the nonsensical law school

So there was this student, certain years ago, who, despite being a 'lawskulite', had ventured to do an internship with Prof. Balgopal, a social activist in his own right; and what's more, was all praises for him on returning. Prof. Madhava Menon, the founder of our institution retorted, "It is you who have to make a choice, whether to be Balgopal, or KK Venugopal". He left it at that. Lawschool conveniently added AMSS, Luthra, CC et al.

And yet, the mandate of this 'premier institution' was, in fact is, to increase the quality of the Bar and the Bench, or something to that effect. Professors here boast of the first ten 'glorious' batches; we guys seem to have lost it. I do not want to get into petty controversies by naming people, but they seem to be primarily proud of facts like some alumnus is partner, AMSS, or someone at some other law/corp firm. These are the guys who've made lawschool what it is. Rank 1. Something NALSAR aspires for, other colleges don't even do that.
But I ask it to myself, what is the significance of Numero Uno? We earn handsome salaries, and it ends at that? I guess the first ten batches were better not because of what they have achieved, but because of what they aspired for. Recent batches come to law school with clear, defined aims of a high CGPAs, stunning internships, moot competitions, client counseling, anything that looks studly on the CV to procure them a lucrative offer at the end of fourth year. Not because they wanna learn the law and love it. Oh yes, these are idealistic aims. But then, why have such mandates? Then why have "Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high" as the cherished value? What is all this if not idealism?
And what does NLS teach us? To work with given deadlines, to crib about it all, to digest volumes of reading material courtesy a packed-up curriculum; in short to make us all 'studly'. But definitions differ. Does this institution create any social studs? No. It is supposed to create legal ones. Apparently, intense workload does that. Or does it? And also give rise to depression due to increased repeats? And also an intense drug culture?
But why should NLS be bothered? This is the oh so negligible deviant behavior, which perhaps has no correlation with the workload? The institution asks, "Why did you join if you can't take it?"
I submit, "Why did you have mandates you don't believe in?"
I do not wish to sound like a Ranchoddas of 3 Idiots, but sometimes, one can't help asking. Where is all this going? What are we proud of? Pay packets? Only pay packets? We anyways leave those jobs after 3 years. Alas, even 5 intense years of rigorous workload at law school (four at least) do not seem successful in helping us tackle pressure; we get tired of it. Yes, after making money, agreed.
I remember Prof. Rahul Singh telling us once, that medals and all that stuff one aspires for doesn't really matter at the end of it; it doesn't really take one anywhere. This, from an alumnus who was one of those great studs our institution has proudly produced over the years.
What else do we learn? Courses like Law, Poverty and Development seek to educate us with the problems engulfing society today. The course acquaints us with problems, perhaps solutions too. It aims at encouraging us to serve the society in some way. We, by virtue of being the 'cream of law students' are perhaps better equipped to do that. Perhaps not, mentality wise. We are done with all that no sooner than we scam the course at the end of three months. How many of us actually do anything for the society post passing out, or fight for human rights? Even the ones who are ostensibly so shocked after watching documentaries upholding the naked truth? What do post-viewing class discussions lead to? Does the work stop at realization? How many of us work for ideals we believe in? Rather, how many of us believe in any ideals? Or do we just equate chumma subjects like LPD and HR and Socio as Scams we've gotta pull off?
Which brings me to another important point. SCAM. I'm not sure whether the word is an invention of this place, but ya, 'faff' seems like one. We do all that. During projects, during vivas, during exams, in fact, wherever we can; even for attendance make-ups.
Are we to blame? I daresay not. What is it we are aiming to achieve by rigorous attendance? Physical attendance seldom coincides with its mental counterpart. And this is visible; one just has to go and attend a class. I won't even urge you to do that during project time, lest you get disappointed with the approach of students towards learning. Learning if I may say, is not a bitter medicine, which you thrust down the throat of a student; even if he is studying at National Law School.
A lot of papers have this tendency of being long, deliberately so. We are better than the rest, that should reflect even in our handwriting speeds. Does a brilliant handwriting speed have anything to do with legal education? Or legal practice in the long run?
Smoking on the terrace used to be permitted unofficially. People were cool with that; would go to the roof to smoke. But hello, isn't smoking supposed to be bad? A crime? And just like attempt to suicide is contemplated as an offence under the IPC, smoking was sought to be banned. Prohibited. So we smoke in our rooms, lest we are caught on the roof. Institution: "You want to smoke, go out of the gate and smoke. But yes, even if you want to do that, you cannot possess cigarettes; you've gotta go out, buy a cigarette and then smoke. Possession of cigarettes is a 'deemed' offence." When law is stringent, it can seldom be enforced.
I seem to have been 'bitching about' and 'sliming' my institution (These words are so commonly used here, you cannot do without them). That, I clarify, is not my intention; nor is it to project stark , depressing realities. It is just that the shortcomings of this institution make me re-think about the ideals embedded here, about the ideals I joined this place for, about the ideals society is dying to see in students like us.