Someone told me about this thread so had to post. First of all, this video was not to be shared in public and whoever did it is wrong. Secondly, although I am not defending the students, the situation is even worse in other NLUs. I am told in one top NLU a student was watching porn on his laptop openly.

It measures nothing. Just like these students are also getting attendance without any of the "consistent effort or discipline". Malpractice is to force people to sit through classes if you cannot prove that students who don't attend classes don't learn. Which has to be proven through your evaluation.

Nope. No such bargain involved. Me going to the meeting is because I have taken money to go there. Nobody owes me a degree. Stop me through your evaluation, not by these illogical arguments. I claim that I am learning enough. Prove otherwise. Working hard does not mean only attending classes that don't appeal to me. I can learn on my own and beat your evaluation. Prove otherwise.

The person you're replying to is making a different point though. Just because you bothered to educate yourself at an earlier stage in life does not mean that you do not have to put in the effort to reach to the students now. You have all this knowledge, great. You know need to be a good communicator to get the students' interest and not be boring. If you're going to equate "don't be boring" with "be an entertainer", that's just you trying to cover up for your lack of effort. A teacher's job does not end with educating themselves - that's the bare minimum. It has to go further.

Very similar comments were also made in a thread about Jindal teachers. Yes, teachers are not entertainers. But that's a strawman.

Lawyers too are supposed to grab attention and interest of judges to get a favourable order. If they can't hold the attention, they lose. Especially post-lunch. Does this mean lawyers who put in the effort are clowns - or, as you put it, having the production values of Netflix?

Of course not. They have soft skills beyond raw knowledge of law. Anyone can have the raw knowledge. Teaching is more than that. As someone else here also pointed out, you can teach easily to the bright students. That's bland. It takes extra effort to get to the ones who don't see much point in why you're speaking - the tough students. (Of course, this is not to mean that inability to get to every last student is a failure of the teacher - no, there are some students who are just not serious at all.) But to say that merely because someone is finding the teacher to be dull, but is otherwise able to grasp everything through other sources is a bad learner.

You brought up Jindal too. Personally, I don't see how they are doing any worse than the students from any other decent law school. If the unemployability point is from a law firm POV, then surely you too must agree that being employed at a law firm is not the only possible end goal for a student (or the intended outcome of legal education).

Besides all of this, you appear to be missing another point that the OP appears to be making - according to the metrics available to them, they are doing just fine. If your argument is that by paying attention in class they learn something, but those aspects do not reflect accordingly in the grades, why so? Does this not mean your assessment is skewed then?

Lastly, your point that if the classes are dull then it is upon the students to elevate it is just wrong. Students are not running the show. The best they can do is try to participate. But if your classes are just bland monologues, there's not much the students can do. Again, no, no one is asking you to become Netflix or make your lectures into InstagramReels-sized bits. But do something!

There are two things a teacher NEEDS to do in such a situation:

1. Communicate in an effective way to the students WHY it is important to pay attention. Not just by saying the words, but possibly be demonstrating to them. Make them want to learn the subject. Evoke in them the passion to learn your subject.

2. Communicate the lecture effectively, so as to not cause them to fall asleep. Of course, this is not possible for ALL the topics, but if 80% of your lectures are interesting, the students will follow you for the 20% bit.

PS: I'm a faculty myself. I know the problems of a class consisting of disrespectful students who are there just to spend their parents' money. But that does not mean the fault always is entirely with the students.

PPS: Typed in a hurry, excuse any typos.

This assumes hormone riddled 17 year olds are capable of understanding what a rational decision if it slapped them in the face. Its not just disrespectful to the prof- its disrespectful to other students. Its disrespectful to the common endeavor we all take part in in the classroom. Would you go to a meeting at work and sleep through it? No? Why is that behavior then acceptable in the classroom?

Honestly if I were this teacher I would kick all of those kids out.
You are assuming that students are consumers at an ala carte educational system. They can take and leave whatever bit of it they want. Attend the classes they want and sleep through the ones they dont if they dont find it suits their particular taste. Students are not consumers, they are not owed a degree. They are not even owed knowledge. Students pay for the opportunity to learn. that is all. They are members of an academic community. When one person disrupts the class- they steal an opportunity to learn from other students. Classrooms are supposed to be spaces where all students and teachers come together to learn from each other. When students come in and sleep- they are doing a disservice to their fellow students and their teachers. They are failing to hold up their end of the bargain- its the same thing as if a teacher came in unprepared and disinterested. The educational project is not one where knowledge is deposited from one person to another- Its a collaborative project where two people work together to produce something there was not before. When students dont put in the work- they ensure the project fails.

Mandatory attendance is as much about the BCI and standards for legal education. Most teachers I know would rather not have uninterested people in the classroom. Its incredibly dispiriting to keep trying to teach kids who have turned their ears and brains off. If you want a law degree- the BCI wants to make sure you have worked this hard at your legal education- thats fair considering the work that lawyers do.

They dont just have knowledge in their head- they know it because they bothered to educate themselves. This is the real world. No one can teach you contract law through video games and no one can incept you with constitutional law. As long as the teacher is showing up, behaving professionally, covering the syllabus, and allowing for questions and answers- the teacher is doing their job. No teaching contract in the world mandates that the teacher meet every individual students taste for entertaining. They ARE doing their job. You are not doing yours. expectations from you- really the only expectations from you as a student- is to show up, ready to learn, behave professionally, and do your work.

This is so ridiculous. If the university could not affirm that you had attended 75% of their classes at least- the degrees the university hands out would not be accredited by the BCI which would make you ineligible to write the bar exam. If you or anyone else is not acting within the letter and spirit of that policy- then I'm afraid its academic malpractice.

If I had a heart problem- I would not go to a doctor who could not attend 75% of his classes. And If I had a serious legal problem- I would not go to a lawyers who could not attend 75% of his classes.

Attendance is a poor measure- but the answer to that is not to throw it all away- it does measure something. It measures consistent effort and discipline. You retain stuff youve learned better if you learn it over four months as opposed to if you memorise it in one day. This is true for every discipline. Attendance records stand in for that measure of effort and discipline and thoroughness.

I mean Ive been in higher education for something like ten years now. Things have gone beyond the pale. There used to be a sense of propriety in how one behaved at the university, a certain maturity in college students, and some focus. All of that is gone and we have become completely consumerist. It is not enough for law professors to know the law, work hard, and communicate the information. They now have to be entertaining and no one I know is more entertaining than netflix/ insta reels. The constant talk about "mental health" the accomodation for which is always extensions and free grades rather than actually improving capability- is at this unprecedented level. Largely students today do not think they belong to an academic community where they have to do their best. They think in purely consumerist terms where the university exists to cater to them and they dont owe anyone anything.

A good teacher accepts the challenge and evolves accordingly. Gurukul's methodology did not work for them when they had been students, so why should they expect that the methodology that had been used to teach them would work for their students? I speak as a faculty member who does try to adapt to meet these new challenges. Teaching excellent and attentive students is a pleasure no doubt, but helping students learn when they are not even sure that they want to is far more satisfactory.

This is why it’s so hard to be a professor for Gen Z students. This is a generation addicted to Instagram, TikTok and Netflix. Their attention span is very small and they cannot concentrate. They don’t read books and struggle to get basic reading done. On top of that they have serious attitude problems: they except the world to cater to their whims and raise a tantrum if they don’t get their way. Miminum work, maximum woke.

no you're teachers don't actually need to do anything at all. Its pretty great that they have all that knowledge in their head, just sitting there. I mean its not like they actually have to put efforts into their job or anythig, those standards only apply when you selectively choose it to apply on certain folks but not others

That's kind of the take off that have you when it comes to mandatory attendance, ultimately students are stakeholders in the system and they have to make the decisions that are best for them, even if it means deviating from what it means for you, a random stranger on the internet who would never have to interact with them.

If students find a better trade off in falling asleep in a class than listening to a prof, then that shouldn't have to be justified to anyone else.

If your worry is that it is disrespectful to the prof, then that very concept is eroded when the value you attach to the class is dependent only on your attendance, which happens to be pretty common when you impose mandatory attendance.

in all fairness, that is in a way also ... a way of dealing with the consequences.

So as long as they manage their stuff, in whatever they way they chose to , and as long as it isn't affecting you in any manner, Why bother?

live and let live, they're literally at the end of the day 20 somethings who are only now dealing with life, and in whatever choices they make, the good and the bad, they learn from it.

P.s students threating to harm themselves is a miniscule portion which agreed is bs, students trying to butter profs is a phenomenon common since time immemorial and I've seen students struggle with their mental health and then perform pretty well once they start getting better. I might sometimes just be beneficial to take mental health claims seriously.

No. UGC said that all assistant professors should have NET, permanent or contractual. I don't care about that rule at all. Only mentioned it because you were being anal about following rules. If the admin can flout theirs, why can't I? Let the admin test me on my knowledge and fail me if they can.

Attendance is no measure of learning. You want to use alternate methods other than grades, feel free. I bet I won't have to attend classes to clear those either. Most of these classes and the teachers are sham. One doesn't miss anything whatsoever that one can't learn at a fraction of the time on their own.

Its fraud because the university and the bar council dont just give you a "he cleared all the exams" degree. They give you a degree stating youve met expectations for a student at the university including attendance. Youre committing academic malpractice. Memorising crap two days before the exam regurgitating it on an answer script is not educating yourself.

Teachers are not entertainers. They dont have the production values of netflix. They are not in the project of entertaining. They are in the project of educating. Heres a big secret- the teacher already knows the law. They dont actually need to do anything at all- going to the best law school in the country- its kind of your responsibility to invest your time into your own education.

Grades are one measure of learning. Over time they have set easier and easier question papers and if things continue this way- you will have a high GPA- but you will not be employable- go ask jindal students how these antics worked out for them. Any university/ any degree is only worth how much each students invests into it. You think youre rebelling and hurting other people. Youre just hurting yourself.

Hes hired visiting professors who dont have NET- but that is permissible by the UGC. Everyone else hired on a permanent position has cleared UGC NET. This is such a strange thing to hang your hat on cause UGC net is such a random exam it convinces me youre a first year who has no idea at all. I'm done with this conversation.

I don't believe 'wrong' stuff. If the teachers cannot retain the attention of the students in class, then they need to revisit their teaching methodology and pedagogy. I do pay attention when the class is interesting. And allow my attention to drift when it is not. It has not harmed my grades so far at all, which goes to show the sorry state of connection between what the teachers teach and what they test for at NLS as well as at other places.

Oof. You believe wrong stuff. If you think you have nothing to learn - that spending time by yourself watching Netflix is the best use of your time - you can actually do that. Just not at nls- this university has to maintain standards and decide when students have earned their degree. The university has every right to expect a standard of behaviour in its classrooms. The bar council has every right to expect that students will attend a certain number of classes. You’re being fraudulent not following those rules in letter and spirit. It’s fraud.

If you want an education where no one is holding you accountable or expecting you to attend class- do some IGNOU open schooling stuff. Or GLC even.

You don’t get to enter an institution knowing it’s rules and then defraud them and then claim they’re the facists.

I believe that spending time on my own is better for my education. I'm sitting in class because you won't let me sit for the exam otherwise. Once again, why don't you hold me back using your evaluation? Prove how much value addition your classes are providing? Or are you afraid that I would clear it without having to go through your classes and hence prove your redundancy?

No one is asking you to fill yourself down by studying all the time. They’re telling you to not sleep and watch Netflix in class. In class. It’s five hours a day. If you can’t give that much time and attention to your education you don’t want to be in college - you want to be in a five year vacation.

If you don’t do the work. If you don’t behave like an adult- then you get the consequences. That’s not fascism- it’s just the world being different than you’d like. Class time is learning time - If the class is boring elevate the class- that’s what good students do. Bad students let it become an excuse to slack off. There is a world of difference between passing exams and actually knowing the subject. What kind of lawyer do you want to be ? Why won’t you invest more energy into your own education?

I mean - if you’ve attended you’re there. If you’ve not attended you’re not there. There are answer keys to examinations , you can check to see why your competition got hired but if you’re the best one for the job - that shit is obvious. Discrimination still exists - as do standards.

I agree. Not all students are so lazy and insincere. In the video itself, you can see a serious student in the sweatshirt and wearing glasses (he is a CLAT topper, in fact). The student is clearly trying to concentrate, but is being disturbed/bullied by one of the non-serious students.

However, there does need to be disciplinary action against the non-serious students. Sleeping, watching movies etc should mean deduction of attendance plus a warning. A repeat of the offence should attract different types of penalties. These can be punitive (suspension, ban from internships etc) to reformative (like volunteer work during college activities or helping campus workers).

I'm in NLSIU. I don't think there's a fall in standards. This is just sample bias. There are lots of hardworking students who care about their education, but obvi you won't see them on the internet. The most unbothered students generally do this and end up posting it. And no, it's not the teacher's fault. Other students pay attention. And yes, the system works. This stuff usually backfires on their grades and education.

Absolutely. Teachers who can't get the students to focus during classes are no good. Most of NLS old teachers did not know anything or else were hopelessly outdated, nor did they move on from 19th Century pedagogy that's useless to teach 21st Century students. Sudhir is now wisely hiring some amazing people in whose classes students turn up even without attendance enforcement and who command the highest respect from the students without having to lay down discipline according to medieval standards.

Haha. No . You dont find students sleeping in classes at harvard, oxford, any of the ivies- they would get shamed out of there. Dont normalise crappy behavior because you cannot be bothered to do better. If you think class time is just for attendance and not for learning and engaging with peers and instructors- you are saying something about the standard of the place.