For instance, I am going to a tier-1 nlu this year and the senior there specifically told me to interact more within the class to gain the teacher’s attention and garner a good cgpa. Is is the same case for each and every tier-1 nlu? Is there any nlu or batch where class interaction is not an important metric?

Have you ever come across any student who intentionally prefers to remain silent throughout the class but does amazingly well during exams?

Bhai tier 1 ho ya tier 2. Teacher ki Nazar mei jitna rahega uspe sab depend karega. Smartest brains often give up on class discussions in classes and focus on minding their business/ securing jobs or whatever they are actually aspiring. They generally manage off campus too. The rot ones are those who eventually become a profes pet and that image sustains for continuing years and hence most if not all batch toppers esp 1 2 3 and no much the top 10-20% are mere crammers and prof pleasers. This is across NLUs across streams across any recognised formal educational platform. Nothing wrong just human psychology and sociology kicking in.

most teachers can tell the difference between earnest engagement and sucking up. People have a knack for that. The topper is the topper because the topper reads for class every time, stays engaged during the class instead of doing random stuff on their laptop, revises well in advance of exams and writes projects with integrity. Thats really all the secret is. theres no more magic to it than that.

I know because Ive taught at law school. Just be earnest.

Dont hesitate to enforce accountability. if you dont get good grades after doing all the work and doing it well- and only after that- go to the teacher and ask what you can do to improve, how your answers or your work was lacking. Ask for specific feedback. ask for a grading rubric.

I'm not some great non partisan teacher of the year. I just happen to really like what im teaching and I get excited when any of my students really like it too. Thats all I want really, enthusiasm and honesty. Students really underestimate how starved most law school teachers are for that. Most days when I look at my class, like 60- 70% are not really in the room, they have their screens up, theyre on social media, theyre watching their netflix, theyre gazing off into the distance having turned their brains off. I can be authoritarian and try and force them to give up electronics- but I cant stop them from day dreaming. I cant do mind control- I cannot force someone to like and be interested in something they arent interested in. No body can do that. Teachers arent supposed to be life coaches, I cannot teach you criminal law and inspire you through pep talks every ten minutes. Your inspiration is really your problem.

The other 15-20% dip in and out, they might be listening but they dont contribute. Theyre mentally present sometimes and absent sometimes. If these kids pull their act together- they might be able to make something out of themselves. only 10-15% of students are consistent with the effort, actually enthusiastic about learning, and show up to class ready to learn. And those students are much better than what I was when I was a student, theyre absolute rock stars who will get every opportunity they want, absolutely nothing can hold them back. Theres basically no teacher on campus that dislikes these students. Everybody roots for them. If any of my students who wasnt putting in effort did start to- id be overjoyed to be honest. If only 39-40% of your answer scripts are even halfway decent- youll be very happy when anyone gets answers right. Its dreadful work reading hundreds of answers in a term and most of them are half assed or just bad work. I mentally celebrate every time I get a good answer script.

If you think all your teachers are partial and dont grade fairly- the problem might be you. You might be going in not understanding expectations or having some basic skills to meet them.

Fair enough. Your experience might be different from mine but in my cohort around 80 percent of the students put in a lot of effort and yet it's mostly people in the good books of the teachers that end up in top 5. There might only be a difference of 4-5 marks between me and these people but it makes all the difference in the final grade. It's not about getting good grades, it is about getting the best grade. Also, not all teachers are receptive to constructive feedback on their pedagogic methods and would have an adversarial relationship with students because they are way too entrenched in their ways. As far as meeting expectations are concerned, I don't think I miss the shot there. It's easy to make generalizations about the student community and say ohh majority of them are lazy and not driven. Similar generalizations can be made about teachers too; Most teachers couldn't care less about the substance of your papers but would happily award you marks if you curry favour them. If students are not paying attention in class then maybe the teacher is at fault and there's something seriously wrong with the instructor's method. People in authority should have the humility to accept that. Guess what that's not the case in our country because an instructor's word is the last word on anything. I have had teachers who taught so well that students attended their classes in large numbers and paid absolute attention. It's because they were great teachers whose teaching method was based on including everyone and not privileging certain students. I appreciate your inputs but I feel you make broad assumptions about what really the issue is here. Andd, don't worry the students who don't do well in class would do well in life eventually and will make something of themselves, maybe even better than those 10-15 percent top students. Peace out.

I mean, I can sense that youre bitter and upset, but Ive been a student at an nlu before. I know exactly how much work students generally did because I was one of them. There is no reason at all to argue some fact free thing that 80% of students are putting in what? even five hours a day into course work? thats just not in the realm of reality. There is a wide difference between cramming the week of exams and working consistently through the term.

I think your problem might be you think you already have all the answers and have no humility at all. It is quite rich for a 17 year old kid who has had zero real world work experience to lecture an adult with multiple law degrees and years of experience about pedagogy. If you go in trying to tell teachers how to do their jobs- im not surprised you have an antagonistic relationship with them. Youre the student. Be a good student first before you start trying to educate others. When I said enforce accountability- i meant you ask for feedback, you ask teachers how and what you can do to get better grades- not that you go in blaming the teacher for not getting the grade you want. If they cannot tell you how to get better or what your answers lacked- then yes, there might be unfair grading, but I doubt you have asked your professors what you should do to get better just because of how you seem to blame everyone else for your problems.

It is not generalisations based on nothing- you can look at scientific studies, lower attention spans, less drive, more anxiety, more mental health problems with the college going students now than ever before- its all quite apparent. You cannot really fix the problem until you take accountability.

I have spent 15 years in the academy now- I haven't really met any teacher who would award top grades if the work wasn't done. There is just no incentive for that corruption in public universities. Teachers don't sell grades, having a couple of students like you provides very little ego boost when you meet new students term after term and will forget the names of even your best students after a few years. You dont know what is or isnt in the answer scripts of students youre envying. You really have no basis to claim those grades are unearned except for high self esteem and contempt for others who work hard. You think you dont miss the shot but have you actually gone and asked professors why youre not getting better grades? Or no? It really is that simple.

It just isnt performance art to teach the crpc. You dont have to be some rockstar to get otherwise disengaged students to be interested. In no other area of work or life would you hold this to be the standard. If a doctor prescribes you meds and you dont take them- you dont then blame the doctor for your mistakes. If your CA tells you to file your taxes a certain way and you dont follow his advice- hes not the one failing. If you go to a gym and your trainer gives you a diet and a work out plan- and you dont follow it- its not his fault youre unfit. I can keep going on and on. Teaching cannot happen at this advanced level with a completely passive and disengaged student body. Its your education on the line- why you choose to sign over all your agency to whether or not your teacher is personally charismatic or entertaining enough is honestly bewildering. Yes some people will be personally charismatic and entertaining- that doesnt make them good teachers in and off itself- a clown always attracts a lot of attention. You have to be able to look past superficialities like that. When I went to law school, a well known teacher was very charismatic and entertaining- but it didnt mean I actually learnt anything from him that I retained- it was all mostly faff about law and popular culture. In comparison the woman who taught me constitutional law was extremely knowledgeable and a really deep thinker that pushed us and made sure we couldnt pass his class until we knew everything we had to know. shed throw you out of class for failing to read ahead, and she would refuse to answer questions if you hadnt done the reading first- Ive built a career out of what she taught me and I still rely on texts in her course outlines. at the time I obviously resented the second professor , but with hindsight I grew to actually appreciate her. When youre young you think junk food is very tasty, but once you grow up you realise the value of veggies and beans and legumes and nuts and fibre and how those things are required sustenance. What is good isnt always easy. And theres just no real way to make crpc, cpc, evidence act exciting to someone who doesnt like the law. it just is what it is. Of course people can both be knowledgeable and charismatic- but knowledge is the necessary and sufficient condition to be a university professor. Students are expected to have self discipline because theyre not kindergarteners. Do you go to your internships and whinge about how the associates and partners dont do enough to keep you engaged? why do you want your teachers to be held to that standard?

How exactly are you being excluded in class? The teacher likely doesnt interact with you because you dont put your hand up and speak and interact with them. Why are they obligated to come to each student personally and make them sit on their lap and explain the law? its a ridiculous standard. Your teacher has somewhere upwards of 80 students every term- if you want more attention- youre better off trying to earn it than ranting about how unfair the world is on this forum.

You assume I dont want all my students to succeed or that im somehow delighting in many of my students only being able to become glorified clerks. Im not. Im dismayed and distraught at the loss of talent and resources. These are the best universities in india and this is what we're doing? its a scandal! I wish all my students would work hard enough to have a good chance at becoming someone. But they just dont, and if i can convince one student to abandon this constant self victimisation and embrace personal responsibility- this whole thing is worth it. I want all my students to be successful, and I want all their success to be earned. Why assume that people you dont know are haters who want you to fail when most people dont spend any time thinking about you at all. Teachers just dont have the time for that. I'm not worried for personal fortunes of these kids. Im worried for the legal profession and the state of law practice in india.

Its easy to be cynical and to think " its okay that I dont work hard because the system is rigged against me and all my teachers are partial and they wouldnt be fair anyway". Its harder to be vulnerable and think- what do I not know? what should I learn? how do I form better relationships? how do I try to become a better person everyday?

What makes you think I am not a good student and not putting in requisite hardwork? Do you know me personally? No right? I'm in the top 10 students of my class, just not top 5 and would have been had I resorted to ingratiating teachers like other students do. And no I'm not a 17 year old who has uninformed opinions. Your conclusions are generalizations and nothing you say to deny that would change that. You very conveniently side step addressing the personal biases of teachers and misconstrue what I am saying. I never said that teachers have an incentive to be corrupt in their marking criteria but that they are infallible people with their own set of biases. If you studied from NLU you would know that the term examinations are often anonymized and the teacher would not know whose script they are checking. It is the internal component where they would unleash all their biases and mess up people's grades. I'm not surprised that you conveniently bended my valid criticism of your community to mean that students like entertainers as teachers. That is not what I said. But ivory towers like you would not understand. One of the best teachers I had were neither entertaining not charismatic , they just knew the law really really well and nudged everyone to be a better version of themselves, even the weakest student in class instead of berating them and their career choices. Ironically one of the best teachers I had was also a consti law professor and she was neither entertaining nor charismatic but everyone had immense respect for her because she was fair, was empathetic to students concerns and included everyone in class discussions. What I do or don't in classroom is of no consequence in this discussion. A good teacher would include everyone and not prioritise the view points of her favourite students. I don't need a practical stranger on the internet to tell me what should be done. Why can't I rant?

Okay. Im gonna respond to this one more time, but I strongly sense that youre very emotional and if you were a little more calm / more mature you would see the problems with what youre saying more readily.

1) I never said youre a bad student- but youve admitted you dont get the grades you want. My approach to that would be to figure out where the disconnect is and work on that. It seems to me youre jumping to the knee jerk reaction of " its because the refs are biased". It might not be. It might just be other students are doing better work, it might be because youre actually not working as hard or in the correct way to meet the expectations from the course. If you go to a professor and ask them to review your answer script and explain to you how you could have done better- Im sure many of them would try and help you or provide a grading rubric at the very least. If they dont do that- then there might be bias.
2) But its ridiculous to claim that all teachers are this way and that hard work doesnt matter because teachers in public unis are corrupt. they have zero incentive to be corrupt or to play favorites really. I didnt do very well in law school in undergrad. I had a middling GPA, i knew it was because I wasnt working hard enough and was missing things. But in my darker moments when I had worked particularly hard on a paper to only get a 90 and not a 95- I did wonder if it was because the teacher preferred another student. What I learned when I went to grad school, and after that when i started teaching- is that I had the causation all wrong. The teachers pet doesnt get good grades because the teacher goes into a classroom wanting to play favorites. They get good grades, they work hard and show up for classes and discussions- and because they put in all of that effort- the teacher likes that student. Human beings have a propensity to like others who make their work easier. I went into grad school knowing I had to try my absolute hardest - it took everything out of me- and I was the teachers pet. Consider that what youre bringing to the interaction with the teacher might have a role to play.
3) I dont know any undergraduate student in an NLU who has had a thriving career before entering law school. 17,18,19 hardly makes a difference. Consider that when youre an undergrad you have little work experience, and little understanding of the subject youre trying to study (thats why youre the student), and very little understanding of pedagogy beyond -i like this and I dont like that. Consider that if you go into a meeting with someone who has more experience, more education, and has thought more carefully on pedagogy because they designed the course- and you go in thinking youre gonna teach them something- you might be setting up an antagonistic relationship where you focus on challenging their authority instead of focusing on learning and improving yourself.
4) I actually dont think its always true that anonymised end semesters are always the more accurate. Yes the anonymity might weed out some favoritism. But also end semesters usually follow a certain kind of question-answer pattern that some students might be better at than writing research papers or making oral presentations. There is more than one variable there. There is anonymity, but there is also a difference in evaluation pattern. I was the kind of student who did great in the research papers and in the surprise tests and did very poorly on straight-up question and answer which required you memorise textbooks and remember specific cases. I did somewhat better when there were analytical questions. I did very poorly with class participation in undergrad because I just didnt value my time in the classroom enough and I let intra-class social dynamics hold me back from leaning in.
5) Look, whenever students have tried to tell me what kind of professor they like- they usually like the entertaining charming idiots. It is not a huge stretch considering you have in your posts argued that teachers have some obligation to be entertaining. I dont think they do. Youre paying for a chance to learn, and to earn the degree and grades you earn, you cannot pay someone to make the CPC entertaining. it just is what it is and it is boring. A lot of the law is boring to most people except nerdy lawyers.
6) if your argument is that teachers should be these endless sources of validation who shouldnt tell students when their work is not up to the mark. I cannot disagree with you more. I dont think teachers should go around discouraging students willy nilly- but I think students nowadays are discouraged by even a look or an off-the-cuff comment. Some of the best teachers I had would bald faced call me out on my bullshit. they would catch me out if I hadnt read the reading, they would humiliate you in front of the class if you asked some nonsensical question just to hear the sound of your voice. They would return answer scripts that marked out every mistake. And I learned a lot more from them than I did from professors who couldn't be bothered to invest that much time and who just wanted to be "cool" by being a good hang. Any day of the week I would rather spend time with professors who were harsh and who exhorted us to be better every day. Maybe you're more fragile than me- wear a helmet.
7) A good teacher has no obligation to include people who exclude themselves. You dont seem to need anyone- stranger on the internet or your teacher in your classroom- to tell you anything. You seem to know everything already and thats - I really hope thats just some ridiculous youthful rebellion that you will be embarrassed about in a few years. The thread is about class discussion- id assume it should have something to do about your approach to discussion in the class.
8) You have freedom to rant- you dont have freedom to not get called on the BS. other people have the freedom to say youre talking rubbish. You dont actually have the freedom to go on some fact free "teachers all suck and I am so smart and im some unrecognised genius" rant without other people telling you that hey- you kinda sound bitter and resentful and a little unhinged. If you want a place where no one challenges you- I dont know maybe talk to a bad therapist.
9) Consider that ranting on internet forums isnt a particularly productive pro social endeavor. You have the freedom to rant about any irritation in your life on any part of the internet- but we do get to tell you its nonsense, and we do get to tell you that you dont seem reliable or objective or even mature.
10) I'm not ranting about students. Im ranting about the state of the education system and im talking about how messed up our legal system will be as a result. I think its important for academics to be able to respond to the general "teachers =evil oppressors,students= blameless angel victims" narrative that's perpetuated among students in forums like this too much.
11) Im not berating them as glorified clerks. Im dismayed that they limit themselves to being glorified clerks when they can be so much more and add so much more value to the world. I dont even mean they shouldnt do corp law. I encourage my students to pursue careers at corporate law firms. But if theyre gonna go into that world, I want them to give themselves the ability to succeed and win. I want them to be partners, I want them to make big deals as they lead teams of lawyers. I want them to do things that help the country grow and help create jobs and help do great and wonderful things. I want them to absolutely dominate. I dont want them to spend their lives being an associate forever, never advancing because they never learned to do more than due diligence paper shuffling. And my best friends are wonderful talented corporate lawyers who have done remarkable things- they tell me all the time how its really hard to hire someone who even knows basic contract law. That starts with most of our law students being cynical, justifying any bad behavior that directly results in them not getting good grades or not knowing the law, and generally trying to scam their way to a career.

No partner or senior associate or a principal associate at a law firm is called a glorified clerk by anybody. But the vast majority of people who go into that world and never advance- because they just dont know how to do things with law- they are glorified clerks. It is what it is.

This has nothing to do with privilege or class- I came from a poor enough family myself. Sorry. Not playing that stupid game. Youre making assumptions not based in reality at all. You just so desperately want to win an argument that youre willing to exploit actual poor people. Some of my best students are poor - yknow why? because they dont take the opportunities they have for granted. They dont feel entitled to grades they havent earned and they dont approach everyone else with this kind of arrogance.

12) You dont ask partners at firms to entertain you because thats not their job? its not your teachers job to entertain you either. watch movies/ tv shows and come to class prepared to do work. Its nobodies job to make you invested or engaged with your own career and education.

13) You have so much contempt for the people teaching you- its no wonder you learn more at internships. I learned quite a bit at internships- but I wouldnt ever say it was more than classroom learning. In a classroom I learn 100% of the time and do grunt work 0% of the time. You could try changing your mindset in how you approach the classroom- but if you dig your heels in instead of introspecting- im very doubtful you will be able to.

14) people who allow you to ask the stupidest questions arent demanding the best of you. They might be getting their work done- but they arent investing in you improving yourself. No one coddling you saying "its okay to make mistakes" is actually expecting much of you. Obviously one expects more from a third year student than a first year- but at some point you have to start being competent. Consider learning doesnt happen when everyone is validating you and giving you participation medals.

15) I'm unhappy that only my best students- theyre not my favorite- are giving themselves the chance to succeed. I dont have the time to keep track of all my students after they leave law school. If some of them pull their socks up after law school and make something out of themselves -i'm always happy to see growth. But that is a rare thing. Someone who throws away 5 years of the most enviable education the country has to offer isnt likely to make the best of other opportunities life throws their way. I also routinely encourage students who do get cynical and skulk around the back benches to give up the too cool for school act and start valuing their time and their education. But ofcourse youve constructed some sort of monster in your head to validate your own world view.

16) How is the system rigged against you? please explain? just because you have an abrasive personality and are arrogant and victimised by turns doesnt mean that everyone is in a conspiracy to keep you down. Get over the main character energy.

17) Why do I have the time to write on this forum on posts by students asking how to do better? because I dont think its wise for bad students to teach other students how to be bad students. I dont think the demonisation of teachers in student circles leads to a productive learning environment and I do what little I can to let students know what they can do to succeed. Poor students, students without social capital- often fall for the cynical nonsense and give up instead of investing in their own betterment and I dont like that- I was one of those students and it didnt lead to a single good thing and it was hard thing to take personal responsibility. Id rather take some time out and tell them how they should navigate academia.

18) The world , and I, dont have any obligation to validate your bullshit. get over it. Yes I might know better because I actually have more experience and more education. Shock Horror what an unthinkable thing! Of course teachers are human and fallible- but you seem to be the very last person who could credibly point out flaws in anyone else.

Lmao. I doubt you are an academic. Your entire tirade is full of strawmen arguments. Just because you couldn't answer my valid questions and just because your ego is bruised you cast doubt on my ability and competency. Slow claps. Thank you mod for marking this answer trollish. Learn how to read, fake academic lol. I realised I am dealing with the troll. Would request mods to mark any subsequent answers as trollish from this individual.. clearly they are not an academic. Even if they are, I pity their students and laugh at their arrogance. Bye bye troll!

Continued from previous thread---

Why can't I rant? If after putting in the hard work and requisite number of hours, I rant on this platform to vent why is it a problem? This is my way of coping with it. I'm ranting but that does not mean I am not putting in the work as well. If you can come to this pedestrian platform as a so called academic, ranting about the quality of the student community and berating them as glorified clerks then why can't a student share his experience? You call them glorified clerks. This is what you call people who go for corporate jobs. Yes we want to become glorified clerks, that is our horizon of aspiration and that should be completely fine. Not everyone is privileged enough to pursue fancy LLMs and PhDs or go into litigation related work. Some of us come from low income families and have to put food on table. If firms prioritise grades as a metric of our competency we have to compete for those. Even top 5 students are vying for those jobs only. Then , the only person who seems to show arrogance and contempt is you and teachers like you. You show contempt for a student's career choices and arrogance about your own infallibility. Yes, I have tried to ask for 'feedback' from these teachers and have not received satisfactory answers. Also, I don't ask senior associates and partners to keep me engaged because it's not their job, and even then some of them explain different concepts and research propositions in a manner that we as interns feel engaged. I have asked for the most stupid questions and clarifications and have not once been berated by them, because they know that I am learning and it's okay to mistakes in the learning stage.No gainsaying that I have learnt more in my internships than I have from people like you who have no respect for their students, even when they work hard. No these teachers don't hate me, but that's not even my point to begin with. All I said was they have biases and that they are not perfect, exalted beings that are incapable of any error. You say you want all students succeed. The truth however is you would be happy if your pet students succeed and for the rest you wouldn't really care and would probably berate them on platforms like these. Please spare us the moral lecturing, professor. I never said it's okay not to work hard. I work hard despite the system being rigged against me. Andd, why are you spending time responding to this errant kid on this platform? Surely, teachers don't have time to hold personal grudges/engage in petty talk. The simple truth is this: It gives you an ego boost to show a student such as me 'their right place' because how dare can this lowly student even voice their concerns/find a venting space when the ultimate pinnacle of knowledge with 'multiple degrees' should have the last word on anything. I have had bad experiences with teachers and despite that I have never diluted the effort I put in to my work. You ideally should not negate my experience, but nothing I say would change your prejudiced views.

Wow. How uncool of them to actually try to get good at their chosen career. Caring about their own education? So lame! Why would you want to learn the law after beating out thousands in competition to get to the few spots available in a good NLU. Clearly the thing to do is to not care about the opportunity you have been given, smoke up and hook up through five years, and barely scrape by enough to get a job at some stupid firm because you wont actually be hirable anywhere they need people with real skills and then come on here and complain that youre a corporate slave.

Youre right. Someone barely scraping by these basic exams - that's the person who is clearly more talented and skilled and knows more law, and we know this because theyve not done anything to prove themselves! Trying just means you didn't know the stuff coming out of the womb! How silly of me.

I know we pick the Indian cricket team based on who can score the most runs and get the most wickets- and has in the ranji, but stats doesn't mean anything. The years of practice Kohli put up doesnt mean anything- hes just trying to cram the try hard! You or I should be on the cricket team we can point out all his mistakes right? I bet Kohli just got his job because of partial evaluators anyway.

I used “necessarily” while putting my words. I can understand your frustration and self doubt that whether you have marketable skills or not. But believe me if you work hard and have little bit of market knowledge and understanding, you’ll ace at this.

Don’t be in self doubt, don’t take my words personally, it was not targeted at you.

Holy projection batman! you dont know anything about me. Dont be so insecure you have to find strawmen to fight. Its not about necessity and arguing the edge case of the backbencher who turns out to be law genius. Thats an edge case. Academic success largely is a good measure of whether a fresh graduate knows what they need to know when they graduate. And discipline and vigor in one area of life usually translates into that in other areas.