Professor June Entman contacted me following my earlier post on the AP story about her decision to ban laptops in her civil procedure class, and she offered to share the e-mail she sent to her students that presents a more accurate and complete explanation of her thinking. Here is the e-mail, reprinted with Professor Entman’s permission:
I have received a handful of emails from Civil Procedure II students arguments for why the policy is either unwise, unfair, or both. This email to all Civil Procedure II students is a response to those emails and my final word on the subject.
Students give one primary reason for needing laptops in class: because typing is faster than writing, students can take more complete and detailed class notes with a laptop. This proposition is no doubt true for some. It entirely misperceives the purpose of class attendance, however.
Civil Procedure class sessions are designed primarily as a practice session for students to develop the skills outlined in the “Course Objectives.” Your job during class is to participate actively in the discussion in order to develop your ability to articulate, to evaluate, and to apply your knowledge of the law. When you focus primarily on transcribing everything said, you are not making good use of the class as a practice opportunity. (It would be a good idea at this point in the semester for each of you to review the Course Objectives and Requirements, which are on TWEN under “Course Requirements and Information.”)
There is much truth to the notion that people learn in different ways. It is equally true that no one ever became skilled at playing the piano by copying sheet music or by watching someone else play. One cannot learn to play the piano without playing the piano. You will learn to analyze only by analyzing, to articulate only by articulating, to evaluate only by evaluating. Transcribing is none of those things. Class time for practicing essential skills is limited. It is not too late in the semester for those of you who have been transcribers to make better use of class time.
Civil Procedure class sessions are not designed to feed information to students. The Civil Procedure course materials already contain virtually all of the information you are expected to acquire, as well as many of the problems and hypotheticals used in class. Problems not in the text are usually quite brief and I almost always draw a diagram of the problem on the blackboard. The time it would take for you to write down by hand whatever I have written by hand on the board cannot be so great that you need a computer to get it. On those occasions when I actually do “lecture,” i.e. didactically present new information, you certainly can and do ask me to repeat, during or after class, anything that went by too fast.
Notetaking is an important skill. Indeed, attorneys need to take useful notes, often in situations in which they are unable to use computers. Notetaking is not, however, the same as transcribing. Effective and useful notetaking involves exercising judgment about what to write down, so that one is still able to listen and to think. Class notes should be triggers for later study and review of the course materials; they should not be a substitute for studying the course materials.
My opposition to laptops, which I find confirmed by what several of you have written in your emails, is that using laptops diverts many students from thinking and participating because they are so intent on transcribing. I hope that the transition from typing to writing will have the effect, not of slowing down your transcription efforts, but of changing altogether the way some of you use your class time.
Laptops also adversely effect class discussion in other ways. The wall of vertical screens keeps me from seeing many of your faces, even those of some students who are only neighbors of a laptop. The wall hampers the flow of discussion between me and the class and among the students. Also, by giving students a sense of anonymity, many are encouraged to feel that they are present merely to listen in. Laptops and their accompanying noise also create a distraction that is unfair to other students and prevents them from engaging in the sort of reflection that each should be doing.
Finally, a word about what some of you supposed is my sole reason for this new policy. Of course I am unhappy about students signing on to the Internet to play games, check email, and instant message during class. This activity is both dishonest and inconsiderate. It is annoying and distracting to other students. Before reaching my decision to eliminate laptops entirely, I tried to get the WiFi turned off on the third floor of the law building. I was unsuccessful in securing the cooperation of those on campus who control the system. For the reasons explained above, however, I believe that a no-laptop policy will not only eliminate misuse of computers, but will also improve the way many students approach the time they spend in class.
I do appreciate the sincere and respectful emails I received on this topic. I hope that I have addressed your concerns. Of most importance, I hope that eliminating laptops and having this discussion will enhance the extent to which each one of you masters the skills needed to become a competent attorney.
Thoughts?
Prof. Entman’s explanation of her reasons is sufficiently persuasive that I withdraw the as-yet-unformed opposition I had to the policy.
While I feel that I “took notes” (and sometimes transcribed particularly useful phrases or sentences) much more *effectively* – that is, in a manner that better enabled me to later trigger recall, and more satisfyingly, and more completely – I probably learned more in my civil procedure class from those moments in the hot seat, where I was forced to understand something about the Rules and their operation.
If a class was geared towards note-taking, I would certainly be at a massive disadvantage as compared with those students with rapid, legible, clear handwriting. I can type with more fluidity and much more speed than I can write. I shudder at the thought of organizing a semester’s worth of handwritten class notes – unsearchable! – uncopy-and-pasteable! – hard to e-mail! into something useful for exams.
That said, a professor is generally entitled to specify the conditions for class attendance and participation, and short of something _really_ outrageous (nudity? cannibalism? mandatory enrollment in the Federalist Society?) I should think it’s their way or the highway.
A few points. First, I think the professor is too quick to assume that transcription and analysis are incompatible. It may be true for *some* students that they essentially turn off their minds as they type what the professor has said, but it plainly is not true for *all*. Because of this, it seems more appropriate to all students to decide how they operate most effective — they, after all, would know — than to impose a uniform rule. Moreover, the professor’s approach seems to assume that people who transcribe simply copy everything said, rather than copying what the professor says and brief excepts of student comments (as I take to be the more typical practice, in part because students rarely get straight to the point — often require follow-up questions from the professor to do so — and in part because many student comments do nothing to advance the discussion). Given the amounts of downtime this latter approach creates, the transcribers still have plenty of time to analyze.
Second, I think the analogy to playing the piano is flawed in a few respects. Most notably, leaning to play the piano does not require the pianist to understand any material. One must learn simply by repeating the act of playing. (Perhaps, one might claim, reading sheet music is something that must be understood. But that, unlike the act of playing itself *can* be practiced by copying sheet music or watching someone else play.) By contrast, the legal materials encountered in law school are typically complicated enough that students must devote themselves both to understanding them and, only then, analyzing them. This may often require considerable work after class, as students digest what has just been said. A transcription is the easiest way to do this. It may in fact be the *only* way: The professor’s claim that students can successfully distill information into concise, handwritten notes assumes that they already understand the material enough to pick out the important pieces. Further, the piano student-teacher relationship is typical one-on-one, so whatever difficulties the student has in performing the task sought to be performed can be remedied in the classroom. Law school classes are typically so large that this is impracticable. Only a handful of students are involved in any given class, so those who are having difficulty understanding the material are unlikely to have their particular problems addressed — meaning that extra-classroom review of the class is essential.
Putting aside the widsom vel non of this police, it does have one malicious effect: This policy essentially “outs” students with disabilities.
Take a guy like me. I have mild dyslexia and thus can’t take very good hand-written notes. Under this professor’s policy, I would have had to get get special “accomodations” (NOT something I did in law school, and NOT something I would have wanted to do) in order to use a laptop.
I suspect there are students with mild disabilities who will choose to take hand-written notes rather than be perceived as a pariah (why does he get to use the laptop) because of this policy.
When I first heard about this, my first reaction is that the professor must be upset by people surfing the net and checking e-mails during her class. Towards the end of her note she tacitly admits this as she details her previous efforts to shut off the wi-fi in the classroom.
It is puzzling that the prof. denies that this is her main motivation. If she was truly motivated by all those screens blocking her view – What difference would wi-fi make?
Two quick thoughts:
1. I think she tackles a straw man. She gives too much attention to the “transcribers.” My experience is that most students don’t transcribe, but rather take down the notes they find useful. Most students take notes in such a way that “involves exercising judgment about what to write down, so that one is still able to listen and to think.” Taking notes on a laptop allows a person to take legible notes, and to have notes which can be copy and pasted into an outline. Yes, more notes can be taken and in a faster fashion, but I don’t think the vast majority are transcribers.
2. I think the following reveals the professor’s true sole reason, despite her assertion to the contrary: “Before reaching my decision to eliminate laptops entirely, I tried to get the WiFi turned off on the third floor of the law building.” My guess is she wouldn’t be too concerned about the transcribers if she succeeded in killing the wireless network.
After putting out why the policy is insensitive, I will not demonstrate why such a policy could not have resulted from clear thinking.
First, the professor assumes that every (or almost every) student bringing a laptop into class is “transcribing” what is said. What support does she have for this proposition? Did she take a survey? Has she read every students’ notes? Or does she just make this assumption because of a “few” or “several” e-mails? Lawyers provide evidence in support of their arguments. The professor, to use lawyerly words I’m sure she wants her students to learn, assumes facts not in evidence. Now, on to some serious thinking errors evidenced in the e-mail:
Your job during class is to participate actively in the discussion in order to develop your ability to articulate, to evaluate, and to apply your knowledge of the law. When you focus primarily on transcribing everything said, you are not making good use of the class as a practice opportunity.
This is a non-sequitur. Just because a person is transcribing notes doesn’t mean he or she isn’t “articulat[ing],” “evaluat[ing],” and “apply[ing]” the law. It could be the person is typing, reading, and thinking. That’s what I did. (Of course, I am not going to general from a small sample size, especially since that’s what the professor here seems to have done.)
It could be that the student hears what is said, types what is said, and then reflects on what is sad. In fact, that’s exactly what I did. In fact, being able to look at and review what was just enabled me to better evaulate the law. Thus, the professor makes a serious thinking error here.
It is equally true that no one ever became skilled at playing the piano by copying sheet music or by watching someone else play.
This is a false analogy. Given that almost all of law is writing-based, students indeed learn a lot by continually typing what is said, and incorporating what is said into a cohesive outline.
Effective and useful notetaking involves exercising judgment about what to write down, so that one is still able to listen and to think.
Why is it that laptops prevent students from taking good notes? Again, this proposition is only supported by the assumption that all or most students are merely acting as court reporters. Having been a student in over a dozen law school classes and looking over the shoulders of hundreds of students using laptops, I can safely say that students-as-court-reporters are the exception. Most students type the “guts” of what is important and update their outlines. In other words, most students used their laptops to “articulate,” “evaluate,” and “apply” the law.
The wall of vertical screens keeps me from seeing many of your faces, even those of some students who are only neighbors of a laptop.
Given that the bulk of the professor’s arguments are based on thinking errors, I’ll bet this is the main reason for the policy. (Thinking errors usually arise when someone is reasoning from conclusion to supporting arguments, rather than the other way around.) The professor has some hang-up about wanting to make eye contact and having a more open class. Fair enough. But let’s just be real and say this is the motivating factor for the policy.
Of course, if the professor has actual evidence (evidence which would contradict my experiences, but maybe law students from Memphis are different kinds of note-takers than law students from Pepperdine), then I will gladly retract my remarks.
The big debate in my day was tape recordings.
She is 100% correct that those to busy transcribing the class ignore the participation element, which is what makes any in person school different than a correspondence course.
They will find like I did that the greatest skill they are acquiring is how to process the information, not the information itself.
Having no idea what the “course objectives” are, I suppose I can’t say for sure whether this policy is a good idea. But as a current law student, I can vouch for the fact that laptops do cause lots of students to disengage and that there are externality effects (i.e. once a certain number of class members check out, the whole class suffers, not just those who don’t want to be there).
As for the note-taking issue, I am less persuaded that scribbling furiously all the time is good practice for students. Maybe the professor would allow one or two students a week to bring in a laptop, on a rotating basis, to take notes that could be distributed for the benefit of the whole class. At least at my school, everyone ends up compiling a group outline anyway. I’ve always wondered why this couldn’t just be the official policy.
There is a limit to the extent to which I will force students to adopt what I believe are good study and note-taking habits. I will make suggestions, but in the end, I believe that this is for the students to decide for themselves. There are many choices students make in their studying and class preparation that I disagree with, but I treat them like adults and will try my best to convince them to avoid bad habits, but I don’t believe in forcing them. Students need to learn to make their own choices and to live with the consequences of those choices.
The argument that has the most power, in my view, is the extent to which laptops are a distraction. When students start distracting each other or interfering with class, then I believe the professor should get involved. But I bet many students (probably the vast majority) would gladly accept a little clacking noise in return for the ability to use a laptop. As a professor, I’ve never found the clacking to be overly distracting. As for people hiding behind their computer screens, that is indeed one of the biggest problems with laptops, but it could be alleviated somewhat by a rule that when a student is called on, that student must lower his or her laptop screen or push the laptop to the side. Of course, such a rule doesn’t work for the students not called upon, but I think that the problem of having some students hidden behind laptops is not significant enough to justify the no laptop policy.
Today, many people primarily use computers and don’t take notes in handwriting. And as the years go on, a no laptop policy will seem even more antiquated and difficult for students to adjust to. I don’t think that the clock can be turned back on this one. Maybe the best strategy is to teach the students how best to use their laptops rather than just taking the tool away from them.
There are many things I’d like to force my students to do. I’d like to force them to be prepared, to study diligently throughout the semester, and so on. I tell them all this, but in the end, I leave the choice to them. Otherwise, I begin to feel too much like parent, and I don’t always know what’s best for each student.
Will students be better off without laptops? I doubt it. Most won’t suddenly learn good habits; they’ll just resent the no laptop policy.
Considering the new information in this email, I admit that in this particular class the situation is unusual. Specifically, Professor Entman is structuring her class as more of a practicum than as a lecture, which was far from apparent from the AP report. My earlier position was based on the assumption that this was a lecture class.
I suppose the analogue would be to a laboratory component of a chemistry course, which I agree is much different from a lecture course, Socratic or not.
Odd vestiges of outdated practices are an unfortunate fact of life in law school. My law school insisted we learn manual Shepherdization–despite the fact that Westlaw and Lexis are over two decades old and now available to something like 99% of practicing attorneys. Given the multitude of practical legal skills law schools simply ignore, it’s ironic that one of the few they bother to teach is practically extinct in real-life practice (and law profs wonder why real lawyers think they’re out of touch!)
For what it’s worth, the vast bulk of communication I have with clients and other attorneys takes place over the phone while I sit at my desk. I frequently take notes–often verbatim notes–during those conversations. Alas, I did not practice transcription at law school, but if I had that practice would have been a darned sight more useful to me as a practicing attorney that the majority of “skills” law schools try to impart.
Prof. Entman is, of course, free to run her class however she likes (or at least however the University of Memphis will allow). Were I a prospective law student choosing between Memphis and some other third-tier law school, though, her technological atavism would certainly impact my decision.
My thought is it’s her class. If she wants to emphasize in-class participation that’s up to her. If she wanted to have the class sit in a big circle and do flash card drills, that would be OK too. She’s not shutting the windows and turning off the air conditioning here — she’s adopting a rule that she thinks is pedagogically necessary, and it’s not “clearly erroneous” as far as I can tell.
Two points: First, banning laptops won’t make students take less notes. People who wrote detailed notes on computers will continue to write detailed hand-written notes. Second, the suggestion that students are bothered by computer noise doesn’t pass the laugh test.
I think Professor Solove is exactly right. If the professor is correct and laptops in class hurt the students who use them, then those students will suffer on the exam. If the professor is wrong, then she is hurting those students chances of performing well. Let the students make their own choices and live with them. Banning laptops only indicates that the professor is unsure what the best policy is (if she was confident laptops hurt students, she could merely say so and watch as the top performers took her advice) and wants students to do things only her way. I spend less time taking notes–and more time particpating–in class because I can use my laptop.
I just want to add a few things that haven’t been mentioned yet (and is of course from my perspective as a 1L):
First, most of the learning law students do is not in but out of the classroom. You read in order to understand the class lecture, and take notes during the lecture in order to read them later on in preparation for future classes, your outline, and the final. The classroom compenent is but an intermediate step in the process.
Secondly, I find it highly unlikely that any student would be able to successfully “transcribe” an entire class, unless by some coincidence her entire Civil Procedure II class were former court reporters or knew shorthand. But, by the same token, I would bet no law student has taken notes entirely in his or her own words (and passed) — a certain amount of “transcription” is inevitable.
Personally, I think when law schools require students to buy a laptop (and I’m assuming this one does), its a little disingenious to ban them from the classrooms (which, really, is the core of the law school experience). That being said, I think the reasons behind this prohibition may be more aesthetic than substantive.
The aspect of Prof. Entman’s explanation that I find most puzzling is her description of “signing on to the Internet to play games, check email, and instant message during class” as “dishonest.”
Does anyone have any idea what she even means?
I can understand why she thinks such activities are inconsiderate–though I’m not sure they’re necessarily so, any more than time-honored, low-tech classroom activities such as doodling or reading the textbook. But calling them “dishonest” suggests that they cross the line from poor etiquette to poor ethics–a suggestion that seems a bit histrionic.
(My perspective on this, incidentally, is from the standpoint of a recent law school graduate who only very rarely brought a laptop to class–but who never found the omnipresent laptops of others to be particularly annoying or distracting.)
As a 1L myself, two of my professors don’t allow laptops in their classes (Property and Contracts). I have everything organized on my computer so this is an endless source of frustration for me. My “process” for learning in my other classes involves me outlining from the reading and then editing those outlines in class as the professor clears things up. In those two classes, however, I have to print things out, take notes, then edit my outline later, when the professor’s comments are not longer fresh in my head. It end up wasting a couple of my hours every week.
For me, and I think this is true of a good portion of students, I type much faster than I write. Using a computer actually allows me to pay more attention to the professor, because I’m not racing to get the important bits down on paper.
I know some students sit there and surf through class, and can only imagine how frustrating that is for professors, but as some point, one has to let them shoot themselves in the foot if they are so determined. I find, on the flipside, that having my computer out instead of legal pad prevents me from spacing out and doodling.
…On the other hand, it’s probably worth noting that my best grades first semester were in those two class, so who knows.
Hope this helps,
-Zach
Every class in law school is a practicum, if the students are honestly interested in learning the law. I think this is the professor’s point.
As a 3L who will graduate coif (barring a complete meltdown) from a top 25 school, I’ve got to call the Prof. on this one.
First, the transcription argument is ridiculous, and I doubt anyone who does this makes decent grades. Typing and understanding aren’t mutually exclusive.
Second, typing is not only more efficient, it allows for better organization and more clarity. While the Prof. drags some poor schmuck who didn’t read through Eerie, I can move things around in my notes and delete repetitive or unclear passages. I can read through what we’ve discussed so far, find inconsistencies, and raise my hand to ask a question about things I don’t understand. If I didn’t have a computer, I’d simply have to sit there and listen to the ridiculous colloquies that happen ever day in every law school.
Third, if students are disengaged there’s really only one person to blame – the Prof. There’s a fairly simple solution – CALL ON THE DISENGAGED STUDENT. Embarrassment is a wonderful tool, and if someone is consistently called upon, I seriously doubt they’ll continue to be consistently unprepared.
Fourth, and most important to law students, professors want to hear their own words on the exam. The only two B’s I earned in law school came in my two favorite 1L classes. Why? Because I attempted original (gasp) analysis of the underlying policy behind the legal framework. Profs pay lip service to policy questions in class, but 99% grade on issue spotting, identifying the rule, and applying the rule (as they see it) to the fact pattern. I’ve met with professors about my exams, and I’ve seen the sheet they use to check off the issues the students are supposed to spot. Policy almost never is on the sheet, and if it is, it’s a tiny part of the overall grade. They may say they want original thought, but it is human nature to give points when a key phrase used in class by the Prof. is repeated on the exam. You don’t get those key phrases unless you type.
While it truly would be wonderful if we could all go to Yale and never worry about grades, the cold hard truth is that most law students are in law school to get A’s, get through OCI, and get a job and/or clerkship. Learning to be a lawyer only happens by accident along the way, if at all. Given this truth (which I challenge anyone to seriously dispute), unless the Prof. fundamentally changes the way she grades, removing the computers only hurts diligent students.
I’ve now twice banned laptops in seminars, and I’ll continue to do so in the future. The absence of an exam eliminates Daniel’s concerns about penalizing those for whom taking computer notes is a performance plus. I have no doubt that it makes the class discussion more engaged and focused (I’ve had two students this semester thank me for the policy.) I also understand the concern about laptops as a physical barrier, literally giving students something to hide behind. I have no doubt I’d be surfing and instant messaging if I were a student these days, no matter how interesting the class. Just too tempting.
I don’t know if this is an issue in the current crop of law school laptops. But when I was in law school, 1997-2000, I hated laptops in class with a passion that bordered on the relgious. Why? non-silent keyboards. During one of my classes I had three laptops right behind me, you would geta flurry of “clakity-clack” after ever one of the professors statements, followed by furious “clack-clack” as the laptop users backspaced to correct what they typed. It was distracting. It was irritating. It was grating. And due to the infamous seating chart, I was stuck in keyboard hell. Made me want to stab them in the eye with my pen. And I wasn’t the only one. Several laptops during the course of the class became “accidently” unplugged. That class was not exactly a perfect learning enviroment for either laptop users or the non laptop users.
JamesT:
I can’t say what law school was like in 1997 or 2000, but I do know what it is like in 2006. You would be lucky to find two or three people in any given class who aren’t using a laptop. I have never heard a single person complain about laptop noise in my 2.75 years of law school. Times change.
I think Professor Entman has it all wrong. Rather than hindering a student’s ability to participate, I have found that laptops actually help in stimulating meaningful class discussion. They allow the student to take notes more quickly and therefore focus more of their time on the class discussion or presentation. Moreover, Professor Entman’s reasoning seems somewhat naive. Class discussion and active participation are unquestionably important, yet law schools (and the law profession in general) put an incredibly high value on grades. Although the logic underlying this emphasis can be argued at length, it is simply unrealistic (and perhaps disingenous) to claim that participation is more important than grades.
Pingback: madisonian.net » Laptops in Law School
The amount of distraction that laptops cause in class is reason enough to ban their use or block wifi. In my first year of law school many students had recently acquired a program allowing them to play every Nintendo Entertainment System game in existence, which many of them did (in alphabetical order, btw, so that discussions of consideration are tied in my mind to NES Baseball). I’m sure I could avoid this distraction by sitting in the front row, but I see no reason why I should be the one to accomodate people playing video games. If the class is boring, speak up and make it interesting.
Like the commenter “John” above, I am a 3L and about to graduate with honors. John gets it right: Prof. Entman’s stated reasons for the laptop ban are preposterous. She’s either being disingenuous and her real beef (as many commenters have suggested) is with instant messengers and e-mail checkers, or she is seriously mistaken about the way in which students take notes.
(1) I have never in a single class seen a true “transcriber” — and if there were such students, they wouldn’t do well on the exam anyway. They also won’t be helped by taking away their laptops — they’ll only get hand cramps from scribbling so furiously.
(2) Since the middle of my first semester, I have used my laptop to outline during class. Why bother to take notes during class, then put those notes into outline format later, when I can just go straight to outline format during class? Only a laptop will allow the cutting and pasting and formatting necessary for this. Many of my fellow students use some variation on this technique, and it’s one which requires a high engagement with the material in class because you’re trying to assimilate and organize it completely. If something doesn’t fit, you realize it right there and have an opportunity to ask a question. Taking away my laptop would force me to do MORE transcribing, not less.
(3) John is absolutely correct about regurgitating those “key phrases” on the exam — any top 10% student will tell you this is essential. Professors deny it (because it’s largely an unconscious preference), but those students who write like the professor (in the sense that they repeat word for word the professor’s phrasing of the rules) are more likely to get those check marks. I’m not the smartest person at my law school, but I get top grades because I’m better at figuring out what the professors want and giving it to them. Callous? Certatinly. But then, I didn’t choose to be graded on a curve — I’m just making the best of my situation.
(4) A message for Prof. Entman’s students: If you don’t like the ban, there’s a simple way to get it rescinded. Everyone just go into class and . . . transcribe. Sit there and write constantly during class. You don’t actually have to be transcribing her words; you can doodle, do a crossword puzzle, whatever, so long as you’re constantly writing and not interacting. Don’t ever look up, and certainly never raise your hand. Such a silent protest will (because it makes things more difficult and annoying for her) make her reconsider in a flash.
I think Professor Entman has the right to do whatever she prefers in the classroom – it’s her classroom. But aside from my views, as a law professor myself, I’d like to point out to the students who posted on this blog, Chris (3/26/06) and Mike (3/22/06), that while they may have interesting substantive points to make, their arguments lose ALL credibility when they make juvenile comments and suggestions such as a silent protest, and suggesting that Professor Entman would call the police. While Chris and Mike think they know it all because they are 3L law students, I can honestly say that if they continue this kind of immature behavior, their future as a successful advocate in the courtroom is bleak. For their sake, I’m glad that this blog does not post the students’ last names. I would love to see Chris or Mike argue before a court and pull of the “nah-nah-boo-boo” card with a federal judge.
I begin outlining at the beginning of the semester. As I read new cases, I integrate them into the outline. As class discussion progresses, I constantly reference this outline and make additions to the outline and highlight areas of particular emphasis. Also, in Civil Procedure especially, I use the web during class to reference the actual text of the rules. I might even look up a note case to see how it actually applies. Sometimes the class conversation is not quick enough to hold my interest, and this ability to spring board into deeper depths of the topic keeps me engaged in the subject at hand. At a minimum, this policy would require me to print out my ever-changing outline before each class… a huge waste of paper. In this day and age, lawyers will be called to rely on computers more and more. Computer literacy comes only through use. Limiting the use of computers in the class room only serves to perpetuate computer illiteracy. And for what benefit? To protect the bottom stock who are incapable of paying attention given the temptation of the internet. Do I really want a lawyer who would rather be playing Sudoku on the web than listening to testimony? There are a fair number of distractions in the law office too. Let’s teach law students how to rise above them by giving them every opportunity to make mistakes. As for those who may be distracted by other students use of computers… let them advocate for their own interests; also a fine lawerly skill.
Prof. Entman was my Civil Procedure teacher last year and she was incredible. First and foremost, she wants her students to learn. Some of these posts have questioned her intentions for the laptop ban, but you would understand how ridiculous that was if you knew her. She does not bullsh*t. She is an expert in her field, well-respected among students, academics, attorneys, and judges. The way these students have reacted is disrespectful and senseless. To those who said that the prof. should just give students a choice, should profs also give students a choice about listening to i-pods in class or taking cell phone calls? A law professor runs her classroom and, after teaching as long as Prof. Entman has, the students should be more deferential and respectful.
As Mike already noted, this ban has the effect of outing students with invisible disabilities, which is tres uncool. Not because someone might have to deal with the stigma of a disability (although that is certainly present, if not harder to deal with if you’re accustomed to passing through life without said stigma attached to you), but because many folks with invisible disabilities can function well enough with the assistance of a computer that they don’t need to go through the numerous hoops to register as a student with disabilities with the school. It’s a pain in the ass process to register – you have to go to your doc, have him/her write you out a formal letter of diagnosis, treatment, effects and prognosis, as well as recommendations for accomadations, then take it to the school disability services center. You’re often called in for an interview to make sure you’re not “faking” – something a student with an invisible disability has to deal with too often when they’re outed as different.
And that’s just dealing with administration. Then you get teachers outing you, or asking who the student with the disability is, “since you all look fine, who’s faking?” or announcing to the class that you’re a special case because you have X. Of course, if you’re lucky, you might get a considerate professor who won’t out you, but your classmates will wonder what makes you so different and special, to get around the rules.
If Prof. Entman is truly concerned, as it appears she is, about students screwing around on the internet while she lectures, there’s one very easy thing she can do: stand in the back of the classroom. You’d be amazed at how quickly my students stop playing games when they realize I’m not going to simply stand by a podium for 2hrs.
I am a 2L who uses a laptop for the same reasons repeated by others, and I also find most of Prof. Entman’s objections unpersuasive. I also find it ironic that her main objection seems to be that students should not spend time transcribing. I do not transcribe what my professors say, but if I could not use a laptop in class and wanted to include my analysis in my outline I would be forced to waste time transcribing – not the professors words, but my own notes and analysis.
However, I suspect she is right about one thing. I would participate more if my laptop were not in front of me. That is because much of what I write is analyisis that I want to get down for later transfer to my outline. Quite simply, if I had to write this by hand, I would not have the time to get that many words on the paper. One result would be that I would not attempt to write down in any detail my reaction to the class discussion. I tend to avoid participating in the discussion because I cannot both share and record my insights simultaneously. I might be more willing to participate in the discussion if I knew I could not get those insights written down anyway. Of course, this would also mean that I would have worse notes and have a harder time preparing for the exam. I think Prof. Entman should acknowledge that even if she succeeds in improving class discussion, she may do so at the expense of her students. Because I think the lack of laptops is a greater harm to the learning process (in addition to the process of exam preparation) for most students than good discussion is a benefit, I would discourage others from banning laptops even if it appears to improve the quality of class discussion.
Pingback: Academia as an Extreme Sport » A Link Clean-up - Luddites in the Classroom!
Pingback: OrinKerr.com » More on Banning Laptops, Blocking Wireless Access