Background
I feel that in 2019, enrolling in the BALLB program at Lumbini Buddhist University marked the beginning of a transformative educational journey. Like any student stepping into any reputed institution, I was filled with dreams, enthusiasm and an unwavering commitment to making my future meaningful. My goals were clear: to study law with integrity, become a competent legal professional, and contribute meaningfully to society—guided always by my values of hard work, knowledge, and meritocracy. I came\ to Butwal with discipline, punctuality,and hope, and began studying BALLB as part of the first batch. However, as the semestersunfolded, my initial hope was slowly replaced by persistent disappointment. Furthermore, the announcement of the tenth semester results, marked by a lack of proper and careful evaluation, shattered my heart—a memory that will linger in my mind for the rest of my life. While prompt\ result publication may suit bar exam deadlines, grading based on students’ appearances is not only unethical but also subject to disciplinary action. In fact, the deeper I immersed myself in the academic environment, the clearer it became that the atmosphere was fundamentally tainted & was growing increasingly toxic. This deterioration was in the quality of education, the standard of instructing, the competition for flattery and sycophancy, the system of assessment and evaluation rather than in the curriculum or course.
Efforts Meets Disappointment
From the outset, I gave my full effort to every assignment, examination and academic project. Yet, the marks/grades I received consistently failed to reflect my dedication. Although one can accept occasional disappointments as part of any academic life, what I faced was a pattern of disproportionate results that couldn’t be explained by performance alone. Repeated requests for retotaling and rechecking yielded no substantive outcome & after multiple attempts, I was forced to confront a painful realization: academic outcomes were not solely based on merit. The situation was marked by a subtle yet discernible bias. It became clear that academic success at this institution often depended & depends on personal rapport with faculty members rather than on genuine academic competence.
Favoritism Over Fairness
The favoritism within this five-year BALLB program was not a hidden undercurrent. It was openly practiced and widely acknowledged among the students. If one maintains close relationship with lecturers or faculty members, compliments them frequently, or go beyond professional boundaries, the chances of receiving favorable grades increases significantly.
Conversely, students like me who respect their lecturers but insist on maintaining a professional distance are sidelined. The principles of equality and fairness, which are the backbone of any educational or legal institution, are constantly violated. Even board exams were postponed at the request of students consistently treated as top-tier and favored by sycophantic influence. These appeals did not reflect a collective or logically grounded opinion from the student body. Rather, they were influenced solely by the personal preferences of a select student with close ties to the faculty.
How can a law school function with such blatant disregard for fairness? This manipulation extended to viva sessions as well. I witnessed seminar paper’s Vivas rescheduled based on the personal convenience of some students, while the rest of us were instructed to adjust to the designated schedule anyway and had to follow it. These were not isolated incidents; they were part of a larger institutional culture.
Systemic Corruption and Ethical Erosion
Beyond grading and scheduling issues, even more alarming forms of misconduct were present. There were serious allegations of sexual harassment against two faculty members. One of them quietly left the country, while the other remains employed by the university. Though these matters were never formally pursued through legal channels, information of their misconduct was common among students. The presence of such figures in academia not only compromises student safety but deeply undermines the ethical standards that any university must uphold. It fosters an atmosphere of fear, silence and helplessness. To add to this, we also encountered the leaking of exam papers, raising serious questions about the integrity of the entire examination process. Students with insider access gained unfair advantages, while the rest of us who studied honestly were left demotivated and disadvantaged.
Toxic Student Mentality and Internalized Corruption
Eventually, the favoritism and manipulation started influencing student behavior. Many began shifting their focus from academic excellence to rapport buildings with faculty members. The message was clear that if you want to score good grades, participate in seminars or moot courts, or access favorable opportunities, you must build relationships with faculty members. I witnessed even some brilliant and capable students abandoning their faith and commitment to their knowledge and abilities not because they believed in the so-called system, but because they saw that it was not enough. They knew that without forming “The good bonds,” their hard work would go unrecognized.
Despite experiencing all of this firsthand, I refused to compromise my self-respect just to gain something in return. I chose to uphold professionalism and personal integrity. I believe that educators are meant to mentor not to manipulate. Speaking out about these issues came at a cost. I was further marginalized, denied fair grades and excluded from programs or opportunities, left with unanswered concerns. However, I never remained silent about the consequences I facedover nearly six years due to the prejudices of lectures or faculty members and the administration against truth, discipline, and professional ethics. I remain committed to bringing these facts to light whenever the time and context call for it.
Disrespecting the Teaching Profession
A particularly disheartening incident occurred during a farewell event that was planned as before in a small group but hastily announced publicly. One of our faculty members, who is also a senior advocate, publicly remarked: “If you can’t do anything else, you can become a law teacher.” That statement was not only offensive, but it was also a window into the mindset of some of our own lecturers. What are students supposed to think when a senior academic publicly devalues his own profession? Are we to assume that teaching is a last resort? Does it mean that those who stand before us in the classroom are there because they had no other choice? That comment insulted every honest educator in the profession and deeply damaged students’ respect for the system. Are these really the individuals entrusted with shaping the next generation of proficient advocates or lawyers?
Manipulated Exams and Unfair Competitions
Even the choice of examination centers was subject to manipulation. Certain students succeeded in having their centers changed, often to locations where they were known and could freely engage in dishonest practices. This gave them yet another unfair edge over those who followed the rules but were left with no such advantages. In moot court competitions, students with connections to the organizers were informed days ahead of the official announcements, giving them extra time to research. Meanwhile, the rest of the students were left scrambling with minimal time and minimal support. Not only that, even the process of forming certain groups and deciding in advance who would be declared qualified was predetermined. This was later formalized using official labels to complete the process. These actions were clear signs of favoritism. They fostered a frustrating environment where fairness was the exception, not the standard. For many, it felt like a merit-based competition, a rigged game where only a few were given the tools win.
Internal Marks: A Black Box with No Accountability
Internal assessment carries 40% of the total 100 marks in each subject of every semester, which is a matter of serious concern. These marks are meant to reflect factors such as student attendance, timely submission of assignments, presentations, and other academic efforts. However, in reality, none of these criteria are measured in a structured or transparent manner. So how are internal marks actually awarded? The truth is, these marks are often awarded arbitrarily. Lecturers tend to give the highest scores—sometimes even full marks—to students who are personally close to them, flatter them, share political affiliations, or belong to the same interest group. Conversely, students who are not favored for various reasons receive extremely lowscores, regardless of their performance in written exams. These internal marks significantlyaffect overall grades, sometimes causing major distortions—yet students are never informed of the breakdown between external and internal scores. This opens the door to extreme bias andfavoritism. In essence, internal assessment has become more of a political tool than an academic one.
Incompetent Faculty and Academic Decline
Another pressing concern is the alarming lack of knowledge and competence among some faculty members. We have some lecturers who are unable to deliver even basic lectures in English, although they are entrusted with the responsibility of setting and grading law examination papers. It is widely rumored, and I believe true in some cases, that some of the papers were not prepared by the lecturers themselves but by their offsprings or close trusted associates/relatives. If lecturers cannot communicate effectively in English with students or anyone, how can they assess a student’s understanding of complex legal concepts? The issue extends beyond mere language proficiency. It is not only a matter of English communication skills; many faculty members also lack a thorough understanding of the core subject matter outlined in the curriculum. This dual deficiency severely undermines the quality of legal education and places students at a significant disadvantage. When educators are unable to effectively articulate legal concepts or demonstrate a command of the subject they are assigned to teach, it compromises both academic integrity and student development.
Many of these lecturers cannot last even an hour in any competitive or prestigious law institution in Nepal – let alone a day. However, they are influential because they have strong political connections with university officials and they are local, so they abuse their position and influence. This goes far beyond individual incompetence. It is indicative of a dysfunctional recruitment system and process that values loyalty and politics over merit and ability.
A Broken Curriculum and Political Delay
Intended to be a five-year program turned into a six-year ordeal, plagued by internal politics, administrative mismanagement, and frequent scheduling blunders. As a result, our final semester was rushed and poorly managed, with results released within just a week. Our thesis work, which was the result of ten semesters of rigorous study, was completed in just five days. However, at the BALLB program under LBU not only is anything deemed possible but even the miraculous is considered routine. Viewed dispassionately, there were no proper guidelines or official announcements. Important notices were circulated informally, often reaching only a handful of students. Even our farewell program was organized in secrecy, with invites sent to select people and no effort made to include the entire batch. These were not oversights, these were symptoms of a deeply flawed, politicized and irresponsible system.
An Emotional Toll and Unbroken Spirit
This journey was emotionally exhausting. To give everything I had and still be deliberately and repeatedly overlooked was a uniquely painful experience. Alongside the sense of honor I felt through my own performance, I also experienced deep sadness and overwhelming despair.
There were times when I questioned myself, doubted my capabilities and knowledge, and wonderedwhether my expectations were unreasonable. However, I came to realize that the issue lies notwithin me, but within the system itself. The current academic environment has allowed certain lecturers to consistently undermine the abilities of students they dislike, suppress dissenting voices, and overrate students they favor or are personally close to—damaging the integrity of genuine educational evaluation. One lecturer in particular has compromised the BALLB program’s integrity since its inception, while others continue to support him and his practices or tendencies due to personal interests. Nonetheless, I was never defeated. I hereby publicly reaffirm that the grades and degree I earned are the result of not only my unwavering determination, but also the depth of knowledge and aptitude I consistently demonstrated in written examinations despite the persistent bias I encountered from this group throughout each semester. Just as before, this remains my open challenge to everyone involved. The real test wasn’t in exams or Moot courts. It was surviving in a university that consistently tried to break my spirit and pull me down at every step.
A Wake-Up Call for Transformation
What happened to me at Lumbini Buddhist University during the 5-year BALLB program over approximately 6 years is not just my personal account, it is a reflection of a deep- rooted, widespread crisis in the education sector, about which I have written more than half a dozen articles over time. Universities are considered temples of learning, built upon the pillars of integrity, merit, and impartiality. But when these temples are infiltrated by deceit, political affiliations, incompetence, and favoritism, no matter how grand their appearance from the outside, they lose the trust of the devotees (students) and eventually become hollow structures devoid of faith. Therefore, the university should not hesitate to make uncomfortable but necessary decisions for reform. However, I am firmly convinced that even the university officials are driven by personal interests, and their competence, qualifications, and professional ethics remain highly questionable. This situation has contributed to a deeply concerning decline in the stature of the Dean of Law, whose role now reflects a state of institutional fragility. Given these circumstances, the prospects for meaningful improvement within the BALLB program appear discouragingly low.
Students who have achieved the desired grades, those who have already been listed as semester toppers and gold medalists, should also reflect seriously on whether they can maintain this level of excellence in the broader tests of life beyond university in the days to come. This is a question worth deep contemplation. To every student who has found themselves trapped in such environments and circumstances, I say once again: recognize your worth, respect yourself, and speak the truth even when others attempt to silence your voice. Do not compromise your boundaries or principles out of fear of ‘Red Ink.’ Above all, maintain unwavering confidence in your capabilities.
