The University of Chicago Law School has recently adopted a policy blocking internet access in classrooms (hat tip: my colleague Michael Krauss). Some individual professors at other schools have taken similar steps in their classes. I am of two minds on this. On one hand, law students are adults. They should be able to decide for themselves whether surfing the net has greater value to them than using class time to listen to what the professor is saying. Indeed, if a high percentage of students are surfing regularly, that may be an indication that the professor isn't doing such a great job of teaching.
On the other hand, there are potential negative externalities from in-class surfing. If a lot of students are doing it, and therefore not contributing to class discussion, that will reduce the value of the class for their classmates, not just themselves. This point suggests that there may be some merit to the University of Chicago policy. For now, however, I'm not going to change my own live and let live approach to net surfing in the classroom.
(Sadly, I didn't know Mrs. Bork was sitting behind me. I hope I didn't leave a bad impression of the school...)
Have I goofed off during a lecture? Sure, when the prof was boring. But I've also been able to quickly look up things and add to discussions.
One of my professors attempted to solve this by limiting the front two rows to those who didn't use laptops. (Unfortunately, he ended up letting computer users who promised not to surf the internet fill in some of those empty seats - and many broke that promise.)
hey-theres gotta be some release from the academic pecking order
In either case, when I was interested in and involved with what the professor was saying or the classroom discussion, the type of distraction available didn't make a difference in how I participated. If you're going to goof off, you're going to do it no matter what. And a lot of people are able to concentrate better if they have some kind of mindless distraction going on. (ADD tendencies?) Add in the research benefits of having internet access, and I don't think there's much to be gained from banning the internet. Trust students to police themselves. The ones who can't will -- and should -- fail. Problem solved.
Plus there are many times during a class where people go off on things totally useless and non-interesting.
I just wish there was a way to ban obnoxious games and websites. It's very difficult to concentrate in class when the person in front of you is browsing Perez Hilton's bright pink abomination of a site with pictures of hand drawn dildos all over scantily clad celebrities.
Bc we're not in third grade though, I think a simple reminder at the banner/log-in screen that most schools use for students to gain access might do the trick... or at least help.
Or so I've been told. Ahem...
Alternatively, it might mean that the subject is just inherently boring, and the students need to grow up and learn that (1) they aren't supposed to be entertained all the time, and (2) sometimes you have to do things that aren't pleasant.
Even when I don't use it for strictly class related purposes, it's often for law related purposes. I was reading the Baze v. Rees decision in tax this morning.
I'm not necessarily defending the practice of surfing in class, but I would agree it is Very common. Despite my above post, I do recognize it may be disrespectful, But I think this undervalues the situation where what the professor is talking about has no relevance to what's on the final, and little or no relevance to practicing law.
In such a situation, the only incentive to "Do what isn't pleasant" is just to do what isn't pleasant out of respect to the professor.
I agree with this comment. During my last year of law school, I sat behind someone who had the baseball internet package so I was stuck watching a lot of Cubs games. I also think the research aspect is overstated...
This presumes the existence of discussion in the first place.
Most of the classes where I can look around the room and realize 90% of the class is looking at laptop screens rather than at the professor are classes where there is little to no interaction.
Classes where the professor actually engages the students in discussion have a much lower rate of "zoning out."
PON RAUL: A student who is shelling out $30,000 a year plus (not Daddy's money or loan money but their own money from their own savings like yours truly did) should not be compelled to make accommodations to those students who choose to surf the net during class.
I also take my notes with pen and paper because I know if I have a laptop I'll goof off.
The value of Ctrl+F; totally outweighs the harms of solitaire players.
As for the internet itself, just don't block lexis/westlaw and wikipedia, those are genuinely useful in class.
Why shouldn't a non-state school be able to say "hey, this is one of the rules you're signing yourself up for- no computers. It'll be better for you."? If you're uncomfortable with paternalism, call it a kind of precommitment. People might choose a law school because, by keeping them from using the internet, it produces better lawyers.
If you're sold on only regulating externalities, consider this: the more people concentrate in law school, the more knowledgeable and adroit they will be in later practice. Externalities galore.
I also think that a lot of people have stopped showing up for class at all. In the past people would come and surf online but would contribute something if they wanted; now there are a lot more empty seats.
In the end it doesn't matter to me since I sit in the front and take pen and paper notes, but it seems a little too paternalistic, however I imagine it's here to stay.
There are people who need a reason to get their shorts in a twist and this is an issue that some have selected. The same sorts are usually grade-grubbers so I don't see why they won't look at the bright side: The surfers are curve cushions.
And "discussion" is sort of silly nine times out of ten. People who are interested in a particular issue pay attention and participate. The vast majority of the class just hopes they don't get called on. When their issue comes along they'll participate. Even if it means leaving facebook behind.
Both times my computer was out of battery power, it quickly resulted in me taking a class time nap.
Admittedly, probably an unintended benefit. But still.
Whether laptops or legal pads are better for notetaking overall is a pretty empirical question. While there are people who have done better with handwritten notes, I know people who did distinctly worse in the classes they had where the professors banned laptops. And going simply by personal experience from what my preferences were and those of many people I know, the majority seem to prefer laptops.
Three Cheers for U of C,
You wouldn't by any chance be a law professor who is a - how should we put it? - a less than engaging teacher, would you?
If I were teaching a class, I would ban them from lectures. If a student thinks they can't live without the near verbatim notes they are furiously trying to transcribe, I'll post a podcast of the class for them to listen to at home. And that should solve the dilemma for the student that just has to see the Cubs game that conflicts with that particular lecture.
While I'm very sympathetic to the view that students are adults who are paying for the opportunity to attend, and should therefore be allowed to choose what to do with their time (I certainly exercised the right not to attend class quite frequently), they should also be adult enough to respect those who are also paying by refraining from engaging is disruptive behavior during the class. Listen to the podcast if you don't want to participate...or skip it if you are bored.
And professors...don't be offended if people don't show up.
Also, Three Cheers for U of C: Med students are just like law students they chat, surf, etc. during their lectures as well. So please share the shaming.
You see, I suffer from developmental dyspraxia. My handwriting is mind-numbingly slow. I don't take verbatim notes with my laptop, but having a laptop in the classroom is absolutely essential to my taking class notes at even a low level of detail.
Any teacher with charisma, or at least a marginally interesting point, will hold their students' attention. Unfortunately, many professors fill class time with absurd hypotheticals and unimportant theories that will have no practical use for their students. What entitles a professor to expect undivided attention when they frequently say nothing of value? It is very simple for a professor to hold student attention: a) lecture on interesting and/or practical issues; and b) prepare sufficiently that these points are presented in a coherent fashion. Such lectures have held my attention despite students playing world of warcraft directly in front of me.
As a 3l who has read this blog frequently during class, I predict that the VC will need significantly less bandwidth if other schools follow Chicago, as my own school apparently intends to do.
On a completely unrelated note, the sidebar ad on "Take Judicial Selection out of the Hands of Elite Trial Lawyers" is very entertaining. Should we then be giving it to incompetent trial lawyers? Or maybe just dependably average ones?
huge waste of time. Either explain the finer points of the law that we students won't get, or just give me a freaking outline and quit wasting my time.
1. The lectures are irrelevant.
2. Grading methods are waaaay too easy.
3. Some silly group thing is happening.
4. Law school is an elaborate joke.
Or maybe all the above...
Gaius Marius: First of all, a loan is the same thing as a student's own money. Secondly, you are asking people with laptops to make accomodations for the stupid and easily distracted, not the other way around. Surfing the net during class helps people learn. You shouldn't punish these people just because some people might not have the manners to not look at other people's laptops. By the tone of your post, I assume that you are a liberal old guy who asks tons of stupid questions that force me to surf the net in the first place.
But I banned them because the students were disrupting each other. E.g., as soon as I would cold call on a person, she would get instant text messages. While I initially found this humorous, some were disturbed.
Plus, I found that when I banned them last semester, the students were perfectly happy. I told them I'd reverse the policy in the presence of strong dissent but got none.
This conservative old guy says that perhaps you wouldn't have to surf the net for answers if you came to class prepared.
Learning styles vary, but my GPA went from barely C to B+ when I completely quit taking notes in class.
And who is really less of an adult: the people who are messing around because they feel they can get more out of the internet or the people who simply cannot handle the distraction of someone in front of them shoe shopping? (Assuming the professor who is less than interested in student participation, and God knows they are not uncommon.)
Everyone will just "pass."
Pon Raul, you apparently forget that attending law school is a privilege -- not a right. Furthermore, being allowed to bring a laptop to law class is a privilege -- not a right. Moreover, surfing the internet on a laptop brought to law class is a privilege -- not a right. Since you clearly detract from the sum knowledge of mankind each time you post, I suggest that you think carefully (if at all possible) before you enter your next post.
I'm sure your future prospective employer will appreciate you "spending a prodigious amount of time on the internet" at the office while you're supposed to be billing.
If all else fails, hold your breath until you get your way.
As someone who is five years out of law school, Amen Brother!
Now, as for IMing... at least at my school, people will IM each other the answers. Quite convenient for the people who come in unprepared. Otherwise, you're just stuck trying to subtly point out the correct answers when you're sitting next to the professor's hapless victim.
The scholars would just switch to evdo WAN systems. At least they'd be paying for their bandwidth.
Back when I went to law school, I had to read books to kill the time. Primitive.
Classes are somewhat useful, and with a fun professor they're interesting enough to pay attention to, but I honestly just don't *get* why it's inherently useful to hear the law narrated to me when I can read it and learn it ten times quicker. If transcripts of law school classes were given out I'd read them all, but it feels like a waste of time to sit and listen to the whole thing.
Without internet, people will play solitaire. Without computers, people will doodle. If you're so fragile that you can't focus with someone surfing the web in front of you, what's to say you won't be distracted by any of these other things?
If it is a necessary skill, you can be an adjunct professor of tedium. You can lead the class through simulated conference calls and semester long document reviews. Of course, we law students, like lawyers who are paid for their work, already cope with such issues as summer associates. The fact that legal practice entails tedium doesn't justify inflicting it on law students.
As noted by other commenters, banning the internet merely attempts to fix a symptom, inattentiveness, rather than the problem, the content and format of law school. In the process, it robs students of the opportunity to multi-task without any corresponding benefit. Any part of the small minority bothered by their classmates can sit in the front.
If one of lectures was so tedious that students found the internet more useful, more power to them. The purpose is to impart information. In the end, they face a bar exam, and then being released into a sea of sharks, of which I am one. If they think they can cruise the net in a courtroom, we'll just have softer prey.
Next year I am going to ban laptops in class. When I converse, I want to see a face attached to an engaged brain, not a trademark and a court reporter transcribing gibberish.
I don't lecture, I play intellectual ping-pong. You can't do that with a blank wall.
Alternatively, I suppose I could make them stand up to respond. I doubt that they would pick up their laptop and attempt to type one-handed.
No, the real purpose of surfing the internet in class is to avoid the pain and confusion that occurs when some poor student who hasn't done the reading is being grilled. Writing that stuff down just muddles up class notes, and it's probably best for the sufferer if the other students look away until it's over. Most know to bring their focus back to class once some actual content is being presented.
I'd also be more in favor of a ban if a professor had assigned seating, but I only remember one doing that in my career.
I assure you, there are students who DON'T do better when they write in bluebooks. Some of us don't write longhand much, and it gets in the way of our learning and expressing ourselves. If you give students the option, they can figure out which writing tool works best for them.
Student saying something useful: maybe take notes
Gunner wasting class time: read e-mail, do journal work, read Volokh, etc.
For whatever it's worth, in undergrad I would keep myself busy in class by playing Tetris on my TI-86 graphic calculator. It's easier for me to stay focused if I can multi-task.
Well, at least there is one professor who understands the value and clarity of what he says in class. :)
Hmmmm.
[quote]On a completely anecdotal note, one of my students just told me that all the students who received CALI awards [highest grade] in her section take notes with pen and paper rather than on their lap tops. I don't know if it means anything, but I thought it was interesting that a student would notice this.[/quote]
Students also used to occasionally take note by shorthand. Somehow the world survived.
1. I write somewhat slowly, but very, very legibly. I had had professors who have given me extra time (a few minutes) on exams to finish them, because they recognised the value of neat writing.
You have several options: place word limits on each essay answer; give students a set amount of space in which to write their answers; and give students extra time if they handwrite their exams.
2. One of my professors demanded that students who were "on call" for the day not type notes. The laptop had to be closed. Other students would email notes after class. Why not try that, instead of punishing those of us who would prefer to type our notes?
3. Some of us don't write gibberish notes. I spend down time in class organising my notes for the day, inputing other info from my book (things that the professor did not have time to go over), and the like. I'm sorry that other students don't have the sense to use their time wisely, but I fail to see why other students ougth to be punished for their classmates' failings.
If the class isn't worth it, don't go. Attendance should not be mandatory regardless of the ABA's stance
2) Most of the classroom discussion was worthless, political rants, or downright wrong. Missing it may in fact be helpful. I am still stunned that I didn't walk down to the front row and kill the guy that proudly explained supply &demand to the business law seminar class (We are in graduate school, in an advanced course and you're proud of that elementary knowledge? And, you wasted my time with it?).
3) I totally agree that laptop surfing/games is distracting to the people behind you.
4) We have the problem that today's students are conditioned to give partial attention to multiple things. Giving full attention to one thing (the professor) seems very confining to them. It is like one of two engines is running but not engaged; the students don't know how to drive things with both engines.
I found that the BarbBri DVDs lost this problem when I used the PC to play them back at 1.2x or 1.5x speed. Almost as if I expect a certain data rate of information to stream into my brain, if the data rate is too low, I start looking for more sources.
Any prof that wants to ban the internet only does so because he wants to lie to the class without consequence.
Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the profs stuck to...Oh, I don't know...maybe case law?
I tended to just bring a book. It's not distracting to the neighbors, there's no clicking, and you can easily pick up the technique of reading and listening to the lecture at the same time; once you've done that, any professors who try to catch you out will instead be faced with the realization that what they're saying is elementary enough that you don't have to pay attention to follow it. ;p
(This doesn't work so well if the professor is genuinely informative during the lecture - but if you're having trouble focusing on your goofing off because the professor is too interesting, you probably don't need to goof off!)
If the professor gets snotty, revise your choice of reading material. Tolkien not okay? Grab a law textbook or a law review. My favorite trick was reading The Economist during economics classes...
At the end of the day, there has to be some recognition that the professor is going to have a few students in his class that are genuinely smarter than he is. Demanding the undivided attention of someone who's got 50 IQ points on you is presumptuous under any circumstances...
The fact of the matter is that many professors - I've been at classes at two law schools and have seen lectures at several others - aren't very good teachers. Maybe Chicago is a cut above in this regard, but I doubt it.
Second, the second and third years of law school are wastes of time, mandated by legal restrictions on who can join the bar. But will I ever consult my memory of what I learned in Secured Transactions from this semester to figure out how Article 9 applies if I need to counsel a client? Of course not, and no law firm would let me.
Second and third years are full of these sorts of classes where you learn one area of law you'll never consult before moving on to the next.
So if Chicago wants to reduce computer usage in the classroom, then Chicago should make its classes more interesting or, barring that, work to change state legislation that remove the 3 year law school requirement.
Oh bull. But the difference, however, is that you're getting paid to do that.
In law school, you're paying for the privilege of listening to awful lectures about material that you could just as well read a hornbook to figure out.
As for the commenter who says that people paying attention get higher scores: Sure... it's that kind of earnestness that's going to make you a fantastic lawyer.