Everyone knows how the syllabus is. Who asked you to spend the money on a particular law school. If you want a certification program on corporate law, go spend on that. This is like going to a fine dining restaurant and complaining because you want to eat there but you want dhaba food. You can you paid so much and you want the taste of the dhaba but the answer in that case is to go to the dhaba. Education is even more complicated and obviously beyond your understanding.

When most people are joining law schools to become corporate lawyers, the syllabus needs to reflect the same. Courses having relevance in the market is literally the best argument, otherwise why would anyone pour in 20+ lakhs and 5 years of their life? Sorry, but most people are not privileged enough to completely overlook the return of investment.

You should feel free to give all your time and energy to making the institution that you think will be so wonderful. Other people are not obligated to carry out your agenda. It's a free country. You do you. And don't feel like you need to go to these horrible socialist law schools. If the model you propose is the best way of doing things, someone in this big country must be running things the way you say. Vote with your feet.

A law school is not made to make you a corporate lawyer. Courses having relevance in market is not a good enough argument. The college needs to be neutral to be useful for everyone, academics, litigators, teachers and also corp lawyers. Saying jurisprudence and similar courses are irrelevant is the shittiest take I've ever heard. Corp law is barely law, you can learn it on the job in 3-4 months, what hard is the business and financial aspect of it which comes only with experience and not theory.

Whoops, that adjective just goes to describe all the politicians including your beloved BJP people. Or didn't you hear all the promises made by them during the elections, or realise that they including the head honcho are living a king sized life with public money? Now that's what is called freeloading.

Your field trip comment is interesting and raised another important issue. These field trips to courts, police stations etc by human rights profs are a complete sham. Nothing useful is learnt. Just some low-level officers talking a lot of crap. The time will be better spent organising lectures by law firms practitioners, or arranging trips to companies to see how their business works, or simply giving free time to the students.

Almost everyone in India is economically left of centre; it is only social issues over which we fight. Plenty of these old-school 'socialists' are socially conservative, thus you get the worst of both worlds. In my tier-one law school, human rights was recently made mandatory, but the course sucked not because of the reasons you mentioned but because the teachers themselves taught it in a completely incompetent manner, with no regards for the ground reality. They took us out for a 'field trip', but it was all sham.

I totally agree with #3, we need more courses on corporate law subjects, especially when most of us are looking for law firm jobs. 'Anti-law firm attitude' is sort of present in all the professors, except the ones who teach corporate courses.

[Note]: I initially thought of using the term "Left" instead of "socialists", but the latter is broader and more accurate. My criticism is not just directed against the likes of Upendra Baxi, Amita Dhanda and BS Chimni, but also Madhava Menon, MP Singh and Ishwar Bhat. These people are economically socialist but not Left in the traditional sense. For example, Menon and Singh are social conservatives (Menon certainly) and Bhat is hardcore RSS.

1. Insistence of making courses like Gender and Law, Sociology, Law & Development, Jurisprudence and Human Rights compulsory. Then foisting LW profs and curriculum on the students. These courses have no relevance in the market --- certainly not with the curriculum that is taught.

2. Under emphasis on clinical legal education and overemphasis on legal theory (encapsulated by Sudhir Krishnaswamy dismissing the IIT Delhi director's view at the India Today conclave).

3. Overemphasis on public law and underemphasis on commercial law. Why is Public International Law compulsory and why 2 courses each on Labour Law and Family Law? Why not take Company Law 3 courses, Indirect Taxes 2 courses and Insurance Law compulsory?

4. BS argument that lawyers are social engineers and so law schools must charge low fees. Even as IIMs charge a lot more and law schools abroad are very expensive. Low fees = low revenue = no money to spend on infra or hire good profs.

5. By supporting reservation and also taking additional affirmative action measures

6. Anti-law firm attitude

7. General lack of space to centre-right economic ideology.