We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Other countries also respect their local scholarship. In India, the research is just plagiarised by think tank, policy outfits, NGOs, lawyers and others who have the financial and cultural capital to claim it publicly as their own. No one bothers to ask scholars because everyone assumes they are bad. No one calls out the individuals stealing the work.
Why would anyone bother to spend months to publish something that will only circulate if someone famous steals it. If we cite Indian legal scholars and treat their work with respect then more people will want to be legal scholars.
This is a platform for UG students, who can hardly think beyond placements and engage in endless mud-slinging debates. They'll even discuss brands of cars, watches and clothes lawyers should wear.
We don't pay our PhD scholars even a living wage, making academia an unappealing career choice for talented 22- or 23-year-olds. As a result, those who enter PhD programs often do so for reasons other than genuine interest in research—like meeting promotion requirements or not finding any other job —rather than a passion for the job. These individuals then go on to become teachers, perpetuating the cycle of mediocrity.
Even for those who excel at teaching, the system offers little reward. Good teaching is undervalued and has no tangible impact on career progression. Instead, promotions hinge on research output, measured purely in quantitative terms, which often incentivise at it's best derivative, low-effort work.
Let me illustrate with just one basic issue: a typical faculty member at a typical law school teaches around 10 hours a week. Assuming at least two hours of preparation time per lecture, that’s 30 hours gone. Sundry administrative tasks will consume another 10 hours, already taking the total to 40 hours. Even if we optimistically expect faculty to work 60 hours a week, that leaves just 20 hours for research. And in this 20 hours a person has to produce something, so that her/his career progresses in someway. In such circumstances, what would you expect an average human being to do?
2. Derivative and lackluster research because of unambitious folks and lack of incentive for good research in promotions.
3. Below par teaching standards because it's a last option for majority of people who got into acadmia. The ones who geniunely wanted to teach are good, but they're a dome a dozen.
4. Quid pro quo based appointments because "I am lazy collecting monthly paychecks and I don't want an over active colleague who will out shine me, so I will hire another lazy bumfck like me."