Georgetown Law Prof Blasts Laptops in the Classroom as Bad for Learning

Must just be a different mentality of the students... The courses I've been through normally don't go over 20 students, and whether you bring notebooks or not there are usually computers/electronics being used in every classroom. I'm 9 classes from graduating with this current degree and I've never once had a problem or heard of anyone else that did.

I know I personally tend to sit on wikipedia through classes and lookup things that sort of jump out as key terms. Like I said a few posts ago though, most of the people in my college have some real working knowledge of the topics, maybe even related degree's or certificates / certifications and we are just there to get the paper that says we know what we claim we know

 

As per my previous posts, I am reading Law and posting in this thread from this perspective, as I imagine the professor in said thread title, where I imagine electronics are not standard

See my previous post about a student who is expected to use CAD vs a student expected to read textbooks

 

Even if I were studying law, I'd rather have a notebook since e-books and digital reference materials are far easier to carry around with me rather then a heavy back full of books. Not sure about law students, but my books tend to be several inches thick, and most of my courses have more then 1 book in them.

I've taken criminology, and fraud detection, and computer security courses (the kind that are more on the legal side then the computer side), as I said before, I like being able to find things online at places like wikipedia when the material in the course and needing more detail for my understanding. By using wikipedia or some other source I'm not distracting the lecturer, and sometimes my questions go beyond the scope of the course and don't need to be said out loud in light of confusing those around me.

As for things like general studies, I've taken all of mine online, because notebook or not I'd probably be staring into space with boredom. The imperfections in the sheet rock, or those office ceiling tiles with billions of crevices.. or pretty much anything would act as a distraction.

The people attending the school's I'm used to are there because they are trying to get promotions, or keep their jobs, or change their careers. They are normally hard working full-time as both students and employee's and don't want to mess around. Normally their employers are also paying for them to take the courses as long as they get B's.

Like I said before, it's got to be a mentality of the student, plus a bit of self discipline. Up till people at my school are taking senior project it isn't out of the ordinary to be taking 18+ credits a term while working at-least part time.

I'm not trying to get into some heated debate over this... I'm just stating things from my side of the world's view As I said a few posts up, I still don't honestly believe a lot of people in college are meant for college when they go straight from high-school, perhaps in a few years though. Just as people are different for that situation, I think some people are meant for computers in the class, and others aren't.

If you really want to get picky, how's this? Let's ban students from bringing anything to the classroom. Whats with those nerds that work and/or read ahead while the lecture is happening? Thats an unfair distraction to those around them because they want to know what they are missing. It's also a disadvantage for the student's that can't work ahead because they need more time to learn the material, as well as now having pressure to perform better and maybe some guilt that they aren't as smart as the rest of the students.

BUT WAIT! now that we banned students from bringing materials, we are holding back the smart people in the classroom, causing them to stare off into space and eventually get labeled "ADD or AD-HD". On-top of that, we are charging those students to be here to learn much slower then they are capable of, so now they lose interest in coming to class. Perhaps we are also burning them on the idea of education all together.

Hmm.. guess this means there is no perfect answer..

 

I'll admit that one of the following is always running in the background while in class:
PhotoShop
NBR TRT
MSN
but that doesn't mean that I'm not paying attention, on the contrary, I'm paying extra attention, because while I'm using one of the previously stated as entertainment, I'm keepingmy ears tuned in listening for key terms and valuble info. And I always make sure to type everything on the lecture slide before I go back to the fun stuff.
not to mention, there are some days that, there is so much info to get down that I don't have time for extra entertainment.
I do agree that use of laptop use is flawed in that it can be distracting some students from learing, but it's not that way for all and it's only a distraction if one makes it to be.
So I say down with oldschool notebooks and pencils and bring in the new age of modern technology.

 

Several things. First of all he's an American law professor at an American law school. Every American Bar Association accredited school in the country has deals with at least the two big online research companies- Westlaw and Lexisnexis. Both of these have full boolean search engines that access the full text of every reported case in this country and it's territories, as well as many overseas cases. They also search a variety of secondary sources- treatises, law review articles, ALR's, etc.

In addition to their research tools they both have a set of tools for professors to distribute materials to their class, forums for discussion of issues for each registered class, online lessons in common topics, and a whole host of other features.

Within a decade or so the paper books are probably going to disappear from most American law offices just because it's cheaper and more efficient to use West or Lexis.

Okay, background over. I'm a law student and I take my laptop to class to take notes. I know a lot of people who do exactly what he says, sit there and transcribe the lecture mutely without attempting to comprehend it or synthesize it. And yes, if they had to hand write it the sheer pain would probably make them do some of that.

My question is this- why are we blaming the tool its poor use by its owners? I don't do that, I use my laptop to take more complete and legible notes and I remain involved in class. I know lots of people who do the same. In addition to being faster and more legible it is also much easier to compare and share notes in study groups and put together class outlines at the end of the term.

It also sounds like the prof is whining because his students aren't playing his power game now that they have laptops and the internet. Lots of older law school profs get their jollies from what is known as the socratic method. Basically the prof teaches the entire class by asking questions of the people in it, asking them to explain case law, and do other things.

In theory this give the students practice speaking in public and thinking on their feet. In practice many profs use this to publicly humiliate their students and prove their own intellectual superiority. Not only that but many profs are just absolutely terrible at it. The questions they ask and the answers they expect are obvious to someone who has been teaching the material for 30 years, but not to someone encountering the rule against perpetuities for the first time.

That leads to my last point- many profs use the socratic method as a shield against admitting that they can't actually lecture or teach to save their lives. I've heard more rambling and incoherent lectures in a year and a half of law school than in four years of undergrad, and I was a history major- with the full complement of senile old Ph.D's that implies.

I'm not saying the prof should try to be as interesting as the internet, but if you honestly gain nothing from the class, which is entirely possible, and are better off teaching yourself then the internet is a godsend.

Finally- even if he was right- so what? These are grad students who have all completed at least one four year undergraduate degree. They're big kids who can make their own decisions, and if they haven't figured out how they learn best by now then they don't need to be in law school and they certainly shouldn't become lawyers.

 

Westlaw and LexisNexis does not contain the substantive law. It only contains cases, journal articles and law reports. Unless there is a US version that is different But the day books are published online and the likes of the E-Reader are mainstream, I agree paper books will be redundant. But certainly Law textbooks are here to stay for the time being

 

West and Nexis do contain the substantive law. We don't have day books here. The cases are published in regional reporters and state reporters and sent out in updates and pocket parts. The cases themselves are substantive law and are binding for the issues they concern. West and Lexis also have all the state and federal statutes online, in their respective annotated versions.

The textbooks won't become irrelevant, but the published reporters and statute books are on their way out.

 

I agree with this professor; however, in my school situation there is no wifi in range, and I actually want to learn what the teacher is saying, so I only use my laptop for notes. Well, actually my friend and I are usually ad-hoc while at school, so we do send a few messages back and forth, but so far I haven't been hindered in my learning by it. =^)
In a college situation, though, I think wifi off during class would be the only way to go, unless in special circumstances. (i.e. e-mailing for help as a terrorist held the class hostage?????)

 

I can't speak to the general undergrad situation, but I'm in Law School right now. WiFi has some extremely valuable classroom uses, as most professors use TWEN (The West Educational Network) to put up handouts, slides, and basically all their communications with their class. I've been in class numerous times and been told to pull something up on the web.

In addition to that, my school has mandatory attendance. Many of my professors are excellent and make good use of class time. Some of them do not. WiFi and my laptop keep me sane when they aren't. Before you throw stones at me for basically slacking off, let me say that I get good grades, and if you haven't suffered through a 3 hour long incoherent lecture on the rules of professional responsibility as taught by a senile idiot who should have retired when I was in grade school you haven't truly known boredom.

When profs are coherent, intelligible, and present the material at a reasonable pace I pay attention and take good notes. When they are incoherent, unintelligible, or feel the need to state the same basic point 5 times, then tell 4 long stories about how they ran into this point in practice back in the stone age- I post on here.

P.S.- talk about reviving an old thread, I think there was a new article on this in the latest ABA bar journal, I'll track down the link and add it tomorrow.