Some questions based on this article, from my perspective as an assistant prof at a small, private, law school in the South:
1) How bad is the regulation by the Bar Council of India (BCI), and is poor regulation the primary reason behind the prevalence of low-quality law schools in India? Or is it merely that the majority of students in smaller, lesser-known law schools lack a specific interest in law, enrolling primarily for the ease of obtaining a graduation degree, often a minimum requirement for many government jobs? So who is really to blame for the poor quality of indian law schools, the BCI or the students who have no interest in holding their institutions and professors to account.
2) Is the call for increased emphasis on 'research' in law schools, beyond Tier 1 NLUs, JGLS necessary? Considering that a vast majority of law school students aspire to work as in-house lawyers, practice as litigators, or join the government as civil servants, how beneficial is it to impose extensive 'research' requirements on these students? Furthermore, in my experience, 'research' at most law schools in India is little more than copying from already published articles on the topic and paraphrasing using chatgpt.
Why I believe more research must be conducted by Tier 1 NLUs, JGLS, etc is solely because of necessity; I do believe that legal research is important, and thus, some law schools have to carry it out. So, why not promote it primarily in the best law schools to maximize the efficiency of legal education as a whole?
PS: I am not implying that students from non-Tier 1 law schools cannot conduct valuable research; they most certainly can. What I am questioning is the productivity of spending money to sponsor research in those NLUs when better results can likely be achieved elsewhere. Of course, the argument of dispersing funds and therefore academic quality is valid, as most states would want their NLUs to provide good opportunities for their students.
So you are basically saying that smaller law schools and their students are just a waste of space and blaming them for the poor quality of legal education in India, before butting an afterthoughtish "PS" paragraph. You are totally ignoring the systemic issues and blaming it all on students while excusing "assistant professors" such as yourself from any responsibility. Maybe it is because of your attitude that no student doing good research ever comes to you.
Research is essential everywhere, not just in the law fancy schools. Your attitude is infuriating and totally unfair.
BTW some gems of the BCI whom you have absolved of wrongdoing:
I read the article and it does shows us the ground reality . However, the target is not the quality of professors and students but the keen interest of a university, organisation and institution to promote research in law, to have emphasis on knowledge and research and thinking beyond the written books and texts available and not just emphasising on the degree.
The article in questions: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/an-intervention-that-will-help-strengthen-legal-education/article67850437.ece
Some questions based on this article, from my perspective as an assistant prof at a small, private, law school in the South:
1) How bad is the regulation by the Bar Council of India (BCI), and is poor regulation the primary reason behind the prevalence of low-quality law schools in India? Or is it merely that the majority of students in smaller, lesser-known law schools lack a specific interest in law, enrolling primarily for the ease of obtaining a graduation degree, often a minimum requirement for many government jobs? So who is really to blame for the poor quality of indian law schools, the BCI or the students who have no interest in holding their institutions and professors to account.
2) Is the call for increased emphasis on 'research' in law schools, beyond Tier 1 NLUs, JGLS necessary? Considering that a vast majority of law school students aspire to work as in-house lawyers, practice as litigators, or join the government as civil servants, how beneficial is it to impose extensive 'research' requirements on these students? Furthermore, in my experience, 'research' at most law schools in India is little more than copying from already published articles on the topic and paraphrasing using chatgpt.
Why I believe more research must be conducted by Tier 1 NLUs, JGLS, etc is solely because of necessity; I do believe that legal research is important, and thus, some law schools have to carry it out. So, why not promote it primarily in the best law schools to maximize the efficiency of legal education as a whole?
PS: I am not implying that students from non-Tier 1 law schools cannot conduct valuable research; they most certainly can. What I am questioning is the productivity of spending money to sponsor research in those NLUs when better results can likely be achieved elsewhere. Of course, the argument of dispersing funds and therefore academic quality is valid, as most states would want their NLUs to provide good opportunities for their students.
Research is essential everywhere, not just in the law fancy schools. Your attitude is infuriating and totally unfair.
BTW some gems of the BCI whom you have absolved of wrongdoing:
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/oS1IH3Hf1bc5dSMmD4fYVP/Bribery-case-exposes-the-rot-in-legal-education.html Written by our very own Kian
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/trial-under-corruption-act-147759
https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/bci-corruption-cbi-court-sentences-bci-s-rana-raj-dey-to-5-years-jail-for-taking-bribe-to-accredit-law-school-20160718-7847
Please educate yourself
A well written article by Dr. Ranjan.!