Nalsar Hyderabad relaxed its attendance requirement from 95 per cent to 75 per cent semester and reduced the number of academic research papers to be written by students per semester from five to one, according to The Hindu.
The law school has also introduced the “restorative justice system” on campus; e.g., students found guilty of cheating will be penalised by working in its library. The administration plans to also take “steps” like introducing film festivals on campus.
Nalsar Vice chancellor Faizan Mustafa told The Hindu:
“We are hoping that our steps to make academic calendar of the student less stressful are implemented by other universities… Our students have to write only one academic research paper and the remaining four papers can be based on their personal interests such as music, movies, book review, etc”
Nalsar had held a workshop in April on “Restorative Justice Procedures in the Higher Education Institutions to overcome the problem of Students' Suicides on University Campuses”. On 30 April the Andhra Pradesh high court appointed Mustafa and Nalsar faculty member Prof Martin Price to the committee to examine the issue of student suicides on campus.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
The other 4, which are different sort of works require lesser research but more application of mind (esp. with the junior years). For example there might be a book/movie one might wish to review. Now this needs to be related to law or a legal point, and one needs to also include the statutes, theories, ideas related to the concept worked with in the book. Doing this isn't actually a piece of cake. Then there are things like working in a group to come up with a debate (research is as much as any research paper, maybe more given you do it from 4/5 different angles!) or maybe doing interviews with people, something which requires considerable background understanding of the topic one questions him/her on.
I could go into actual examples (of how people did this last year) but wouldn't as I think it isn't pertinent here. So, form outside you might feel that 'the degree goes for a six" but from inside the change occuring at NALSAR right now I can assure you the degree is only getting a lot more meaningful. Obviously it comes down to the faculty and the students then to stay true to the proper practices in actually making it happen in practice.
Also, you ask "If class room teaching sucks" and I can tell you that the last year or two (whatever anyone might say) our faculty has gotten better. We have had some real crap people from the past, but thankfully no new ones have been recruited along those lines. Also I personally have high hopes of the 5 new people appointed to start from next semester.
May I point out the Nalsar degree is not meant only for the purpose of buttressing employment prospects? Having said that, these measures seek to introduce an element of pragmatism in the course. Expecting a student to turn in 10 original research projects a year is ridiculous. It incentivizes plagiarism, something that I believe employers also frown upon. The current system involves writing 2 research projects a year. By reducing the workload, it is expected that students turn in better projects, that are better researched, thereby honing the very skills that, in your eyes, help once you get a job. Also, I don't understand how any of these measures affect the ethics of the institution, whatever that is.
I am conscious that some people will argue that writing 4-6 academic research papers (projects) every trimester/semester is not qualitative and does not amount to much "research". My response - don't be naive! In theory, yes, one quality paper is better than 6 papers that cannot be published/ lacks exhaustive scrutiny of the subject. But we all know that the 1 paper most students will produce now would not be much different from the older ones (there would be exceptions of course). Also, not every student will manage to get their paper published. Most (not all) students will enjoy the free time and suffer in the long run. Every graduate knows the impact of making a few projects every semester. Its not just about developing a job skill but also about developing professional skills relating to research, writing, analysis, presentation, time management and even MS Word! Can't believe this decision of NALSAR admin. Most of these professors haven't published in international peer reviewed journals, have no understanding of the impact of their shitty policies and are nuts who should not be appointed in positions of policy making. Just ask yourself this - were the likes of Dr. Menon, Dr. Mitra, Dr. Ranbir Singh stupid to have demanded more than 1 paper from students since the beginning of the NLU experiment? Students at Harvard Law are not writing 2 papers a year. They have writing assignments often and the publishable papers are produced by students in their own time (not necessarily based on an assignment or project). The ones on the law reviews write much more and are preferred by recruiters for a good reason. Again, its not about recruitment, but about acquiring certain skills that set good lawyers apart from the bad, the mad and the ugly.
I am not from NALSAR. I am not writing this to take anything away from NALSAR. I just feel sorry to hear this news. I believe most NALSAR graduates will agree to my reflections. I am sick of the retarded senior professors who are screwing up the NLUs. They undo all the good work of their brighter colleagues and the NLUs survive on the hard work of the students. These are examples of how the NLUs are being demolished:
- NLS: the VC sacked the bright young alumnus Sid Chauhan. As it is, attracting alumni into teaching is difficult. When one joined the college by the grace of God, the stupid VC let him go. Big loss. Chauhan's posts are testimony to the shit that NLS faculty is up to. They have one agenda - screw it up, big time.
- NUJS: We have all read the utter crap the VC and Registrar of NUJS are up to. God, they don't ever make sense in their public statements and don't give a f*$k about the students or the uni.
Retarded people who cannot even make a sensible public statement when something bad happens like student suicide, violence by professors et al.
- NALSAR: Res ipsa locquitur. This article isn't the first about the crap the admin is up to. Please let the system run. The students are bright enough to follow the footsteps of their seniors without the retarded new policies.
- NLUJ: Lets see what happens after the present dynamic VC is gone. So far so good.
- GNLU: Everyone would like to spit on that Bimal Patel.
- NLIU: One of the older NLUs. Already ruined by the admin. Needs a rehaul.
- Other NLUs: May God save them. The present VCs and retarded policies are holding these NLUs down. The students have a lot of potential but the admin is ruining everything.
In a nutshell, just like our Parliament screws up the older statutes when they try to amend them, our new VCs screw the NLUs when they try to act smart and introduce changes that deviate from the model developed by the founding VCs like Dr. Menon, Dr. Mitra and Dr. Singh.
2. Students will also, in the forthcoming semester, have the option of submitting a research paper they have written for a purpose other than what the academics demand, in which case they will have the choice of opting to have this paper reviewed by a specially appointed committee/faculty in place of a certain project.
Instead of being mollycoddled like kindergarten kids, students are being given the choice to make decisions that will affect them, with substantial input from the admin to support the making of these choices. There have been hitches, as with anything new. But why must this be seen as a deterrence?
As for your use of the word 'retarded', I strongly suggest you read this:http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/
- I said that “some people will argue that writing 4-6 academic research papers (projects) every trimester/semester is not qualitative”. This indicates that I am not arguing this, but adding this as a caveat in case someone wishes to respond with such argument.
- Given that many students do not devote the ideally desired amount of time to their projects (evidenced by the fact that not many students manage quality publications based on their projects), I said that the “1 paper most students will produce now would not be much different from the older ones (there would be exceptions of course)”. Carefully note the words “most” and “exceptions” which are, again, caveats to prevent an allegation of fallacy. Similarly, I said “Most (not all) students will enjoy the free time and suffer in the long run”. It is not an assumption to state that most students need rigour to be on track or most law students are unable to manage quality publications. Most does not mean all, so there will be quite a few exceptions.
- I said that this move “dilutes the training”. Now, legal training is not limited to ‘research’ alone. It means training that helps one to think and act like a lawyer. Such training includes research as well as “writing, analysis, presentation, time management and even MS Word!” Just so that you know, these (except MS Word) are skills identified by the American Bar Association and referred in the vision document for NLSIU by Dr. Menon. These are also practice aspects that law firms consciously evaluate associates on. Even if some students do not wish to practice law, these are skills for which training must be imparted by the NLUs if they wish to continue as institutions of excellence.
Happy to hear that you have choices etc., but I still maintain that the step may prevent students from acquiring certain skills that are developed by quantitative demands, rather than qualitative ones. You see, the more you practice, the better you get! Appreciate that at the UG level, research is just one skill which law students must learn, among many others. At PG level, research may be the sole focus; at doctoral level, its just one thesis.
Yes, there can be hitches, and I agree that hitches must not deter us from moving forward. But hey, I am not naive or detached from reality! Are you aware of the reality? Do you know how worthless and politics-oriented many VCs, deans and senior professors are? The fact is, many (repeat, ‘many’; NOT all) of them are worthless self-serving creatures who do not have much understanding of the law, forget development of the students and running a premier lawschool. They haven’t been able to establish the new NLUs. They are damaging the older lawschools by playing politics, which are backed by their stupid decisions and retarded policies. For example, at NLSIU, they removed Dr. Jayagovind and Mr. Sidharth Chauhan in an arbitrary fashion, prevented the return of established teachers such as Prof. Babu Mathew and Prof. Sitharamam Kakarala who had played an important role in the development of the institution in the 1990s, not made attempts to recruit qualified alumni such as Mrinal Satish (JSD from Yale, 2012), Aparna Chandra (JSD from Yale, 2013), Mr. N.S. Nigam (D. Phil from Oxford) and Mr. Naveen Thayyil (PhD from Tilburg University) who had inquired about teaching positions over the last one year. You see, the real concern is that most VCs and senior professors at every NLU are destroying the NLU culture and pedagogy based on the US model that was devised by Dr. Menon.
As I already said, the theme of my comment is not anti-NALSAR, but an expression of the sadness and frustration caused by the deterioration we are seeing.
I could not visit the link you suggested, but rest assured, I understand the dictionary meaning of the word "retarded". Bit of advice: be careful about a stand you take and don’t speak without thinking it through.
All the best. Peace.
1. I completely understand, and agree. However, you fail to grasp MY point. I agreed to the fact that many (yes, MANY) students do not put in quality work, but clearly pointed out how the same will now be limited only to one or two projects, unlike all five (as you yourself clearly pointed out). The relatively lighter projects ensure that a student chooses a topic of his liking (movie review, newspaper discovery, etc) and works on it. This serves two purposes- that students who do not have any inclination whatsoever towards legal writing aren't forced to do the same, thereby not wasting the time of two people, and, that they can be evaluated on something they have wilfully chosen to do. An element of fairness towards all, perhaps?
2. I fail to understand how you fail to grasp the fact that writing (pointless) research papers (with utter disinterest) will inculcate skills such as "“writing, analysis, presentation, time management and even MS Word!”" any better than the new system, when there is at least an element of choice. Also, like I said, these projects focus on Law as the central theme. To put it better- they make one think out of the box, abstract.. As for Mr. Menon's vision document- I haven't read it. However, I am sure even he would agree that change, when brought about with the aim of increasing participation, and with a vision to adapt to the growing needs of the field, and the society at large.
Why is it that you seem to be batting for a system that will churn out 'lawyers' most ideally suited to crossing over to the 'dark side'? Believe me, the Force will desert you if you tug this line too much.
3. Again, you seem to assume (yes, assume) that these projects do not make us think. Tell me then, how this premise of yours fits with the example of us having had to figure out the literary value of judgements, the legal merit of issues hyped by the media, the lessons one can learn from the world of fiction, and so on? I cannot argue more, since you have not pointed out what the 'other skills' are.
4. Please note, Chauhan has been appointed faculty at NALSAR. Which is a positive step. There are 7 other people coming to teach, in addition to a host of new courses (I can send you the list) that we are being offered.
Politics or not, I fail to see how any of this is presently detrimental. Why kill ideas even before they take shape? Experiment implies you see how an idea shapes out in reality, before rejecting it.
Also, most VCs might be doing it. Our VC, presently, doesn't seem to be. The guy has taken over from Veer Singh. Give him a break, for once?
Here, try this link:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/ann-coulter-retard-john-franklin-stephens-special-olympics-open-letter_n_2008538.html
1. My rebuttal was primarily on the allegation of “assumption”. That aside, I don’t see where you are going with “students who do not have any inclination whatsoever towards legal writing aren't forced to do the same”. Your point essentially seems to be that a student benefits if he is allowed the freedom to dilute any aspect of the training if he doesn’t like that training, which also saves the faculty’s time as faculty does not have to deal with a disinterested student. What a happy situation! Tomorrow, some student will say I don’t want to study a subject or give an exam or not make a presentation etc etc because I should not be forced to deal with something I do not like or which has no relevance for me. Will you say it’s great because it saves the student the pain of pursuing something they don’t like and also saves the teacher’s time? The training can only be restructured when there is a good reason and only after ensuring that quality is not compromised. Read on to appreciate why I say this.
2. You can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. The curriculum does not assume that students are disinterested. If students want to copy-paste and do other crap because they are not interested, no one can help them. The idea of the NLU model of pedagogy (which is based on the US model in many ways) is that the students will gather various skills required to become a lawyer by doing certain things in certain ways. The rigour of numerous projects is a basic structure of the pedagogy. Take it away and the development is compromised. NLUs are not aiming to produce Jolly LLBs. No problem if you haven’t read Dr. Menon’s document. In summary, it says that to produce good lawyers, certain skills need to be imparted and to impart those skills, certain pedagogy must be followed. That includes rigorous tasks like making 5 projects a semester, without allowing students to compromise the quality. If your point is that some students are anyways compromising the quality, appreciate that it’s their problem. Tomorrow, no one would be lining up to recruit those students. Would you rather be with them? Any student who claims disinterest in making projects is a lazy bum or a kid who’s disillusioned by the poor faculty. The latter is a problem plaguing many students.
3. You seem to have gotten me wrong. I said projects are great because they help to develop “professional skills relating to research, writing, analysis, presentation, time management and even MS Word!” Thus, I never said projects do not make you think, which you seem to be asserting. To the contrary, my point is projects make you think and analyze and if you make only 1 project a semester, you will have less practice in lawschool. I have not used the expression “other skills” – I did a CRTL+F search and ‘other skills’ is an expression which only you have used. You must use quotation marks only when you intend to quote verbatim.
4. Yes, Chauhan is a friend of mine and I know about his appointment. Just because the VC has taken a positive step does not mean I should not criticize his other decisions. As they say, one good deed does not redeem a person for his wrongs. The comment on politics was not directed specifically at the NALSAR VC. It was a general observation on a separate note to lament the fact that most senior professors in the various NLUs are not suited to run the NLUs and they engage in politics. I gave the example of NLS and cited various recent developments to elucidate. Maybe the NALSAR VC is not like that. However, I think his logic behind the present move is a retarded one. It shows that NALSAR is in danger under his leadership. And I say this because I have a cousin at NALSAR and I don’t want NALSAR to slide anyway. You see, I am on your side. An idea that is not backed by good reasons must be nipped in the bud. Once again, 1 project is a BAD idea and the reasons cited behind the decision are RETARDED. I would be absolutely agreeable to change when the proposed change is backed by good logic.
All the best. Make the most out of lawschool.
You seem like a senior, and who has seen, and knows much. Respect.
I am not very senior though and am junior to Chauhan. I am not from NLS either.
Also do not think that people are excluded from from using their analysis, presentation, research skills etc. In every work we do, we require all of those essentials. We have just broadened the horizon of what more things we can inculcate.
I am sure doing things like doing Field work and getting a first hand exposure to the problems faced by people, Interviewing social activists and prominent lawyers and learning more about and from them, getting to learn how to draft of Petitions, deeds etc, analyse the laws and reports of other institutions, Analysis of other legal texts, important cases etc are also some of the skills which our potential employers would appreciate. And they all require the writing and presenting skills that would be required from a research paper. Infact it is taking more creativity from our part to excel in all these projects
Every Nalsar student used to write 50+ research papers in 5 years, around 60 to 70 for most of them.
I think that is way more than enough to exercise our research skills.
Now Nalsar asks for a minimum of 10 Research projects( although every student here would do 15-20 or more of them no doubt) .. and other practical skills that would be helpful. After all, Nalsar is not just aiming that its students go into one field but its training them to enter into which ever field they desire whether corporate, litigation, Human rights, arbitration, Academics etc etc...
we still have 5 projects every semester, which accounts for 50 projects, its just that not all of them have to be research papers.
A for Aa Pel
As regards batch of 2017, they'll be second years in the next semester! As if they are the be-all-end-all of the place; and what data do you place your confidence in the Batch of 2018 (they still haven't joined).
You guys (3rd years) have had a kid-ish hatred for AD and wouldn't let it go.
The way you use language bothers me You seem to be suggesting we overthrow the legally established administration and take complete control of NALSAR, so as to run a parallel government, since there are batches below us who can/will not oppose our actions (which in itself is a false assumption)? Clearly wherever you come from, democracy is a notion unheard of, not to mention that your tone and language seem to echo an ideology similar to that of the Maoist rebels.
Oh, and just by the way- I'm not the biggest admirer of Prof. Dhanda, but what right and credibilty do you (whoever you are) have to opine on her competence and credibility? (If you are a fellow NALSARite, the last sentence stands negated, of course.)
NALSAR is the first one in introducing structural changes.
Attendance is over-rated.
And writing one real paper in a subject you like rather than 5 plagiarised pieces is way better.
Good job.
NALSAR might just get its mojo back.
The objective of projects is only research so one thesis a semester should suffice in lieu of 5 projects. Other qualities that 40-50 odd projects are supposed to inculcate are not necessary anymore. After all, lawyers do not need skills beyond research, do they? Drafting, presentation, time management, etc. can wait till students graduate because there was no focus on such development before the advent of NLUs. Let's also do away with some optional papers and seminars and focus only on the mandatory papers prescribed by the BCI. While we are at it, lets also reduce the no. of exams, provide attendance waivers and do away with the other stupid rigours of lawschool. Dr. Menon was a fool to demand so many projects and the other NLUs are also foolish blind followers. LLB students should be trained like post-graduate students and doctoral candidates because rigorous research is the only quality needed for practicing law. Kya zaroraat hai itna stress ka? Why force students to turn around multiple projects? Let them relax and they'll be jolly good lawyers after 5 years.
In any case Prof. Menon is also old Aligarh Nawab. He studied and taught there. Nalsar is trying to bring innovative academic reforms. The true impact would be assessed to decide their continuance. So far students and teachers have positively reacted to these reforms.
If things really go wrong, nothing prevents us from asking Mustafa-Dhanda team to go back to the old system.We are confidant that we would be heard.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first