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?
1 suggestions that I disagree- non law courses for an year. Our tier 2.5 university followed this, and we were behind others in understanding basics like torts and contracts. Not recommended.
If I had been Sudhir, there would have been aspects of the report that made me quite uncomfortable.
1. The call for the ending of the trimester system.
2. The importance they gave to the "perception" that the administrative decision-making at the uni was unaccountable and not very responsive to student concerns.
3. This last one would have made me slightly angry, if I had been him. They criticized the fact that the number of students on non-PhD programmes whose studies are fully funded is very low. What the report does not mention is that the university system that two out of the three authors work in - namely, that of the UK - works precisely like this: undergraduate and postgraduate taught students are largely not funded (or funded only to a limited extent) by their universities (although the UK has a student loans system, similar to the U.S., for domestic students). Despite identifying this as a problem, the SRC did not really propose a solution. What is supposed to be done? Should we set up a student loans infrastructure like what the British or Americans have? In other words, it didn't say how you solve the problem. Of course, that would likely have been because of the SRC's remit or maybe even hesitation on their part to be too prescriptive, but nevertheless, quite discomfort-inducing.
4. I think he didn't really have a problem with the quantity of assessment being done. Fundamentally, that is a very Indian way of thinking. For these guys to do what they did, i.e., to come out and say that the frequency of assessment should be reduced, would have been quite a big thing for Sudhir to take in.
NB: Please do not take this as me personally disagreeing with any of the suggestions in the report. I am just following J.S. Mill's call to be generous to the arguments and points of view of those whose views are different from your own. I very much like what they have said in many respects and think it worth considering. However, I do understand why, having absorbed some of the orthodoxies of Indian academia, he may find some of the recommendations not as much to his liking as others, or, at the very least, something to make his stomach do a few backflips, because, even if he agrees with them in principle, he would need to justify it to people whose way of thinking about universities is very different.