Never understood the entire paper drafting process, always seemed flawed to me that the authority of the entire process from drafting to the review of the papers is given to a single NLU. You don't need to be extremely qualified in the field to know that if the paper was made in actual coordination between all the NLU's where they actually do talk and discuss the paper amongst themselves (which is what a CONSORTIUM should do ideally) would undoubtedly result in questions papers of far better difficulty and could actually aid them get decent deserving students.

Realistically I do understand how the logistics (if you can even call sending an email with the subject as 'thoughts on this?' a logistical issue) could be somewhat of an hindrance but it really is just one barely 50 page question paper which they have to make once a year. It shouldn't be this flawed year in, year out. I so hope something happens in the future to address these shortcomings which are becoming a common occurrence in the entrance exam and are being normalized by coaching institutes and students alike. "CLAT always messes up some questions it isn't a big deal" maybe it doesn't sound like it but its barely anything to make a decent level paper without wrong/polarizing options. Might sound all preachy and utopian but it is important.

Never understood the entire paper drafting process, always seemed flawed to me that the authority of the entire process from drafting to the review of the papers is given to a single NLU. You don't need to be extremely qualified in the field to know that if the paper was made in actual coordination between all the NLU's where they actually do talk and discuss the paper amongst themselves (which is what a CONSORTIUM should do ideally) would undoubtedly result in question papers of far better quality and could actually aid them get decent, deserving and capable students.

Realistically do understand how the logistics (if you can even call sending an email with the subject as 'thoughts on this?' a logistical issue) could be somewhat of an hindrance but the task at hand is merely one question paper, less than 50 pages, to be created once a year. This shouldn’t be so consistently flawed year after year. I sincerely hope that at some point, steps are taken to address these shortcomings, which have unfortunately become a common and accepted part of entrance exams. Coaching institutes and students alike seem to have normalized this—"CLAT always messes up some questions, it’s no big deal." While it might seem trivial, it shouldn't be so difficult to craft a paper of a somewhat decent standard without errors or polarizing options. Perhaps it sounds too idealistic and utopian, but it is important.

It is honestly crazy because colleges like NLS who often brag about extreme academic rigor and cut-throat competition, I doubt they'll retain the same quality of rigor from the students which are being admitted through those exams, especially last year and '25. Soon than later, I reckon they'll see a decline in academic performance by the time these students reach their 2nd or 3rd year of law school and maybe only then they'll start introspecting where things went wrong.

A junior from my school reached out to me today (Class of '28), saying that he had botched his entrance. He sent me his paper, and I couldn't help but notice that the Current Affairs section isn't what it used to be. In fact, the entire section felt more like an English than a true Current Affairs. The only question that seemed remotely related to Current Affairs was "What does the 'S' in BRICS stand for?". Other than that paper barely tested any critical thinking or interpretation. English was a joke and Critical Reasoning had no core concepts of conclusion, strengthen, etc. If I remember there was only one weakening question in the entire section.

It got me thinking—was the CLAT 2024 an anomaly, or is this the new standard the Consortium is going for, with the bar set so low?