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?
Back in 2021, sociologists sent a letter to Pew Research Center saying to stop using these generational labels. Imagine the gravity when a field like sociology comes out and says this is crap. GenZ, Millennials, this is all just a marketing gimmick, nothing else. These labels were primarily made for white American middle class. Even in that case it was flawed, but using it in India is plain stupid. Imagine saying people born between 1997 and 2012 share similar qualities. It's such a stupid statement. We completely ignore their culture, parents' income, and environment, and give them this blanket label.
"Most transformational generation"? "Broke regressive standards"? "Culture of inclusion"? Let's talk about reality. Go to any NLU and introduce yourself with just your first name without your surname. Watch how quickly people get aggressive asking for your surname. Casteism is still very much alive, just implicit now. We haven't broken anything. The same hierarchies exist, just with better PR.
Indian legal education is still the same except a few universities. Being a student at one of the good NLUs, I can tell you the quality of education is still crap. You're still dependent on the professor. Try telling them what they're teaching is wrong, and they'll tell you to go and complain to the VC and get them removed. Where's the transformation in that?
Every generation thinks they invented critical thinking and social justice. The batch before you thought the same thing. You didn't invent questioning the curriculum. Law students have always debated and challenged their professors. Calling it "epistemological and ontological assumptions" doesn't make it special, it makes it pretentious.
We are not special. Calling ourselves "digital natives" because we use Instagram and X doesn't mean anything.
Had you applied critical thinking, you wouldn't have written this post in the first place.
I'm 19 years old, to GenZ.
In other news, Andrew Tate is being awarded for his relentless and impassioned fight for womens' rights
But I also worry about the future of law schools, with this Gen Alpha. Our generation was the most transformational one. We broke regressive standards and brought in a culture of inclusion, empathy, social justice and progressive change across NLUs. Rather than ratta maroing like previous generations, we brought in critical thinking and challenged the epistemological and ontological assumptions of the curriculum.
Will Gen Alpha have the same outlook?