Are concepts explained clearly, or do you need to Google everything after class?
Does teaching stay exam-relevant, or does it wander into topics that won't be tested?
Are the notes good enough to revise from, or do you need to rewrite everything?
Are MTPs, RTPs, and PYQs covered thoroughly in class?
Was the full syllabus covered, or were chapters quietly skipped?
Reviews represent individual student opinions. Careviews does not endorse any faculty.
Course
Regular
Reviewer
Not In Articleship
Attempt
First Attempt
Teaching Style
Conceptual
Pros
He explains concepts well and his notes are amazingggg. He makes memorising feel like a cake walk when I always had problem with memorising law concepts for foundation. He solves doubts, as long as they're related to the topic, but may not entertain the doubt DURING THE CLASS if it doesnt relate to the chapter, but will still clear it after class.
Cons
His jokes have gone too far a lot of times and has made a lot of the girls in the class uncomfortable. A little (lot) targetting occurs. He says anyone can get a rank but will only mention the students who got 300+ in foundation. Only pays attention to a small number of students.
Compare Rakesh Mishra with other Law faculties before you decide.
Are doubts actually resolved, or just acknowledged and moved on from?
Do revision classes help you consolidate, or are they just a slow replay?
Is the teaching pace comfortable — not too fast to follow, not too slow to keep up?
Is this course worth the fees compared to what else is out there?
Did the actual course match what the demo lectures and marketing promised?