Is law school bashing the latest hobby? A reply by an NLS student to the report on falling standards of NLS, Bangalore

Times of India says that the standards at NLS, Bangalore, the top law school in the country is falling. Final year NLS student Preeta Dhar's reaction was one of shock and outrage - and she presents the real experience of a student that vastly varies from what is reported. Over to Preeta.

In my humble opinion, this is not only unwarranted, but also factually incorrect. And I state this as a student, having studied in the institution for close to half a decade. I cannot help but regard this as an instance of falling levels of journalism in trying to create excitement about the 'dismal state of affairs' in 'premier institutions’. And on a personal note, I am quite tired of the absurd and unrealistic expectations that these 'premier institutions' are supposed meet, and the parameters by which they are judged.

Factual inaccuracies: class hours

 First off, I feel compelled to bring to light the most blatant factual inaccuracies. 4-6 hours of classroom teaching pertains to the daily hours of compulsory classroom teaching, and not the hours of classes held in the entire week. Taking into consideration seminar courses, clinical courses and extra-credit courses, the number of hours of imparting education easily reaches to 8-10 hours in a day. (Ramanuj: I wonder from where the review committee has been getting its facts, it certainly didn’t get this one right.)

Academic and work culture

 On the "drastic dilution of academic standards" - I beg to differ. I do admit that the system does have its weaknesses, and frequently the qualitative standards could be improved. However, what qualifies the NLSIU as a competent institution for professional training is the adherence to rigorous minimum standards, like the number of courses held in the academic year, maintenance of minimum attendance requirements, and an evaluation pattern including written examinations and research papers.

 In a trimester system, the "rigorous work culture" is still very much in place. If I had to place the mind-boggling statistics to a person outside the University, it would be at least [(8 exams, 4 research papers and 4 vivas) X 3 ] during an average academic year. Furthermore, there are extra-curricular activities and engagements like moot court competitions, parliamentary debates, model united nations, workshops and conferences, drafting legislation, holding study circles, and yes, even providing legal aid.

Quality of faculty

 Although I would most wholeheartedly support any suggestion for the improvement of the overall quality of the faculty, the picture presented is, in my opinion, inaccurate. The 'young teachers' have been unduly criticized - the effort that most of them put in their courses is commendable. Most importantly, within the classrooms and outside it, we learn valuable skills in an environment that is constantly challenging, as well as providing us opportunities.

Sex, drug abuse and drinking

 And yet, the parameters for judging an academic institution seem to be the prevalence of 'drug abuse, sex and drinking'. One would suppose that the hallmarks of an educational institution would be the academic and extra-curricular achievements at the national and international level, scholarships, workshops, publications, recruitment, infrastructure. Too bad we cannot get over our obsession for moral condemnation based on hearsay. (Ramanuj: Last I checked, NLS was a law school where entry age is 18-20 years. That would mean all students are adults – does the institution have any role to play or any right to interfere in the private lives of the students?)

Sensationalism?

It is easy to criticize, and even easier to sensationalize the criticism. I am not disputing that there is room for improvement. The faculty could be better, the infrastructure could be better, there could be more accountability of the system, etc. etc. The NLSIU, on account of being considered a 'premier institute' does have a lot of expectations to live up to. And criticism could be constructive. In fact, criticisms bringing to light various shortcomings have been constructive in introducing various positive outcomes. In my personal experience, I have witnessed the infrastructure take a definite turn for the better, there are more electronic databases subscribed to which has made a marked difference in the quality of research work, and the accountability of the system has improved (the course evaluation forms filled in by the students at the end of each course are actually taken seriously!). Most encouragingly, the changes have been by and large sought to be brought about through dialog and consultation rather in some draconian manner.

 I am not blind to the shortcomings of the institution. I have, in fact, lived through many of them since 2006. However, I find such unfounded sensationalist journalism unwarranted and in very poor taste.