I recently came across a post inquiring about the top professors at NUJS. Given the consensus that NLSIU has recruited some exceptional faculty in recent times, it begs the question: who is the best professor at NLSIU currently, and why?
Simply not true. I liked his classroom teaching a lot. He’s not everyone’s cup of tea and if you don’t prepare you will get death glares- but that doesn’t mean “he’s never been a good classroom teacher ever”
Mrinal has everything that I look for in a prof. Extensive knowledge (both academic and field) which is explained in a nice methodical manner, and most importantly patience to deal with all sorts of questions. 10/10
Most of the time anyone who's from one of the ivies or t5 of uk are very good and have reasonable expectations,p
one of the best I think for legal is Nigam Nuggehalli, Salmoli chaudhury is pretty good too currently crim is being taught by both Radhika and Anupama both have been excellent, Atreyee Majumder is one of the profs who taugh
Sad that you forgot Professor Harsha, he is the best at teaching Contracts and helps everyone gain a good conceptual understanding of the subject by connecting it to practical examples. It is literally a blessing to sit in his class. NLS is blessed to have him.
Professor Harsha is the GOAT. Nobody can teach the fundamentals of Contracts better than him. Most of us are thankful to have the chance to sit in his class.
Take it easy my southside bro, no need to stress it twice. But you are right tho, my eastside bro and westside bro have made a grave mistake by leaving the GOAT bro out of the conversation. Glad you were there to save the day.
Little kids who haven't even completed their studies judging people with a LLB, LLM, PhD, Post Doc, NET & years of experience in practice and research. The naivety of this thread is ridiculous.
Almost every faculty member at NLSIU is distinguished in his/her own way. Even those recently joined are very carefully selected and taken on board. See the research profile, nobody less than other, of course depending on age and experience. No Indian law school (probably except Jindal and to some extent Delhi University) is anywhere close to NLS faculty.
Such a thread could be useful for NUJS or NALSAR or NLUD or other places where few people are great and many mediocre.
Sudhir probably cares the most about how class goes. Its not just a job to him- if class goes badly it affects him in a way I dont think it does for other profs.
But I have a soft spot for Nigam. He's very knowledgeable and extremely easy to listen to and he manages to give grace to eberyone and generally treat people as if he has affection for them. Love.
He never cares about what the students who need the class the most ends up learning. He pitches the class at a certain level and doesn't bother about those who may not be able to cope at that level. That may be the hallmark of a superior scholar, I won't know. However, that's not really the features of a good teacher.
youre assuming that lack of preparedness is about someone not being smart enough or not being sophisticated enough. Lack of preparedness is just that- you didnt do the reading. Its just investing time. Now if you dont do the reading- its not really incumbent on the professor to change how he teaches for you- if he does that- he will dumb down the class and take away incentive to hard work for other students and generally accomplish a lot less.
Help is not always someone doing what you want. Good teaching is not always just having the most fun lectures and activities. If you only went to doctors who gave you candy- youd just get diabetes. A good professors job is to hold his students accountable and to incentivise them to do the work and to allow them the opportunity to- after leaving his classroom- be able to talk to any scholar/ judge/ lawyer in the world knowledgeably about the subject.
In my experience, if you read the reading- and have a paragraph or a point you werent clear about- and you ask that as a question in class, Sudhir is quite happy really with that sort of engagement. If you dont want to do any work- yeah hes not the guy for you.
My experience with him is different and you are the one making these assumptions, not me. He has always shown a remarkably arrogant display when asked questions. He is not approachable enough as a teacher. He prefers to generate an aura of fear and awe, which is not what a good teacher should do. Never said that one needs to make lectures 'fun', but if you have your say in class and the students don't understand you, then you have failed in your job.
Well, what you see as arrogance I see as - just him not needing validation from me. That’s fine- I’m there to learn, I’m the student.
I don’t particularly care that he’s not approachable. I have friends. I don’t need him to be my buddy. I don’t need to cry to him about my break up or my problems. I need him to care that I learn his subject. He clearly does care that I learn what he’s teaching because he has exacting standards.
It would be creepy for him to try to be my friend or confidante. That’s not his job.
If students don’t understand someone because they zoned out or didn’t pay attention or didn’t do the reading - I mean it’s ridiculous to evaluate professors by what their worst students are able to get. It’s not actually the professors job to download information to your brain- it’s his job to guide you through that stuff yourself. You’re gonna have to read and think for yourself. That’s why we have universities. It’s not school.
You Sudhir fans start attacking people anytime they dare to make a criticism about him. Your assumption is that anyone who is not understanding what he is saying is someone who does not work hard. Which is as flawed an assumption as it gets. If you are claiming that all students of Sudhir talk knowledgeably about the subjects that he teaches, that's laughable. His teaching suits some students, it does not others. The former are not the only ones worth teaching, the latter are not all lazy entitled people. He has always lacked empathy for people around him unless they are his personal favourites. It's a trait that he carries into the classroom. If someone questions him on his knowledge of many streams of law, he will be found to be shockingly inadequate. Does that mean he is a bad scholar? No. So why does every single undergraduate student in his class have to end up as a constitutional law or jurisprudence specialist for him to accord basic respect to them? Good teachers make their subject seem interesting (assuming students make basic efforts on their part), but they also are able to explain concepts lucidly enough for non-experts to understand it, as well as accommodating patiently people who need extra help in that regard. Sudhir as a classroom teacher fails in that regard. Several examples of the kind of good teacher that I am talking about exist in Law School itself now. Mrinal, Saurabh, Rahul are all teachers of that calibre. Sudhir simply is not.
Ok I’m gonna ignore all the words you’re putting in my mouth and simply restate - if you do the reading- his classes aren’t nearly that bad at all. I’ve done both and I’ve felt the difference.
I don’t need empathy or sympathy or a crying shoulder from my VC. What a creepy thing it would be. It would be unprofessional for the VC or any faculty to not maintain professional distance from students. I don’t need them to buy my excuses and think “ oh poor you - will an O make it better ?” I need them to watch over me and make sure I leave law school more educated than I came in.
I know I was better able to have conversations with others about the law after his courses than before them.
If you don’t want to study consti - don’t. But the flip side of that is - the consti prof won’t be fond of you. You won’t be his favourite . That’s okay. What about that is unfair ? Why should a professor be pally with students who aren’t even interested in what he’s spent his life doing ?
Other students get this. They don’t care about corp- they’re not surprised when they get bad grades or the corp folks don’t love them. That’s just life.
He is absolutely at liberty to judge you based on how you performed or behaved in his classroom- it’s literally his job to evaluate you and your work. If you prove yourself to be a stellar private law person who has an amazing career - he can reverse that evaluation - he’s a person- he’s entitled to all of that. It is not a moral failing. It’s just being a person.
He had good grades in all his subjects as a student - he needed to be at the top to get Rhodes or Oxford. Academia is a hard nut to crack without the top gpa.he just expects from his students the discipline he follows himself. The guy runs marathons. It’s okay to fall short - but it’s not a moral failing that he holds people up to a high standard. I didn’t want to be a rhodie- I don’t run marathons- he might think me indisciplined- that’s fine- why should I care ?
I have fallen short of his expectations many times - he made a face - I shrugged it off and moved on. The next class I read and came - he made a different face - still didn’t matter really cause I was reading for me. Just because he wasn’t some surrogate daddy figure or because he wasn’t in love with every student didn’t mean I didn’t learn stuff in his class.
I’m sorry you want his approval this much but don’t want to earn it or maybe you just aren’t able to. That’s just life though.
I know what empathy means. I disagree with you on whether it is useful or even helpful to students in a university setting. I think students would be a lot better off if fewer professors projected their nonsense onto them and cried with them and tried to be friends and "cool young adult" and or the inverse- projected their nonsense onto them and do things based on emotion and showed favoritism for no reason other than feeling sorry for someone or relating to particular students.
Students are not babies in diapers who need to be consoled. And even if they did need some "parental guidance" they are hardly at the stage of development where pure empathy would do the job. The job of a university professor is in part to teach that in the professional world- no one wants to be your mommy or daddy- they just want to do their work and get on with it.
17- 18 year olds are not 10 year olds. When a 10 year old tells you he messed up- you can be a little indulgent and treat him kindly and teach him right from wrong and give him a hug. When that same kid is messing up at 18- you know that something has gone wrong in the intervening 8 years. With a more developed brain, the young adult is supposed to be able to think carefully about short-term v long long-term interests, plan his time, and think about the consequences of his actions on other people. Excusing and indulging him then is telling him there are no consequences to his actions. the compassionate, good parent thing to do is to hold him accountable. It will make him a better adult.
You dont read and prepare for class- you will get less out of it than those who do. You cheat in examinations- you will face consequences, you half ass an assignment or a paper- you will get poor grades. Tell me why that is unfair? What exactly prevents any student from being able to do those things? Does that not teach students precisely the kind of professionalism that will be expected from them at work? does that not actually put students' long-term interests in learning the law well and to a high standard over the professors need to be immediately popular?
Kunal Ambasta is the best professor at NLSIU. Evidence Law with him was surreal, and he also is very knowledgeable in criminal law. Sahana Ramesh for ADR is also very good, she has in-depth knowledge in arbitration and a very good pedagogy.
What is right wing tort law or banking law?
It doesn't fucking matter.
one of the best I think for legal is Nigam Nuggehalli, Salmoli chaudhury is pretty good too currently crim is being taught by both Radhika and Anupama both have been excellent, Atreyee Majumder is one of the profs who taugh
Such a thread could be useful for NUJS or NALSAR or NLUD or other places where few people are great and many mediocre.
Such a thread not needed for NLS Bangalore.
But I have a soft spot for Nigam. He's very knowledgeable and extremely easy to listen to and he manages to give grace to eberyone and generally treat people as if he has affection for them. Love.
Help is not always someone doing what you want. Good teaching is not always just having the most fun lectures and activities. If you only went to doctors who gave you candy- youd just get diabetes. A good professors job is to hold his students accountable and to incentivise them to do the work and to allow them the opportunity to- after leaving his classroom- be able to talk to any scholar/ judge/ lawyer in the world knowledgeably about the subject.
In my experience, if you read the reading- and have a paragraph or a point you werent clear about- and you ask that as a question in class, Sudhir is quite happy really with that sort of engagement. If you dont want to do any work- yeah hes not the guy for you.
I don’t particularly care that he’s not approachable. I have friends. I don’t need him to be my buddy. I don’t need to cry to him about my break up or my problems. I need him to care that I learn his subject. He clearly does care that I learn what he’s teaching because he has exacting standards.
It would be creepy for him to try to be my friend or confidante. That’s not his job.
If students don’t understand someone because they zoned out or didn’t pay attention or didn’t do the reading - I mean it’s ridiculous to evaluate professors by what their worst students are able to get. It’s not actually the professors job to download information to your brain- it’s his job to guide you through that stuff yourself. You’re gonna have to read and think for yourself. That’s why we have universities. It’s not school.
I don’t need empathy or sympathy or a crying shoulder from my VC. What a creepy thing it would be. It would be unprofessional for the VC or any faculty to not maintain professional distance from students. I don’t need them to buy my excuses and think “ oh poor you - will an O make it better ?” I need them to watch over me and make sure I leave law school more educated than I came in.
I know I was better able to have conversations with others about the law after his courses than before them.
If you don’t want to study consti - don’t. But the flip side of that is - the consti prof won’t be fond of you. You won’t be his favourite . That’s okay. What about that is unfair ? Why should a professor be pally with students who aren’t even interested in what he’s spent his life doing ?
Other students get this. They don’t care about corp- they’re not surprised when they get bad grades or the corp folks don’t love them. That’s just life.
He is absolutely at liberty to judge you based on how you performed or behaved in his classroom- it’s literally his job to evaluate you and your work. If you prove yourself to be a stellar private law person who has an amazing career - he can reverse that evaluation - he’s a person- he’s entitled to all of that. It is not a moral failing. It’s just being a person.
He had good grades in all his subjects as a student - he needed to be at the top to get Rhodes or Oxford. Academia is a hard nut to crack without the top gpa.he just expects from his students the discipline he follows himself. The guy runs marathons. It’s okay to fall short - but it’s not a moral failing that he holds people up to a high standard. I didn’t want to be a rhodie- I don’t run marathons- he might think me indisciplined- that’s fine- why should I care ?
I have fallen short of his expectations many times - he made a face - I shrugged it off and moved on. The next class I read and came - he made a different face - still didn’t matter really cause I was reading for me. Just because he wasn’t some surrogate daddy figure or because he wasn’t in love with every student didn’t mean I didn’t learn stuff in his class.
I’m sorry you want his approval this much but don’t want to earn it or maybe you just aren’t able to. That’s just life though.
Students are not babies in diapers who need to be consoled. And even if they did need some "parental guidance" they are hardly at the stage of development where pure empathy would do the job. The job of a university professor is in part to teach that in the professional world- no one wants to be your mommy or daddy- they just want to do their work and get on with it.
17- 18 year olds are not 10 year olds. When a 10 year old tells you he messed up- you can be a little indulgent and treat him kindly and teach him right from wrong and give him a hug. When that same kid is messing up at 18- you know that something has gone wrong in the intervening 8 years. With a more developed brain, the young adult is supposed to be able to think carefully about short-term v long long-term interests, plan his time, and think about the consequences of his actions on other people. Excusing and indulging him then is telling him there are no consequences to his actions. the compassionate, good parent thing to do is to hold him accountable. It will make him a better adult.
You dont read and prepare for class- you will get less out of it than those who do. You cheat in examinations- you will face consequences, you half ass an assignment or a paper- you will get poor grades. Tell me why that is unfair? What exactly prevents any student from being able to do those things? Does that not teach students precisely the kind of professionalism that will be expected from them at work? does that not actually put students' long-term interests in learning the law well and to a high standard over the professors need to be immediately popular?