Note: This article is not meant to demean those who did well in CLAT 2010. It's a purely personal opinion of the test.  

Well, I resisted dissing this whole CLAT rigmarole for a while because I did not want to sound like I was moaning and making excuses if I didn't get through. But it turns out that I did well enough in the paper. 

So now it's time to rip that horrendous test to bits.

Seriously, what were they thinking? That they'd pick the best lawyers in the nation based on a set of dates and some ridiculous facts? When pyorrhea features in the logic section, you have much to be afraid of.

I wrote the LST mocks. They were "tough" too. But such a different kind of tough. If you didn't score well in logic it was because you couldn't work it out, not because you didn't know the answer! If you scored badly over all, you blamed it on the fact that the paper was way too long to complete and that math was really tough (or something like that) not that you knew nothing. I'd much rather leave 5 questions undone than finish 20 minutes early and still not be able to better my paper.

Since when did we start measuring intellect by memory? For that matter, how do we even measure intellect? From which angle does CLAT test ANY of the skills required by a lawyer? Does it check one's ability to form opinions? NO. Does it check one's ability to write or speak coherently? NO. Does it really check one's knowledge of important matters of local, national or international concern? NO. (At least, this edition of the test did not.) Does it check whether the candidate has the strength of mind and the ethics that a judge or a lawyer requires? NO.

I finished that paper really early. Since there was no way I could add value to any of my answers, I counted the number of history questions asked. There were around 20 out of 50. I'm sorry, but knowing when the University of Bombay was established, which country hosted the 1970 Asian Games, which year Prophet Mohamed was born, which year Akbar died, etc. is not (under any circumstance) a test of one's aptitude for law.

I might sound bitter because I knew the answers to none of those questions but, trust me, even if I had got the highest score, I'd be saying this.

Add to all of this the fact that they do not give you the question paper (This, I'm afraid, I'll have to term as sheer schadenfreude.) so you have no means of knowing exactly how much to expect. And there ARE times when multiple answers make sense in critical reasoning but there is no way of knowing what the right answers are. See, they even refuse to let you learn from your mistakes!!

If I got into NALSAR, it's because I guessed well. I didn't get into NLSIU: it's because I didn't guess well enough.

Okay, I'll give myself a little more credit than that, but you get my flow.