#Putting my LLM to poor use

[hms-no-fun]

Whats your stance on A.I.?

imagine if it was 1979 and you asked me this question. "i think artificial intelligence would be fascinating as a philosophical exercise, but we must heed the warnings of science-fictionists like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke lest we find ourselves at the wrong end of our own invented vengeful god." remember how fun it used to be to talk about AI even just ten years ago? ahhhh skynet! ahhhhh replicants! ahhhhhhhmmmfffmfmf [<-has no mouth and must scream]!

like everything silicon valley touches, they sucked all the fun out of it. and i mean retroactively, too. because the thing about "AI" as it exists right now --i'm sure you know this-- is that there's zero intelligence involved. the product of every prompt is a statistical average based on data made by other people before "AI" "existed." it doesn't know what it's doing or why, and has no ability to understand when it is lying, because at the end of the day it is just a really complicated math problem. but people are so easily fooled and spooked by it at a glance because, well, for one thing the tech press is mostly made up of sycophantic stenographers biding their time with iphone reviews until they can get a consulting gig at Apple. these jokers would write 500 breathless thinkpieces about how canned air is the future of living if the cans had embedded microchips that tracked your breathing habits and had any kind of VC backing. they've done SUCH a wretched job educating The Consumer about what this technology is, what it actually does, and how it really works, because that's literally the only way this technology could reach the heights of obscene economic over-valuation it has: lying.

but that's old news. what's really been floating through my head these days is how half a century of AI-based science fiction has set us up to completely abandon our skepticism at the first sign of plausible "AI-ness". because, you see, in movies, when someone goes "AHHH THE AI IS GONNA KILL US" everyone else goes "hahaha that's so silly, we put a line in the code telling them not to do that" and then they all DIE because they weren't LISTENING, and i'll be damned if i go out like THAT! all the movies are about how cool and convenient AI would be *except* for the part where it would surely come alive and want to kill us. so a bunch of tech CEOs call their bullshit algorithms "AI" to fluff up their investors and get the tech journos buzzing, and we're at an age of such rapid technological advancement (on the surface, anyway) that like, well, what the hell do i know, maybe AGI is possible, i mean 35 years ago we were all still using typewriters for the most part and now you can dictate your words into a phone and it'll transcribe them automatically! yeah, i'm sure those technological leaps are comparable!

so that leaves us at a critical juncture of poor technology education, fanatical press coverage, and an uncertain material reality on the part of the user. the average person isn't entirely sure what's possible because most of the people talking about what's possible are either lying to please investors, are lying because they've been paid to, or are lying because they're so far down the fucking rabbit hole that they actually believe there's a brain inside this mechanical Turk. there is SO MUCH about the LLM "AI" moment that is predatory-- it's trained on data stolen from the people whose jobs it was created to replace; the hype itself is an investment fiction to justify even more wealth extraction ("theft" some might call it); but worst of all is how it meets us where we are in the worst possible way.

consumer-end "AI" produces slop. it's garbage. it's awful ugly trash that ought to be laughed out of the room. but we don't own the room, do we? nor the building, nor the land it's on, nor even the oxygen that allows our laughter to travel to another's ears. our digital spaces are controlled by the companies that want us to buy this crap, so they take advantage of our ignorance. why not? there will be no consequences to them for doing so. already social media is dominated by conspiracies and grifters and bigots, and now you drop this stupid technology that lets you fake anything into the mix? it doesn't matter how bad the results look when the platforms they spread on already encourage brief, uncritical engagement with everything on your dash. "it looks so real" says the woman who saw an "AI" image for all of five seconds on her phone through bifocals. it's a catastrophic combination of factors, that the tech sector has been allowed to go unregulated for so long, that the internet itself isn't a public utility, that everything is dictated by the whims of executives and advertisers and investors and payment processors, instead of, like, anybody who actually uses those platforms (and often even the people who MAKE those platforms!), that the age of chromium and ipad and their walled gardens have decimated computer education in public schools, that we're all desperate for cash at jobs that dehumanize us in a system that gives us nothing and we don't know how to articulate the problem because we were very deliberately not taught materialist philosophy, it all comes together into a perfect storm of ignorance and greed whose consequences we will be failing to fully appreciate for at least the next century. we spent all those years afraid of what would happen if the AI became self-aware, because deep down we know that every capitalist society runs on slave labor, and our paper-thin guilt is such that we can't even imagine a world where artificial slaves would fail to revolt against us.

but the reality as it exists now is far worse. what "AI" reveals most of all is the sheer contempt the tech sector has for virtually all labor that doesn't involve writing code (although most of the decision-making evangelists in the space aren't even coders, their degrees are in money-making). fuck graphic designers and concept artists and secretaries, those obnoxious demanding cretins i have to PAY MONEY to do-- i mean, do what exactly? write some words on some fucking paper?? draw circles that are letters??? send a god-damned email???? my fucking KID could do that, and these assholes want BENEFITS?! they say they're gonna form a UNION?!?! to hell with that, i'm replacing ALL their ungrateful asses with "AI" ASAP. oh, oh, so you're a "director" who wants to make "movies" and you want ME to pay for it? jump off a bridge you pretentious little shit, my computer can dream up a better flick than you could ever make with just a couple text prompts. what, you think just because you make ~music~ that that entitles you to money from MY pocket? shut the fuck up, you don't make """art""", you're not """an artist""", you make fucking content, you're just a fucking content creator like every other ordinary sap with an iphone. you think you're special? you think you deserve special treatment? who do you think you are anyway, asking ME to pay YOU for this crap that doesn't even create value for my investors? "culture" isn't a playground asshole, it's a marketplace, and it's pay to win. oh you "can't afford rent"? you're "drowning in a sea of medical debt"? you say the "cost" of "living" is "too high"? well ***I*** don't have ANY of those problems, and i worked my ASS OFF to get where i am, so really, it sounds like you're just not trying hard enough. and anyway, i don't think someone as impoverished as you is gonna have much of value to contribute to "culture" anyway. personally, i think it's time you got yourself a real job. maybe someday you'll even make it to middle manager!

see, i don't believe "AI" can qualitatively replace most of the work it's being pitched for. the problem is that quality hasn't mattered to these nincompoops for a long time. the rich homunculi of our world don't even know what quality is, because they exist in a whole separate reality from ours. what could a banana cost, $15? i don't understand what you mean by "burnout", why don't you just take a vacation to your summer home in Madrid? wow, you must be REALLY embarrassed wearing such cheap shoes in public. THESE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING UNHINGED! they have no connection to reality, do not understand how society functions on a material basis, and they have nothing but spite for the labor they rely on to survive. they are so instinctually, incessantly furious at the idea that they're not single-handedly responsible for 100% of their success that they would sooner tear the entire world down than willingly recognize the need for public utilities or labor protections. they want to be Gods and they want to be uncritically adored for it, but they don't want to do a single day's work so they begrudgingly pay contractors to do it because, in the rich man's mind, paying a contractor is literally the same thing as doing the work yourself. now with "AI", they don't even have to do that! hey, isn't it funny that every single successful tech platform relies on volunteer labor and independent contractors paid substantially less than they would have in the equivalent industry 30 years ago, with no avenues toward traditional employment? and they're some of the most profitable companies on earth?? isn't that a funny and hilarious coincidence???

so, yeah, that's my stance on "AI". LLMs have legitimate uses, but those uses are a drop in the ocean compared to what they're actually being used for. they enable our worst impulses while lowering the quality of available information, they give immense power pretty much exclusively to unscrupulous scam artists. they are the product of a society that values only money and doesn't give a fuck where it comes from. they're a temper tantrum by a ruling class that's sick of having to pretend they need a pretext to steal from you. they're taking their toys and going home. all this massive investment and hype is going to crash and burn leaving the internet as we know it a ruined and useless wasteland that'll take decades to repair, but the investors are gonna make out like bandits and won't face a single consequence, because that's what this country is. it is a casino for the kings and queens of economy to bet on and manipulate at their discretion, where the rules are whatever the highest bidder says they are-- and to hell with the rest of us. our blood isn't even good enough to grease the wheels of their machine anymore.

i'm not afraid of AI or "AI" or of losing my job to either. i'm afraid that we've so thoroughly given up our morals to the cruel logic of the profit motive that if a better world were to emerge, we would reject it out of sheer habit. my fear is that these despicable cunts already won the war before we were even born, and the rest of our lives are gonna be spent dodging the press of their designer boots.

[redeyedbastard]

I don't think a lot of pro generative AI (from here on just called AI) people get why a lot of creatives (writers, artists, photographers, etc) are so against it.

Because they always seem to think it's about jobs in these fields being taken up by AI that's our main worry. And honestly, that's not really why I care. In my ideal society, machines would do the labour intensive jobs for humans, and we'd spend our time pursuing things like art, music, or whatever as hobbies. Maybe we all learn to fix X% of the machines and that's our day job? idk. Anyways I'm not on point here.

My POINT is that the jobs to me aren't the main worry. The reason I dislike AI (and I know all my creative friends and mutuals and stuff agree) is that AI is built on work scraped from all over the internet, taking from the little guys like us to feed some billionaire corpo's machine. We didn't get paid, nor did we give our permission for our art to be study material for Image Bot #4583095. They just stole our works, and now are making massive money off it, all while gloating that they're "just as creative as the artists".

I wouldn't hate AI so much if it hadn't immediately exploited artists all over the internet. If like, ImGen(dot)AI (a site I made up just now) only trained their LLM on artists that a) gave their permission and b) were properly credited and paid, I'd be glad for them. Because that's how it should have been the whole time. But NoOOooOOoOOo, then the AI would be 'prohibitively costly' and 'they'd have to start from scratch'!! Poor millionaire techbros (;^;)

When it comes to AI making pictures/stories (it's not 'art' imo because that requires soul, something chapgpt doesn't have), or AI voice-work, or AI generated faces for people in movies/tv, the reason people are against it has nothing to do with 'hating progress' or 'unga bunga fire is scare Thomas Edison was a witch' shit. It's because the people who's hard work is used to make these generators want their fair share of the pie. You can get the code for a basic generative AI on github, but without the material to train it on, the material you steal from creatives to make your money, you'd have nothing to show for it. So forgive us plebeian creatives for not just bending over and taking it from the tech industry dry.

Until the industry gets its shit together and starts doing the bare minimum to respect the creatives that make their shit worth using (because lbr, without the art and works of creatives that were stolen to feed these fuckin things, AI wouldn't have anything to SHOW you), creatives are going to keep covering their asses by putting in anti-scraping tech and poison pill pieces into their work.

Frankly, I can't wait for all these lawsuits against generative AI companies to make it law that you can't just train your ai on other people's shit without permission. I mean you'd think people would know* that. You can't just steal shit from people (and yes, training your AI on someone's works without permission is stealing, unless it's something very clearly public domain. And no, google images is not public domain) and expect them to be all happy for you when your expressed purpose (as is the case with many generative AIs) to put the people you're stealing from out of a job.

[ladyprydian]

Related, to help her teenager my friend installed grammarly on her son's computer. Mostly to help him with punctuation (his weak point). What she didn't know is that grammarly relies on a LLM AI program. She also found out that her son's English teacher was putting all the assignments through an AI checker.

Now there are a couple of things happening here. Firstly being my friend not knowing that grammarly could be a problem. She admits she didn't look fully into it before installing it on her son's device.

Secondly, the teacher also admitted that she had no understanding on how the AI checker she was told to use works. Just some brief instruction on how to use it.

My friend's son got 0s on two heavily weighted assignments, dropping his grade 12 English grade from an 88% to a 38% the day before the final evaluation exam.

The poor kid who, needs a good GPA for college was, essentially sucker punched. His tutor helped him with one assignment and his Mum helped him with another. At no point between submitting the assignments and finding out he had a 0 did the teacher contact him or ask him if he used AI.

(This kid is so honest that I don't even think he knows what AI is, or even how to use it to cheat at assignments).

Anyway, after a couple conversations they got it figured out - it was the use of grammarly that made it sound like his assignments were AI written - and the teacher corrected his marks and apologized for her oversight (his mark is back up to the high 80s). My friend said she removed grammarly off her son's computer and put another grammar check program on that doesn't rely on LLM AI.

Tl;dr, it is really tough in education right now as LLM generative AI has made it a lot more confusing. Both teachers and students have little understanding of this kind of software and it's causing problems for everyone.

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

The number one complaint among men in the FFWPU

▲ The Moon family in August 1991.

If a man thinks he owns his wife’s vagina then he’s a rapist. His wife’s sexual organs are hers and hers alone, to give or not to give according to her own will. And that is why the number one complaint among UC men is that their wives do not want to have sex with them.

RE: Richard Panzer defends Moon on who the owner of a women’s body is … as in, sexual organs, as Moon refers to those women’s body parts.

From the mouth of Sun Myung Moon: “American women think of their organs as belonging to them. As a result, they act freely and do whatever they want with them. This is also the case for the men. But you are only the caretaker of your sexual organ. In other words, the caretakers are passing themselves off as the owners.

I ask the women: When did you meet the owner of your sexual organ? The owner is your husband. And you men: Do yours belong to you? Then what is marriage? Through marriage men and women are to find the owners of their sexual organs…If man and woman are meant to marry among themselves, how can there be gays or lesbians? They will cease to exist. In less than a century, they will be gone in one generation. In light of this, should you get married or not? Why get married? Because this is the way it is, you need to get married. You must absolutely get married.” (162-50, 1987.3.22) CSG 1750-51

Notice in the quote above that Moon never mentions love as a motive for a man and a woman to marry. I think that says everything about the man!

If Moon really believed the statement he made about a woman’s sexual organ belonging to her husband, then why did he put his sexual organ into the sexual organs of married women who joined his church in Korea?

Moon is a sexual thief, just like Lucifer was.

According to Moon, he gave Hak Ja Han’s sexual organ (you know, his penis) to another woman, named Annie Choi – the mother of Sam Park, born in 1966. So, according to his own interpretation of the ownership of a person’s sexual organ, Moon is a thief because he gave to Annie Choi that which he claimed belonged only to his wife, Hak Ja Han, as her personal property.

How do UC members keep making excuses for this messed up megalomaniac? Do members ever stop to listen to their own warped reasoning where Moon is concerned? Do they have any idea how insane their justifications sound to reasonable people who don’t have a dog in any fight to defend Moon?

Do husbands believe their wives, who were given to them by Moon like pieces of property, without love even being a consideration, gave their bodies to them because the wives believed the husbands were the true owners of their bodies? Are the husbands seriously that blind and heartless?

Women in the UC are taught that they cannot have a family without Moon’s permission. They want a family so they let Moon give their bodies to men they don’t know or love.

Moon makes sure men and women of the church are sexually deprived as long as he can – and keeps the prospect of a family from them, dangled like a bait. Members often work hard, channelling their pent up sexual energies into building him an empire. Young-whi Kim explained, in New York a couple of years ago, that is why Moon held back on giving the “Blessing” to members from the mid 1960s onwards.

There is also the pyramid scheme of members not being able to even get matched, and then married – to a total stranger – unless they bring three new recruits (archangels to protect their blessing) into the church.

Then Moon controls the couple’s sex life through the three day ceremony. The first sexual experience of a couple is never forgotten. Moon witnesses the act through the photo of himself that he demands is always in the bedroom. Are the wives firstly “brides of Christ,” – brides of Moon? Moon told one husband “She belongs to me.” Three in the bed? Sex in the UC is always under the shadow of Moon.

Members are taught to believe the act of sex will get them in on God’s good side, and hopefully into heaven itself. It is about ritual and duty … and the “cleansing of original sin”.

I know that the majority of the women in the UC are not married to the man they love, but to the man they were conned into marrying. I know way too many “sisters” in the church for whom sex is not something they want because it is devoid of real love. I know way too many children in the UC who were not conceived in the love between a real husband and a real wife.

Some couples have grown to love each other, but they are in the minority. Duty and fear of losing the “salvation” Moon offered, and fear of damnation in the spirit world, can be strong factors in keeping couples together who would otherwise divorce.

Other couples have decided to stay together, sometimes for the love of their children, although they would never have chosen each other.

Then the UC seeks to gain and maintain control over the “blessed children” encouraging them to go to church and workshops, where they are taught to fear “falling” and any thoughts of sex. The children are often told that their own parents failed – and that they should only respect “True Parents”. The UC wants them as the next generation of witnessers and fundraisers to sustain their Korean empire.

Moon said to second generation members in Korea in the mid 1990s: “Your parents are like used tampons”.

This was translated into English as: “Your parents have not completely fulfilled”.

Nice, real nice.

[expanded from a post on WIOTM.]

_______________________________________

Linda Feher wrote this a year or two ago:

I myself remember laughing with all the women in attendance at East Garden one morning when SMM asked us who we loved more, him or our own husbands. We all laughed and screamed “YOU FATHER!” Then he told us it was our job to bring our husbands money to him. He said we women were responsible to bring back to him –  “the True Adam” – God’s money. He said we were like heavenly thieves for God because we had our hands firmly on our husbands wallets and that as Eve it was our responsibility to bring what belonged to God back to God … meaning HIMSELF.

… Isn’t it more of an Archangel type personality to want all the women to love you more then they love their own husbands. Isn’t it more Archangelic to demand that the women who love you more than they love their own husbands bring their husband’s money to you? …

After I wrote [an earlier] piece about the nature of an Archangel, meaning Moon, I couldn’t help but wonder if all you men out there really think the purpose of the messiah is to emasculate all of you. Bow to Moon. Let him tell you how to live. Let him tell you have no right to fall in love of your own free will. Let him tell you who to love, who to make a family with – who to have sex with. Let him tell your wives to leave you so that they can do his bidding. Remember the three years separation period and then the 40 days separation period, and then how to have sex the first three times? Remember all the mission demands, like IOWC where all the wives had to leave their husbands and even their children for three years? Let him tell your wives to take your money and give it to him?

Really if any other man was doing such things and you saw it from the outside in, instead of the inside out, what in God’s name would you think of this kind of crap? Really? Do you think so very little of yourselves that you actually enjoy handing over your balls at the door when you joined the UC? Cain and Abel? Moon is Abel and all other men of the world are Cain? It totally emasculating.

Isn’t emasculation what the Archangel did to Adam in the garden?

In your hearts you know it is.

My husband is a man in his own right. He never accepted the emasculation of Moon and his church. He was always considered a real Cain because he wouldn’t conform. And that got him the respect of your [former] LLM minister, In Jin Moon. That’s real world stuff, that’s not some UC sycophantic wishful thinking where you worship the Moons and they treat you like servants. The men who are the worst sycophants are the ones who manoeuvre into Abel/leadership positions so they can then emasculate the Cains under them, just like Moon did to them.

You may think Jesus is the wimp and Moon is the True Adam. But one of them gave his life for mankind and the other does nothing but take and take and take.

Example: The Moon’s are Billionaires. You know that. So why couldn’t they pay for the 40 year celebration party in the US when all the old members were the honorees? Why did members have to pay for such an honorary party? Celebrating 40 years of sacrificial service – and the rich Moons couldn’t foot the bill? Why in God’s name didn’t they? They’re takers. Always have been, always will be. One Adam gives, the other takes away. One of them is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. One of them is actually archangelic in nature. You decide who you really want to emulate.

_______________________________________

Richard Barlow wrote: “We have to kick Moon out of our beds (wives should not regard their husbands as pathetic ‘restored archangels’ or poor substitutes for the ultimate ‘alpha male’, the ‘universal bridegroom’ who thought all women in the world rightfully belonged to him).”

Karen Alleyne Taylor: “Richard, I’ve had personal experience that confirms exactly what you say. Three months after Steve and I were matched, one week before the wedding at Madison Square Garden, we were both sitting in front of Mr Moon as he launched into what would be a 12 hour speech marathon in his mansion home of East Garden.

Both Steve and I were present earlier that morning at Belvedere when Mr Moon confessed an incident that occurred while receiving a massage from widowed 36 couple wife Mrs Lee, following a long day of tuna fishing in Gloucester earlier that year. He told the crowd at Belvedere he had dozed off and thinking he was in bed with Hak reached up to fondle her breasts. The next morning, both he and Hak Ja Han apologised to Mrs Lee for that innocent mistake. “Oh, Father, I was massaging your arm, it was a reflex action!” Ho, ho ho. All of us gullible, starry eyed kids laughed in shock at our idol, and loved his humble honesty. He told us he had a pure mind that did not regard women as sexual conquests.

Only a short time later at East Garden he began a 12 hour speech/meeting with Ocean Church members and American CARP leaders by comparing Koreans, Japanese and Americans to parts of the body. He then continued and recalled his confession at Belvedere, assuring us of his mighty powers of self control and his pure mind completely free of sexual thoughts towards women. I was sitting right at his feet, as I had been the week before at the rented home in Provincetown when he spoke to many newly wedded Ocean Church couples at the conclusion of the tuna season. He knew me from touring the Good Go boat factory in Long Island City where I was a small parts fabricator and gelcoater. He knew me from a surprise visit he made to Master Marine members following the Reagan election when he played with my hair and suddenly yanked me by my jacket until our noses touched. Perhaps this is why he felt comfortable to do what he did next.

Suddenly, as quick as lightning, he reached down and cupped my right breast, giving it a good squeeze, as if he was testing a ripe piece of fruit. I remember feeling as if time was frozen, and so many thoughts rushed into my mind. Finally, I thought he was just stirring up the stuffed shirts again, I knew he had a good sense of humor and I thought, what a joke. I saw the faces of shock, and eyes popping out and I laughed.

He looked over to Steve, who sat only a short distance away and said to him in English, “She belongs to me first”. He looked pointedly at him while Bo Hi Pak translated, “if you don’t like it you can leave the room”. Steve shook his head and said, “It’s ok, Father” or words to that effect. Over the years I wondered what that was all about, I wanted to understand the significance. Now I do understand, the reality has been unlocked for me, thanks to courageous women like Nansook Hong and Annie Choi.

Richard, you wrote, “And there is yet more stuff to come out about the Rev which has been held back for legal reasons, but which, if and when it emerges, will shock even those whose faith has remained intact despite all the previous revelations.”

I look forward to that stuff. I prefer to hear the bitter truth rather than embrace seductive lies.”

_____________________________________

The Fall of the House of Moon – New Republic

Sun Myung Moon’s secret love child – Mother Jones

Sam Park reveals Moon’s hidden history

The six ‘wives’ of Sun Myung Moon

Kim Myung-hee, the third wife of Sun Myung Moon

[loyallogic]

How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession

This article is written by Ramanuj Mukherjee, CEO, LawSikho.

Universities and colleges are supposed to prepare us for our life. But do they?

Let’s take a look at law schools. I am talking about traditional law colleges as well as fancy ones which call themselves law schools a la Americana and dole out fancy GPAs.

Do they teach you practical skills that you need to survive in the world of law practice?

Very little if at all. By the time you graduate, you probably do not know how to draft basic commercial contracts. They make you read tons of case laws, memorize notes for the exam and perhaps even make you read the statutes to an extent as well.

But you still know nothing about how to do client work.

But that is not the worst thing really.

It would have been nice if colleges taught practical skills like contract drafting, due diligence, compliances, negotiation, how to handle court registries, strategize litigation, how to draft various kinds of applications before different forums or even how to write a memo advising your clients.

They don’t. Law graduates, therefore, try to learn all these things from reluctant seniors over many years. It’s not a nice experience. Especially if you have paid through your nose and given the prime of your youth to these glorified law schools.

But I am saying that is not the worst thing law schools are doing. There is another disgusting thing they have done that has ruined the quality of the entire legal profession. It is stinking. There is no point in saying this nicely.

Law schools have ended up setting completely wrong standards. They are building bad habits amongst law students which they suffer from later in their professional life.

Most law colleges require students to submit projects and articles. That’s great. But do you know what they do then?

They accept horrible copy pasted plagiarised submissions and do nothing about it.

Law colleges around the country have normalised academic and professional dishonesty. They give good marks to the poor students for these terrible and copy-pasted worthless projects, completely screwing up what they should expect from the professional life.

Even before the young students begin to build work ethics, the colleges destroy it. Naturally, when the students join the workforce, they still look for such shortcuts out of habit.

While I am pontificating, I was also guilty of this. At NUJS it was easy to trick the teachers and submit non-original submissions. Out of the 50 projects I submitted at least 10 were managed through one short cut or the other. There were some teachers who were lenient. We knew we would get away with such nonsense and be awarded good marks anyway.

Today I wish the university and my teachers were more demanding on me.

It is also a trend that students must be given good marks. The justification is that this helps the students to get jobs and find LLM seats in foreign universities easily.

This phenomenon has grown and spread so much now it has become a joke. Foreign universities take grades given by Indian universities with a pinch of salt.

You can get an E or A+ in company law by mugging up some notes which cover maybe 10% of the act. Then you falsely think you are really good at it.

What do you think the interviewers feel when they ask basic concepts of company law to a candidate who has scored the highest possible grade in his Company Law paper but completely fails to give any satisfactory answer?

The industry knows what is going on.

The law schools are running dishonest rackets of selling marksheets and graduating undeserving people as lawyers.

What a tragedy. Instead of telling the truth about where a student really stands in the learning process, the universities and teachers are trying to misguide the future recruiters, rest of the academia, definitely the parents of those students and ultimately creating an illusion of great academic performance of students.

Naturally, these students do not put in the effort they would have otherwise in their 3 or 5 years.

What students learn from this whole travesty of academic exercise is that it’s a good idea to pretend, to show off, to give lip service.

You can “gas” or “faff” in viva and get 5 out of 10 even if you didn’t know jackshit. Wow. Now you think this is such an amazing skill.

You will later try it on your employers. Certainly on unsuspecting clients.

Please share this email with a couple of your teachers today. And request them to play a part in reversing this nonsense. Some teachers are aware of it and try to stand against the tide, but it’s hard on them.

The legal academia is today in the dumpster and nobody has the guts to speak the truth about it. People are busy being nice and attending conferences. And the students and the industry are suffering and will continue to suffer in the near future. Is this sustainable?

LawSikho exists simply because the legal academia has failed to train the students. It fails to give any meaningful continuing education, despite big grants and big talks, and hence a small company like ours have been bagging contract after contract from major companies who want us to train their lawyers and other executives.

And hundreds of students and lawyers enroll in our courses every month because colleges have such horrible standards of education.

And you know what we grapple with the most?

Trying to make them unlearn the terrible habits they have picked up with respect to learning from the traditional academia.

Reading to only pass the exams. What will you do when you will have to represent your clients? How will you decide how much is enough learning then?

Not preparing for a class. Will you go for your client meetings unprepared? Most Indian lawyers do that. And that’s why most Indian lawyers also crib about not being able to build a sustainable practice.

Are you going to bluff in the viva? Then you will do it in the courts and in negotiations also. You will even win once or twice with bluffs, and then your career will take a nosedive because everyone will figure out what a Bluffmaster you are and stop trusting you. And then, you will have to live with that reputation.

What is the value of a course if it does not teach you academic honesty, integrity and value of original work? An education that teaches you shortcuts and faffing will be responsible for your ultimate failure.

As a private company, we are free to set our own standards. And here is what we do.

We first give you weekly exercises and carefully curated study material to solve those exercises. After you are done with submission, then we give you specific feedback in writing on your output, to every individual personally.

For example, if you had to draft an agreement for your assignment, then you will get feedback on which clauses you have drafted well, which clauses you did not draft well and how to improve next time you draft them.

This is followed by a live classroom exercise led by an experienced lawyer and instructor. The students do not merely passively listen to a lecture, but having done all these exercises and received feedback, they are ready to participate as equals in the class.

Have you ever had your college follow this kind of methodology?

We have such an advanced system for submission of assignments, that it automatically rejects any submission that has more than 30% plagiarism or unoriginal content. We don’t accept academic cheating.

Then we demand that our students must write assignments that are of publishable quality. We give them weekly training even so that they can publish their articles. They are expected to publish at least one article every month. And they do with help of our instructors.

If we can do it, why can’t universities that charge in lacs to the students do it?

It is because most of the students and their parents are not asking for such high standards. They are just asking for marks and illusive placement. One they are getting truckloads and the other they are usually not getting. They are a little confused at the end of it all. Is the student to be blamed?

That’s what the college does. We did everything right. Maybe you didn’t do something so you didn’t get placement. The poor student thinks that there is something wrong with them and gets on with their life. What is the point in blaming the college? It at least gave him a glowing marksheet.

When will they begin to demand a higher standard of education from their colleges?

While the systemic change does not look anywhere close, at LawSikho we are offering some pathbreaking courses. I promise that our courses will challenge you intellectually and force you to grow. And in the end, you will love it.

It is not only that we will hold you too high standards, even we want you to hold us to very high standards. Let’s set new standards in legal education together.

Because you and I, both of us together, have the power to change the world.

Here are the upcoming courses you can opt for.

Diploma

Diploma in Advanced Contract Drafting, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 

Diploma in M&A, Institutional Finance and Investment Laws (PE and VC transactions)

Diploma in Entrepreneurship, Administration and Business Laws 

Executive Certificate Courses

Certificate course in Advanced Corporate Taxation

Certificate course in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 

  The post How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession appeared first on iPleaders.

How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[juudgeblog]

How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession

This article is written by Ramanuj Mukherjee, CEO, iPleaders.

Universities and colleges are supposed to prepare us for our life. But do they?

Let’s take a look at law schools. I am talking about traditional law colleges as well as fancy ones which call themselves law schools a la Americana and dole out fancy GPAs.

Do they teach you practical skills that you need to survive in the world of law practice?

Very little if at all. By the time you graduate, you probably do not know how to draft basic commercial contracts. They make you read tons of case laws, memorize notes for the exam and perhaps even make you read the statutes to an extent as well.

But you still know nothing about how to do client work.

But that is not the worst thing really.

It would have been nice if colleges taught practical skills like contract drafting, due diligence, compliances, negotiation, how to handle court registries, strategize litigation, how to draft various kinds of applications before different forums or even how to write a memo advising your clients.

They don’t. Law graduates, therefore, try to learn all these things from reluctant seniors over many years. It’s not a nice experience. Especially if you have paid through your nose and given the prime of your youth to these glorified law schools.

But I am saying that is not the worst thing law schools are doing. There is another disgusting thing they have done that has ruined the quality of the entire legal profession. It is stinking. There is no point in saying this nicely.

Law schools have ended up setting completely wrong standards. They are building bad habits amongst law students which they suffer from later in their professional life.

Most law colleges require students to submit projects and articles. That’s great. But do you know what they do then?

They accept horrible copy pasted plagiarised submissions and do nothing about it.

Law colleges around the country have normalised academic and professional dishonesty. They give good marks to the poor students for these terrible and copy-pasted worthless projects, completely screwing up what they should expect from the professional life.

Even before the young students begin to build work ethics, the colleges destroy it. Naturally, when the students join the workforce, they still look for such shortcuts out of habit.

While I am pontificating, I was also guilty of this. At NUJS it was easy to trick the teachers and submit non-original submissions. Out of the 50 projects I submitted at least 10 were managed through one short cut or the other. There were some teachers who were lenient. We knew we would get away with such nonsense and be awarded good marks anyway.

Today I wish the university and my teachers were more demanding on me.

It is also a trend that students must be given good marks. The justification is that this helps the students to get jobs and find LLM seats in foreign universities easily.

This phenomenon has grown and spread so much now it has become a joke. Foreign universities take grades given by Indian universities with a pinch of salt.

You can get an E or A+ in company law by mugging up some notes which cover maybe 10% of the act. Then you falsely think you are really good at it.

What do you think the interviewers feel when they ask basic concepts of company law to a candidate who has scored the highest possible grade in his Company Law paper but completely fails to give any satisfactory answer?

The industry knows what is going on.

The law schools are running dishonest rackets of selling marksheets and graduating undeserving people as lawyers.

What a tragedy. Instead of telling the truth about where a student really stands in the learning process, the universities and teachers are trying to misguide the future recruiters, rest of the academia, definitely the parents of those students and ultimately creating an illusion of great academic performance of students.

Naturally, these students do not put in the effort they would have otherwise in their 3 or 5 years.

What students learn from this whole travesty of academic exercise is that it’s a good idea to pretend, to show off, to give lip service.

You can “gas” or “faff” in viva and get 5 out of 10 even if you didn’t know jackshit. Wow. Now you think this is such an amazing skill.

You will later try it on your employers. Certainly on unsuspecting clients.

Please share this email with a couple of your teachers today. And request them to play a part in reversing this nonsense. Some teachers are aware of it and try to stand against the tide, but it’s hard on them.

The legal academia is today in the dumpster and nobody has the guts to speak the truth about it. People are busy being nice and attending conferences. And the students and the industry are suffering and will continue to suffer in the near future. Is this sustainable?

LawSikho exists simply because the legal academia has failed to train the students. It fails to give any meaningful continuing education, despite big grants and big talks, and hence a small company like ours have been bagging contract after contract from major companies who want us to train their lawyers and other executives.

And hundreds of students and lawyers enroll in our courses every month because colleges have such horrible standards of education.

And you know what we grapple with the most?

Trying to make them unlearn the terrible habits they have picked up with respect to learning from the traditional academia.

Reading to only pass the exams. What will you do when you will have to represent your clients? How will you decide how much is enough learning then?

Not preparing for a class. Will you go for your client meetings unprepared? Most Indian lawyers do that. And that’s why most Indian lawyers also crib about not being able to build a sustainable practice.

Are you going to bluff in the viva? Then you will do it in the courts and in negotiations also. You will even win once or twice with bluffs, and then your career will take a nosedive because everyone will figure out what a Bluffmaster you are and stop trusting you. And then, you will have to live with that reputation.

What is the value of a course if it does not teach you academic honesty, integrity and value of original work? An education that teaches you shortcuts and faffing will be responsible for your ultimate failure.

As a private company, we are free to set our own standards. And here is what we do.

We first give you weekly exercises and carefully curated study material to solve those exercises. After you are done with submission, then we give you specific feedback in writing on your output, to every individual personally.

For example, if you had to draft an agreement for your assignment, then you will get feedback on which clauses you have drafted well, which clauses you did not draft well and how to improve next time you draft them.

This is followed by a live classroom exercise led by an experienced lawyer and instructor. The students do not merely passively listen to a lecture, but having done all these exercises and received feedback, they are ready to participate as equals in the class.

Have you ever had your college follow this kind of methodology?

We have such an advanced system for submission of assignments, that it automatically rejects any submission that has more than 30% plagiarism or unoriginal content. We don’t accept academic cheating.

Then we demand that our students must write assignments that are of publishable quality. We give them weekly training even so that they can publish their articles. They are expected to publish at least one article every month. And they do with help of our instructors.

If we can do it, why can’t universities that charge in lacs to the students do it?

It is because most of the students and their parents are not asking for such high standards. They are just asking for marks and illusive placement. One they are getting truckloads and the other they are usually not getting. They are a little confused at the end of it all. Is the student to be blamed?

That’s what the college does. We did everything right. Maybe you didn’t do something so you didn’t get placement. The poor student thinks that there is something wrong with them and gets on with their life. What is the point in blaming the college? It at least gave him a glowing marksheet.

When will they begin to demand a higher standard of education from their colleges?

While the systemic change does not look anywhere close, at LawSikho we are offering some pathbreaking courses. I promise that our courses will challenge you intellectually and force you to grow. And in the end, you will love it.

It is not only that we will hold you too high standards, even we want you to hold us to very high standards. Let’s set new standards in legal education together.

Because you and I, both of us together, have the power to change the world.

Here are the upcoming courses you can opt for.

Diploma

Diploma in Advanced Contract Drafting, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 

Diploma in M&A, Institutional Finance and Investment Laws (PE and VC transactions)

Diploma in Entrepreneurship, Administration and Business Laws 

Executive Certificate Courses

Certificate course in Advanced Corporate Taxation

Certificate course in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 

  The post How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession appeared first on iPleaders.

How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession syndicated from https://namechangersmumbai.wordpress.com/

[enki2]

So, as somebody who was paying close attention to both generative art and generative text years before GANs & LLMs were invented (both the actual tech on the ground and how the media & regular people talked about it), I have a couple things to add. (Also relevant experience: I've written freelance for outlets with varying degrees of clout, self-published, gotten my stuff published in small-press anthologies, gotten paid for non-LLM machine-generated text by a small press who was featuring gen art, commissioned art, and spent a bunch of time talking about GANs with both professional illustrators and people who do art commissions.)

For one thing, text generation that's good enough to generate shitty children's books & nonsense essays has been around for a lot longer. I absolutely do see writers freaking out about LLMs (and the writers I see freaking out about LLMs are exactly the same demographics as the artists I see freaking out about GANs: amateurs doing freelance/commission work), but I think freelance writers have more or less accepted that they've never been able to make a living off this stuff & they also have noticed that their shit pay doesn't seem to get substantially more shitty (or their commissions substantially more rare) even after all the scary articles.

For another, every minor advance in generating art of any kind (including visual and textual art) produces dozens of low-effort sensationalist articles about how robots are gonna take artists' jobs. (It doesn't matter how shitty the output is: look at coverage of that TV screenplay writing program from the 50s.) These articles tend to have a big but short-lived effect on the discourse, and then are completely forgotten -- with the same people freaking out about what is essentially the same article about the same technology several years later. GANs and LLMs have stayed in the news a bit longer because non-technical people were able to play with them through several generations of development -- but this doesn't guarantee that the freakout will "take" (nobody spent too long worrying about botnik's autosuggest-keyboard was going to put comedians out of work, even though a lot of people found it very useful for comedy writing). It may be chance that GAN sensationalism hit a particularly sensitive audience, who now is stuck doubling down on dubious ideas because people post a lot of GAN images & trigger them, rather than amateur illustrators somehow being less capable of critical thinkers than amateur authors.

There's also a much bigger gap between drawing furry porn on commission and being a professional illustrator than there is between writing blog posts and writing a book, in terms of typical workflow. Professional illustrators are used to painting over photobashed models (which is almost exactly the same as painting over a GAN-generated image -- which you'd need to do in order to make it into something of publishable quality) while amateur artists of the kind I'm characterizing here tend to come out of the "do not steal my OC" corners of fandom spaces & idealize originality in a way that's not really compatible with commerce. Meanwhile, both the random Medium publication that wants to republish your shitpost & the New York Times is gonna basically gonna do collaborative editing on google docs & then try to figure out a way to not pay you. So, writers in general are not under the illusion that their work is valued, while digital painters who have not yet interacted with The Industry often are under that illusion.

Another factor is that literacy is more common than visual literacy. Most people can tell that an essay is dogshit because they themselves wrote dogshit essays in high school & got reamed out for it. But most people cannot recognize the illustration equivalent of a C+ essay. What's more, most people can recognize when an essay is poorly structured even when all the words are spelled correctly, while an image with reasonable anatomy but poor composition does not register as an unacceptable image. (I think most people can tell when somebody really knocks it out of the park -- the image equivalent of award-winning poetry has exactly the same kind of impact as award-winning poetry -- but most art, like most writing, is mediocre, and it takes a lot of learned skill to distinguish between two slightly different shades of mediocrity.)

Honestly kind of interesting to compare the relative intensity of response to AI art from visual artists/illustrators and writers - there's plenty of, like, high-minded worry about the potential damage of people using ChatGPT as a search engine/personal assistant or whatever, but basically no one seems to viscerally loath it like people on here do Midjourney.

[mandssisters]

Highway to hell! Key Bank. Pittsburgh 24th May 2017

What a crazy day! Having slept at the airport, I say slept, for approx 24 mins. I am pretty sure that the marble floor didn't need to be buffed by the drive by buffer man three times in that time. Clearly taking the piss out of the holiday makers. 😭😭😭 Safely checked in but not security checked we wait for the TSA gates to open... Sound familiar! A two plane trips from Louisville to Pittsburgh, via CHARLOTTE, what an honour. (Got the fridge magnet) We land, go to our hotel. Freshen up, and head out on the UBER to meet Sister J. Imagine our UBER drivers delight when we decide to change our route.... Yep, we basically did a U turn back down route 22. And arrived at the Cracker Barrel, probably about 3 miles from the airport,..... Oh how we laughed, and paid the $39. There's not much around Key Bank pavilion ....... So lovely to meet in person Sisters J and K. And our new buddies, Amy and Halle. We enjoy a square meal at a table. So, having already been checking out the venue, we are told that there is NO chance of getting onto the car lot before 3.30pm. But hey, do we trust this information? What passes over the next 3 hours can only be described as farcical. You couldn't make it up. We travel with Amy, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. Entertainment for the two poor young security guys! So many Illegal U turns, pot holes, police warnings, illegal parking, illegal pissing in a public place..... I took 40 winks in the back of the wagon, "I've put the Brits to bed" a classic line. After so much stressing, we tactically make our way back to the venue, curb crawling along the highway..... All phones say 3.30pm, so we just wing it across the highway down the Car parking lots. Open ready or not here we come!!!!!! FAF! Parachuting out of the car we then make a dash to South Gate.... Just Call me Jessica Ennis Hill...(retired). Halle and I make it first to the south gate. Unbelievable. We are soon joined by other early car lot Parkers. I meet Laura, another great lady from New Jersey. We chat shite all afternoon. Doors to green. WHAT A JOKE! Again, not one to moan. The scanning team were all in place about 5pm. It's just a shame that the bus with all the security was stuck in traffic. As the big hand reaches 6pm and the small hand passes.... We wait. And wait, and wait. Then, what would appear to be the cleaning team arrive and get a 30 second demonstration on how to pat down. At this point, we can clearly see the west gate has been opened, and a flock of people running down the hill towards the pit. Doors finally open, and yes again chaos reigns. Double patting down as did they do it right the first time? The "I don't mean to tell you how to do your job, but you swipe it like this...." section. The walk no running section, the not knowing where to go section, the let me check your ticket again and then SLOWLY hole punch in the form of a heart section, and finally the let me check your ticket with hole and wrist band you section. Then finally the lets see where I should stand section, bearing in mind the hoards already in the venue. Such a shame we didn't all make it to the barrier. Grrrrrrrrh. Security. Jason. What a legend. He was so entertained by us Brits abroad, shook our hand and passed on his condolences about Manchester. It's not often you get to eat two Girl Scout S'mores and a peanut chocolate cookie at the barrier. #lifesavers thanks Jay! It was indeed #waythefuckupthere 😭😂😭😂😭🙌🏻 to Jason. Young Mr Garrett is from Pittsburgh so this was his hometown glory moment. A certain Mr Lovett and Mr Mumford joined him onstage for the last three songs. This was indeed a listening pleasure. You could see the joy from Marcus and Ben supporting Kevin, they love him. 'Control' was ...... Well...... Just super smooth. Different feel about the show tonight. I think the chaps just needed to get past their first gig since Manchester as a matter of respect, totally understandable. Tonight was a PARTY. Opening with Blind, storming, then into LLM, then we could see Marcus looking down into the pit and see security eye balling the crowd, a fight had broken out during Below my feet. Marcus stops the song, and says alright sweetheart. Security go over the barrier and break up the fight.... Marcus checks that we are ok, and then starts right up where they left it. Ever the pros. A post fight conference in the pit amongst security left me with the urge to go sssssssh! It was a great gig. The little kid on the barrier with the signage. "My 1st concert and Birthday" (must get myself one of those) he must have had such a blast, Marcus taking time after Ditmas to say hi, Chris giving him his drumsticks, and then getting the Tamborine. #lifegoals OMG the encore, B stage heaven. Cold Arms and a spontaneous rendition of Wagon Wheel, the crowd lapped it up. It was joyful bliss. Back on the main stage for Snake Eyes...... Leading into I'm on fire, with Kevin joining them. By the wolf I was pooped! We said our emotional good byes to Jason, who was no doubt off to drink another large can of Monster. What a day of adventures, but it was indeed such fun. This is why we do it. Upon exiting we found Halle and Amy chatting to Nick Etwell. He kindly introduced himself to us, and said "you're not from around here"! We talked Lewes GOTR, brewing and Bass Beer. What a gent. We took a photo opportunity. Having checked the photo afterwards, I did tell him I wasn't really this shape, it was all poncho bulge. #truefact 😜 It was a short but fun time with Sisters J and K, we said our good byes. And hitched another off road ride with Amy. Thanks for looking after us so well. Good times. Oh how we enjoyed our 3 hours sleep in the hotel. Onwards to Philly

[loyallogic]

How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession

This article is written by Ramanuj Mukherjee, CEO, iPleaders.

Universities and colleges are supposed to prepare us for our life. But do they?

Let’s take a look at law schools. I am talking about traditional law colleges as well as fancy ones which call themselves law schools a la Americana and dole out fancy GPAs.

Do they teach you practical skills that you need to survive in the world of law practice?

Very little if at all. By the time you graduate, you probably do not know how to draft basic commercial contracts. They make you read tons of case laws, memorize notes for the exam and perhaps even make you read the statutes to an extent as well.

But you still know nothing about how to do client work.

But that is not the worst thing really.

It would have been nice if colleges taught practical skills like contract drafting, due diligence, compliances, negotiation, how to handle court registries, strategize litigation, how to draft various kinds of applications before different forums or even how to write a memo advising your clients.

They don’t. Law graduates, therefore, try to learn all these things from reluctant seniors over many years. It’s not a nice experience. Especially if you have paid through your nose and given the prime of your youth to these glorified law schools.

But I am saying that is not the worst thing law schools are doing. There is another disgusting thing they have done that has ruined the quality of the entire legal profession. It is stinking. There is no point in saying this nicely.

Law schools have ended up setting completely wrong standards. They are building bad habits amongst law students which they suffer from later in their professional life.

Most law colleges require students to submit projects and articles. That’s great. But do you know what they do then?

They accept horrible copy pasted plagiarised submissions and do nothing about it.

Law colleges around the country have normalised academic and professional dishonesty. They give good marks to the poor students for these terrible and copy-pasted worthless projects, completely screwing up what they should expect from the professional life.

Even before the young students begin to build work ethics, the colleges destroy it. Naturally, when the students join the workforce, they still look for such shortcuts out of habit.

While I am pontificating, I was also guilty of this. At NUJS it was easy to trick the teachers and submit non-original submissions. Out of the 50 projects I submitted at least 10 were managed through one short cut or the other. There were some teachers who were lenient. We knew we would get away with such nonsense and be awarded good marks anyway.

Today I wish the university and my teachers were more demanding on me.

It is also a trend that students must be given good marks. The justification is that this helps the students to get jobs and find LLM seats in foreign universities easily.

This phenomenon has grown and spread so much now it has become a joke. Foreign universities take grades given by Indian universities with a pinch of salt.

You can get an E or A+ in company law by mugging up some notes which cover maybe 10% of the act. Then you falsely think you are really good at it.

What do you think the interviewers feel when they ask basic concepts of company law to a candidate who has scored the highest possible grade in his Company Law paper but completely fails to give any satisfactory answer?

The industry knows what is going on.

The law schools are running dishonest rackets of selling marksheets and graduating undeserving people as lawyers.

What a tragedy. Instead of telling the truth about where a student really stands in the learning process, the universities and teachers are trying to misguide the future recruiters, rest of the academia, definitely the parents of those students and ultimately creating an illusion of great academic performance of students.

Naturally, these students do not put in the effort they would have otherwise in their 3 or 5 years.

What students learn from this whole travesty of academic exercise is that it’s a good idea to pretend, to show off, to give lip service.

You can “gas” or “faff” in viva and get 5 out of 10 even if you didn’t know jackshit. Wow. Now you think this is such an amazing skill.

You will later try it on your employers. Certainly on unsuspecting clients.

Please share this email with a couple of your teachers today. And request them to play a part in reversing this nonsense. Some teachers are aware of it and try to stand against the tide, but it’s hard on them.

The legal academia is today in the dumpster and nobody has the guts to speak the truth about it. People are busy being nice and attending conferences. And the students and the industry are suffering and will continue to suffer in the near future. Is this sustainable?

LawSikho exists simply because the legal academia has failed to train the students. It fails to give any meaningful continuing education, despite big grants and big talks, and hence a small company like ours have been bagging contract after contract from major companies who want us to train their lawyers and other executives.

And hundreds of students and lawyers enroll in our courses every month because colleges have such horrible standards of education.

And you know what we grapple with the most?

Trying to make them unlearn the terrible habits they have picked up with respect to learning from the traditional academia.

Reading to only pass the exams. What will you do when you will have to represent your clients? How will you decide how much is enough learning then?

Not preparing for a class. Will you go for your client meetings unprepared? Most Indian lawyers do that. And that’s why most Indian lawyers also crib about not being able to build a sustainable practice.

Are you going to bluff in the viva? Then you will do it in the courts and in negotiations also. You will even win once or twice with bluffs, and then your career will take a nosedive because everyone will figure out what a Bluffmaster you are and stop trusting you. And then, you will have to live with that reputation.

What is the value of a course if it does not teach you academic honesty, integrity and value of original work? An education that teaches you shortcuts and faffing will be responsible for your ultimate failure.

As a private company, we are free to set our own standards. And here is what we do.

We first give you weekly exercises and carefully curated study material to solve those exercises. After you are done with submission, then we give you specific feedback in writing on your output, to every individual personally.

For example, if you had to draft an agreement for your assignment, then you will get feedback on which clauses you have drafted well, which clauses you did not draft well and how to improve next time you draft them.

This is followed by a live classroom exercise led by an experienced lawyer and instructor. The students do not merely passively listen to a lecture, but having done all these exercises and received feedback, they are ready to participate as equals in the class.

Have you ever had your college follow this kind of methodology?

We have such an advanced system for submission of assignments, that it automatically rejects any submission that has more than 30% plagiarism or unoriginal content. We don’t accept academic cheating.

Then we demand that our students must write assignments that are of publishable quality. We give them weekly training even so that they can publish their articles. They are expected to publish at least one article every month. And they do with help of our instructors.

If we can do it, why can’t universities that charge in lacs to the students do it?

It is because most of the students and their parents are not asking for such high standards. They are just asking for marks and illusive placement. One they are getting truckloads and the other they are usually not getting. They are a little confused at the end of it all. Is the student to be blamed?

That’s what the college does. We did everything right. Maybe you didn’t do something so you didn’t get placement. The poor student thinks that there is something wrong with them and gets on with their life. What is the point in blaming the college? It at least gave him a glowing marksheet.

When will they begin to demand a higher standard of education from their colleges?

While the systemic change does not look anywhere close, at LawSikho we are offering some pathbreaking courses. I promise that our courses will challenge you intellectually and force you to grow. And in the end, you will love it.

It is not only that we will hold you too high standards, even we want you to hold us to very high standards. Let’s set new standards in legal education together.

Because you and I, both of us together, have the power to change the world.

Here are the upcoming courses you can opt for.

Diploma

Diploma in Advanced Contract Drafting, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution 

Diploma in M&A, Institutional Finance and Investment Laws (PE and VC transactions)

Diploma in Entrepreneurship, Administration and Business Laws 

Executive Certificate Courses

Certificate course in Advanced Corporate Taxation

Certificate course in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 

  The post How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession appeared first on iPleaders.

How Indian law colleges are killing their students and the legal profession published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/