On the short point of DOMS vs. LLB, I honestly don't think the law students have any right to throw shade on the management kids. In my limited interaction with them in the last 1-2 years, I've found the DOMS kids full of energy and enthusiasm to do things. On the other hand, there is a sense of entitlement in LLB kids that just keeps increasing unabated. In terms of their attitude towards learning and open mindedness, I'd prefer DOMS over LLB anyday.

Also, to all the LLB kids crying about DOMS, would you rather have a batch size of 300+ kids? I don't think you realise the kind of impact it would have on your placements. Stop whining, and see what you can learn from others.

'Abroad' isn't one place. Idk which country you are thinking of but most major universities have at least one year's residency requirement and recommend full time for the rest of the PhD. It's just that the Indian you know aren't willing to give up their income so they choose to do part time. It is not a smart choice. You get more out of full time.

Before calling out someone else. Check your naivety first and your facts as well.

In India, Part time PhD is only for people with an employment and a NOC from their employer, and it's clearly mentioned in the university website that it's a part time PhD. Full time PhD means no employment except TA or RA within the university. Also, most may be allowed to be asst. Prof if allowed by the university. The list of both part-time & fulltime is submitted to UGC. The reason why is primarily because part time PhDs are not entitled to stipend. Full time PhDs have a right to stipend especially from the university if they're not JRF qualified. That's why JNU pays 8k per month, whereas Tezpur University pays 40k, only to full-time PhDs.

Abroad, every PhD is a part time PhD, including online PhDs, which are not acceptable in India.

Not in NALSAR per my experience. I know at one point we had about 60 people enrolled. This is mid to late 2010s. And I don’t know if any one of them was full time. The last one I remember being full time is Payala Narayan (spelling could be very wrong, but those who know will know). And this was way back. A couple of years before him we had that Haryanvi dude - Saangu bhaiya. And Nigam/Nikam. Maybe there was one other guy after this lot, was in the Air and Space thingie. Never spoke with him. So not sure on the name.

Anyhow, not many people did full time PhDs. Not many do even today.

PS: the 6/7 odd people who did integrated LLM-PhD were definitely full time. And financially supported well by the institution. Sorry, forgot about them. In my head it was a separate program.

Oh I completely agree with you. I was talking about today's situation. Back in 2013- Sid C could have easily taught it. His political obligations and interpretation of statutes electives did cover many important jurists anyway. Manav did the legal theory llm at NYU- he could have taught it. Ajey could definitely have taught it. They made these guys teach contracts or something iirc. It was embarrassing. I think it was just the powers that be being territorial and not trusting younger faculty even when there was a desperate need.

The legal methods module is supposed to be some ersatz jurisprudence course but it really does a poor job at both teaching jurisprudence and at teaching methods. So you have second year students who cannot accurately tell you the ratio of olga tellis or what a grundnorm or core and penumbra mean. The course clearly had an ideological bent and did a disservice to positivist scholarship because of the teachers beliefs. I got a D in the course and I still came away believing ridiculous things about positivists and even more ridiculous things about natural law theories.

But what compounds that error is the failure through the years to not offer the jurisprudence course consistently enough by someone who isnt an idealogue, just a scholar.

SC's classes were the first time i had a not-lopsided fair representation of positivism - because we actually read HLA Hart and Joseph Raz. Overnight I changed my POV and his course saved me from the ignorance and knowledge bubble created by more left wing professors on campus who do not want to actually engage deeply with their opponents.

Rights talk is getting crazy in law school where anything anyone wants is a "right" . as if the government/ university/ increase authority here is some santa claus that exists to fulfil wishes instead of yknow- a people created institution that has to balance rights of several stakeholders who disagree. All of this can be headed off with basic jurisprudence course.

DOMS brings in the money which is used by the so called entitled lot to participate in moot courts and have useless events. Grow up and stop demanding. If anyone is worth anything, it is the IPM students who pay almost double the fees and get less than half of what they rightfully deserve.

They had many at the time Jurisprudence was done away with. Of the top of my head - Sid Chu (who had just joined and did not have any other course set for him), Manav Kapur (now finishing his PhD at Princeton), Anshuman Shukla (now at Jindal, previously did LLM at Cambridge), Ajey Sangai (now doing PhD at McGill), Jagteshwar Sohi (now doing PhD at Osgoode Hall), and Ashwini Kumar (wasted at NALSAR teaching CPC).

All 6 of them were theory people who were at NALSAR at the same time between 2011 and 2015. Plus, Dhanda was still years away from retiring. Had FM put in half the effort to retain these people as he did for his YT efforts of educating India, NALSAR could have moved into 2020s with a large concentration of people solid in theory who could cover multiple other subjects.

Between them this lot taught English, Legal Methods, Constitution, International Law, Law & Poverty, Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Property Law, and Civil Procedure. That’s 9 different core courses. They all ran a variety of other electives and seminars. FM let each and everyone of them go.

A new issue has emerged at NALSAR related to hostel accommodation. Recently, students protested and secured an assurance from SKDR that no 4th or 5th-year student shall be asked to move into a double occupancy hostel room; they will be provided single occupancy rooms only. Additionally, SKDR promised that NALSAR will construct new and improved hostels for junior students and will allocate BH4 to only 4th and 5th years on a single occupancy basis. However, it has now come to light that NALSAR has not made any concrete plans to fulfill these promises. The administration has only planned to acquire more land, which, as we all know, will take 2 to 3 years at a minimum for land acquisition and hostel construction, contradicting SKDR’s assurances.

Additionally, there was a plan to convert SHs 1, 2, and 3 into classrooms, but this has encountered controversy as DOMS students oppose it for reasons best known to them.

This has led to a significant amount of strife on campus and has created a Law vs Management scenario. Many law students are now expressing opposition to including DOMS students in the SBA and other decision-making bodies. They fear that DOMS students, particularly the current 2nd-year IPM students, will use their committee positions to block law students' initiatives.

What do you all think about these developments?