1

Ranking of Law Schools: The Ten

ParameterApproachandthe

SOURCE: http://www.clatpossible.com/pdf/RankingofLawSchools.pdf
1) Problems, Prospects and Objectives
O de o ra , Wi sto Chur hill had o e re arked: It has been said that democracy is the worst
form of government except all the others that ha e ee tried. Perhaps something similar is
applicable as regards to ranking of law schools. Irrespective of whatever parameter or parameters
one deigns to choose for such ranking of law schools. Such rankings are imperfect pointers towards
the determination of the quality of legal education imparted and instilled. Nevertheless, aspirants
for legal studies depend heavily on law school ranks and as such faulty methodology of ranking
misleads them in making their choice. Keeping this in mind, CLAT Possible has undertaken to Rank
law schools depending on ten full proof parameters so as to guide those who seek legal education in
India.
Ranking of law schools in India is never an easy task. Firstly, there are many law schools throughout
the length and breadth of the country established at different times. Secondly, legal education is a
vast and much diversified subject, as the course, content, curriculum, approach and all the attached
shenanigan pertaining to legal studies keep changing as time strides forward. To deal with the
problem of diversity and plentitude we have cherry-picked only the crme du la crme amongst the
law schools of India, namely, those institutions affiliated under the Common Law Admissions Test
Board and one more law school which is recently making giant leaps with the aim of revolutionising
legal education in our country, viz., NLU-Delhi. We hope and pray that we will be excused by this
apparent and evident elitism on our part.
Even then, problems associated with such ranking are not mitigated in their entirety. One major
problem is that even the law schools for which one has to clear the Common Law Admissions Test
were not established at the same time. Time frames for establishment of these law schools range
from as early as 1988 when the first law school was established with the aim of raising the standard
of legal practice in India to as late as 2009 when CLAT board got its recent most addition. Naturally,
it would be impudent to expect the same level of competence, infrastructure, development, and
academics to be pursued in each of the law schools. And applying the same parameters to judge
them would perhaps be unfair to the extent of denying a level playing field to each of the law
schools. The chronological problem as underlined above are repeated on a topographic framework
as well. Law schools are located at different parts of India, each having its unique social, economic,
political and cultural nuances and not all parts of the country are equally developed. This also leads
to diversification in terms of the support and framework a particular state, city or region can afford
to the la s hools. O e agai , judgi g the o the sa e para eters ight pro e to e a fools
labour.
2
Nevertheless, the need and necessity for such ranking can never be denied. The CLAT is getting more
and more competitive each year with an exponential increase in the number of aspirants appearing
each year. Thus, a proper and authentic ranking proves to be a brilliant guideline in helping the
students to make a career-defining choice of law school. The aim of CLAT Possible is to be a friend
philosopher and guide for all aspirants for legal studies and with such an aim in mind, we felt the
pressing need to introduce a ranking system which would be authentic, genuine and honest, given
that most of the prevalent rankings as available in the confusing and perplexing world of cyberspace
begs the question of authenticity. We have conducted thorough research on the issues and
parameters on ranking and are continuing with our endeavour to keep ourselves abreast of the
changes and developments in the rapidly altering map of legal education in our country.
2) Parameters used and Methodology Undertaken
Keeping in mind our goal of creating a rank list of law schools that would be the least imperfect, we
have zeroed in on 10 fundamental parameters which we shall be laying out and analysing below. We
have conducted through research on each of the parameters as they pertain to the law schools
individually. We have sought to be as objective and as impersonal as possible in our endeavour.
However, on a topic such as these, it must be understood and acknowledged that absolute
objectivity is unattainable. Our sources of research has been many, ranging from first hand
information collected from law school students and faculties, information gathered from the latest
CLAT Brochure, from the individual websites of each and every university, and from several useful
resources present in websites, blogs and other online community portals such as Legally India, Bar
and the Bench, An Unwilling Lawyer, A First Taste in Law, Lawctopus and even through several pages
and communities on Facebook dealing with relevant topics. Collecting, assorting, assessing and
analysing such information gathered from such a variety of sources, especially from the flummoxing
virtual meshwork of electronic information has been a daunting task and we have done our level
best to be worthy of the endeavour. Now, let us get down to the core ranking process.
We have chosen ten parameters which are of essential value in deciding on the quality of law school.
We have attached equal weightage of ten to each of the parameters and have marked each law
school out of ten on each such parameter. Finally, we have tallied the scores to get a cumulative
score out of hundred which have been the determinative factor in deciding on the Ranks. Such a
method has an inherent difficulty. All the national law schools cannot possibly be marked on each
criterion. For instances, law schools from which the first graduating batch are yet to come out could
ot e arked o the para eter of Re ruit e t . Agai , ooti g a hie e e ts for a law school
established in 2009 cannot possibly match up to those of one established in 1988. To deal with such
problems, we have taken two measures:
Firstly, we have decided our ranks based on percentage scores and not on actual scores. That is, a
school which cannot be marked on one category and is thus marked out of 90 and gets a total score
of 45 is to be accorded with the same rank as a law school which gets a score of 50 out of 100 and a
higher rank than a law school which gets a score of 50 out of 100
3
e o dl , e ha e o sidered o l the past t o ears perfor a es for our ra ki g purposes. I
case of certain law schools, we were unable to procure necessary statistics for the last year and for
those we have looked into the performances for the year before the last year.
Now, without further ado, let us analyse the scores obtained by the law schools under each of the
parameters so as to determine the ranks. Allow us to reiterate that equal weightage has been given
to each parameter and none has been given priority over the others.
Parameter 1: Recruitment.
We have gathered recruitment data for the academic year 2011-12 from each of the law schools
primarily through direct communication with the bodies present in each law school which are
responsible for carrying out the process of recruitment and also from two websites: Legally India
and Bar and the Bench. We have been unable to gather recruitment data for RGNUL. Moreover, we
have been unable to gather recruitment data for the academic year 2011-12 for the following law
schools: GNLU, NUALS and CNLU and have used the recruitment data for these institutions for the
academic ear 2010-11. Following s the data:
NLS: 46 recruited out of tbs of 65 (46 participated). Percentage 100
NUJS: 57 out of tbs of 100 (68 participated). Percentage 84
NLU-J: 46 out of tbs 80 (57 participated). Percentage 81
NALSAR: 43 out of 72 (43 participated). Percentage 100
NLIU- B: 31 out of 82 (50 participated). Percentage 62
HNLU: 19 out of 60 (around 37 participated). Percentage 51
RMLNLU: 28 out of 154 (125 participated) Percentage 23
GNLU: (for 2011) 70 out of 155 (85 participated) Percentage 82
NUALS: (for 2011) 23 out of 58 (44 participated) Percentage 52
CNLU: (for 2011) 41 out of 80 (60 participated) Percentage 68
RGNUL: No data
NLU-D, NLU-O, NUSRL, NLUJA : First Batches not out.
Thus, scores out of 10 on placements will be as follows:
4
NLS 10
NALSAR 10
NUJS 8.4
GNLU 8.2
NLU J 8.1
CNLU 6.8
NLIU-B 6.2
NUALS 5.2
HNLU 5.1
RMLNLU: 2.3
RGNUL : Data Insufficient
NLU-Delhi, NLU-O, NUSRL, NLUJA: NA, because first batches have not graduated yet.
Parameter 2: Choice of law schools by successful CLAT students:
The methodology for marking under this parameter that we have devised is as follows: we add up
the ranks obtained by the top 24 aspirants for each law school. We have chosen the number 24
because NUSRL has only 24 seats for General candidates which also happen to be the least number
of seats allotted to students in the General category for any law school under the CLAT Board. We
have chosen only General category seats solely for the purpose of statistical clarity and for no other
reason. The one with the lowest cumulative total would get the highest rank and score.
For 2012:
Our scoring scheme would be as follows:
Cumulative total of ranks within 1000 = 10
Cumulative total of ranks between 1001-2000 = 9.5
5
Cumulative total of ranks between 2001-3000 = 9
Cumulative total of ranks between 3001-4000 = 8.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 4001-5000 = 8
Cumulative total of ranks between 5001-6000 = 7.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 6001-7000 = 7
Cumulative total of ranks between 7001-8000 = 6.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 8001-9000 = 6
Cumulative total of ranks between 9001 10000 = 5.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 10001-11000 = 5
Cumulative total of ranks between 11001-12000 = 4.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 12001-13000 = 4
Cumulative total of ranks between 13001-14000 = 3.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 14001-15000 = 3
Cumulative total of ranks between 15001-16000 = 2.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 16001-17000 = 2
Cumulative total of ranks between 17001-18000 = 1.5
Cumulative total of ranks between 18001-19000 = 1
Thus, the scores will be:
NLS: 10
NALSAR: 9.5
NUJS: 9
NLIU-B: 8
NLU-J: 8
GNLU: 6.5
HNLU: 6
6
NUALS: 5.5
RMLNLU: 5
RGNUL: 4
NLU-O: 3.5
CNLU: 2
NUSRL: 1
NLUJA: 1
We have collected all allotment data from the latest list that has been put up on the official Website
of CLAT.
Parameter 3: Faculty Qualifications:
For these, we have exercised prudent discretion. We have gone through the profiles of each and
every faculty of each and every law school within the scope of our ranking from the web-pages of
the law schools. We have also undertaken a thorough online research from all possible available
online resources. We understand and acknowledge that objectivity on this parameter is nigh
impossible to achieve. The factors we have taken into account for arriving at our scores are as
follows: academic proficiency, degrees held, nature and quality of academic institutions associated
with, foreign degrees, prior experiences, awards and distinctions bestowed (in any), research work
done, academic publications made, journals associated with, and student perception. Our scores,
based on our research, are as follows:
NLS 7
NALSAR 7.5
NUJS 8
NLU-D 7
NLU-J 7
NLIU-B 6
GNLU 5.5
HNLU 5
7
RMLNLU 5.5
RGNUL 4.5
NUALS 4
CNLU 3
NUSRL: 2.5
NLU-O 4.5
Assam 2
Parameter 4: Academics: Academic Achievements, In-House Publications, Centres, Research
Facilities and Courses Offered
For this we have looked into the academic achievements attained and in-house academic journals
published by, centres present in, research facilities available to the students and to the faculties
and the courses offered by the individual law schools as well as the credits attached to the same.
We have gathered information through various websites, through direct communication with
students from different law schools and through the CLAT brochure. Prominent weightage has
been attached to the courses offered by each of the institutions and quality of in-house academic
journals published by them. According to our assessment, the scores are:
NLS: 8
NALSAR: 8
NLIU B: 7
NUJS: 7
NLU-D: 7
NLU J: 6.5
HNLU: 6
GNLU: 6
RMNLU: 5.5
RGNUL: 5
CNLU: 4
NUALS: 5.5
8
NLU-O: 5
NUSRL: 3
NLUJA: 2.5
Parameter 5: Moot Court Achievements:
Moot Courts are a significant part of law school education are healthy and regular participation in
and organization of mooting activities, both at the domestic and international platform is essential
for the culture of legal education and legal practice to develop and thrive in a law school. Mooting
instills a sense of participation in the real-life legal process on every law student and hence we have
chosen this parameter. We have looked into the mooting performances of the law schools for the
past two years. Here again, the three nascent law schools which came under the fold of CLAT Board
only in 2012 have not been considered for scoring because of the obvious fact of their non-existence
in the past two years. We have gathered our statistics from the internet.1. Based on the available
statistics, our scores out of 10 on this parameter are:
NALSAR: 9
NLS: 8
NLUD: 7
NUJS: 6
NLUJ: 6
GNLU: 4
NLIU-B: 4
HNLU: 3
RGNUL: 3
RMLNLU: 2
NUALS: 2
CNLU: 1
NLU-O, NUSRL, NLUJA: Not Applicable.
Parameter 6: Other Student Achievements
Mooting is not the sole activity a law student is expected to undertake, aside core academics, during
her tenure in law school. The quality of legal depends on participation in several other co-curricular
activities such as debates, quizzes, publication of papers in reputed national and international
1 The e site of Legall I dia hi h has ee ru i g a o ept alled Moot Pre ier League for the last
three years, wherein it gives pointers to law schools for their achievements on different moots on the
domestic and the international fora
9
journals, and finally, procurement of scholarships, mostly at prestigious Universities, for further
studying abroad. Successes of students in these activities are sure-fire indicators of the quality of
legal education prevalent in law schools. Under these head we have researched on student
achievements in all these, especially in the debates, quizzes, academic publications and
scholarships. We have gathered our date from online resources, especially from the websites of
each individual law school. Even here we have not considered the three new law schools keeping
requirements of fairness in mind. Our scores, based on the composite and multifarious
achievements of the students, are as follows:
NLS 9
NALSAR 8
NLU-D 7
NUJS 5.5
NLU-J 5
NLIU-B 5
GNLU 4
HNLU 3.5
RMNLU 3
NUALS 3
RGNUL 2
CNLU 1.5
Parameter 7: Infrastructure
Infrastructure of every academic institution, law school or otherwise, is an essential ingredient in
determining the effectiveness and excellence of the institution. Herein, we have considered factors
such as quality of classroom, library and hostel facilities, library resources available: both online and
offline, library hours, convenience of transport and communication, distance from main hubs of city,
distance from shops, hospitals, banks and ATM facilities, police and fire-stations and other necessary
amenities, as well as wireless fidelity and internet facilities available both in academic buildings and
hostels, space of classrooms, teaching and presentation aids available on classrooms, seminar-halls
and auditoriums, total area coverage and area utility of the campuses, quality of academic building,
aesthetics of architecture, ecology and greenery in and around campus, presence and quality of
gymnasiums, sports facilities, and auditoriums, availability, quality and hygiene of canteens and
eateries inside and outside campus, distance from airports and railway stations, and general safety
10
and security of the campus atmosphere as the deciding elements. Naturally, we had to undertake
thorough research on these themes. We have directly sought and received information on these
matters from several students both through oral communication and electronic correspondence.
Further, we have pursued meticulous and time-consuming research on each of the factors as
mentioned above through the CLAT Brochure of 2012 and through several online sources including
the websites of the law schools, websites of Legally India and Bar and the Bench, media reports
through newspapers and magazines, the Facebook communities on each of the law schools under
consideration and also through several blogs such as A First Taste in law, Lawctopus and Unwilling
Lawyer. Once again, this is one topic on which absolute objectivity is unattainable and yet, through
placing of appropriate weightage on each of the factors, we have sought to make the results of our
research as realistic and practical as possible. It must be kept in mind that infrastructure is not
merely what meets the eye. Good infrastructure implies the facilitation it provides for the students
and for all the stakeholders involved in the institution to amalgamate within it for the purpose of
attainment of its broader goals.
Based on our research, our scores on Infrastructure will be as follows:
NLU: 7.5
NALSAR: 8
NUJS: 6.5
NLU-D: 8.5
NLU-J: 7
NLIU-B: 7
RMLNLU: 8
GNLU: 8.5 (New Campus)
NUALS: 5.5
CNLU: 5
HNLU: 6.5
RGNUL: 5.5
NLU-O: 5
NLUJA: 5
NUSRL: NA (It lacks a permanent campus for the time being which, to the best of our knowledge, is
being rapidly developed)
11
Parameter 8: Student Exchanges and Foreign Collaborations
These, we believe provide vital indicators to quality of academics and education practiced in law
schools. We have undertaken detailed research so as to procure necessary data. Our research
sources include websites of the law schools, direct communication with students from some of the
law schools under consideration, and other online resources. Once again, we have excluded the
three nascent law schools from the scope of our research for the sake of fairness. Based on our
findings, our scores are as follows:
NLS 9
NALSAR 7.5
NLU-J: 7
GNLU: 6.5
NUJS: 5.5
NLIU-B: 5
NUALS: 4.5
NLU-D: 7.5
RMLNLU: 4
HNLU: 3.5
RGNUL: 3
CNLU: 2
Parameter 9: Quality of Student Life
The quality of life a student leads during her education is of immense importance because the
success or otherwise of any form of institutionalized education is heavily dependent on the quality
of life the scholar leads during her tenure within the institution. To borrow a term used oftentimes
i e o o i philosoph , the i ter alizatio of e ter alities a ha e a positi e i pa t o
education if and only if a student leads a healthy life within the educational set-up and this includes
striking of the right balance between work and fun, the personal and the public, and the sacred and
the profane (innuendo intended). This is particularly true in case of law students because lawyers
are a community unto themselves and a good and worthwhile life led as a law student makes the
student ready to face the strong challenges posed by the legendarily competitive community of law
and to succeed in meeting high dreams and aspirations in the legal field without sacrificing the
cherished and noble ideals of life a lawyer is supposed to uphold both inside and outside the
courtroom.. Once again, this is a thoroughly subjective parameter and judicious discretion through
12
careful study is necessary to arrive at any conclusion on the quality of life a student is expected to
lead at a given law school. Moreover, this parameter is also dependant on several other factors,
i ludi g, ut ot li ited to, the fa tors outli ed u der the head of I frastru ture a d thus the
risk of overlapping does exist. Nevertheless, the significance of this parameter in determining the
quality of a law school cannot possibly be denied. We have indulged in discourses with student
through electronic correspondence and direct communication to comprehend the quality of life
they lead and moreover we have gone through numerous blogs written by students of the law
schools under consideration. In fact, we have sought to read, analyze, interpret, debunk the
contexts and constructs and even to read-between-the-lines of as many blog posts as possible and
have gone through Facebook profiles of several students from all the law schools under
consideration as possible because factors which are apparently as trivial as status updates, wall-
posts and comments on Facebook profiles and tweets can be vital indicators to the amount of work
a student is doing, the amount of fun she is having, the state of her mind and such essential factors
which, we believe are essential pointers to the quality of life. While deciding on the scores we
looked into a host of factors such as hostel life, fests, quality of food provided by the mess and
canteens, class-hours, study-leave periods, participation in extra-curricular activities on and off
campus etc. Some of these factors are overlapping with the factors we took into account under the
I frastru ture Para eter. Following is the score based on quality of life. We admit that this is a
highly subjective parameter and many of you will choose to differ and disagree with our scores
under this parameter.
NUJS 9
NLS 8
NALSAR 7.5
GNLU 7.5
NLU-J 7
RMLNLU 7
RGNUL 6.5
NUALS 7
HNLU 6.5
CNLU 6
Assam 5.5
NUSRL 5.5
NLIU-B 7
NLU-O 6
13
NLU-D: 8
Parameter 10: Ranking of Law Schools by Law School Students
For this, we have asked one student from each of the law schools to rank all the other law schools
under the CLAT Board and NLU-Delhi, apart from their own law school. We have chosen this
parameter to reflect the perception of law schools by law school students themselves who, we
believe, are in a position to make an educated, uninfluenced and unbiased decision on this. At the
same time, we have instructed each of the students who are making these rankings not to include
their own law schools so as to avoid bias.
Our results of this endeavour are as follows:
1) NLU-D Ranking (Divyanshu Bhatt, IInd Year)
NLS
NALSAR
NUJS
NLU-J
NLIU-B
HNLU
GNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
NLU-O
2) NUJS Ranking (Promit Chatterjee IIIrd Year)
NLS
NALSAR
NLU-D
14
NLU-J
NLIU-B
GNLU
HNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
NLU-O
3) NLS Ranking (Pushan Dwivedi, IInd Year)
NALSAR
NLU-D
NUJS
NLIU-B
NLU-J
GNLU
HNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
NLU-O
4) HNLU Ranking (Saumil Swami, alumni, batch of 2007-12)
NLS
NALSAR
NLU-D
15
NUJS
NLIU-B
NLU-J
GNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
NLU-O
5) CNLU Ranking (Savni Tewari IInd Year)
NLS
NALSAR
NLU-J
NUJS
NLIU-B
NLU-D
GNLU
HNLU
RMLNLU
NLU-O
6) NLU-O Ranking (Facebook Forum)
NLS
NALSAR
NLU-J
GNLU
NUJS
16
NLIU-B
NLU-D
HNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
7) RMLNLU Ranking (Suyash Manjul, IVth Year)
NLS
NALSAR
NUJS
NLUD
NLU-J
NLIU-B
HNLU
GNLU
CNLU
NLU-O
8) NALSAR Ranking (Apoorva Yadav IInd Year)
NLS
NLU-D
NUJS
NLU-J
NLIU-B
HNLU
17
GNLU
RML
CNLU
NLU-O
9) NLU-J Ranking: (Facebook Forum)
NLS
NALSAR
NLU-D
NLIU-B
NUJS
HNLU
GNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
NLU-O
10) NLIU-B Ranking: (Facebook Student)
NLS
NALSAR
NLU-J
GNLU
NLU-D
NUJS
HNLU
RMLNLU
CNLU
18
NLU-O
11) GNLU Ranking (Vishal Tripathi, IInd Year, GNLU)
NLSIU
NALSAR
WBNUJS
NLUJ
NLU-D
NLIU
HNLU
RMLNLU
NLUO
CNLU
Despite our best efforts, we were unable to get information from the following places: NUALS,
RGNUL, NLUJA, NUSRL. Therefore we are not in a position to consider them for marking under this
parameter.
Our scoring scheme is as follows:
Each Rank 1 will fetch ten (10) points, Rank 2 nine (9) points, Rank 3 eight (8) points, Rank 4 seven
(7) points and so on till Rank 9 which will fetch two (2) points. Ranks 10 and 11 will fetch one (1)
point apiece. After this we have added up the points and have divided them by eleven (11) which is
the number of law schools we have been able to cover under our survey. Finally, we have rounded
of the result of the division to two places after the decimal point to arrive at the scores. The adding
up of the points leads to the following cumulation:
NLS: 100
NALSAR: 90
NUJS: 71
NLU-J: 69
NLU-D: 69
NLIU-B: 60
GNLU: 47
19
HNLU: 40
RMLNLU: 28
CNLU: 18
NLU-O: 11
Now we simply divide the cumulative points by 10 (because each law school has been assessed by
ten (10) other law schools). This will give us the exact marks:
NLS: 10
NALSAR: 9
NUJS: 7.1
NLU-J: 6.9
NLU-D: 6.9
NLIU-B: 6
GNLU: 4.7
HNLU: 4
RMLNLU: 2.8
CNLU: 1.8
NLU-O: 1.1
.
Total Score (in percentile) and Ranks:
Tallying up the scores obtained by each law school under each of the ten parameters, we reach the
following scores:
1) NLS: Total score: 86.5 out of 100. Percentage score: 86.5%
20
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
NALSAR: Total score: 84 out of 100. Percentage score: 84%
NLU-Delhi: Total Score: 58.9 out of 80. Percentage score: 73.6%
NUJS: Total score: 72 out of 100. Percentage score: 72%
NLU-J: Total Score: 68.5 out of 100. Percentage score: 68.5%
GNLU: Total Score: 61.4 out of 100. Percentage score: 61.4%
NLIU-B: Total Score: 61.2 out of 100. Percentage score: 61.2%
HNLU: Total Score: 49.8 out of 100. Percentage score: 49.1%
NUALS: Total Score: 42.2 out of 90. Percentage score: 46.9%
RMLNLU: Total Score: 45.1 out of 100. Percentage score: 45.1%
RGNUL: Total Score: 33.5 out of 80. Percentage score: 41.9%
CNLU: Total Score: 33.1 out of 100. Percentage score: 33.1%
NLU-O: Total Score: 25.1 out of 60. Percentage score: 41.8%
NLUJA: Total Score: 16 out of 50. Percentage score: 32%
NUSRL: Total Score: 12 out of 40. Percentage score: 30%
_____________________________________________________________________________
3) CONCLUSION
No method of Ranking of Law Schools can be perfect, completely objective and foolproof. Each and
every method has its own drawbacks that attract consistent criticism. There are several law-school
rankings available throughout the cyberspace and not all of them have been made after proper
research and analysis. Hence, the possibility of being mislead because of such rankings is always
there. However, aspirants of legal education look at law school rankings as a prime decision-making
ingredient in terms of their choice. At CLAT Possible our objective is to assist such aspirants in
making their choice. With such an objective in mind, we have sought to device this unique method
of law school ranking as laid down above. The ten-parameter process is novel in nature and we
believe that the scores given and the ranking made on the basis of such a process will be helpful to
all CLAT and NLU-Delhi aspirants. Furthermore, we believe that each and every parameter chosen is
of great importance in terms of determination of the quality of education imparted and training
given to the law students, and we have undertaken intense and painstaking research work through
various methodologies in determining each of the parameters, researching on them, analyzing them
and determining where each law school stands in terms of each such parameter. Complete
integration of all the parameters have been made in the final scoring and ranking so as to get the
bigger picture. Lastly, we are of the opinion that apart from looking into the overall score and
ranking, perusal of each and every parameter and our research and discussion on the same will be
helpful for the aspirants of premiere and institutionalized legal education of India.
21
Addenda: Parameter Specific Rationale for Scores Given:
Parameter-specific rationale for scores:
Parameter 1: Recruitment: Statistical, objective and self explanatory
Parameter 2: Choice of law schools by successful CLAT students: Statistical, objective and self
explanatory
Parameter3: Faculty Qualifications: Looking into the factors under consideration as laid out therein,
we are of the opinion that the Faculty of NUJS would score highly in this department. However,
those of NLU-D, NALSAR, NLU-J and NLS are also highly competent, as our research clearly shows.
Parameter4: Academics: Academic Achievements, In-House Publications, Centres, Research
Facilities and Courses Offered :
Once again, we have made in-depth research and analysis of the factors as laid down, and,
qualitatively speaking, the academic credentials and attainments of NLS and NALSAR in terms of the
subjects taught are very high. NUJS falls short in that department slightly, but it makes up for that
with the quality of its in-house publications, especially the NUJS Law Review.
Parameter 5: Moot Court Achievements: These scores are based on the available statistics of moot
court performances of the law schools in the past 2 years. We have tallied our work with all possible
available records herein.
Parameter 6: Other Student Achievements : The fact that a Rhodes Scholar came out of NLS last
year resulted in the the oldest national law school of our country being scored highly in this
department. Also, papers published and seminars attended by students as well as debating and
quizzing accomplishments of NALSAR and NLU-D resulted in high scores attained by these two law
schools.
Parameter 7: Infrastructure: We have already laid out the factors considered for this parameter and
we have subsequently made nigh-exhaustive research on each of these factors.
Parameter 8: Foreign Exchanges and Collaborations: Here, admittedly, we have had an objective
and statistical inclination. More the number of exchange and collaborations with institutes and

22
universities is, higher is the score. However, the perceived quality of such institution with which the
tie-ups have been made have also been considered as a vital factor and much more weightage has
been put for collaborations with universities and institutions abroad. I hope this apparent xenophilia
on our part is excused because we believe that collaborations with foreign universities indicate
global presence of a given University and its students. NLS, having the maximum number of such tie-
ups, has thus topped our list, followed closely by NALSAR and NLU-D. Also, availability of information
on the same from the websites of the Universities has been considered to be a plus point, and thus,
NUJS, despite having a considerable number of tie-ups with foreign Universities as our offline
research has indicated, has been marked low because it does not provide any such information on
its website.
Parameter 9: Quality of Student Life: This, ad ittedl , is a er su je ti e riterio a d theres little
one can do to translate such a subjective parameter to objective terms. Our research on this was
much difficult and, as we have mentioned, we had to depend on social networking a lot to interpret
the subjective grounds. What appeared from our research is that in NUJS the students have a
greater say in the running of the institution and have more decision making freedom as far as
regulating the academic choices and options is concerned, side by side with a greater degree of
independence in making academic and life-style choices, which, we believe will be helpful in
developing their personality. Hence it has obtained high scores. Law, as a subject of study as well as
a matter of practice and profession calls for much strictness and hence we believe that replicating
similar strictness by imposing insignificant and useless norms and rules over lifestyle (such as
referri g to se ior stude ts as ir a d Maa ) ill do ore har tha good. We ight sound
opinionated but we strongly believe that a space for making certain choices and taking certain
decisions must be afforded to every student. Hence, institutions with stringent and draconian laws
have not been marked very highly. Once again, infrastructure has played a prominent role and thus
institutes like NUALS where the library closes at 7 pm in the evening or NUSRL which lacks a
permanent campus could not be marked highly. Also, reported instance of student unrests against
their law school authorities such as those that happened at CNLU indicate student dissatisfaction
about their institute and, consequently, comparatively lesser marks have been provided to such
institutions.
Parameter 10: Ranking of Law Schools by Other Law School Students: Statistical, objective and self
explanatory.