Sunday, June 2, 2019

Consolidation of Postgraduate and Research Degrees at the NLUs

The following extract appears at pp. 94-97 of a report titled 'Suggestions for Reforms at the National Law Universities set up through State Legislations' which was submitted to the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India in March 2018. It was based on surveys conducted among faculty members (33 respondents) and students (849 respondents) at 15 participating institutions in August-September 2016. I was one of the authors of this report. We welcome any feedback. 

The full text can be downloaded here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3171842

Consolidation of Postgraduate and Research Degrees

So far, the NLUs have largely acquired reputational capital through their undergraduate programmes. However, there is an urgent need to improve the state of postgraduate programmes such as LL.M. and Ph.D. These programmes are primarily meant to provide rigorous training for those who are interested in pursuing teaching and research-oriented careers. As discussed in the previous chapter, the transition towards the one-year LL.M. programme had commenced during the academic year 2013-2014. This has led to a considerable increase in the number of applicants who are appearing for the PG CLAT. On the face of it, this increase can be attributed to the reduction of the length of the master’s programme from two years to one academic year. The premise is that a shorter duration reduces the opportunity costs for law graduates who can otherwise opt for employment.

However, interactions with a large cross-section of LL.M. students indicate another reason for the substantial increase in the size of the applicant pool over the last few years. The PG CLAT scores are being used by several Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to shortlist candidates for their recruitment cycles. So a large number of law graduates are appearing for this entrance examination in the hope of securing public employment. This is evidenced by the fact that the PG CLAT ranks obtained by the students who are actually joining the LL.M. programmes at specific institutions appear to have dropped considerably. In comparison to the much larger Central and State Universities where gaining admission to postgraduate programmes is far more difficult than entering undergraduate programmes, the NLUs have evolved into an anomalous situation where it is comparatively much easier to secure admissions in the master’s programmes.

There is also an evident mismatch between the expectations of most LL.M. applicants and the institutional objectives behind offering these programmes. Those who do gain admission to the better known NLUs assume that these programmes will enhance their chances of securing lucrative employment opportunities with commercial law firms and leading business houses. However, it is only after commencing their postgraduate studies at these institutions that they begin to comprehend the largely academic orientation of the programme. As mentioned earlier, the applicable UGC guidelines contemplate the completion of three mandatory subjects, six optional subjects and a dissertation within one academic year. A large section of incoming LL.M. students may not have previously faced the intensive research and writing requirements that are the norm in these highly selective institutions. There also tends to be inadequate exposure to the fundamentals of doctrinal legal research and the interface between law and other disciplines. This leads to difficulties in coping with the prescribed coursework requirements.

On the supply-side, many of the NLUs are struggling to attract experienced teachers at the level of Professor and Associate Professor who can provide meaningful research supervision across a range of thematic specialisations. In such a scenario, recently recruited Assistant Professors are being assigned as research supervisors for postgraduate students. This is not a desirable practice when many of the Assistant Professors themselves may not have completed substantive research work such as a doctoral thesis or contributions to credible peer-reviewed journals. If we go by the explicit guidance provided by the UGC Regulations for offering the one-year LL.M. programme, each institution should devote the services of at least 10 experienced faculty members (at the level of Associate Professor and above) for the purpose of teaching and research supervision in postgraduate courses. This pool of relatively experienced teachers is supposed to form a Centre for Postgraduate Legal Education (CPGLE) at each institution that is offering the LL.M. and Ph.D. programmes.

Another layer of difficulties arises from discriminatory behaviour by students enrolled in the five-year integrated programmes who tend to dominate student affairs in these residential campuses owing to their larger numbers and longer duration of study. It is also conceivable that several teachers might be taking advantage of the lesser bargaining power of LL.M. students by not delivering the intensive teaching and evaluation standards that are expected from them. In such circumstances, competing with postgraduate programmes at well-known foreign universities is likely to remain a distant dream.

This rather sorry state of affairs can be rectified through some concrete steps. The NLUs can consider introducing separate tracks for the LL.M. programmes, namely a ‘taught’ track and a ‘research’ track. The admissions for the ‘taught’ programme can continue to be conducted through the PG CLAT which consists of multiple-choice questions. The coursework can largely consist of lecture-based courses that are assessed through written examinations, with minimal requirements for producing research papers. There should of course be efforts made to expand the range of optional courses being offered to the students, both in terms of disseminating specialized knowledge and improving their professional prospects. In contrast, admissions to the ‘research’ track should be separately conducted by the respective NLUs. This is because each institution is a better judge of how many research-oriented students it can handle, given the relative scarcity of experienced faculty members who can provide meaningful research supervision. The admissions for such a ‘research’ track should ideally be conducted through a written examination that tests applicants for their capacity for theory-building, careful argumentation and analytical writing. Assessing these skills is not really possible through an entrance exam such as the PG CLAT which only consists of multiple-choice questions. Weightage can also be given for writing samples and academic performance during undergraduate programmes. While this process may appear to be subjective, it is likely to be a far better filter for identifying students who are capable of pursuing intensive research. The NLUs should not view the fees paid by LL.M. students as an importance source of revenue and they should be prepared to limit the intake for these programmes based on the existing faculty strength. The global practice is that the aggregate intake for a postgraduate programme should ideally not exceed one-third of the intake prescribed for undergraduate programmes in the same field of study.

If we turn our attention towards research-based degrees, most of our faculty-respondents lamented that a vast majority of Ph.D. candidates enrolled at their respective institutions had opted for the ‘part-time’ route. Correspondingly, there tend to be very few candidates pursuing doctoral studies on a full-time basis at the NLUs. The foremost reason for such disparity is the significant opportunity costs that would be incurred by those who opt for the full-time route after having completed professional qualifications. A prospective doctoral student in this field has to consider foregoing income-earning opportunities that are available in legal practice and other career-paths. Hence, the ‘part-time’ route tends to be preferred by those who are already working, especially those who are in the early years of a teaching career and see the completion of a Ph.D. as a necessary step for their career advancement. (With the rapid rise in the number of law schools in India and the consequent expansion of teaching positions, an overwhelming majority of the Ph.D. candidates who are presently enrolled with the NLUs are already in teaching positions). There are of course some individuals engaged in professional pursuits such as courtroom practice, the corporate legal sector and in voluntary sector organisations to name a few, who would be pursuing doctoral studies with different objectives in mind.


For those who are inclined to pursue Ph.D. programmes on a full-time basis, there are limited avenues for funding during the course of study. The Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) awarded by the University Grants Commission is limited to a small number of eligible applicants in each academic year. While doctoral fellowships are available through the Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR), applicants need to effectively compete with a larger pool of applicants from several disciplines. Even though these funding avenues are available, the extent of funding can prove to be quite inadequate when compared with the loss of potential earnings from professional pursuits. There are few Indian Universities that offer their own fellowships for pursuing a Ph.D. programme in Law. (For instance, NALSAR has started offering an integrated LL.M.-Ph.D. programme from the academic year 2017-2018 which offers monetary support to pursue full-time research for a maximum period of four years. However, it is too early to judge whether this programme will yield a high quality of scholarly publications.) This is in sharp contrast to the position at some foreign universities which have acquired a reputation for a serious commitment to research by providing fellowships to their doctoral students across disciplines. Many of the NLUs are using an intermediate method for supporting their Ph.D. candidates by recruiting them as ‘Research Associates’ for sponsored research projects or as ‘Teaching Assistants’ who help in the delivery of undergraduate teaching.

Suggested Readings:

1. Sudhir Krishnaswamy & Dharmendra Chatur, ‘Recasting the LL.M.: Course Design and Pedagogy’, 9(1) Socio-Legal Review 101-120 (2013).
2. Badrinath Srinivasan, ‘LL.M. in India: A Critical Review’, Proceedings of the National Conference on Contemporary Legal Education in the Globalized World, Central Law College, Salem [Available through Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 2017].     



No comments:

Post a Comment