I had been waiting for the 15th of May for quite some time now. Having taken a series of Mock Tests and scored increasingly well in every one of them, I had the momentum with me and in all sincerity, I have never been more anxious about any exam that I had to sit for than that of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2011.
For those who haven't heard of CLAT, you really should. Its a brilliantly structured exam which tests the all round ability of an individual - Comprehension, Practicality, Sensibility, Speed and more importantly, Stamina! Although it lasts for just the 120 minutes, it drains the living hell out of you. CLAT is a real test of how capable a citizen you are of the country - how aware, how potent and how orgnanized. It is a race against time, before the word go. THAT is the intensity with which the storm called CLAT comes and zooms past.
CLAT 2011 had many interesting changes from the previous years. No Legal Knowledge - which meant less of Latin mumbo jumbo and more of Legal Aptitude. Personally, I thought it was a BRILLIANT idea! Apart from that, we had the GK section cut down to current affairs of the last 12 months, another excellent way to make the paper more scoring and interesting. It seemed as though a paper with such considerable changes would definitely make 150 (out of 200) an achievable score with a little amount of "hard work" and little luck here and there!
Luck happens when preparation meets opportunity. My preparations were dead on. I had never prepared more for an exam. CLAT had been the only thing in my mind for the last month and guess what I get for opportunity? Peanuts.
Come May 15th, everything changed.
The paper setters clearly had some personal vendetta against any student taking this year's exam because simply put, no one, and I MEAN NO ONE could ever complete the 200 marks in two hours - include the paper setters themselves. No personal offenses meant but, you HAVE to be KIDDING me!
The English section had 4 comprehensions - each about a page and a half long. Yes, you read that - PAGE and a HALF! But that would still be okay if there were considerable number of grammar based questions but lo! Grammar seems to have been playing Dominoes with Justice somewhere FAAAR away from the minds of the setters. Indeed, the English section with 36 Comprehension based long questions had absolutely NO justification.
One of my friends texted "WHAT are these people trying to prove!". Dead on, my friend, DEAD ON.
The current affairs section was still okay. Some questions here and there which were a little hard but on the whole, no arguments. The questions were really well selected.
But whoever thought a Lawyer needs to be a Mathematician definitely shouldn't have set this year's Maths section. But since we are riding the Unfortunate Ship, that very thing happened. I had never taken 30 mins to solve the maths section but that was exactly what happened.
Still okay, it CAN happen. But what was in store for the next two sections simply couldn't be justified.
Logical Reasoning has traditionally been an equal mixture of Analytical and Critical Reasoning but somehow the entire section felt like truckloads of Essays set solely for the purpose of ensuring the students had absolutely no chance of touching the next section at all. After the first 5 Analytical Reasoning questions, which were moderate, about 40 questions had huge paragraphs - 7 to 8 lines - more, if not less, and not ONCE did they give interlinked questions that could at least save us some time.
And probably the best time to punch in the Ekta Kapoor patented "Kyuuuuun?! Mujhe Jawab chahiye!".
WBNUJS had not yet finished with us. If all this seemed to be pretty huge to have been completed in 2 hours, we had YET another section with MORE paragraphs, essays and MORE ENGLISH than a Britisher could take in one day.
45 Principle - Situation - Comprehension based questions which tested more of your luck than comprehensive skills since about 99.99% of the students had on other option but randomly circle the blanks left with just a minute to go. So much for aspiring to be a lawyer - Legal Section left blank.
Now my question to dear paper setters would be simple. What was the paper about? I'd have commended it if it were tough, but it wasn't. It was easy but, just HUGE. So is this a clear indication that many of the applicants who are coming from the regional boards and who didn't have English as their first language do not deserve a chance at the National Law Colleges? If so, why? Being a proficient lawyer indeed needs a good understanding of the language but is THAT the ONLY consideration? Because, no matter how much you deny, that was the ONLY thing that the paper reflected.
If CLAT 2009 and 2010 were encouraging to "fair competition", CLAT 2011 was the exact opposite. There may be better justifications with the organizers against my arguments but with due respect, I don't understand the basis of the exam. Ultimately, everyone had to randomly circle 20-30 questions minimum without reading the questions at all in some cases. So do we leave the future of the country to rest upon luck? Do we get so naive in our approach that we don't test the aspirant's real potential and test how much he can get away with?
There are many unanswered questions which linger in the mind of the applicants after the disaster called CLAT 2011. Thank you for shattering our confidence and effectively leaving 500 future lawyers with a very questionable start to their careers. If that was indeed your motive, you did well. But unfortunately, the least it does is ensure justice - probably the sole purpose of the exam.
Irony, they say, is everywhere.
They, are right.
For those who haven't heard of CLAT, you really should. Its a brilliantly structured exam which tests the all round ability of an individual - Comprehension, Practicality, Sensibility, Speed and more importantly, Stamina! Although it lasts for just the 120 minutes, it drains the living hell out of you. CLAT is a real test of how capable a citizen you are of the country - how aware, how potent and how orgnanized. It is a race against time, before the word go. THAT is the intensity with which the storm called CLAT comes and zooms past.
CLAT 2011 had many interesting changes from the previous years. No Legal Knowledge - which meant less of Latin mumbo jumbo and more of Legal Aptitude. Personally, I thought it was a BRILLIANT idea! Apart from that, we had the GK section cut down to current affairs of the last 12 months, another excellent way to make the paper more scoring and interesting. It seemed as though a paper with such considerable changes would definitely make 150 (out of 200) an achievable score with a little amount of "hard work" and little luck here and there!
Luck happens when preparation meets opportunity. My preparations were dead on. I had never prepared more for an exam. CLAT had been the only thing in my mind for the last month and guess what I get for opportunity? Peanuts.
Come May 15th, everything changed.
The paper setters clearly had some personal vendetta against any student taking this year's exam because simply put, no one, and I MEAN NO ONE could ever complete the 200 marks in two hours - include the paper setters themselves. No personal offenses meant but, you HAVE to be KIDDING me!
The English section had 4 comprehensions - each about a page and a half long. Yes, you read that - PAGE and a HALF! But that would still be okay if there were considerable number of grammar based questions but lo! Grammar seems to have been playing Dominoes with Justice somewhere FAAAR away from the minds of the setters. Indeed, the English section with 36 Comprehension based long questions had absolutely NO justification.
One of my friends texted "WHAT are these people trying to prove!". Dead on, my friend, DEAD ON.
The current affairs section was still okay. Some questions here and there which were a little hard but on the whole, no arguments. The questions were really well selected.
But whoever thought a Lawyer needs to be a Mathematician definitely shouldn't have set this year's Maths section. But since we are riding the Unfortunate Ship, that very thing happened. I had never taken 30 mins to solve the maths section but that was exactly what happened.
Still okay, it CAN happen. But what was in store for the next two sections simply couldn't be justified.
Logical Reasoning has traditionally been an equal mixture of Analytical and Critical Reasoning but somehow the entire section felt like truckloads of Essays set solely for the purpose of ensuring the students had absolutely no chance of touching the next section at all. After the first 5 Analytical Reasoning questions, which were moderate, about 40 questions had huge paragraphs - 7 to 8 lines - more, if not less, and not ONCE did they give interlinked questions that could at least save us some time.
And probably the best time to punch in the Ekta Kapoor patented "Kyuuuuun?! Mujhe Jawab chahiye!".
WBNUJS had not yet finished with us. If all this seemed to be pretty huge to have been completed in 2 hours, we had YET another section with MORE paragraphs, essays and MORE ENGLISH than a Britisher could take in one day.
45 Principle - Situation - Comprehension based questions which tested more of your luck than comprehensive skills since about 99.99% of the students had on other option but randomly circle the blanks left with just a minute to go. So much for aspiring to be a lawyer - Legal Section left blank.
Now my question to dear paper setters would be simple. What was the paper about? I'd have commended it if it were tough, but it wasn't. It was easy but, just HUGE. So is this a clear indication that many of the applicants who are coming from the regional boards and who didn't have English as their first language do not deserve a chance at the National Law Colleges? If so, why? Being a proficient lawyer indeed needs a good understanding of the language but is THAT the ONLY consideration? Because, no matter how much you deny, that was the ONLY thing that the paper reflected.
If CLAT 2009 and 2010 were encouraging to "fair competition", CLAT 2011 was the exact opposite. There may be better justifications with the organizers against my arguments but with due respect, I don't understand the basis of the exam. Ultimately, everyone had to randomly circle 20-30 questions minimum without reading the questions at all in some cases. So do we leave the future of the country to rest upon luck? Do we get so naive in our approach that we don't test the aspirant's real potential and test how much he can get away with?
There are many unanswered questions which linger in the mind of the applicants after the disaster called CLAT 2011. Thank you for shattering our confidence and effectively leaving 500 future lawyers with a very questionable start to their careers. If that was indeed your motive, you did well. But unfortunately, the least it does is ensure justice - probably the sole purpose of the exam.
Irony, they say, is everywhere.
They, are right.
Really hands down with CLAT 2011...I was solving the paper honestly and cud manage 170 Questions cud mark like 155 before the paper was snatched and a guy sitting beside me randomly bubbled 200 Questions in 1.5 hours and I felt like WTH I am such a loser....Now if that guy gets more marks than me ( which i can think he will if he is lucky) where is the Justice to all the hard work that we put in to crack this exam....all left on luck all dreams shattered.
ReplyDeleteman i am moved!!!
ReplyDeletewell said my frnd bengali's are really boaring which they have proved........................
ReplyDeleteIndeed! The paper-setter(s) has/have been successful in wreaking havoc on the future and dreams of HUNDREDS!
ReplyDeleteThis Post was, in your words, DEAD ON.Brilliantly written buddy.
ReplyDeleteI feel betrayed, drained out and victimized by a cruel joke.
Clat 2011 was a gamble, you get in, it's gonna be sheer luck.It was pure vendetta unleashed.
i really appreciate ur choice of words.Accurately and appropriately written.i share the same feelings.
ReplyDeleteregards
Co Passenger of Titanic CLAT 2011.
Aishwarya
Loooool. SO true. I ended up doing just the same.Coloring in random circles, hoping luck would get me somewhere. Haha. Though I probably have better chances at Roulette.
ReplyDeleteFirst Anonymous : True. That is what it boils down to, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSwayam : Thanks, So am I.
Second Anonymous : NUJS doesn't mean just Bengalis. And being a Bengali myself, I don't quite agree to that.
Third Anonymous : Totally. Dreams - shattered.
Tania : Cruel Joke. Clat 2011 couldn't have been described better in two words.
Aishwarya : Heh, sure Co Passenger :P
ReplyDeleteUjjwal : Roullete? Dude, I'm sure I'll have a higher probability of draining Vegas altogether!
It sucked completely. The saddest part is that I didnt even have time to draw lots on which option to circle!!
ReplyDeleteyou know,the only thing that sucked in this paper was the time factor. it was an extremely high standard paper,as some one who randomly marked answers to 25 question i can still see that. and anybody with a brain'll know NOT to attempt the legal section at the fag end of the thing. i mean if there's a tie what the hell did you think they'd consider?
ReplyDeleteif anybody makes it this year it'll mostly be because they DESERVED it. they managed their time well and read fast. good for them. trust me,as someone who's written THREE CLAT papers this one was hands down of the best standard. a little too long maybe but it was ok otherwise. we'll see how it goes on the @*th.may the best women and men make it in.
P.S i really hope morons who marked the entire paper blindly DO NOT make it.
1st Anonymous: I hear you buddy. This paper stressed on luck as much as last year and the year before that. CLAT 2010 was honestly a farce. There were 95 questions of random GK and LGK. This year, while NUJS actually set a decent paper for 2.5 hours, every aspirant I talked to has left at least 40 questions, i.e., marked them randomly. Now, how does this make CLAT 2011 any different from the 2009 and 2010 versions? Luck played too major a role in all these three. The ideals of NUJS are commendable. Only, they might have set a more reasonable paper. I'd prefer more challenging questions with an appropriate amount of time to solve. Or at least differential marking. Give us 10 questions in math for 2 marks each. Or two passages in English with (a separate) grammar section. Noble ideals, but poorly executed.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I agree to you to a certain extent. But there are some points which are absolutely bull. Okay, I accept the standard was good. It was not very tough, neither very easy. Great. But tell me, do you REALLY believe the paper was that great? I mean, the questions were good, but to think that the paper as a whole was praiseworthy, nuh uh.
ReplyDeleteI've taken mocks too and I had the privilege of solving the last 2 years' papers and they were MUCH better in their wholesome structure. Why? Well because 1. It didn't really expect students to read 4 HUGE essays in 15 minutes, 2. It didn't consider Mathematics to be an integral part of being a lawyer and 3. It was fair to people coming from all sections of the society.
Reading fast can NEVER be a parameter of testing how good a lawyer one can be. The secret to being a good lawyer is comprehension. Now, to be fair, there was HARDLY any time to comprehend what you were reading simply because there was SO MUCH to read! Those who are tied at the same mark might not have been so if the second one didn't get lucky with a few random guesses which this format almost guarantees. I'd have been the last to complain if they had negative marking because then people wouldn't have randomly marked and the luck factor would have been negated. The fact that there was NO negatives meant everyone would just somehow fill up the 20-30 questions they were left with and leave it on luck to do the rest. Seriously, are we giving up our country's future to people who passed based on luck?
You might have taken 3 clat papers and you might as well be the Godfather of CLAT, but you can't deny that expecting anyone to finish the paper in 2 hours was absolutely immature. I highly regard your point of view that people who will make through will deserve it simply because that point of view just explains the entire irony of the situation. For that one individual coming from a backward family, having never had the privilege of resorting to his favorite Sherlock Holmes novel on a sunday afternoon and making "Reading Fast" an obsessive hobby, we showed him that he doesn't DESERVE to study with the best. We cheated on the average Indian to whom the love of the law is more important than reading 500 stupid lines as fast as possible. Counter that.
Okay, my previous comment was for the Anynomyous guy above Disastrous.
ReplyDeleteDisastrous, true. Maybe that was the case but at least people who worked hard for LGK and GK deservedly got in. In 2011, people who ate peanuts all year can easily get in because those who DID work hard would find themselves within the same boundaries of luck as the others. Differential marking sounds great! And as you said, reasonable ideals but REALLY poor execution. And guess who pays? We, the real aspirants of Law.
@ wise guy.
ReplyDeletedude are you kidding me? "wholesome structure"?? what wholesome structure are you talking about exactly?? the paper set by NALSAR was so easy anybody who got lucky could've cracked it...such easy English,such lame maths. and the paper set by BHOPAL you consider "wholesome"? now THERE'S a laugh. it wasn't wholesome the maths section was a joke,the legal section you could do well in,ONLY if you were already a law student,the GK was mind bogglingly shitty.the paper was total crap basically.
coming to this year's paper,i already said the time factor sucked,but about all that bull about people from "backward families" not reading fast cause they are well..from "backward families" are you frigging kidding me? you don't need conan doyle to read fast. all you need is any book you can lay your hands on.
and thirdly,it's a competitive exam..you read at a snail's pace ,then you my friend are bound to get whooped.you try to gain EVERY strength you can and that included READING FAST.
i do agree with you on the maths bit though.i personally think it has NO place in the law exams but who cares what just another law aspirant thinks right?i just wish NLS would set the papers...now THAT is true standard. time sucked,maths sucked,too many passages but doable.SPEED my man,speed.oh and godmother. i mentioned women before men,would've thought you could've figured that out on your own but hey,who's judging?
AAAA! I was about to post my comment when i hit back space by mistake!! x(
ReplyDeleteBut don't you go anywhere dear Akhila because I have some SERIOUS stuff against you.
PS - Do you happen to be one of the paper setters? o.O
I mean the way you're defending the paper, which practically every single individual has not gotten tired complaining of, is rather funny and attention seeking, "but hey, who's judging?".
haha you amuse me, attention seeking? since when is stating your opinion (which happens to be different from that of the majority) attention seeking? now that's just getting personal and we all know only people who can't really defend their stand make it personal :) anyway no,i did not set the paper not-so wise guy. even i was wondering why i was defending it when i did it just as badly as most everyone else. i dunno..i really don't.i was devastated on D day. maybe it's just everyone's complaining about this paper and saying the previous ones were better. if you think luck'll play a big role in who gets in this year,it was a million times worst last year.there is no perfect clat paper. and i can't WAIT to hear what you've got to say,i'm sure it'll be a tirade filled with such wisdom even attention seeker that i am, i'll change my ways and attain enlightenment. bated breath and all that.
ReplyDeleteHeh, sure.
ReplyDeleteLet me reply to the first comment now.
Sure, there can probably never be a perfect paper and hence I reverted to the phrase "better in their wholesome structure". You'll understand what I meant over the next few lines.
I dont understand why you are whining about Maths being easy in the last couple of years. I mean, whats the point having a Maths section that takes you half an hour when you're aspiring to be a lawyer? If you judge the entire paper as a package, the fact that the Maths section was easy ensured you took less time on what is trivial and could concentrate more on the more important sections of the paper. And then you complain of the Legal section being tougher in the Bhopal paper when you're taking a Legal "Knowledge" paper? I mean, it wasn't Legal Aptitude like we had this year and trust me if it were to be Legal Knowledge this year, we'd work our asses off to master every single Maxim and Doctrine there is. Maybe mug up the IPC too - because its what we admire - the LAW! Why on earth are you complaining about that? :/
Same goes for the GK section. I took the papers too as practice and I didn't face much difficulty in solving the GK. Okay, some where inherently erratic but that's how it was for everyone. Big Deal?
And what reading at snail's pace, ma'am? If I take the liberty of taking my own example, for someone who finished The Godfather (since we're on it) in 4 hours, I found those 48 pages quite long to read, comprehend and answer questions which are intended solely to test how much I comprehend of what I read. Reading fast as a parameter to be a good lawyer? Since when? You need to have a proficient understanding of principles, not read them through 500 words a minute just for the sake of doing it!
Maybe you find the paper thoroughly Utopian but I fail to understand how just reading fast be the basis of selection? Well then why didn't we have a reading session and whoever reads the fastest gets selected? :/
Anyone taking a competitive exam would know better than to expect a really small paper, sure. But this year's paper was practically HUGE. 4 comprehensions? Really?
I'm not complaining the standard of the questions were bad! I'm just saying that the final draft of the paper, as a "whole" was inevitably weird. Why? Well because, almost the entire section of the aspirants couldn't really complete the "Legal Aptitude" section - the REAL test of their potential as lawyers!
Coming to your second comment, hey, I didn't go personal. Not my fault miss if you don't speak the language of sarcasm. Same with the Sherlock comment. Pff.
I sincerely agree that there might not be a perfect paper but all I'm against is leaving it out on luck to be the deciding factor. I'd be the last person to argue that if they had negative marking in place - which would at least prevent people circling randomly at the end. That would have totally taken the luck factor out of the question. But unfortunately, it doesnt seem to be the case!
I'm not sure if you are really getting my point. Its not about how the paper was relatively compared to the last two years, Akhila. Its about how the results will be determined. If the paper is easy, luck plays no factor because people who've worked a bit would easily ace the paper and people who have not will not because they just DONT KNOW. This year's paper, on one hand being fairly moderate, was SO excessively HUGE that to imagine anyone completing the entire paper in 2 hours is stretching it a bit too far.
Does a lengthy and tough paper favour 'lucky' candidates?
ReplyDeleteI DO NOT think it does.
Case I: I am intelligent. I have the speed! I solve 180 questions and leave 20 for guesswork.
Case 2: I am dumb. I lack speed. I solve 150 questions and leave 50 for guess work.
Who'll score more? The intelligent guy who attempted more and guessed less, of course!
A lengthy, tough paper does the job of separating wheat from the chaff! That is why you have such entrance tests.
How did you arrive at the contrary, author?
Dear Anonymous, you forgot to read what I wrote. Did at any point in my arguments I mention that the paper was tough? It wasn't. It was moderate. Easy, at times too. But lengthy. THAT is where the problem lies.
ReplyDeleteI am intelligent. But Maths takes me 30 mins. Reading, I am fast in, but this paper is SO huge, I can't complete more than 160 questions in time. I mark 40 randomly. But, WHY SHOULD I leave 40 randomly?
Lets take your very situations. Solving 180 doesn't mean you got 180 correct. Lets say, you got 150 correct and 5 out of the randomly marked 20. Your score - 155.
Let me be the dumb guy who lacks speed and marks 150 in time. Let 125 out of that 150 be correct. I mark 50 randomly and get 35 out of those 50 correct, simply because I'm lucky. Guess what happens? I make a lawyer at the best institute while you suck on to peanuts. How justified is THAT?
I also happened to mention how I would NEVER have made this argument if we had some sort of negative marking which would remove the chances of random circling. You see, THEN a tough and length paper would have justified selections. As simple as that.
Why do you keep adding 'almost all people 30-40 questions of legal aptitude' and the blah blah that follows. Any sane aspirant, with minimal thinking capability would have come to know s/he cannot attempt the full paper in 2 hours on the very second s/he flips through the first 5 pages of the test. Presence of mind has it - I first attempted legal aptitude - so that atleast I could have a fabourable tie-breaker score. Too bad - you were busy cribbing about the paper the moment you saw it.
ReplyDeleteTook 30 minutes to solve 20 math questions? I'd call you a fool. You know you cannot attempt all the questions, and STILL you waste time for 20 questions. Simple as that - do a math question in 35 seconds, if it takes longer than that - SKIP IT! You're not going to get brownie points for attempting ALL the questions. Let me tell you, 10 questions out of 20 were very easy. A careful look at the options, and you know the answer.
Hey, look. You're making the mistake of generalizing all the people who took the test based on your personal aptitude. Sure, you did a smart thing by starting off with Legal. Brilliant. But that is what only three people did - as far as I know. You, Akhila and me. Well, I didn't technically, but to make it simple, I did manage to cover Legal Aptitude before moving on to English anyway. So, ignoring the wise judgment you pass on me, which I find quite obnoxious anyway, let me introduce you to the real situation. I'm a member of a community of about 2000 CLAT 2011 aspirants in Facebook and it is not just divine intervention that ALL of the people have complained about having faced the similar issue - to have left "30-40 Legal Questions blank or marked randomly". Well, I understand you comprehension of my argument on this issue is quite clear, albeit prejudiced.
ReplyDeleteOh well, maybe you have your reasons for the arrogance, but not all people are as (apparently) intellectually sound as you are.
Far from cribbing about how long the paper was, I was well into it. The 30 minutes I spent in solving the 20 questions is a guaranteed 20 marks. Whereas, if I had spent 20 there and the rest 10 in lets say, English - it wouldn't have mattered because I wouldn't have completed it anyway. The fact that I had left English for the very end gave me a leverage against time because I could finish 160 well. And out of the 40, 10 were simple enough in English. 20 - intelligent guessing and 10 random. So, I essentially covered 190. Fool, still? Oh well.
You see, not everyone chooses to talk big about how smart s/he is. I choose to voice the concern of the common man. Call it my humility or your sense of superiority complex, but you'd sure do better with some sense of respect.
On second thoughts, you'd make a good lawyer.
I dont think there is anything I should say because whatever I wanted to,well ! You have already said it all.
ReplyDeleteP.S: Just a small reminder to CLAT 2012 aspirants: When you prepare for the Disasters that struck 2011 , Please DONT forget to add one more :CLAT 2011. !
Speechless ! Thats all I am!
Know what? I agree the paper was crappy. There wasn't enough time. Math was crazy. English was a pain in the ass. And so was Logic. Hell, I don't even need to talk about it.
ReplyDeleteBut overall, I enjoyed it. The whole experience of preparing, writing the mocks, writing the actual paper. Enjoying doesn't mean I did well though. But I did whatever I could. And so did all of you guys. Whether I get in or I don't will be known in a few hours. But when I look back, I've learnt so much, with such passion and vigour for the stuff. I loved them and I still do. I've learnt where I went wrong, where I could have done better, not just in terms of preparing, but in attitude.
So I am not going to call this a disaster. Well, if this is a disaster, I think there are worse things that could happen. Handling that could be your worst nightmare. I'm totally up for a challenge. And this is just the beginning of all our crazy lives. So, sit back. And enjoy the show. I learned a lot. And this exam reminded me just how very badly I want to get in to Law school and how I will never give up so easily. Everything happens for a reason I guess. Good luck to all of you guys. Get in or not, things will work itself out.
The world won't end. The sky won't fall. We'll all do just fine. :) Sue me for the optimism, but it's true. Really.
Totally! Loved the previous comment! :D
ReplyDeleteThanks. As much as I'm scared right now, heh, the sky won't fall. It's a nice mantra. And we could all do with some optimism. Really. We all deserve it for the paper we've put up with. :) Good luck, Abhisek.
ReplyDelete