Totally Agree. He probably started as a visionary but he has now lost his vision. Earlier Jindal used to offer a lot of scholarships to students and cared about quality. But now any tom, dick and Harry who can pay the fees can get admitted into the college - you can totally forget quality. They also stopped giving good scholarships and it has turned into a full blown business with Mishra ji bragging about admissions intake every year like the marketting team of a company hitting their target. There are so many new schools now - I wouldn't be surprised if he starts an engineering wing and medical wing as well. Adding on to the fact that these guys actually advertised offering LLB(Hons.) Course without having the recognition to confer such degree for which students filed a case against the University in Punjab and Haryana High Court. When a college becomes too big to handle than its appetite, the quality goes significantly down and that's what's happening to JGLS these days. My biggest fear as an alumni is that one day JGLS will be equated to Galgothias University because of the declining quality and I would have to be embarrassed about my college. Hopefully that doesn't happen in the future

2025 Batch; JGU has changed a lot, the intake has tripled since 2020 when I joined law school, and almost anyone who took the exam was able to clear it and get admission. The point being, crowd could be a hit and miss in terms of sincerity. However, I hear now that the exams have become difficult again and the cut-off is higher. So, probably the batch size might decrease again.

The faculty continues to be great.
As far as the VC is concerned, he is not involved in the day to day administration of the college, he does not know about what his students are doing and how they are learning/living etc. He is told about this from the administration who honestly are small people high on whatever little power they have been given.

Your criticism is largely misdirected, showing that curious trend among pro-Jindal/pro-Raj Kumar people to miss the point completely.

1. Have you ever been taught to read? If you were self-taught, my sympathies.

(a) Look at the language: is it saying he "should leave the country", or anything like that? Of course not! It's just saying that his coming back and doing what he has done was pointless. It hasn't even properly satisfied the ideals he himself says he had.

(b) Not all educators of his kind of background are deserving of this hostile reception. Take Sudhir Krishnaswamy (the NLS VC), for example - a Rhodes Scholar (Oxford BCL) and an Oxford DPhil. Other than trolls, can you see anyone saying that his choice not to work overseas didn't make a difference?? Do you know why that is? That's because where Raj is superficial and engages in box-ticking exercises, Krishnaswamy actually isn't a hipocrit and tells (and does) it like it is. Raj was the moderator for a conference of sorts of NLU VCs during the COVID pandemic. He asked a question about how to deal with issues of internet access being a barrier to learning for law students during the pandemic. Big gesture, the hugely rich elite guy giving a nod to the existence of the great unwashed. At least Krishnaswamy had the grace to admit that the demographic of students NLSIU at that time was dealing with wasn't the sort for whom such a problem arose. He said, very clearly, that if it arose and should NLSIU need to fund it, they'd fund it.

2. The point of LI is that people exchange ideas. Therefore, calling me an "idiot nobody" helps nobody, least of all yourself. Remember my mentioning of how you missed the point entirely? What if I were to call you an "idiot nobody?".

3. Finally, your "successful educationist" point. If he were to have been so successful, then why isn't Jindal a choice for a wider range of people, even among the elite? Note my point about academically strong students from privileged backgrounds still wishing for abroad for their undergrad degrees. Why is that the case? Why is Jindal the choice, largely, after all worthwhile options have failed? And why is it that I have personally observed students from such backgrounds with academic promise getting out of Jindal to go abroad (i.e., not graduating and going for an LLM but leaving the undergraduate law programme, successfully applying for admission to a UK or Australian law degree and going to do that instead)? Of all things, you, as a pro-Raj person, should feel deeply ashamed that students from rich backgrounds with anything more than half a brain prefer overseas options over his uni.

4. Raj is a public figure and an occupational hazard of this status is that his life choices, his motives and his actions are the subject of greater scrutiny and greater public comment. Where I grant you are right is that the moderators' application of this principle has been patchy, at best. The law firm partners and advocates are also public figures (in that they have an overarching duty to maintain public confidence in the justice system). Therefore, suppressing most criticism of them isn't right.

This chain must be deleted. Don’t make LI a place to defame and dishonour people. Who’s reviewing Prof Raj Kumar? Kids in law school? He’s Oxford and Harvard alum, Rhodes scholar, built a university from the scratch, convinced an industrialist to pay thousand crores..do you think any of that easy?

Well, an alternative lifestyle he envisioned for himself would have been equally flashy: in the same interview, he mentioned how, as a backup, he obssessively applied for jobs within the UN system. Some of the things that attracted him to that, he admits, was the "UN passport" and the life in Geneva. He'd have been mixing with not just Indian, but international bigshots, too.

And if you think about Raj's lifestyle, it isn't anything unique compared to, let us say, VCs of some of the big name universities overseas. Take Larry Kramer and Minouche Shafik, for example (current and former VCs of LSE). Their lifestyles and connections etc were equally flashy. Raj has just introduced that concept of academic-getting-it-rich by climbing to management status in India (or at least, taken it to another level). Again, the same story: taking the dubious/bad things of the west (and, by forcing that on us, diluting the good of India) for personal convenience, and casually disregarding the good stuff of them completely (actual rigour in research, appointing faculty who can properly teach and are duely qualified, etc). If he really wanted to make Jindal a "global" university worth the name, what he'd have taken from overseas was their system of treating PhD degree (rather than LLM) as the primary entry gateway into academic jobs, rather than VCs striking it rich.

https://thebeaverlse.co.uk/lses-president-and-vice-chancellor-salary-and-expenditure-revealed/

Classic story of a starry-eyed Indian educated largely overseas wanting to serve his country: Started off as a great idealist, then became corrupted. He says in an interview that he had to argue very vigorously with people who told him, while he was overseas in England, the U.S. and finally Hong Kong, that there was little to nothing for him in India, that there actually was. I think it overall would have been better if he had listened to the wise advice of his mentors. He hasn't fulfilled the great ideals he set himself. True, he built a university. True, he got his uni into global rankings. But in what way and at what cost? By gaming the system, not actually in the right way. If you want to argue that a country like India needs a uni for its elite, and Jindal fills that place in the market, then also wrong. The students who go to Jindal are usually elites, true, but elite bad students. Most of the elite classes anyway don't really want their kids studying in India in any case, a problem Jindal hasn't solved effectively. No good student with an international education, unless they have enough money to be an elite in India but not enough to not struggle financially abroad, would go to Jindal. So it is, IMO at least, very much the case that India could have done without this guy's "contribution".