learn from IITD? And what makes Sudhir so superior to Rangan Banerjee, whose bio looks very impressive (BTech from IITB, former faculty at Carnegie Mellon)?

Also, US law schools have large clinical faculties and students are graded on practical projects, so what Sudhir said about top colleges emphasising theoretical principles only is patently false.

Happy to know what NLSIU students think about this. Do you want theoretical education only?

I like your expression "trademark sting". That is the root of the problem. Sudhir has a way of speaking that is unnecessarily cynical and curt. It comes across as very arrogant and alienates people.

It's also a valid point that he is where he is only because MP Singh fast-tracked his career at NUJS and saved him 7 to 10 years of being in a junior rank. Sudhir pretends that he never taught there.

Sudhir does make some valid points, though he could have delivered them more cogently and without his trademark sting! He also did not completely state the argument, and left it to be inferred.

If you remove "Sudhir" from the points made by him, it is apparent that the approach he stated: Inculcating first principles, clinical teaching method, etc., is exactly the USP of NLS from its inception. Someone in this thread rightly pointed that this was not his creation or idea, and that it belonged to Prof Menon. But Prof Menon always stated that it was prevalent abroad and in different disciplines in India (not in law faculties at that time) and that he only borrowed it.

What Sudhir did not call out was that: once the first principles were transmitted in the 1-3 years, the students were allowed to specialize in the 4-5 years. This was the USP of NLS, as this allowed students via the Seminars and Clinical Courses (juxta posed with the internship/placements undertaken in the 3 to 5 years) to actually learn the physical/ground level workings of law. So, the point a lot of folks are making in this thread is addressed.

Guess this is the model across NLU's in India today. While I don't know the exact workings of the course now a days, every college allows students to specialise and intern during their course. So unless the freshly minted International Review Committee, comes up with some novel and path breaking methods, this is the template for the next few years.

P.S. Some things don't change- Sudhir's abhorrence for law firms or corporate jobs is just a legacy issue. It is a fact on record that, Prof Menon was dead against Law Firms or Corporate placements for the students... he sabotaged the 1994 & 1995 batches placements sessions... so much so that he did not permit the 1996 batch to even conduct any placement sessions and they had to rent space at I.I.Sc for conducting their campus placements (hired from 1996 students contributions).

One of the things that annoyed me about the interview is how he says that “we” at NLSIU been teaching like this for 30 years. The dude just joined a few years ago! He should credit Madhava Menon (who he didn’t even mention once), NL Mitra and various professors (ironically, mostly TLC products who never went abroad).

Someone tell Sudhir to watch Oppenheimer. The movie shows how Oppenheimer, initially focused on theory, did not think fission was possible, but he was later proved wrong when his colleagues informed him that scientists in Germany had done so. Similarly, Sudhir should know that only studying Dworkin or Granville Austin will not make you a lawyer —- far from it. You need to know how to draft a constitutional petition, which court to approach, court rules, how to file, how to argue, etc.

This is so true. This is why private skill development courses are thriving while colleges charge so much but fail to produce employable graduates

Can Sudhir take the bottom of the clat ranks and give this foundational training and make people employable? The answer is no. Easy to lecture when you get concentrated talent who will succeed one way or other anyway - irrespective of the education they get

And yet. The nlu model which focuses on teaching first principles and yknow - the law- including yes sociology and history and economics. Has worked. NLS grads have all done well for themselves and found good employment ? Surely if it was such a terrible useless education they would be failing in the workplace ?

He says he doesn’t care about specific industry trends - and that’s honestly a good thing. Chasing excellence is better than chasing trends.

He’s tried very hard to improve clinical education at nls - it’s been better than ever before and certainly better than any other NLU. He’s not opposed to including that stuff - but clearly he thinks teaching craft without teaching the law is gonna make only for very good clerks.

And we should take what he has to say about the best universities seriously considering he’s taught at them/ studied at them, instead of the rantings of undergrads on an anon message board.

Thanks for sharing. I totally disagree with Sudhir. He is ▮▮▮, ignorant ▮▮▮ ▮▮▮ to say “I don’t care“ about practitioners and law firms. He is not from a practice background and has spent his whole life focused on constitutional theory. He lives in an academic ivory tower. That apart, he must also understand that only a tiny minority of law grads want to go into academia. The majority want to practice and law schools need to train students to be industry-ready. Law schools need to be like B schools. In fact, I even think courses like sociology, history and jurisprudence should be made optional.

Lastly, his insistence that the best universities in the world don’t focus on skill development is disingenuous. Surely he isn’t referring to medicine, architecture, accountancy, engineering and computer science? If he means law, there is a lot of emphasis on clinical education in US law schools. If he is referring to the 3 year LLB in the UK, he is right to an extent, but then you need to undergo further training as a barrister or a solicitor for 2 more years. The vast majority of British university graduates opt for this. Thus, the study of law in the UK is essentially 3 years of theory + 2 years of vocational training.

Sorry, Sudhir: A BIG FAIL.

👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TBpgZ0Jws&ab_channel=IndiaToday

Has anyone watched this?

For nearly 18 minutes everyone else goes on about skill building and online education and industry focussed and let's do away with books and ancient India and yoga and god knows what. Sudhir comes in to say " This conversation is confused" " We don't need a shallow version of craft" "Best universities in the world teach foundational first principles".

the man doesnt shy away from just disagreeing with everyone eh?