Following last month’s second suicide at NLSIU Bangalore in just over two years, the Student Bar Association (SBA) has produced a groundbreaking report that has revealed extremely worrying statistics and trends about life and academic pressures particularly at NLS, but also at other elite national law universities (NLU).
The SBA has identified that more than 10% of students faced academic problems resulting in them having to repeat a year. The “immense pressure” of being an NLU student, which can also be caused or exacerbated by a variety of other factors, can take a serious toll on the mental health and well-being of students, two qualified psychologists and campus counsellors advised the students in the report.
The SBA called out an “urgent need for reform” in its report, but declined to comment further when we contacted it, saying that the body was currently in negotiations with the administration with proposals to improve the situation, and was hoping for a positive outcome.
Outgoing vice chancellor Venkata Rao has not been reachable for comment at the time of publication.
The report, a copy of which we have received from sources close to NLS, makes for worrying reading, but it’s also a much-overdue and brave introspection by a student body about a topic that is rarely spoken of publicly in national law school culture, which can place inordinate value on ‘success’.
Those that don’t succeed, by those strict academic or career yardsticks, can sadly fall between the cracks, which even college counsellors are not a panacea for.
The numbers: 10% drop out, 10% ‘lost’ years annually
Out of all 400 NLSIU students (five batches of 80 each), up to 45 students have been forced to repeat a year in the 2017-18 academic year due to academic performance, such as failing exams, according to “final promotion list” figures analysed by the SBA.
While detention rates in the first year are minimal and have remained steady at two students per batch, the third year of study appears to be the toughest by far, and has been getting even tougher year-by-year:
- 21 third-year students ‘lost’ a year in 2017-18;
- 13 third-years lost a year in 2016-17; and
- 8 third-years lost a year in 2015-16.
If figures were compiled according to the “provisional promotion list”, which is subject to re-takes of exams, this “would reveal an even more stark contrast” the SBA’s report noted: in the academic year 2016-17, for instance, third-year students saw 13 year-losses, according to the final promotion list, but the provisional promotion list includes 27 students facing potential year losses - more than double the final number.
On top of that, on average, around six to seven students - nearly 10% - leave each batch of 80 students over each five-year course length.
The SBA also compiled year loss statistics for Nalsar Hyderabad, NLIU Bhopal, NUJS Kolkata and NLU Delhi, which are also worrying, though lower than NLS’: an average of between 8 to 12 students annually lost years in their studies, across five batches ranging from 400 to 640 students (see table below).
One of the counsellors said: “It is necessary for the community to be proactive at this time and deliberate and explore different options that could help mitigate the difficulties of students who face year losses.”
The psychological toll
Such detentions can take a major toll on the psychological well-being of students, two college counsellors briefed by the SBA noted in the report.
“Faltering in one trimester” can cause loss of motivation due to “mounting anxiety”, emotional isolation, eating and sleeping disorders, self-harm and “talking suicide”, wrote one of the counsellors. The prospect of losing a year “can be panic inducing” to a student and can result in “shame, humiliation, loss of self-esteem and confidence”, making it difficult for them to “bounce back”. “The prospect of sitting with juniors and losing friends who were batch-mates, doesn’t help either,” she added.
A second college counsellor agreed that the “repercussions of a year loss” become “unimaginable” to students, and can cause “spiraling in negative cognitions, getting further demotivated and developing an over all sense of avolition” (a decrease in self-directed purposeful activities, such as hobbies or social activities). This can cause “feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness”.
Those statements are backed up by the numbers: 40% of the 45 detained students from 2017-18 had lost more than one year: 9 had lost two years, 2 had lost three years, 5 were on their fourth loss of a year, and 1 had lost a sixth year of study.
The SBA stated in its report:
As illustrated above, the system of promotion is defective, in so far as it fails to account for the mental health effects on the students. The system is not conducive to the well-being, both physical and mental, of any student. Those students who find themselves entangled in this vicious cycle of repeated year losses find it difficult to escape the loop. This may manifest itself in various forms of mental illness, driving students to the very edge. It has been seen that this may also lead to students taking extreme steps, as a consequence.
But the problem is not only academic. One of the counsellors pointed out that starting out at a college like NLS, adjustment difficulties can also be “emotional, social ... and financial”, which can affect every student in different and unique ways: “The hectic pace of the course schedule, the need to participate in different co-curricular and extra- curricular activities, ensuring that they have a good CV, the competitive nature of the Institution in general leaves them with conflicting emotions and self-doubts.
“They are generally on their toes and are trying to hold all the threads pertaining to academics, relationships with friends, their own health, career prospects, etc.”
The second psychologist echoed this, stating that “one of the most prevalent conditions experienced by most of the students I meet on campus is stress and inability to adapt and adjust to new and different environment”.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
There were discussions at NLS about moving to a 5 day week/semester system even 6-7 years ago to ease academic load and leave time for other activities, but the overwhelming status quoist response was that we would lose the 'rigour' we were known for. Not sure why a timetable and a trimester system was even considered the site of our academic rigour. Hope these reforms are carried through.
1. Liberalisation of the legal sector
2. Indian Judicial Service with exam based on NLU curriculum
3. Existing state judicial service exams to also be based on NLU curriculum
4. Hiring NLU alumni as faculty through IIT-level payscales and abolition of UGC NET requirements.
5. Fair wages for juniors in advocate's chambers
NLU students have supposedly formed a students consortium, but it does nothing.
1. You have 35 marks for projects in which, unless you really marked yourself out as a jerk in class, you should get 20 marks without a superlative effort.
2. You have 5 marks for attendance, in which you have no excuse to not be getting 4 or 5 on a regular basis.
3. You have 60 marks for exams, out of which, if you have done the bare minimum on the above, you need only a 25 to pass.
Sure, you could end up a bit short from time to time, but not enough to lose a year. I had to repeat the final exams for three subjects in five years (different from repeating the course or the year itself), and all three times I knew the fault was completely mine. I slacked off on attendance, I submitted a crappy project and I didn't really make an effort for the exams.
Granted, there are students who may come from backgrounds where they are not able to cope with the large amount of reading required, or are simply not able to get into the groove of the discipline required to pass subjects. However, it is by no means a superlatively difficult task. Everyone I know who has repeated a year or several years eventually graduated saying that this was just my stupidity, I wish I had set my priorities straight in the beginning itself.
In general, maybe it would be helpful for students to have it drilled into them at the time of admission that DO NOT lose attendance marks, give REASONABLY good projects, DO NOT be a jerk in class, STUDY for your exams instead of spending nights on the terrace drinking and/or being involved in committees that have no value in the future.
That said, there definitely needs to be a support system for people who cannot cope for reasons other than just taking far too many liberties with the freedom they've got after 18 years of home life. However, 20% of a batch is not representative of the people who need support. A large proportion likely thought college would be a cakewalk and the trimesters hit them before they knew it was not.
PS. And also tell them they need to watch out for CPC/DPC - that's why you have so many issues in the 3rd and 4th years.
That said, quite a few people who haven't been to the better schools, are taught to answer (copy off) what's in the text books. It can be a culture shock for students who are not only expected to reason for the first time, but also understand that plagiarism is bad.
These are students who have been practically been ordered to cut paste their entire lives. When they come across students who are familiar with these concepts, they are intimidated. They also don't put their best foot forward which is why they are excluded. And get lonely, don't have help, get depressed and drop out or worse...
This does not mean that these students are stupid, lazy or not serious. Indeed, even lack of effort can stem from the feeling of exclusion, depression and hopelessness. Does this mean they should be passed even if their work is shoddy? Obviously not. But, in such cases institutional guidance and mental health support should be accessible.
I'm also aware that some of the people currently trying to coast on this serious concern of mental health, are doing so just to save their own skins - people with 7-8 carries (owing to not giving exams, shortages, plagiarised projects etc) who have rightly been detained in their years and not promoted [if even RVR doesn't think you should go the next year, that means you've really not earned it].
Yes, there are some people who may find it hard to cope. And Law School needs to have the right support systems like better mentorship, medical support etc. But a lot of people are in this position because of their own doing. The solution isn't some attempt to push down academic standards at all, rather to help people cope better. As for marginalised groups, yes. Chances are that most failures are from these communities, but that's only because the intake is also skewed in favour of those who got higher ranks in the entrance. This is an age old question of affirmative action, not being a perfect solution. Because sub-par people (possibly not for any fault of their own) are made to compete with people who are relatively more privileged or more intelligent. But the buck has to stop somewhere. Law School is to build lawyers, with some accommodations in entry for disadvantaged groups. Law School shouldn't exist to keep that crutch forever, and lower its benchmarks on excellence. And this itself is funny because not all courses or faculty are even half decent. You can very well manage to clear, if you accumulate enough credits in those courses and maybe take a repeat or two in the tougher courses. Under RVR by the time I left, you were given 3-4 attempts at a course (and for up to 5 courses even) to try to pass. If you don't make that effort at least, or can't, then maybe Law School isn't for you.
PS: I think Professors Reddy and Pillai have retired, so maybe 3rd year isn't the same herculean (and possibly mundane) task it was anymore.
It is still quite possible to finish Law School as long as they do the bare minimum. As someone who left free marks on the table by not having attendance I only blamed myself when I had a tough time in some courses to safely hit 50. But that was on me. Not on ED or the teachers (bad teachers are a real problem, but that's not what left me at 48 in Criminal Law). I also agree than there will be some people who cannot cope despite a fair effort - either because of structural problems (for those, reinforce mentorship, additional classes, SBA guidance etc) or many with mental health issues (not caused by law school, but tbh exacerbated by the competitive environment - for them, better counselling can help). The recent alumni initiative to talk to current students on an ongoing basis sounds like a good idea.
Having said that, a lot of the failures are still self-induced in an environment that is already granting a fair amount of leeway. So, no dice, to those hoping to capitalise on the recent tragic suicide (which certainly merits more introspection on mental health issues) to try to get more condonations out of the admin. It's unlikely to fly, especially with senior academics (law schoolites at that, like Rahul Singh, Sarasu etc) being involved.
Now before you pass me off as a moralistic guy passing judgments, please remember that both drugs and alcohol when added to stress and proneness to mental health issues results in a terrible soup. Law school has a high level of tolerance for soft drugs and alcohol and its even a part of the 'cool' kids narrative or the general set of excesses in life that law school tends to lionise.
While use of soft drugs and alcohol in moderation, in normal circumstances (been there, done that) is not a problem per se, consuming them when someone is already having problems from stress or has mental health issues just makes things worse. The high degree of permissiveness/ tolerance that we have on our campus for drugs/alcohol coupled with our general apathy towards others lives makes it quite easy for someone to walk down that path of abuse/addiction quite easily. Once again, the university authorities see this only as a law and order issue (reminding us of the hostel regulations when we take admission or suspension when you are caught ) and does nothing to initiate some sensible conversations about this issue. I can sort of second guess that a good number of people who are in the repeat-failure-year back trap also end up having a substance abuse problem (at least that was what I could observe)
As much as the SBA has prepared a good set of reports and recommendations on mental health on campus, the drug/alcohol problem has received no attention at all. And this is where I start to doubt the existence of any 'good faith' in this entire exercise. all those reports identify problems with the faculty and the university admin (no doubt some of them are real and requires to be addressed), but fails to do any introspection and identify what could be wrong with what the students are doing (yes, there is some mention of the lack of community support, but thats pretty much it). I am starting to doubt the real motivations behind this movement and who exactly sponsors it because most of the demands appear to just make a case for reducing the academic rigour of law school (which is nothing comparable to what the premier law schools in the world throw at you).
Under the 7th part commission, the basic pay scale for an assistant professor is 63000/- plus 9% DA (5600+) and around 5000 to 7000 TA.
That's 75000/- gross pay at the maximum. If you get housing then you aren't eligible for HRA.
From this deductions of 8/12% EPF are made (7000-8500) and 6000-7000 TDS. This leaves you with 60000/- in hand per month. That's well short of 12 lakh+ pa.
JGLS does pay better and so do some (only a very few) private institutions.
The problem is that while some such mechanisms like medical attendance makeup etc may be in place, they are abused by the first category and this makes it difficult for genuine cases in the second category. The institutional failure here is in not being able to segregate the first from the second but that's not an easy task.
Doubt it.
I have carried on further nerdiness to include NUJS & Jindal [only assistant profs] working on the same methodology outlined above.
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.
To keep with the tradition of recognizing people with greater than/equal to 5 points on my rather crude methodology, here are names for NUJS & Jindal (assistant profs only).
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.)
Original thread: www.legallyindia.com/lawschools/nalsar-study-in-nlu-choices-faculty-quality-rules-20180517-9351
Search committee is constituted but no news about VC appointment notification seeking
applications or nominations from eligible candidates, no news about search committee meetings
Why EC of NLSIU is silent about it
The NLSIU Bangalore Vice-Chancellor position has now been advertised. The notification and the application format can be found at this link:
www.nls.ac.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1430
The last date for sending applications to the Search Committee is April 22, 2019. Applicants need to be below 60 years of age and need to have served as Professors of Law for at least 10 years.
Thus, be ready for acche din: a top-notch alum as VC, who in turn will hire other alumni as faculty.
After coming here, I never thought that I have to face any discrimination because of my caste and community. I never thought that someone will abuse me on my caste identity and will say,
"Waha Niche baith ke baat Karo, tumhari vahi aukat hai". Not just this, but other phrases and words which are highly derogatory to my caste identity were spoken. They were so offensive that I can't even write them in public. Despite my resistance to it the boy was continuously abusing me and his voice and temper was so raised that I felt intimidated.....I was shocked at that moment.
These remarks were made to me by a student of our college only. Because of this incident, I've been in a very bad mental state."
This incident is shocking and insanely sad. Kian, why dont you cover this, instead of covering inane things like salaries and placements ? If we cannot make humans out of these students, why even have these esteemed universities ?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first