For previous years’ Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) candidates, faculty quality of a law school was the most important factor in choosing whether or not to seek admission, according to a study conducted by Nalsar Hyderabad on legal education reforms which was commissioned by the Department of Justice (DoJ).
The responses to that study also showcased ambivalent opinions on the justification of CLAT itself as an entrance exam.
While more than 38% respondents to the study’s survey answered that it was a “good idea” to use the CLAT as a method to judge an applicant’s aptitude, a nearly equal number - more than 33% - also thought that it was a “bad idea”.
In terms of factors influencing law school choices, faculty quality came first, followed by the law school’s placement track record, the ‘ranking’ of the law school, its physical infrastructure, financial assistance available and its geographical setting.
Consideration of the fee only came in last among the “most important” factors, according to the study.
“The responses to our questionnaire show that after the quality of ‘faculty’, the publicly known ‘Law School Rankings’ are the second most important factor for applicants to choose between NLUs,” noted the survey, adding:
With respect to the Common Law Aptitude Test (CLAT), the preferences of applicants seem to be driving the rankings of the NLUs, the latter having a strong correlation with the year of their establishment. These informal ‘rankings’ are then publicized by news-magazines and online publications which in turn shape the preferences of newer applicants. This is not a desirable situation since it gives relatively older institutions an artificial advantage and has already led to complacency on their part when it comes to the actual quality of education offered by them. It would also demoralize newer institutions who may not be able to improve their perceived ‘ranking’ despite significant efforts made to improve teaching standards. Hence, there is a need for an authoritative ranking of the NLUs by a publicly reliable source. We suggest that the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) introduced by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India should include the NLUs as one of the sub-categories in their annual exercise of ranking higher educational institutions in India.
However, the study also noted more positively:
It is heartening to note that an overwhelming majority of the student-respondents value the quality of teaching as the most important criteria for choosing a particular institution.
This is a welcome change when compared to the long-entrenched stereotype about law students enrolled in India’s larger public universities being indifferent to the quality of classroom instruction. It indicates that the NLUs have succeeded to some extent in attracting students with healthy levels of motivation to pursue higher studies. This places an obligation on the NLUs to constantly enhance their teaching resources, whether it is in terms of the number of personnel available, the range of expertise available, the quality of instruction delivered and the extent of student satisfaction.
The study makes detailed actionable recommendations to improve access to NLUs, to:
- improve access,
- academic inputs, and
- administrative processes.
How to tackle the faculty crisis?
Since faculty quality was such a top factor in choosing a law school, and since NLUs had a general dearth of quality faculty, the report suggested:
Contrary to the popular wisdom on this issue, pay-scales are not the only factor. Competent and motivated teachers will join institutions that are known to offer permanent teaching positions within a reasonable time-frame of 2-3 years. Relying on teachers in temporary positions for several years at a stretch leads to a high rate of attrition and makes it difficult to attract fresh talent. In order to induct fresh talent, pathways can be created such as paid Teaching Assistant positions for recent LL.M. graduates and Ph.D.
candidates who show an aptitude for teaching. Another prospective step that can be considered is for the NLUs to collectively organise their own Law Teachers Eligibility Test (LTET) in place of the UGC NET which is the current threshold for being considered for permanent teaching positions. This test can be designed so as to ensure a more meaningful assessment of an individual‟s aptitude for teaching. In the larger scheme of things, a working environment that encourages diligence, creativity and transparency will enable the accumulation of qualitatively better human resources.
The study also made several other suggestions, such as:
- more use of the Socratic method or smaller-group ‘tutorials’ in teaching rather than just lectures,
- a choice-based credit system (CBCS) as a “must” for all institutions,
- all schools to organise “curriculum development workshops” before the start of each academic year,
- special English language skill classes,
- more student feedback on teacher performance,
- a “conscious effort” by NLUs to “share their academic resources”.
Judging the entrance
The CLAT, which was not a “good idea” for the second-largest number of respondents to the study, can be cracked more easily with entrance test coaching according to more than 35% of the respondents who said coaching “makes a significant difference”.
31.7% of the respondents even recommended that adding personal interviews or group discussions to the law school admission process was a “good idea”.
The study commented:
Multiple-choice questions might entail effort-saving for those who organize admissions, but do not capture an applicant’s aptitude for theory-building and analytical writing, both of which are vital for meaningfully pursuing legal education. Making admission decisions solely on the basis of a two-hour exam appears to be unfair to school-leaving applicants who might better demonstrate their abilities through scrutiny of several factors taken together such as performance in school-leaving examinations, writing samples, letters of recommendation and achievements in co-curricular activities.
In order to increase the number of students applying and to improve diversity, the study authors recommended that the application fees of Rs 4,000 for the CLAT should be halved, to correspond to entrance fees in other disciplines.
The authors also recommended that there was a “pressing need to improve the co-ordination mechanisms for conducting the CLAT”, with the “present model of rotating organisational responsibilities to a fresh institution each year” having “undermined the quality” of the exam, citing many of the very public errors in the conduct that have been well documented in previous years.
NLU Delhi really should join the CLAT (despite iffy quality?)
The authors also recommend in particular that NLU Delhi should really join the CLAT:
At least two of the NLUs that are currently in existence (NLU Delhi and HPNLU Shimla) are not using the CLAT for conducting their admissions. They should be advised to join the same. By remaining outside the ambit of this process, they are undermining the objective of a common exam introduced in 2008, which was to reduce the monetary and physical burden on applicants.
Domicile quotas
They also say that high “domicile quotas” at several NLUs are “not a desirable characteristic in the long-run, as it undermines the national character of the student body”, and “lead to undue resentment against students who gain admission with much lower ranks” in the CLAT.
NRI-sponsored seats misused
The study also recommended that the high-cost NRI-sponsored seats should be abolished, though seats allocated to students from abroad, particularly to economically developing countries:
Furthermore, a few NLUs have provided for „NRI-Sponsored‟ seats. This category should be discontinued since it is being misused by those who have completed their schooling in India but have relatives in developed countries who are willing to sponsor their education by paying the higher fee structure.
How to fix the administrative malaise?
The study makes some good points about how to improve transparency and quality in administration, including:
- all NLUs to proactively disclose annual financial on their websites,
- a more “broad-based process” for selecting VCs, and
- “elected student bodies need to be nurtured and encouraged rather than being discouraged or even prohibited”:
Having said that, there are good arguments for continuing with the prohibition on mainstream political parties from mobilizing on these campuses. However, we should not go to the other extreme of not allowing elected student bodies at all. In some NLUs, the student office-bearers are being nominated by faculty members or being selected on the basis of their academic performance. Those models are not desirable either.
Methodology and authors
A total of 849 students from 15 national law universities (NLUs) were surveyed (“12% of the aggregate number of full-time students at the participating institutions”, according to the study), in addition to interviews with around 160 faculty members.
The paper’s listed authors are Nalsar vice chancellor Faizan Mustafa, Nalsar’s Jagteshwar Singh Sohi, Sidharth Chauhan and Sudhanshu Kumar, and Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas head of learning and development, Vaibhav Ganjiwale.
The full report can be accessed on SSRN.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
We had also requested Mr. Saurabh Bhattacharjee to help coordinate a meeting with any faculty member who could spare 15 minutes to allow us to share with them the idea and methodology of the study. Most of the first half of the day was spent meeting various faculty members. Each of them was given a questionnaire designed for the faculty.
Post-lunch we met a group of students who had turned up for our talk. We had a fruitful discussion with them and got some to fill in an anonymous online questionnaire. They were also requested them to spread the word among others on campus as planned to stay around as long as someone was willing to have a conversation. Most of the evening was spent meeting representatives of a number of different student committees and student-run initiatives.
In my individual opinion, the response we received from the student body at NUJS was definitely on the more enthusiastic side of the spectrum. We were on campus until around dinner time and had a great time listening in to what the students had to say.
...
The report can be accessed here (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3171842), and the dates of our visits can be found on p. 27.
www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/top-25-law-colleges/300182
barandbench.com/india-today-finally-got-law-school-rankings-right-hint-not-chance/
However, it is very good that they have commented on NLUD's shameful behaviour to be excluded from CLAT, with even Shamnad Basheer has slyly avoided in his PIL. I cannot understand why no PIL is filed regarding this.
2. We have commented on anyone's 'shameful behavior,' nor have we 'slammed' anyone in the report. Concerning NLU-D, we have merely pointed out that its continued existence outside the CLAT (with its many well-documented issues) goes against the spirit of the decision establishing CLAT.
As for the 'meaningfulness' or 'meaninglessness' of the entire report, why don't you first read the 54,000 word document and then write a critique or a response piece in your actual name? That would carry far more weightage than a casual anonymous comment.
It would also be interesting to compare the factors that non-NLU students look at, for while they may be similar in some aspects, they may be quite different in others. The very fact that for almost 60% of the people at NLU, fees are not 'very important', highlights the socio-economic background of the typical NLU student.
Honestly, as a non-NLU student, I have gone with reputation (rather than ranking) as my (second) most important criterion, after location, and a liberal attendance system that leaves time for work/other activities. All these factors correlate with placements. Though I have come to respect some of our faculty, they were never a consideration while choosing my college. Fees on the other hand, were an important factor.
1) What made you choose a law school when you were giving CLAT?
2) Having now gained admission, do you hold the same view? What do you think should be the criteria that students should follow?
Answer to 1: Ranking/reputation, NLU brand name, peer advice, parents, Sharmaji ka beta, India Today.
Answer to 2: No, I was an idiot. What really matters is quality of faculty and placement scenario for all rather than a select few.
1. Jindal
2. NLUD/NALSAR (at par)
3. NLSIU
4. NLUJ/NLIU/GNLU (at par)
5. Other NLUs
Student preferences:
1. NLSIU
2. NALSAR
3. NUJS/NLUD (at par)
4. NLUJ/NLIU/GNLU (at par)
5. Other NLUs
6. Jindal/Symbi/Amity
Thus, students preferences are more tilted towards placements and ranking.
1. Shoddy standards regarding projects, where some professors do not bother running a plagiarism check. I've heard from friends at other law schools that there isn't checking for plagiarism at all! They even ask for projects they can resubmit after changing the name.
2. Teachers spend too much time teaching what they like instead of what they should be teaching. For instance, we weren't taught breach or contract or damages, even though it is one of the most import aspects of Contract Law that a person ought to know.
3. Arbitrary marking: I have personally seen answer scripts where two people have written substantially similar answers, cited the same case laws, and have have been marked differently.
4. Exchange Programs allow students to essentially buy marks for money, since they come back with extremely inflated grades that are all but impossible to get in NALSAR for anyone who can't afford, or isn't interested in exchange.This also causes a feedback loop of increasing grades because those who have higher grades already get to go on exchange, this makes the higher ranks unobtainable for most of the batch by the final years.
5. Absolutely terrible policy of academic leave, where people with sprained hands have been forced to write exams, where people who were admitted to hospitals were asked to provide additional proof or original copies of certificates when copies of everything were provided. The policy of the administration is "they are all probably lying to get attendance/exemption".
6. The college does not support mooting or corporate placements, but is very happy to take credit for them even when they actively get in the way of things. Individuals teachers help, but the administration in general does not want to provide exemptions for attendance requirements, rescheduling classes, or even getting more courses to help people learn commercial laws (although this has been changing recently).
7. Many teachers still shame people for the clothes they wear, give weird looks to males and females walking together. The administration is in denial that people in the age range of 18-24 might be sexually active. Until recently they used to light up every corner of the campus, send guards patrolling everywhere, etc. If it was outside it would be understandable, but the sheer number of guards inside means that the only reason they exist is to police behavior that is not even prohibited in the rules.
8. Absolutely terrible infrastructure, and people are not even allowed to keep fridges or coolers (even speakers in some cases) in their room to alleviate their issues with horrendous summer weather (mid 40s) without fearing them being confiscated.
9. The administration does not care at all about a lot of old time teachers who barely take any classes, in some cases there are people who took only a handful of classes in an entire semester! But god forbid a student falls short of 2 classes they can be forbidden from writing their end-semester examination.
10. NALSAR has some of the highest fees of all NLUs, but to show for it there's failing internet infrastructure where webpages don't even load half the time, terrible hostels (except for the current fifth year boys), terrible food, wild animals everywhere, no college subsidized transport to the city, making trips affordable for most.
11. When the student body attempted to pass a recruitment policy that was similar to what NLS did, but with more safeguards in place, the administration effectively threatened to take over the placement process if the policy was not neutered or removed. The administration thinks the protection of sexual harassment convicts (not accused) should take precedence over the victims.
NALSAR as an academic institution is a terrible place, where people will suffer for five years, but will at least get the pay-off of big 7 firms and a brand value. The student body is pretty good and I've had a nice time here so far. But the administration is absolutely terrible, hypocritical, and driven mad with power. Some of the faculty is brilliant, especially the younger ones likes Sidharth Chauhan, Sudhanshu, Neha Pathakji, etc. However, some of the older ones, who I will not name here, don't even care about taking classes. One particular teacher is notorious for showing up late, ending early, and taking less than 10 classes a semester.
Basically, you can see that rankings are useless to see what colleges will be like. Better to ask people who at those colleges to get an idea for what they are like. Obviously they are biased, so focus on questions that matter, and ask multiple people.
Seriously - quit nalsar. It's really not as bad as you make it sound.
Assuming what you've written is true - these sound like 1st world privilege problems that you describe in your comment. Listen to the problems at other law schools.
Best
I can't say that I know what it was like before, but I can certainly say that I find it unacceptable that teachers that do not take classes are still on the payrolls, and even visiting faculty who have taken 3-5 classes in a semester (for 3 credit courses) are invited over and over again.
As a student in a traditional university, I can say with utmost certainty that we resent the interference of the admin in our affairs as much as those in NALSAR. We don't think the problems outlined are first world problems at all, and as someone who has been fortunate enough to be educated in a reputed UK University, I never had any of the problems outlined by @NALSAR whilst there.
@NALASAR, these problems are pervasive in all Indian institions...we need to organise ourselves better for change. Unfortunately, a large part of the Indian population is Victorian, so it will be a tall task.
NALSAR has had a history of terrible moral policing and a very opaque and drunk-on-power admin, but THIS ADMIN ISN'T THE CULPRIT. The times of Ranbir Singh and Veer Singh were infinitely worse and the accountability of the administration was zilch. The place has moved on to much, much better times.
I admit this is not a response to your argument: the administration must work towards the issues you highlighted on a continuous basis. However, it is important to understand that what you have is what was denied to generations before you, and the evolution of an institution is an organic process, sometimes perhaps taking years after rampant maladministration to curb the culture and effects of the past.
I completely acknowledge the fact that batches prior to my had it much worse, but I am ashamed that I can't leave it better for my juniors than I had for myself.
1) Presence of alumni in governing body like IIT and IIM
2) National Importance status like IIT and IIM
3) Improvement of faculty and better electives
4) Inclusion of NLUD in CLAT.
There should be a pressure campaign on the law ministry to implements these recommendations ASAP.
Outlook ranking:
I have divided ‘the hits’ into those published in international journals [each carrying 5 points], domestic journals [2 points] and journals run by home institution [0.5 points]. Further, for citations recorded against the name of the author by HeinOnline I have counted a further 0.25 points.
Note 1: The points systems in totally arbitrary and you may disregard it in its entirety.
Note 2: I have included in publication only those ‘hits’ noted by HeinOnline as other than ‘notes, comments.’
Note 3: A lot of the domestic publications by professors, esp. those associated presently or in the past with NLSIU have been in ‘Student Advocate.’ I am unaware of this journal but have accorded it the status of ‘domestic’ as of now. If someone can correct me on this then I shall alter the ‘scoring’ accordingly.
Note 4: I have counted something as ‘home’ publication when the paper appears in a journal run by an institution the author has been associated with at any stage.
The following data is provided as: name of professor – no. of int’l/domestic/home publications – no. of citations – total points
Total points NLUD Professors [10.75]
Ranbir Singh 0 2 2 0 5
G.S Bajpai 0 0 2 0 1
Harpreet Kaur 0 0 1 3 1.25
Anju Tyagi 0 0 1 0 0.5
Anupama Goel 0 0 0 0 0
Mrinal Satish 0 1 3 4 3
Jeet Singh Mann 0 0 0 0 0
Ritu Gupta 0 0 0 0 0
Anil Kumar Rai 0 0 0 0 0
Total points NALSAR Professors [36.25]
Amita Dhanda 4 0 0 30 27.25
Faizan Mustafa 1 0 0 0 5
K.V.S Sarma 0 0 0 0 0
VIdyulattha 0 0 0 0 0
N. Vasanthi 0 0 0 0 0
Balakista Reddy 0 0 0 0 0
Vivekanandan 0 2 0 0 4
Vijender Kumar 0 0 0 0 0
Total points NLSIU Professors [19.5]
R. Venkata Rao 0 0 0 0 0
O.V Nandimath 0 0 0 0 0
V. Nagaraj 3 0 0 0 15
M. K. Ramesh 0 0 0 0 0
T. Ramakrishna 0 0 0 0 0
S. Japhet 0 0 0 0 0
Ashok R. Patil 0 0 0 0 0
Sarasu Thomas 0 2 0 0 4
Sairam Bhat 0 0 1 0 0.5
I would also like to point out that while publications are an important factor in judging faculty quality, they by no means indicate/ensure teaching quality. I have seen several teachers in my law school, who were very good inside classrooms with the subjects they offered, but who were not that interested in publishing. Similarly, there were at least 2 teachers, who had enviable publication record, but couldn't teach for a toffee! However, since teaching prowess cannot be objectively determined by outsiders, I guess publications remain the only way for now.
1. I assume you are counting home journals separately from other domestic journals to neutralize any home court advantage. I would therefore count a home publication only for articles that appeared in home journals while the author was associated with that institution, not before or after.
2. Citations: it is interesting that only 3 people in the entire list have had their articles cited by others! But citation count also depends on the age of a piece. An earlier piece of similar impact will have more citations just because it has been around for some time. There should be some way to take that into account.
3. Spread: while both nalsar and nls have more points, nlud has more professors with points. Therefore if we are looking at overall faculty quality, the raw numbers might not indicate much. Is there some way in which the spread can be counted?
4. Number of years of experience: should we place newly minted professors in the same category as those who have been around for some time and have therefore had the chance to publish more? Or is there some way in which we can account for the number of years of employment as an academic in determining publication ranking? Maybe divide the score by the number of years in the profession?
There is a dire need to develop the parameters for judging the teaching capacity of a faculty member. The feedbacks from students cannot be the only method to evaluate the Professor's performance as all of us know a faculy giving A+ to students and not marking them absent can get excellent feedbacks.
I wonder if this is because the situation is much worse of in NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS, CNLU (to name a few), or that the student bodies are 'given' the freedom to air their grievances with greater confidence. I doubt I have read much by way of criticism by students of NLU-J, NLUO, NLU-D, RGNUL (again, to name a few).
Anyways, just a lay observation by an older alum.
1. A large number of domestic journals are not part of HeinOnline. Only some journals of NLSIU, NLU-D, NUALS, NUJS seem to be indexed on it. Please keep this in mind while looking at the data.
2. Publications in no way determine teaching capacity.
3. A number of people here will have written books and/or book chapters that can't be in factored in using this lay methodology.
4. As far as possible I have attempted to keep 'home' journals limited to the time someone was at such and such institution. However, there may have been genuine errors.
5. Lack of citations may totally be related to new-ness of a paper. Some of the younger Assistant Profs (I remember one or two who have published in international journals) have had publications as recent as 2017-18.
6. Larger number of faculty members at NLU-D have 'scored' of this collation of data. However, do keep in mind that they have been active with the 'home' journal. I do not claim that this is necessarily to be looked down upon. Maybe they are helping build their own journal. However, lack of publications 'outside' does dampen the enthusiasm of this claim (of mine).
7. I have not weighted the data for number of years in service. I do not have the time to go into the websites once again. Hopefully, I can return to this at some point.
8. Please beware that some of the data here is patently flawed. I had counted 'Student Advocate' as 'domestic' journal for a few faculty members. Someone has (very kindly) informed me that it is an older name for the NLSI review. As such, it will become 'home' publication for some. I apologize for not going through each name to correct the same.
9. Some specific notes are mentioned against the names of faculty members for NLSIU.
Other than that, methodology remains the same. I'll re-count the salient points here:
1. I have divided ‘the hits’ into those published in international journals [each carrying 5 points], domestic journals [2 points] and journals run by home institution [0.5 points]. Further, for citations recorded against the name of the author by HeinOnline I have counted a further 0.25 points.
2. The points systems in totally arbitrary and you may disregard it in its entirety.
3. I have included in publication only those ‘hits’ noted by HeinOnline as other than ‘notes, comments.’
The data is provided as: name of professor – no. of int’l/domestic/home publications – no. of citations – total points
Professors [10.75]
Ranbir Singh 0 2 2 0 5
G.S Bajpai 0 0 2 0 1
Harpreet Kaur 0 0 1 3 1.25
Anju Tyagi 0 0 1 0 0.5
Anupama Goel 0 0 0 0 0
Mrinal Satish 0 1 3 4 3
Jeet Singh Mann 0 0 0 0 0
Ritu Gupta 0 0 0 0 0
Anil Kumar Rai 0 0 0 0 0
Associate profs [5.5]
Bharti 0 0 0 0 0
Ruhi Paul 1 0 0 0 5
Vinod Kumar 0 0 1 0 0.5
Amita Punj 0 0 0 0 0
Risham Garg 0 0 0 0 0
Assistant profs [35.25]
Sushila 0 0 0 0 0
Mukul Raizada 0 0 0 0 0
Anup S'nath 0 0 0 0 0
Jasper Vikas 0 0 1 0 0.5
Neeraj Tiwari 2 0 0 0 10
Aparna Chandra 1 2 3 4 11.5
Arul G. Scaria 1 0 1 0 5.5
Daniel Matthew 0 0 0 0 0
Sophy K.J 0 0 1 0 0.5
Vishal Mahalwar 0 0 0 0 0
Aparajita Bhatt 0 0 0 0 0
Niraj Kumar 0 0 0 0 0
Preeti Lakhera 0 0 0 0 0
Prem Chand 0 0 0 0 0
Chinmayi Arun 0 2 0 0 4
Yogesh Pai 0 1 2 1 3.25
Bharti Yadav 0 0 0 0 0
Monika Negi 0 0 0 0 0
INSTITUTIONAL TOTAL = 51.5
Professors [36.25]
Amita Dhanda 4 0 0 30 27.25
Faizan Mustafa 1 0 0 0 5
K.V.S Sarma 0 0 0 0 0
K. VIdyulattha 0 0 0 0 0
N. Vasanthi 0 0 0 0 0
Balakista Reddy 0 0 0 0 0
Vivekanandan 0 2 0 0 4
Vijender Kumar 0 0 0 0 0
Associate profs [0]
Aruna Venkat 0 0 0 0 0
K.V.K Santhy 0 0 0 0 0
Assistant profs [12.75]
Adya Surabhi 0 0 0 0 0
Ashwini Kumar P 0 0 0 0 0
D. Bala Krishna 0 0 0 0 0
G. Mallikarjun 0 0 0 0 0
Jagteshwar Sohi 1 0 0 0 5
Neha Pathakji 1 1 0 0 7
Prerna Dhoop 0 0 0 0 0
Rajesh Kapoor 0 0 0 0 0
S N A Shafi 0 0 0 0 0
Sidharth Chauhan 0 0 1 1 0.75
Sourabh Bharti 0 0 0 0 0
Sudhanshu Kumar 0 0 0 0 0
Raghavendra Rao 0 0 0 0 0
Vivek Mukherjee 0 0 0 0 0
Institutional Total = 49
Professors [19.5]
R. Venkata Rao 0 0 0 0 0
O.V Nandimath 0 0 0 0 0
V. Nagaraj 3 0 0 0 15
M. K. Ramesh 0 0 0 0 0
T. Ramakrishna 0 0 0 0 0
S. Japhet 0 0 0 0 0
Ashok R. Patil 0 0 0 0 0
Sarasu Thomas 0 2 0 0 4
Sairam Bhat 0 0 1 0 0.5
Associate profs [28.25]
Govindraj Hegde 0 0 0 0 0
Rahul Singh 3 1 2 1 18.25
Yashomati Ghosh 2 0 0 0 10
A. Nagarathna 0 0 0 0 0
Assistant profs [36]
Makkalaban 0 0 0 0 0
Anuja S. 0 0 0 0 0
Kumar Abhijeet 5 0 0 0 25 [4 of his 5 publications are at the IISL Symposia. 2 of these 4 are co-authored with 5/7 others. They are marked as 'article' by HeinOnline and I have counted them as 'int'l publications' but this seems like a slippery slope.]
Vishnuprasad 0 0 0 0 0
Kunal Ambasta 2 0 1 0 10.5
Prashanth Desai 0 0 0 0 0
Arpitha H.C 0 0 0 0 0
Manjeri Subin 0 0 0 0 0
Priya Misra 0 0 0 0 0
Praveen Tripathi 0 0 0 0 0
Rashmi Venkatesan 0 0 1 0 0.5
Anita Patil 0 0 0 0 0
Chetan Singai 0 0 0 0 0
Suchithra Menon 0 0 0 0 0
Anita Yadav 1 0 0 0 5 [I am hard pressed to accept the Kathmandu Law Review as an 'int'l publication']
Rahul Choragudi 0 0 0 0 0
Institutional Total = 83.75 [disregarding KA's 4 papers & weighting AY's paper as domestic, the score drops to 60.75].
NLU-D
Ranbir Singh 0 2 2 0 5
Ruhi Paul 1 0 0 0 5
Neeraj Tiwari 2 0 0 0 10
Aparna Chandra 1 2 3 4 11.5
Arul G. Scaria 1 0 1 0 5.5
NALSAR
Amita Dhanda 4 0 0 30 27.25
Faizan Mustafa 1 0 0 0 5
Jagteshwar Sohi 1 0 0 0 5
Neha Pathakji 1 1 0 0 7
NLSIU
V. Nagaraj 3 0 0 0 15
Rahul Singh 3 1 2 1 18.25
Yashomati Ghosh 2 0 0 0 10
Kumar Abhijeet 5 0 0 0 25
Kunal Ambasta 2 0 1 0 10.5
Anita Yadav 1 0 0 0 5
1. Domestic publications: Include all institutional journals, at least those published by the NLUs. Include journals published by private publishers only if the journal is indexed on Hein, JSTOR, Westlaw or Lexis. Most NLU journals are indexed on SCC Online.
2. Include only those international publications that are indexed on SCOPUS or Web of Science. This will ensure that quality of publication is accounted for and the current anomalies (of including Kathmandu Law Review etc) is removed.
2. Do NOT include book chapters or books (unless there is some way of categorizing publishers). At the least, include ONLY international publishers and not domestic ones.
3. Include international, national and state level policy documents generated by faculty members. That is, when an intergovernmental international institution like the UN, a Central institution like the Law Commission, the DOJ or the SC, or a state institution like a High Court has asked a faculty member to contribute to a policy document, that should be counted too.
3. Consider publications only for the last 10 years (or some such cut off). Prevents people from resting on their laurels. In the alternative, divide publication score by the number of years in service/ time between earliest and latest publication.
4. Proceed with the understanding that this is not the complete publication list (or research list) of each faculty, but only the part that is being counted. This should not be a huge concern bebcause all faculty members are being judged on the same criteria and are being placed relative to each other on the same criteria.
5. To procure information, create an inter-law school team that will collect publication data of faculty members for each law school, and verify it on the parameters mentioned here. Collection can be by way of asking the institution for the data, or through RTI. Get some big names behind the project and most law schools will feel compelled to release this data.
The use of this information will be important not only in this sort of ranking exercise, but also in recruitment of faculty, demand for better faculty etc.
With regard to reports also, we could have a classification system based on who published the report - an international organisation/ central government/ state government/ university, and each category could be given different scores.
For international journals, those that are not indexed on SCOPUS or Web of Science could be given the same weightage as domestic journals? Or another way to think about this is to do away with domestic and international altogether. A SCOPUS/ Web of Science publication gets you 5 points. A Hein/Westlaw/JSTOR only index gets you 2 points, a University journal not indexed on Hein etc, gets you .5 points. And some discount for your home institution journal.
As for books, same thing applies to international publishers. They do not always accept quality research work unless it has a sufficiently broad audience internationally (from their perspective, it makes sense because they are there to make profit, after all). I have actually seen an extremely in-depth study made on manual scavenging and related laws in some Indian cities get rejected by multiple international publishers on that very ground though all of them were unanimous about its quality. So, removing at least genuine domestic publishers like EBC seems quite harsh. Have lesser weightage for them, that makes sense.
Also, here is an interesting thought. A lot of young legal scholars are now getting interested in open-access movement and making a conscious choice not to publish their work in paywalled journals, instead choosing to publish some very good work in blogs, etc.. It would be quite good to have a discussion regarding how to capture such quality scholarship. Let's turn this comment section to yield something constructive. I already think this is the best LI thread in terms of that in 2018 at least. :D
While predatory journals are not listed on Hein etc, the quality of some of the journals listed there is questionable. Specifically, the quality of articles in some of the Indian university journals can be very problematic. This is especially true for publications by very senior academics, especially some VCs. Giving equal weightage to all hein publications will give those with clout an unfair advantage.
Re: book publishers, most of the top publisher have indian imprints. CUP, OUP, SAGE, Routlegde, Thompson Reuters etc. So to say that getting India specific work published by top international publisher is difficult is not really true. Is excluding EBC harsh? Yes. What is the alternative? I am not sure. Can someone think of an objective way to classify domestic publishers? A Tier system like the MPL? Who decides?
Thinking more on this: we need to account for other institutional publications like ijil, jili, etc which are not indexed but have decent quality. One (admittedly problematic) solution is to have a catch-all category of publications which do not fall into any of the other pools, but put a cap on the points one can get from that category. Without this cap, we will devolve into the same UGC API type muddle where quantity ends up counting for more than wuality.
So if rankings matter, we should also consider negative points for publishing in predatory journals - there is a credible open list of such journals.
Given the entrenched nature of mediocrity in legal academia, there will be a lot of push back to such an enterprise. Need to get some big guns on board: Menon, M P Singh, maybe even Mohan Gopal and Baxi?
Since NALSAR has money left over from this project (per Siddharth Chauhan's comment above) maybe reach out to them to include this exercise as part of the doj project and fund whatever might be required to set this up??
It will not take you more than 3 or 4 days to google for each professor from the top 4 NLUs on journal databases. You can even include NLUJ, NLIU and GNLU. If you partner with an agency or even with Prof Chauhan's team, then it can be an official, statistically verified ranking that can be sent to NIRF.
Please do this. If you can do a placement ranking + faculty ranking + moot ranking , we can really have a good NLU ranking.
You have to google for each NLU professor on these databases. Assuming that there are 120 professors in the top 4 NLUs, at 8 mins a professor that will take 960 minutes = 13 hours = 2 days work if you can get help.
We are now at a stage when students will be choosing between law schools, and the NALSAR report has told us that faculty is important. So why not officially do a faculty ranking? Your favourite NLSIU will get thrashed.
I included NUJS as someone specifically asked for it to be included, and Jindal because it is widely perceived to have the best.
Limitation vis-a-vis Jindal: I started out checking the assistant profs (as when I had only provided details for senior faculty initially someone took offence), but got too tired going through all 70 of them and never got around to the Profs and Associate Profs (who I do believe would do much better).
NLU-D = 51.5 from 32 profs [1.61/prof]; 18 of 32 at zero (56.25% at 0)
NALSAR = 49 from 24 profs [2.04/prof]; 18 of 24 at zero (75% at 0)
NLSIU = 83.75 from 29 profs [2.88/prof]; 20 of 29 at zero (68.97%)
NUJS = 90.75 from 24 profs [3.78/prof]; 9 of 26 at zero (34.61%)
Jindal (assistant profs only) = 134.25 from 70 assistant profs; 56 of 70 at zero. 1.91/prof (80% at 0)
This scoring would place schools in the following order: NUJS, NLSIU, NALSAR, Jindal and NLU-D [on basis of average score per prof]; and
NUJS, NLU-D, NLSIU, NALSAR and Jindal [on basis of %age faculty members having publications noted on HeinOnline].
Editorial note: What surprised me is the fact that though Jindal is filled with faculty members coming from NLUs with foreign degrees at the graduate level, they haven't published all that much.
As such, these are people who never put out a paper in a publication run by their institution during under-grad nor have they published their research carried out during the graduate study. This might seem a bit below the belt, but does seem like a case of quantity over quality.
NUJS (total = 90.75 from 24)
Sandeepa Bhat 31.5
Manoj Kumar Sinha 19.25
Lovely Dasgupta 7.75
Shouvik Kumar Guha 6.75
N.S Srinivasulu 5
Jindal (assistant profs only, total = 134.25 from 70)
Arpan Banerjee 36.25
Saloni Khanderia 30
Oishik Sircar 14
Rohini Sen 10
Manveen Singh 10
Ashrita Prasad Kotha 7.25
Jhuma Sen 7
Danish Sheikh 6.75
Sannoy Das 5 [PS: these 9 account for 126.25 out of 134.25!!! The other 61 have a score of 8.)
PLEASE DO THIS!!
Placements: 35 points
LLM scholarship offers: 5 points
Faculty: 25 points
Infrastructure and amenities: 20 points
Quality of location/neighbourhood: 5 points
Fees, scholarships, student support: 10 points
TOTAL = 100 points.
Then, this would be the ranking:
1) NALSAR: 77/100 (30/35 + 3/5 + 18/25 + 16/20 + 3/5 + 7/10)
2) NLUD: 76.5/100 (24/35 + 2.5/5 + 21/25 + 17/20 + 4/5 +8/10
NLSIU: 73/100 (29/35 + 4/5 + 16/25 + 13/20 + 3/5 + 8/10)
3) NUJS: 66.3/100 (31.5/35 + 2.8/5 +13/25 + 11/20 + 3/5 + 5/10)
Comments welcome.
While you have initiated an interesting discussion through a comparison of faculty publication records at 5 Indian institutions (NLSIU, NALSAR, NLU-Delhi, WBNUJS and JGLS), I should point out that these numbers can easily contribute to a lot of misunderstanding for LI readers. Those who are not directly engaged with scholarship may not easily comprehend the caveats that you have given in comment 16 and may instead form lasting impressions about individual faculty members based on the numbers quoted above. As you have yourself acknowledged, looking at the number of publications in the HeinOnline database alone or the list of SCOPUS Indexed Journals portrays a skewed picture of publication records in the Indian context.
It is especially unfair to older faculty members who began their careers several years before there was awareness of digital databases and the criteria for international rankings in Indian law schools. As another commentator has pointed out, some of the digital databases that are frequently used by legal scholars (JSTOR, Westlaw, HeinOnline, LexisNexis, Kluwer, Taylor & Francis) have only recently started including Indian academic publications, and several credible publications (both peer-reviewed and those which are not) do not appear in them. While JSTOR has included publications like the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) and the Indian Journal of Political Science (IJPS), there are many others whose archives have not been included as yet. Looking at the HeinOnline database alone excludes many journals in the humanities and the social sciences which have carried articles by serving faculty members at the 5 chosen institutions. To give you a concrete example, NALSAR has several faculty members teaching social science and management subjects whose publications do not feature in your brief survey.
Even younger faculty members have published in credible domestic journals and edited volumes that are not found on HeinOnline. To give you my own example, you have tracked an article of mine which appeared in the Socio-Legal Review in 2009 (after I graduated from NLSIU) since it appears on HeinOnline, but other publications in a journal like Seminar (2013), a chapter in a book published by OUP UK (2016) and the DoJ report covered in this story do not feature in this database. I understand that there is a genuine concern about many serving faculty members having published in predatory journals or publications with very poor standards of review or editing. Apart from unacceptably high levels of plagiarism, we have also come across credible reports of faculty members having appropriated work done by their own students, presumably in order to boost their research scores for the purpose of applying for regularisation, promotions or external fellowships. We have explicitly acknowledged this problem in our report, but without taking individual names.
Our report has so far only cursorily touched on the issue of faculty publication records and the pursuit of longitudinal research projects. This is because we consciously chose to prioritise aspects such as the admissions process and the academic structures. Collecting information about the research output of faculty members at each NLU is not a very difficult task. Even though most of the institutional websites do not provide a full list of academic publications, the same can be collated from the annual reports that are submitted to the respective governing bodies of the NLUs. Some institutions have also disclosed this information in their respective reports submitted to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Since we do intend to develop our report further into a book, we will definitely consider including a separate section that tracks the research output of the participating institutions. However, it might be more prudent to compile research scores as per the UGC's most recent (February 2018) draft regulations for recruitment and promotions of teachers.
1. Re old professors, yes they did not publish in Hein Online and JSTOR journals, but what stops them from doing so now? If anything, they should have more such publications. And the old generation extensively published in EPW and JILI. EPW is included in SCOPUS and JSTOR, JILI is in JSTOR. Can't see the problem. Also, look at BS Chimni's record. He has been publishing in top journals much before Hein Online. MP Singh as well.
2. I think it is fair to exclude Seminar, if we only include law faculty members and exclude social science faculty. We are assessing LAW scholarship here. And Seminar is an in-depth magazine rather than a specialised journal where scholarship is rigorously refereed by peers and references must be provided for arguments.
3. As for excluding book chapters, remember it is excluded for all not just for you. Everyone gets affected. Things even out for everyone. We are also excluding stuff by Amita Dhanda or Anup Surendranath.
4. The only argument that can be made is that Jindal should be excluded, as their profs get lots of luxuries, so it's like one player batting on a flat track versus one batting on a bouncy track. Moreover, Jindal is a money-making institution without any social purpose.
No ranking is perfect, this one too is flawed. But it's the best available under the circumstances and a fairly accurate metric of which NLU is the best.
As for your specific responses, rigorous editing for a book can lead to a product that is better than an article that appears in a peer-reviewed journal and there are certainly some non-peer reviewed publications where the standards of acceptance are actually much higher than many which do have peer review. However, these incongruities do not take away from the prospective importance of publishing in journals that do appear in these internationally recognized databases, which are otherwise skewed in favour of academic publications from first world countries.
As for the past, there have been many Indian law professors such as Mohammed Ghouse, Rahmatullah Khan, S.P. Sathe, V.S. Rekhi and Parmanand Singh (to name a few) who published most of their scholarly work in Indian journals which till date do not appear in these internationally recognized databases. While we have had stalwarts such as Upendra Baxi, B.S. Chimni, M.P. Singh and Ved Nanda who have published extensively in foreign journals owing to their relatively early international exposure, let us not discredit the research efforts of those who are not as well known.
Lastly, why should we exclude scholarship by faculty members that has appeared in journals from other disciplines? If the comparison is across institutions, why should it be confined to those who are designated as law teachers. There are many social science teachers who are engaging with legal themes and there are several law teachers who have produced scholarship that has an interface with other disciplines. So I must strongly rebut your views on this count.
With respect to your point about "first world bias" in rankings, you are wrong. IISC and IIT underperform not because of bias, but because they teach only science and tech, whereas the Harvards and Oxfords teach medicine, law, literature etc, so they get more journal hits. In fact, IISC and IIT make it to the world's top 200 despite their narrow focus, which is actually really good.
Also, if you look at the QS and Times law school rankings, you have many Asian law schools, from China, Japan, Korea and Singapore, but not India. By your analogy, it's fine if Chinese and Japanese law scholars publish in SCOPUS journals (despite English being a second language for them) but India is special and our scholars must only publish in desi journals for a desi audience. Why??? On the contrary, shouldn't we give extra points to an Indian scholar who can place his/her country's laws in an international context, publish in a good international journal, and speak to an international audience --- as many in the old generation have, in fact, done? And we are recognising EPW and JILI and NLU journals listed in Hein, so what's the problem???
With due respect, I think your problem is what you have identified. Your own publications are, as you say, "much fewer than what should have been by now" and this is making you criticise the rankings. I am not blaming you, because you are a brilliant professor and in India there is no incentive or opportunity to publish as professors get a lot of non-research work. But once again, everyone else also has these disadvantages. If you got a bad pitch to bat on, the others will also get the same bad pitch.
Finally, about the non-legal discipline point, it's only Seminar that seems to be missing out. EPW and Contributions to Indian Sociology are there in SCOPUS, along with tons of non-law journals. JSTOR is also very comprehensive. And the point I made about Seminar is that it is not an academic journal in the true sense. More like a magazine with lengthy opinion pieces. Even the website of Seminar describes itself as a Magazine.
I had given the examples of some of the older Indian Law Professors (a few of whom have passed away now) to illustrate how a large proportion of their scholarship will simply not appear in consolidated databases. Since you gave the specific example of Prof. S.P. Sathe, please do account for the fact that journals like EPW and JILI have only been included in the JSTOR database in the last few years and many of the hits that you have found are citations to his famous book on Judicial Review which was published in 2002. Citations to popular books and articles tend to have a snowballing effect and may not accurately reflect a scholar's output in quantitative terms. There are dozens of other publications by him (including peer-reviewed articles in domestic journals) which simply do not feature in HeinOnline or JSTOR. This is attributable to several reasons, one being discontinuity in the publication of some journals and another being the lack of awareness or initiative on part of a publisher to include a journal's archives in these consolidated databases. You will find a similar pattern of exclusion if you run the numbers for other senior scholars such as Upendra Baxi, M.P. Singh and B.S. Chimni among others. This pattern will also extend to several serving teachers who are now in their 50s and 60s respectively. However, I will concede to your point partially when it comes to younger teachers and scholars (mostly in their 30s and 40s) who have started academic careers in the age of digital databases.
As for 'first world bias', you have responded to that phrase without accounting for my sentence as a whole. I was talking about 'first world bias' in the list of publications selected for the SCOPUS Index and the HeinOnline database. I was not talking about international rankings. I am not denying the importance of producing scholarship that adds value from an international and comparative perspective, thereby having a much better chance of being accepted by journals based in other countries. There are some fields like Intellectual Property, International Trade, International Human Rights, Environmental Law and Corporate Governance among others, where this is absolutely essential. However, this does not mean that we should completely disregard scholarship that is addressing domestic problems for a domestic audience.
To give you a hypothetical, a thorough empirical study of lower court judges' working conditions might reach the intended audience more effectively through a non-peer reviewed domestic publication such as SCC-Journal or Mainstream instead of a highly rated journal like the 'Law and Society Review' which is behind a paywall and is hence not accessible to a large section of law students and practitioners in India. Similarly, a paper that examines some of the issues plaguing Indian law schools may not have much of an impact if it appears in the 'Journal of Legal Education' which is listed on SCOPUS. In comparison, it might attract more engagement if it appears in a domestic publication. Maybe this is more of an ideological debate rather than one about measuring research output. I am not even addressing the interests of older scholars here. I am more concerned about the direction of future research efforts. Should we direct our energies to acquire more hits on international databases or should we aim to produce knowledge that is better suited to our context?
I also did not understand how you escalated the discussion towards a comparison with Universities in other Asian countries. The larger universities in China, Japan and South Korea have undoubtedly been producing more research across several disciplines such as the natural sciences, engineering and management. However, their contributions towards legal scholarship in SCOPUS Indexed journals is not as impressive. The exceptions to this are law schools in locations such as Singapore (NUS and SMU), Hong Kong (HKU, CUHK), Kuala Lumpur (University of Malaya) and Manila (Ateneo, De La Salle) since they have a deeper engagement with Western Universities in terms of faculty recruitment and curricular content. In any case, it is difficult to directly compare the research output from relatively smaller institutions such as the NLUs with larger multidisciplinary university systems, whether within the country or outside. This is because the NLUs have a much smaller pool of faculty members and research students (Ph.D.) when compared with the law departments at some of the South-East Asian Universities that I have mentioned above. It is conceivable that a better-resourced institution like JGLS might be able to match their numbers in the future.
With respect to Indian social science journals, the exclusion is much deeper than what you are suggesting. For every journal that is included in the SCOPUS Index (Economic and Political Weekly, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Indian Social and Economic History Review) there are several other credible Indian journals which have not been included. I wasn't really pushing the point about Seminar. In such discussions, one has to think about larger institutional interests rather than those at a personal level.
Further, Anup Surendranath at 0 and Chimayi Arun further underscore the 'problem' with this scoring scheme as these are big-5 among the younger generation of academics who are NLU graduates.
watson.brown.edu/southasia/files/southasia/imce/people/Faculty/VisitingScholars/KrishnaswamyCVJune2017.pdf
I can see 1 in SLR (listed in Hein), 6 in EPW (listed in SCOPUS and JSTOR), 2 in IJLT (listed in Hein), 1 in a Nalsar journal (listed in Hein). None in an international journal, but still a higher score than what you claim.
[...]
[...]
1. Intellectual Property and India's Development Policy [article]
Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 1, Issue (2005), pp. 169-176
2. Recasting the LLM: Course Design and Pedagogy [article]
Socio-Legal Review, Vol. 9, Issue 1 (2013), pp. 101-120
3. Legal and Judicial Reform in India: A Call for Systemic and Empirical Approaches [article]
Journal of National Law University, Delhi, Vol. 2, pp. 1-25
with Sivakumar, Sindhu K. and Bail, Shishir
4. United Nations and Global Peace and Security [article]
Student Advocate, Vol. 9, pp. 58-68
with Sinha, Pooja
Each of these, bar no. 3, is a 'home' journal for him.
Hence, a score of 0.5 + 0.5 + 2 + 0.5 = 3.5
Moreover, he has been cited twice - 0.25 * 2 = 0.5
Total score (based on above mentioned parameters however limited they may be) is 4 [not even 4.5 (honest mistake)]
The Hein method is incomplete, but it is a start. The discussion shows that it is possible to create a sophisticated method to rank faculty publications.
I preface my comment by unequivocally stating that this is not meant to be a remark questioning your abilities and capacities as an academic. The intention is to stress why blind peer reviewed publications is a good method of commencing an evaluation. Especially in a society like ours where knowing the right people can help some take the fast road to success.
The list of contributors to the Oxford Handbook that you refer above has an oddity. There are two types of people involved: those with years of experience that one would expect to see and others who are relatively new (and we would expect to see in the future). The latter largely come from a particular school.
Please note, I am not challenging the final product delivered by these people. I am sure it was blind peer reviewed before publication. However, what I am trying to point out is that you (and maybe others) were 'picked-up' to be a part of the journey not based on a prior list of publications around the particular topic.
Maybe you were picked because the people coordinating the exercise knew your research/writing skills and/or interest in the area. However, could these people be sure there was no one else in the country who could do a similar job, or a better one, on the topic?
Once again, the fact that you ended up doing a good job is not my concern. Maybe you were the right person but can we be sure that you were you the best? The call to involve you was made by people who knew you, and other contributors like you, from a common reference point - law school, grad school or academic/social circles.
This is why you, and others, must show your ability to able to 'get-in' when your name and face value isn't a factor carrying you, i.e. blind peer review.
Apologies that this came out to be ad hominem. However, it is a question worth asking. It is worth asking that after the DU, Aligarh, BHU circles that have dominated Indian legal academia, is another one based out of Nagarbhavi being created? The point is not that these circles aren't based on capacity, but that they are based on exclusion providing greater opportunities to those that begin from the front of the class.
Having said that, let's not think journals give everyone a level playing field either. Who you know matters even for journals, especially domestic journals and special theme issues.
Regardless, the purpose of the exercise is to judge the quality of publications and not how one came to publish in a particular book/journal. If we add top academic publishers to our list for ranking purposes, we can be sure that these books undergo serious anonymous peer reviewing. So it isn't as if the quality is necessarily suspect. A ranking list can only do so much: either give you a picture of the publication output of the entire faculty of a law school, or a snapshot of the publication outcome of a single person. It cannot solve the problems of the entire academia.
However, you might be overstating the concerns about the possible dominance of legal scholarship by NLSIU alumni in the 2020s and 2030s. It is only a marginal number of people from this group who are pursuing academic careers in India, be it at the various NLUs, research organisations or other Universities. Graduates from many other institutions are also doing well as scholars, both in domestic and international circles. So it is only a matter of time before we see a better spread of such opportunities.
Have your report given some suggestions on the issue of declining teaching standards in NLUs?
In fact, if any of the authors of some of the comments can get in touch, that'd be great - we will keep identities confidential of course.
You can reach me via this link: Contact Us
Suggested criteria:
1) PLACEMENTS AND CAREER OUTCOMES
a) 50 points straight if no student unemployed
b) Very high points for foreign law firms
c) Very high points for UPSC success (for up to two batches senior to the current one, so a 2016 pass out is clubbed with the 2018 batch)
d) Very high points for Rhodes, Gates, Felix, Inlaks and Chevening
e) High points for SC judicial clerkships
f) High points for Big 7 firms
g) High points for other 100% LLM scholarships obtained
h) High points for Supreme Court Senior Advocate chambers (Delhi-based only)
i) Moderate points for small firms, other lawyer's chambers and small NGOs (all treated at par)
This is a fair system taking care of all student aspirations.
2) FACULTY QUALITY
a) High points for books published by OUP, CUP, Elgar, Routledge
b) Moderate points for EBC, Lexis, Universal
c) Low points for others
d) High points for journals listed in SCOPUS, JSTOR, Hein, Westlaw
e) Low points for other journals
f) Very high points for each faculty member with a PhD from a university ranked in the top 50 law schools in either QS or Times Higher Education Law ranking
g) High points for PhDs from other law schools in the rankings
h) High points for PhDs from select research institutes and universities (e.g. Max Planck, JNU, IIM, IIT)
i) Low points for PhDs from other Indian universities (including NLUs)
j) Apply PhD criteria mutatis mutandis to LLMs
3) MOOTS
- Use LI MPL rankings
If you want to combine these into a single ranking, then add factors like fees and scholarship, faculty-student ratio, student exchange programmes etc.
1) Placements: Only count big UK firms and Big 7 Indian firms; Only count 100% scholarships received at Oxford, Cambridge, top 5 US law schools
2) Faculty research: 1 point for each foreign law journal article, 0.5 point for Indian law journal article
3) Infrastructure: Points for size of campus, whether single rooms for all, whether classrooms and hostel rooms air conditioned
4) Moots: Follow MPL table
I think it will be a tussle between Nalsar and NLS for top position based on these criteria.
law.careers360.com/colleges/ranking/2018
1. Faculty publications and citations.
2. Internationalisation (exchange programme with foreign universities, foreign students enrolling etc). NLUD, NALSAR and NLSIU do well here.
3. Reputation and brand recognition: this is a major reason why NLSIU keeps topping rankings. In the case of NUJS, even junior school nature clubs have better websites.
4. Faculty-student ratio.
You need consistency all round to get a good rank.
1. Re faculty publications, if you read the earlier comments of this very post, you would find it that NUJS is second to none. You have given zero data to prove otherwise. Even NIRF did no proper study on that, choosing instead to rely upon whatever data individual universities supplied without verifying those. If you read other posts at LI only, you would know that. Clearly you don't.
2. "Internationalization" - whatever that means. Can you show any data as to how NLUJ, or KGP IITs law school has more exchange programmes than NUJS? I'd love to know that.
3. Reputation: I agree this is important and your point about nlsiu. Don't agree that university website is the only marker for that. NUJS' reputation has been built on the basis of student and alumni performance, achievements and no matter what you say, that's not been eclipsed by anybody else so far barring possibly NLSIU. (I'd agree NALSAR is equally good, not better. NLUD and others are still much behind).
4. This is one area where NUJS is weak at present. But sufficient enough to be ranked behind IIT, NLUJ and NLUD? Absolutely not.
As for trusting ranking, any ranking that tries to compare IIT's law wing with NLUs is already questionable. Former doesn't even offer undergraduate programmes.
A lot of people have been going ga ga about NLUD and JGLS' superior faculty for long here. A simple study by Further Nerdiness exposed here earlier that such are claims too tall to be true even on the basis of publications alone.
www.nujs.edu/faculty/sandeep-bhat.html
Re NLUD and JGLS no search was done of the whole faculty. Please compare your top scorer with the NLUD top scorer in a proper search.
I accept that Prof Chimni or Prof Shamnad have good journals, but they are ex faculty.
2) I found info info on IIT international collaborations. Looks like IIT has a whole cell dedicated to it and it seems the law school has a close tie up with George Washington and has student exchanges two ways. Do you have this? If yes, pls give info.
iitkgp.ac.in/international-mou
www.international.iitkgp.ac.in
www2.gwu.edu/~magazine/archive/2009_law_winter/feature_india.html
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/iit-kharagpur-hosts-students-from-george-washington-university-law-school/articleshow/57854839.cms
3) So you don;t have a website with any information and expect NIRF rankers and outsiders to get a good impression from a few CAM associates?? What about other things like bad press? Reports of faculty exodus? That counts negatively.
4) I cannot comment. But you need to give data. Batch size versus faculty.
Once again, your argument is that students and alumni are good and got good placement, so NUJS should be ranked high. It does not work like that. Ok, so maybe NLUJ is ranked wrongly, but I am not convinced you are better than NLUD, NALSAR or the IIT school in areas OTHER THAN student and alumni success. It's like this: you can have Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma in your team plus 9 crappy players. That still makes you an average team, because it's a team that wins the match.
The bottom-line is this: you are just resentful of NLUD overtaking you.
Regarding other points, i can still point out the flaws in your logic, but given how your arguments have so far been about things you don't read properly, why on earth should I bother? I have no desire to convince you how good NUJS is. It can and does exist without your ignorant validation. If you are arguing that NUJS students do everything better or comparable with those from other law schools, despite having everything else much worse than in other law schools, I have no problem with that. That actually means students here are better as per logic. That should still induce good students to come here and actually learn and I'm fine with that. You keep trumpeting NLUD bells and how good their faculty are. Data revealed here doesn't support that.
The fact remains that since its inception, students and admin of NLUD have been aggressively marketing their institution like a private college as the next best thing to Harvard and while it's undoubtedly a good place to study in, in terms of real data, it has shown zilch so far that it has overtaken any of the 3 top tier NLUs in any way. No matter what other factors you show, it will have to be reflected in the student performance only to actually make a difference. If an institution has an amazing legal academic scholar but it still produces graduates indistinguishable from peer institutions, then either that scholar isn't contributing anything different to the education there, or the students there are simply dumber than elsewhere, which I don't believe.
Below are the results:
HEIN:
Foreign Journals:
- 2 in Journal of Space Law (of which 1 is co-authored with a student)
- 1 Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law (also co-authored with a student)
- 1 in Annals of Air & Space Law
- 1 in Kathmandu School of Law Review (which is not prestigious)
Indian:
- 1 in NUJS Law Review (also co-authored with a student)
WESTLAW:
- No results
This raises two questions:
1. The score given was wrong. It is 20 from 4 international journals.
2. Looking at it qualitatively, your Prof Bhat has a senior rank and is your top scoring faculty in terms of publications. But are these publications that impressive?
Now, let me randomly compare with just 1 Assistant Prof (i.e. junior in rank) at NLUD, who is not even the top score for NLUD --- Prof Arul Scaria.
HEIN:
- 1 in NLUD law journal
- 1 in Michigan State University College of Law International Law Review
(all sole-authored)
WESTLAW:
- 1 in European IP Review
- 1 in in WIPO Law journal
- 1 in IIC (Max Planck Journal).
(all sole-authored)
The score is higher (25 form 5 international journals) but more importantly look at the quality of the journals here. Also, Prof Scaria has a PhD from Germany. And he is junior in rank to your top scorer,
So do not try and live in denial, my friend.
And you were debunking the JGLS profs, if you look at some of the profs web pages there are many publications listed. If you keep arguing I will look at NLUJ and GNLU and compare, so better not as you may get embarrassed.
How did you arrive at the number of 24 teachers having left NALSAR? In the last five years, there have been only 3 permanent teachers who have left for better opportunities elsewhere. Prof. Madhabhushi Sridhar left in November 2013 to serve as one of the Chief Information Commissioners. Prof. Vijender Kumar has been on lien since October 2014 to serve as a Vice-Chancellor, initially at NLU Assam and now at MNLU Nagpur. Most recently, Prof. V.C. Vivekanandan has taken lien in order to serve as the Dean of the Law School at Bennett University. All of the others who have left were either in ad-hoc positions or serving their probation periods. Some were asked to leave because of consistently poor feedback by students. There are of course some individuals who are good teachers and have left to pursue better-paid jobs at other institutions or in order to pursue higher studies. Everyone at NALSAR will accept that we need to do more to attract and retain teaching talent. We have in fact addressed this problem in Section 3.3 of our report.
What is your grievance with the NAAC rating obtained by NALSAR? The inspection committee consisting of 6 external members had visited the institution in March 2016. The score of 3.60 reflects an average of the scores given by them. All the procedural requirements of submitting a self-assessment report and organising the interactions with the inspection committee were complied with. If there is indeed an irregularity committed by anyone, why don't you bring it in the public domain or at least file a complaint with the Chancellor of the University?
As for the present Vice-Chancellor's public profile, can you give any specific examples to show how he has enhanced his own profile in a manner that is detrimental to the University? In the last few years, he has written a large number of opinion pieces in newspapers, delivered public lectures, appeared on public television (mostly on NDTV India which is a Hindi News Channel) and produced accessible recorded talks on legal subjects for a lay audience. These activities have in fact greatly improved the visibility of the institution. I will accept the criticism that we have performed relatively poorly when it comes to generating research output (articles in peer-reviewed journals and externally sponsored projects) but that can hardly be attributed to the Vice-Chancellor alone.
Lastly, your claim about us being 'chamchas' is perhaps one of the best jokes that I have heard in the last decade. Why don't you come and spend a few days at our campus and observe our behaviour to decide whether we are resorting to 'chamchagiri'? Perhaps you should begin with a google search about my previous employment history.
If you want to resort to further falsehoods, I will keep rebutting you.
LOL The hypocrisy.
www.legallyindia.com/201106192170/Law-schools/nujs-boycotts-outlook-law-school-rankings-nlu-j-butts-back-in/amp
www.legallyindia.com/201008201213/Law-schools/nujs-ers-threaten-outlook-a-india-today-law-school-rankings-with-press-council-complaint
Now suddenly the magazines have become god because in like 15 years of rankings they put WBNUJS at no. 2 once???? What is your answer eh????
[...]
1. 'NUJS students going on rampage in 2010-2011': Yes, students did protest against an inane system of ranking by those rankings (which were the first of their kind at that time) because it made no sense whatsoever and had no transparent parameter. You seem to be a law student now (at least I dearly hope for others' sake you are actually not dispensing legal advice to some poor chap somewhere), so you can't possibly remember this, but most of the NLU community had actually supported this at that point of time. I know they did, because I was part of the group challenging the magazines. We took the initiative, because someone had to. Usually law students are better placed to do that.
Subsequently, it was quite clear to the legal community in general that the magazines and their rankings were a joke, and we stopped there, satisfied because the objectives were achieved. These days, there are plenty of rankings available around every street corner (though almost none of them contain sufficient scientific basis or even fact-checking, it's still a free country, so we have stopped complaining; so have our juniors I presume). Or do you think it is a coincidence that since 2010-11, despite Outlook and India Today having these idiotic rankings every year, there had been no organised protest since? Of course you avoided mentioning that nugget, selective as your choice of facts is.
2. "the same WBNUJS students are trying to make the most of the rankings because it shows their college as No.2" - I can't believe that I am gracing this stupid claim and blatant lie with even a response, but WHERE? NUJS students have nowhere championed either of the rankings. The answer has been given by a commentator (probably an existing student) above. The students have now realised going after inane rankings is a waste of resources and effort, the legal community actually has better sense to recognise sNUJS students' achievements for what they are and rightly consider the place where they flock to every year for recruitment.
3. "Its a well known fact that the same students "kicked" the VC out" - The students have protested against an incompetent and possibly corrupt (I wouldn't know the latter, never having studied under him, but the former, yes) administrator and removed him after following every other usual channel of protest. I happen to approve that as an alumnus. It's called standing up for themselves and not allowing injustice to happen, you know, something that is actually taught in law schools. You should try that sometime. Though I believe you and your kind, who are only content with anonymously slinging mud at others without having had any achievement of your own, would be at all equipped to actually do something like that. You lack the courage, the sense of justice and above all, the spine, ability and taste. (Kian, if this appears to be ad hominem and you don't publish it, then you should stop publishing these anonymous mud-slinging too).
p.s. In case you are an alumnus of any law school (Heaven forbid), then you may, just may know, that NUJS students achieved a record recruitment (several other NLUs' figures combined) right after they did take such a stand. Clearly, the people who actually matter in the real world, have an opinion of the institution and its students that is way better than you do. Even if you are a law student whose sole source of information about other NLUs is fora like LI, you may still have heard about that. Given that, any sensible person would know whom to believe (spoiler alert, it is not you). So, better scurry away and try to do something worthwhile for your own institution, rather than spending all your time maligning others.
Is that answer enough for you?
www.quora.com/Is-it-worth-dropping-a-year-to-prepare-for-the-CLAT
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote: Quote:Quote:Quote:
PLACEMENTS:
1. NLSIU
2.NALSAR
3.NUJS
4. NLUD
5. GNLU
FACULTY:
1. JGLS
2. NALSAR
3. NLUD
4. NLSIU
5. NUJS
MOOTS:
1. NLSIU
2. NALSAR
3. NUJS
4. NLUD
5. GNLU
CAMPUS INFRASTRUCTURE:
1. JGLS
2. NALSAR
3. NLUD
4. GNLU
5. NLUJ
BEST CITY LOCATION:
1. MNLU
2. NLUD
3. NLSIU
4. NALSAR
5. NUJS
CAMPUS NEIGHBOURHOOD AND SURROUNDINGS:
1. NUJS
2. NLUD
3. NALSAR
4. NLSIU
5. GNLU
Now, different people have different priorities in choosing a law school. For some, city location is the most important. For some, placements. For some, faculty. No law school offers everything. If NLSIU has good placements and reputation, the infrastructure and faculty quality are not the best. It is also not in the best location within Bengaluru. On the other hand, although Kolkata is not as good a city as Delhi or Bengaluru, NUJS is in a nice central location compared to Dwarka and Nagarbhavi, with better access to modern city luxuries. But the campus is tiny. My own top preference is NALSAR. think it's the best overall and will eventually overtake NLSIU. For CLAT aspirants, I advise them make this their overall preference: NALSAR>NLSIU>NUJS>NLUD>GNLU>NLUJ>NLIU>JGLS>MNLU Mumbai>NUALS>RMLNLU>RGNUL>NLUO>HNLU>MNLU Nagpur>DSNLU>MNLU Aurangabad>TN NLS>HPNLU>CNLU>NLU Assam>NLU Ranchi.
@ Expert Analyst, please review and revise the preferences.
But getting back to the paper by Prof Chauhan and the original topic, if NLU students feel that faculty quality and placements are most important, then NLSIU is being overrated by CLAT aspirants.
If you feel complacent about bad faculty and infra as long as the placements are strong, It's a ticking time bomb that you can ignore at your own risk.
Maybe the few we have are mostly geared towards subjects which maaby students don't find that useful from career perspective. A matter to think about.
As for infrastructure, this is actually a very wide term. Includes a lot of things, ranging from necessities to luxuries. A lot of NLU students these days post-CLAT come from very affluent families, to whom a lot of luxurious things may just seem to be the bare minimum requirement. That doesn't make those essential for legal education. AC hostels, for example. Not saying they are bad, but one can easily do without them in course of 5 years in law school.
A hygienic campus, a good library with access to latest databases, a good lecture hall and bright, sincere students make a decent combination. All top tier NLUs started with that or less and produced excellent graduates. So while some form of basic infra is of course needed, I think we place too much stress on that these days for legal education. Had it been a science course, then a good lab and equipments could have been added perhaps. Maybe I've got too old to think otherwise, since my law school education is amidst a decade old by now. Others may differ.
As for NUJS students, people look at placements because that's the most obvious and readily visible metric. Why don't you cite some other metric like higher studies, scholarships, moots, entrepreneurship to show this 'obvious decline' that you speak of (relative to all other NLUs, that is, because I personally find an average NLU grad these days not as reliable as an average NLU grad 10 years ago anyway for all law schools)? Because you would find students doing quite well in all those fields too, just that the university doesn't do a fan fare about that specifically like some places do.
If anything, the fact that a lot of people here are of the opinion that NUJS faculty and infra and everything else are absolutely sub standard (a claim that I don't agree with) and still their graduates are doing just as well as those of NLSIU, NALSAR or anyplace else, should actually mean they are better, shouldn't it? That is if the claims of all those other NLUs of having everything better than NUJS is true, which I don't believe it is.
TBH only at NUJS is there so much excitement about these associate jobs. And anyways even these jobs come because of the excellent impression made by the alumni of the first few batches and the good work done by Menon, Chimni and MPS and their students in supporting each other. That wont last long not only because current graduates are getting more immature, lazy and undisciplined but also because competition among law schools is shooting up and nobody will take the risk of hiring from a place where there has been ugly turmoil for months. I know that my last firm has decided to reduce their intake from NUJS and even the NUJS partners (2005, 2006 and 2007 batch) at my current office are not happy at the goings-on.
I follow the NUJS events because my spouse is from there. It's pretty ugly at the moment, students and faculty are as bad as each other and without going into who is right or wrong I would just prefer to avoid recruitment there entirely.
As for these 'associate jobs' as you so disdainfully put it, you yourself are still doing one admittedly, so they cannot be that bad surely as you paint them out to be? There are so many contradictory statements you made that it is difficult to decide where to begin. Let's see, according to you, the first few batches produced amazing students (which they did, I'm not questioning that part), who went on to become successful in their lives (in these so-called second-class law firm jobs, as you feel), who despite being unhappy with students of NUJS (again, only your word for it), continue to take (and here comes the cinch) INCREASING number of students every year from NUJS. Why, exactly? The biggest number of intake (this year) was right after all those turmoil as you speak of it. Are you saying that NUJS alumni are very intelligent, but still continue to hire increasing number of sub-standard juniors to work for them every year simply because they are from the alma mater? Are they running law firms or charitable institutions? They can't be intelligent and stupid at the same time, right? Do make up your mind.
As for declining standard of average law graduates from NLU, I happen to agree with you. But newsflash, it is true for EVERY NLU, including your beloved NLSIU. So while your sense of pride in your alma mater is quite understandable, it comes off as hypocritical given your misplaced wrath at students from another law school about which most of your knowledge comes from Legally India or the like (in fact, some would say it is the very typical supercilious, holier-than-thou attitude that a lot of NLSIU grads and other NLU grads too are criticised for at workplace and elsewhere). You wouldn't prefer to recruit from NUJS anymore? Given all the firms even this year obviously felt otherwise, it is a good thing you are not the one who makes recruitment decisions at your workplace then.
Recruitment decisions are collectively made and everyone has a quota. From next year the NUJS quota will be reduced. I (and others) find these forums reveal a lot about the current crop of students. Provocative posts on law school or NALSAR hardly generate any kneejerk pompous replies like the NUJS ones do which I'm guessing is because NLS/NALSAR are pretty secure or decent. Even NLUD students have tremendous confidence in their faculty and that's why more and more firms are liking them. Students who piss on their own admin and faculty today will do so on their bosses and colleagues tomorrow so they are better avoided and if the stories of them filing murder cases against each other and against the admin are true then they are a risk to anyone who hires them.
And I am not from NLSIU but someone in the know .
And a large number of students from NUJS every year do take up non law-firm jobs, research positions, clerkships, policy work too every year. In fact, there are students who have already come up with mediation platforms and nation-wide initiatives supported by the Ministry of Justice (in their 3rd Year). Take the foremost policy research organisations like Vidhi etc. where at least 30% of people working are from various NUJS batches (including people as young as from 2016 batch). What about you (who possibly belong to NLSIU or NALSAR or any other law school) actually do the research first before arriving at your ill-founded conclusions, since you seem to be valuing research so highly as a career? Make claims, but support them with actual data, otherwise don't mislead people.
As for those "embarrassing" or "no big deal" offers, care to tell me why students at NLSIU or NALSAR keep on taking them? You have produced zero stats to show they don't. Or are you saying all the A0s, A1s of all top-tier firms consist of students other than from NLSIU or NALSAR? That's a laugh! Foreign firms may be all that NLISU students dream about, but the sad truth is, not more than 5-6 people end up actually getting those every year. The rest simply don't cut it, as snooty as they may behave as their purported alumni (like you) do. This is just an effort on your part to stay relevant. As usual, you keep blustering about the grandness of NLSIU without any statistics to back up your claim.
As for declining academic standards in other law schools, care to show ANY PROOF of that? And how would you know, anyway? Or don't tell me your 'hubby', whom you claim as an alumnus of NUJS, still continues studying there? Plagiarism and cheating, again, how would you know? Let me tell you an open secret. It is RAMPANT in every NLU now, from NLSIU to NLUJAA or whichever is the latest one. There are actually notes on how to beat plagiarism detection software that students of all law schools circulate among each other. Either show some proof, or stop defaming others and go back to your make-believe ivory tower. All your comments have shown so far is your antipathy towards one law school, nothing else. To the extent you keep on making unfounded accusations under anonymity. If you are that confident about your defamatory claims, why not shed the garb of anonymity?
The actual point remains this: WHATEVER performance any NLU is boasting of right now, regardless of the field, it is solely because the brightest students of law every year are joining there. Nothing else. None of the NLUs actually makes any discernible difference in the legal education of these kids (barring providing a good peer group), much as they claim to do otherwise. Alumni do, yes, during internships and recruitment (for all established NLUs), but not the actual education part. All the claim of any NLU being a doyen of legal education would fall flat if on one year, students having 30000
CLAT rank onward join there. That was the scene 10 years back, that is the scene now. Barring a few good teachers, the state of Indian legal academia when it comes to classroom teaching is in the doldrums now. Even those who sport a grand CV or qualifications are seldom actually making any difference in terms of their contributions to the students' learning. State funding does make a difference, I won't deny it. However, as JGLS shows, simply by paying teachers a lot of money, you cannot hope to achieve much unless you get excellent students. This is all a tragic and sick game of gutted institutions calling themselves 'king-of-the-hill', where in reality, when compared to global institutions (or even the top Asian ones), none of the Indian law schools deserves a single mention as on date. And one of the reasons beings that the alumni, instead of making cogent contributions to their own alma mater, are busy spewing venom against other law schools and basking in self-proclaimed artificial aggrandisement anonymously on fora like this. So, happy dreaming!
If anything, I doubt you can give me the stats of exactly how many students from NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS and NLUD graduating in 2017 opted for law firm jobs and how many took up other careers, which is the bare minimum for making the comments you have been making. In fact, in all your comments, there has been a marked absence of any form of statistics whatsoever, apart from random, inaccurate claims (like NLSIU attracts best faculty, where everybody knows it hasn't recruited any in the last decade). Without that, your opinion is not even an informed one, let alone accurate.
1. NLUD
2. MNLU
3. NLSIU
4. NALSAR
5. NUJS
6. JGLS
7. GNLU
8. DSNLU (if Chandrababu Naidu backs it like he backed NALSAR)
9. NLUJ
10. NLIU
You may laugh, but that is the attitude people once had when told IIM Ahmedabad would overtake Bangalore and Calcutta, or ISB would overtake IIM Lucknow, Indore and Kozhikode, or BITS Pilani would rival IIT, or IIT Delhi/Bombay would overtake Kharagpur.
1) Although your website is classy looking and rich in information, the official NUJS website looks cheap and ugly, with no information about news and happenings. Your website should used as the template for the official NUJS website and the two websites should be merged, else CLAT aspirants will get deterred from joining NUJS.
2) You should prepare profiles of 100 interesting alumni of NUJS and share it on the official website. If you showcase the interesting work NUJS graduates are doing it will attract CLAT aspirants. The 100 profiles can be a mix of foreign law firm associates (10), Indian law firm partners (10), in-house counsels (10), people in Supreme Court lawyers chambers (10), people in High Courts and district courts (10), UPSC and judicial service (10), policy work in India and abroad (10), academics (10), NGOs and activism (10) and those in out of the box careers like politics, journalism, entrepreneurship etc (10).
3) You can also have positive testimonials from celebrity parents and CEOs/judges/IAS officers whose children went there (not taking the names here).
4) The comment about NLSIU being the "Harvard of the East" was a comment by the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, SM Krishna. It was then used by PR people as some sort of official endorsement by Harvard itself. You should get someone of stature like Amartya Sen, Kaushik Basu or Ruma Pal to similarly make a flattering statement and put it up.
The present students at NLSIU probably don't realise this but the present Vice-Chancellor R. Venkata Rao's decision to remove SidC from a contractual teaching position in February 2013 is probably the single worst decision of his tenure. I met with some NALSAR students recently and he seems to be prospering there. He has built up their public lectures programme and has already helped several NALSAR students with getting into top masters' programmes abroad. And unlike the sea of mediocrity that is law teaching in India, the students are actually learning something from his classes in constitutional law and political philosophy. NLSIU students (and the few decent faculty members who are left) need to get their act together and prevent Venkata Rao from getting a renewal for a third term in 2019.
You people are claiming that we should look at INSTRUCTION, as opposed to RESEARCH and KNOWLEDGE, by looking at factors like class punctuality, friendliness towards students, communication skills etc. You can't objectively measure this for thousands of professors, which is why QS and Times look at research output. Surely, this is fairest way to objectively measure faculty quality? Also, I would be suspicious of universities where teachers are "friendly" to students and "communicate" well, but fare poorly in research. This would lead me to believe the such teachers are merely communicating book knowledge without fresh perspectives and also winning students over with friendly behaviour over substance.
I would also be curious to know if those making these arguments are from NLUs with ... cough cough..... excellent "communicators" and "friendly" faculty who never publish.
We need to consider that NLUs at this juncture are still primarily teaching universities and barring one or two, rarely have sufficient number of quality teachers to take care of the workload. Compare this with foreign universities, where teachers have less than 1/3 of the workload in terms of teaching, which actually frees their time to engage in quality research. Now, I've seen teachers at NLUs actually neglect their teaching duties or compromise with it in order to focus on their publications. I don't think that's ethical, because the primary duty is still to teach and help the students learn the fundamentals at first. Of course, there are a few exceptions who balance both somehow. But if a teacher focuses only on research at the expense of teaching, then she can still be an asset to the university (enhancing its profile), but is no better or worse than that teacher who spends her free time helping the students at the expense of her research. Of course, as you said, there's no objective metric to judge that yet. However, that doesn't mean we consider teaching skills to be secondary or something that automatically comes with research, because it doesn't.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first