The recent press release by the CLAT Consortium (or the consortium of National Law Universities) contains possibly the most significant change to the CLAT exam pattern since its inception.
The press release suggests that there will be no Legal Aptitude section in CLAT 2020, and there will be a reduction in the number of questions.
In order to, “get better students to National Law Universities who have competence in reading texts and demonstrate skills in inferential reasoning”, the paper will now contain comprehension based questions from Quantitative Techniques, English, Current Affairs, Deductive Reasoning and Logical Reasoning.
The distribution of questions from each question remains unclear. On a bare perusal of the above five categories, it seems that the Legal Aptitude section has been replaced with the Deductive Reasoning section.
However, questions from deductive reasoning earlier formed part of the Logical Reasoning section, so whether it will continue to be a part of the Logical Reasoning Section or will be a new section altogether is also not clear. Regardless, the noteworthy point is the emphasis on comprehension based questions from all these sections.
A prejudicial tweak
I argue that this tweak in the syllabus and the emphasis on comprehension based questions is prejudicial to a particular set of students: students with schooling from vernacular medium and students from Tier 2 and 3 cities and non-cities.
Before I elaborate on my argument, it is appropriate to consider few facts regarding CLAT and the student profile at NLUs - NLUs have historically been dominated by students from major cities. The number of CLAT aspirants from smaller cities and towns have gradually increased- thanks to the increasing awareness about the exam in such places.
However, one does not see a proportionate increase in the number of students form smaller cities occupying seats in NLUs.
What is even more incontrovertible is the fewer students are coming to NLUs who have had their schooling in vernacular medium. At NLS, in a population of 400 students in the undergraduate program, the number of students from vernacular medium does not even touch double digits. Unarguably, the gates of any institution is governed by its entrance examination- its syllabus, pattern and difficulty level determines the incoming students.
So if the blame for the current student profile at NLUs lies anywhere, it lies with CLAT.
Troubled history
We have gotten our test fundamentally wrong since the beginning and what is even more troublesome is that the consortium instead of ideating on a way to remove the impact that access to an elite education has on the selection process, has in fact strengthened the advantage that students from big cities have.
CLAT’s fundamental flaw is that while it seeks to test the language skills of a candidate, it is conducted in only one language- English. Thus CLAT essentially ends up testing the “English Language skills” of the candidates.
A lot of factors are a determinant in English language skill, and the schooling of the candidate plays a major role in it.
Even if we ignore the case of students with schooling vernacular medium, students with English as their medium of schooling also have different exposure to the language depending on the quality of the school they go to and the kind of socio-economic culture they come from.
Thus, students from metro cities have better exposure to English language and consequently better English Language skills unlike their counterparts from other areas.
Comprehension misunderstand the problem
A comprehension based question involves two steps to reach the correct answer. The first is understanding what the question demands and the second being the application of logic to solve the question.
The first part (or the primary part) – understanding the question – could include understanding the factual scenario, understanding the requirement of the question etc. The candidates’ English proficiency play a very important role in crossing this primary hurdle.
It is only after the candidate has overcome the primary hurdle, he reaches a a situation where he could actually apply logic to solve the question.
Comprehension focussed questions are by their nature framed in a complex language to assess the students, inter alia, on their language skills. The candidates’ unfamiliarity (or a relatively lower exposure) with the language throws them off at the first level itself.
Even if they reach the second level, they are likely to take more time in crossing the primary hurdle. Notwithstanding the proposed reduction in the number of questions, CLAT still remains a time-bound test. The relative disadvantage of such ‘slowing down’ cannot be discounted despite the increased time for each question that everyone now has.
So English language skills assume the primary role in the proposed pattern where comprehension based question on different aspects will be asked throughout the paper.
Moving closer to English-speaking countries with this CLAT
In introducing more comprehension based questions, although we have moved closer to the model that the US and other English speaking countries follow (for instance, their law entrance tests like LSAT contain mostly comprehension based questions), we have ignored the differential access to English language education that is so prevalent in our country.
While using a globally accepted pattern is not a problem, a fact that we should not miss is that inequitable exposure to the language of the test is not a problem in other countries which use LSAT or similar exams. But in India, this is certainly a problem.
Having argued how English language skills will potentially play a spoilsport in upcoming CLATs, it is important to clarify that it is not my case that the earlier system did not suffer from this disadvantage.
However, what I have sought to show is that the problem of English becomes much more acute in an exam which completely focuses on comprehension based questions. While the exam setter’s intention behind several questions may be to test inferential reasoning (and inferential reasoning alone), candidates will invariably end up being tested on their English language skills.
Not the same as the Legal Aptitude section
It may be contended that candidates would have faced the same problems with the erstwhile Legal Aptitude Section, especially in the Legal Reasoning questions.
However, what this argument overlooks are firstly, the repetitiveness of the Legal Aptitude questions in CLAT and secondly, the limited scope of Legal Aptitude Section where terms can be (and are often) learnt in the course of preparation thus giving the candidates required exposure to the language component of the section and consequently creating a level playing field.
However, this is not to say that the Legal Aptitude section was a fine test of a candidate’s merit but rather to argue that the playing field is relatively uneven in the new pattern.
What is the aim?
Prof. Faizan Mustafa, the outgoing President of the consortium, has claimed that “the idea is to get better students to National Law Universities who have competence in reading texts and demonstrate skills in inferential reasoning”.
What this proclamation misses is that CLAT was never a test of a candidate’s skill, or at the very least was not supposed to be a test of skill. Nor was it a knowledge test (unlike the JEE and NEET).
CLAT is an aptitude test and thus what should matter is the candidate’s aptitude to learn the skills required to be a lawyer and not the existing skillset and knowledge -predominantly that of English language - of the candidate.
Therefore, in a diverse country like India, for admission to National Law Universities, English language skills should not form a significant evaluative criterion, and much less the primary criterion.
There are ways in which tests can be made culturally neutral.
While this seem like a destination any entrance examination in India will take years to reach, the single minded focus on comprehension based question should be avoided.
Instead, attempts should be made to test the aptitude of the candidate in as little convoluted language as possible, barring the specific English Language section.
If comprehension based question indeed end up dominating CLAT, it will no longer be the Common Law Aptitude Test but will become the Common Law Accessibility (to quality English-language education) Test.
I sincerely pray that this doesn’t happen.
Divya Kumar Garg is a fourth year student at NLSIU Bangalore. A former Student Public Interest Fellow at P-PIL (IDIA), he has worked with Prof Shamnad Basheer on his CLAT petition for two years. He has also helped CLAT aspirants in filing PILs against the conduct of CLAT 2018.
Picture by Irina Bruce.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Will the law school let everyone do their degree in vernaculars?
If there is stigma in attending English classes - work on destigmatising it. Why should anyone have to learn the whole language in one semester? Why can’t you make support available through out the five years?
This is not an impossible problem. Universities across the world deal with international students who mostly have tenuous grasp of English. They provide support to those students because they recognise that one can be a very good lawyer while not knowing English. This is not hard if one is willing.
- A NALSAR student
This really isn’t an impossible task, looking at how international universities have handled the issue would help in solving it. Universities across the world have support programmes to help those who might not know English that well. Entire offices are staffed with volunteer and paid tutors who actually sit with students and review any and every piece of writing that they need - from emails to research papers. And students who go to these programmes are not made to feel less than- it is reiterated that they are experts in subject matter but only starting to learn English. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, oxford and Cambridge all of them do this for their international students. Even some Indian universities have started creating English writing support programmes for students. And NLUs have a fraction of the number of students needing help that these universities do. There are many examples to emulate. Assuming of course that one does want to solve the issue.
I have been in classes where students have put every email into google translate to adequately understand what each word meant. These students still topped the batch. They came from China , Russia , Latin America - you name it. And there wasn’t much stigma simply because the tutors were trained to be empathetic and respectful.
They went to writing and English support every day and they figured it out. There was writing support to start with.
Students who would get into NLUs on a fair test would be the best this country has to offer.
No doubt some people have felt alienated and quit so far- I would argue that’s because there were no support structures to help them.
As for this “rigorous” trimester system. Most nls students do not study all the time. I would venture they do not study even half the time. They study in the run up to exams and they study to write papers- but it isn’t nearly as time consuming as one assumes. I know of nls students who have held jobs/ internships/ drug habits on the side-if one can make time for all of that - one can make time to learn a bit of English.
As for the “go away we’re not for you” argument. Well - NLUs should be for everyone good enough to learn the law. Otherwise what is passing off for merit is just elitism.
Sure it’s not particularly cheap education - but one could afford it with scholarships - and it’s the kind of education that actually helps open doors. If one in good faith wants to help underprivileged communities- there is simply no good reason to not do this.
It starts with empathy - it doesn’t have to end there.
It doesn’t need to be a year and a half of only English training - having gone to law school - and having helped my batch mates and juniors with this - it needs to be a few hours after class everyday.
That is not an impossible ask.
I have seen this happen to international students who don’t speak a word of English in world universities. This isn’t that hard.
And yes - adivasi students should have access to legal education also.
The language teachers don’t need to know every language under the sun - most esl teachers don’t- they still teach fine. further more even if they do at a university level- it would be fairly easy to get a diverse set of volunteers and paid students who could speak all these languages. That’s what universities abroad do. It works fairly well. It would actually work better in NLUs cause the number of students needing such help would be much smaller than say at Harvard or oxford or wherever.
NLU student bodies are maybe 500-800 students , of which maybe 5-10 percent of current students would need such support. Even if that number doubles - it would still be manageable resources wise.
And when you consider all the unnecessary crap the universities waste money on - it would be a better investment.
In fact I’ll go further, most senior lawyers even at the HC level have maybe a tenuous grasp of English. Lawyering=\english.
NLUs are also not large enough to have different classes for different languages. We might call them universities, but they don't have the funding or size required to provide such programs.
And atleast for classroom interactions - if there is that much diversity in a room there is enough to allow for some quick rough translation. This has worked in other universities. It isn’t new - if one is willing I think.
That’s just not true. Universities across the world deal with language diversity- if we want answers we can actually look for them. I have explained in detail how this works in international universities - you should just read that comment instead of asking the same questions over and over again.
Assuming the structure can not be changed leads one to make paternalistic choices. When structures are failing to produce best results it’s wise to try and change the structure .
And you don’t need years of rigorous training on English alone. What you need is really good support systems. International universities have writing centres exactly for this. They have people from all nationalities- some of whom can’t speak a word of English- and they avail of writing centre tutors to go over every email and every research paper to make sure the students ideas get communicated. They are provided with resources to learn English, there are groups of students who practice it together everyday. It’s just another skill. And they learn it as they pursue a full course of studies, sometimes at the graduate level. Having gone to an NLU- I can assure you there is time enough in the day.
To just shoo these students away- even if they might be gifted in other ways - it’s just elitism and not merit. There are many reasons for student to want to attend NLUs and they should be allowed to.
And law school exams shouldn’t be testing your English - they should be testing your knowledge of the law.
First you are assuming that one needs to be completely proficient in English to understand anything that happens in classrooms - one doesn’t. Many professors would be glad to accept student class participation in other languages as long as it isn’t extremely time consuming. This does happen in other universities in India- off the top of my head students at APU and TISS atleast speak in regional languages in the classroom. It doesn’t seem to impede the learning project any.
Second, students can be taught English on the side so that they learn it fairly well by the time they have to read the really heavy stuff which doesn’t happen in the first few semesters.
And finally, the lack of resources argument is boring and disingenuous.
NLUs routinely spend lots of money on relatively unimportant projects compared to improving access to legal education. Funding elite students to go to international competition - which - even if they win becomes completely irrelevant even a few
Years after they win it. Funding debate competitions where more students focus on getting high than getting knowledge , organising lavish festivals for the “culture” which is essentially just another excuse to party.
They spend all of this money because that’s what students want - and that will remain so until there is literally any effort made to be more inclusive. Some effort not at preserving the ivory tower but at democratising it. If NLUs can find the resources for all of that- they can find resources to improve students from a disadvantaged background. They don’t want to- and they should own up to it.
And before you start about the prestige foreign competitions bring/ the importance of them in educating students- that is also simply not true. I graduated from a top tier NLU not that long ago - and I couldn’t tell you who won which moot or what they learnt from it. I couldn’t even tell you what moots I participated in. And winning a moot did not help anyone land a job or keep one. Further , if the mock trial is supposed to be so very educational - students can be encouraged to intern and get there on their own dime.
Second point about the 'really heavy stuff' not starting before a few semesters, not sure how things are done at your NLU, but if one has to read Common Law judgements in Contracts or even some of the Sociology articles, that's as heavy as it gets in terms of English and all that happens in first year across many NLUs.
Regarding your third point about priority and resource allocation, that I agree with. But a word to the wise, saying that you don't even remember the moots that you'd attended isn't simply helping your case. It displays your callousness as a student, not the unimportance of the competitions. Nor is it entirely true that winning those don't have CV values for recruitment purposes. Not a lot perhaps and their absence can be compensated for in other ways, sure. But the value is there. If you say there is none, then I'm afraid you don't have an accurate impression of the industry.
I went to a fairly top tier law school. Sure at the time reading for sociology and contracts might have seemed difficult - but with the benefit of hindsight - it was fairly dumbed down so that a learning curve was maintained and students were allowed to ease in to law school. In any case- I have seen students who don’t speak much English look up every word in a dictionary and understand even the most complex texts. If they have the determination who is anyone to deny them?
I graduated more than a couple of years ago - and I am good enough at what I do for people to not need to even consider what moots I did in college - wiped them from my CV and it doesn’t seem to affect anyone. Not a callous student back in the day- just a wise one now. The marginal value that these competitions bring to student welfare are hardly worth the cost. There are many other ways to build your CV than at the expense of the student body which might have different priorities than obtaining bragging rights.
Any and all help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!
1) Lawyer for Muslim side in Ayodhya case was... 4 names
2) Argument made by Muslim side was... 4 arguments differing slightly in wording, choose the most accurate description.
Lawrence Liang spoke excellent English but was still a bad colleague and mentor to the students he abused. The model of merit that is built on existing social hierarchy must be re-examined.
In one of the exam (CLAT\AILET) I wrote, one of the question asked me to answer something about the composer of the movie Dhobi Ghat.
Say what you will about JGLS and other LSAT affiliated colleges, I really think that they should adopt LSAT as the entrance exam. It is methodological and tests candidates in an objective manner. Most importantly, it tests aptitude so there is no real need of going to a cram school for a year or two.
Or at the very least, use it as a standard to design the exam. The only issue I can see with LSAT is perhaps the level of English is bit too high for a diverse Indian audience, rest all is great.
Reading through the comments, i can understand that a lot of good hearted, motivated people are arguing for taking the emphasis away from language to improve accessibility. let us recognise that this demand comes from a good place in their hearts and respect that. the trouble is that language is so integral to the law - after all the law is at the heart of it an enterprise in language. This is much like what math is for engineering or chemistry is for medicine. There is no way that one can excel at law without a grip over english language.
I dont think remedial classes and . quick fixes of this sort is a substitute for good schooling (which is rare in our country and is mostly bundled up with privilege). Some individuals struggle and learn the language at law school (provided they had some basics in place). I have seen some of my classmates who could not speak a word in the first year improve a lot and turn out to be good speakers who can hold a conversation with anyone by the time they reached their final years. They learned from their peers, put in efforts and aced at it down the line. No substitute for that effort is available. I think the fact that he had some basic english in place made that transformation much easier.
Further - a lot of the law is about language yes. But language is not limited to English. Language means understanding how words are used and how interpretations can be distingushed and chosen from. Law is also understanding a system of rules and how different interpretations can be arrived at and the impact these interpretations have.
Lawyers in China only learn law in cantonese and mandarin- doesn’t make them less as lawyers. If all you learn from law school is to write in high falutin English, law school would have certainly failed you.
There’s an intensive well designed 6 week programme with trained professionals.
Students are not punished or shamed for asking what something means when a teacher says a new word in class. Often if there is another student who translates. It isn’t hard when you have a diverse classroom.
For writing papers/ preparing for vivas - students go to the writing/ language support centre and get appointments to get feedback on their writing and spoken English.
By the time exams roll around - with so much Support and training - students do quite well , even topping the class. The exams are also not focused on how “articulate” one is - but on ones knowledge and comprehension of the law.
Students at these universities treat knowing English as just another skill / they learn it individually and in groups and are assigned peer tutors and avail of the services at the language centre.
They do all this while also studying a full course load.
And this isn’t just English- students who need to learn Spanish/ south Asian/ African languages learn them the same way. Students who want to learn statistical analysis and using STATA/ coding in R also learn those languages the same way.
K-10/12 schooling isn’t supposed to teaching reading writing and arithmetic. Not in anyone language - but the process of how to read and write and count. Engineering students can learn c++ and java in college- law students can learn English.
It does require a common language- I have never argued that it doesn’t - but one can cultivate those language skills while being in law school / if one has enough institutional support.
www.lawctopus.com/nlud-dalit-adivasi-students/
P.S. - I am undergraduate student of the same University as he is.
I don’t think the idea is that rote learning should be preferred- just that one should be careful about how comprehension based questions are framed and what they are testing. Are they testing English? Or comprehension?
To truly level the playing field- one has to either ensure the comprehension based question actually tests comprehension and not English- or allow all students a reasonable opportunity to study and learn the vocabulary needed to answer these questions.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/clat-2020-to-focus-on-comprehension-skills/articleshow/73499899.cms
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first