Banning laptops from lectures

March 15, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Could you survive law school without using your laptop in class? There’s a push by some professors to ban laptops from class because they are distracting students from learning. Students check e-mail, update their Facebook status, or surf the Web when they should be taking notes or paying attention to the professor. Basically, laptops are 21st century versions of doodling in your notebook.

I don’t know when laptops became the norm in college at the undergrad or graduate levels. I rarely saw someone with a laptop in class when I was getting my bachelor’s degree, but I suspect laptops caught on in graduate studies faster. And even if a student did have one when I was in school, the student couldn’t have checked Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace because those Web sites didn’t exist.

But now it seems as though all students are encouraged to have laptops to take to college, and they are essentially required for law students. I found an article from 2001 on the American Bar Association’s Web site with interviews from law students about “secret technology weapons” for surviving law school. Most listed the laptop. (Does anyone else’s mind wander to the scene in “Legally Blond” when Elle Woods shows up to her first law school class to discover she’s the only one without a laptop, or is that just me?)

According to Al’s Morning Meeting, an e-mail I receive from the Poynter Institute, when a Georgetown law professor banned laptops for six weeks, 80 percent of students reported they were more engaged in class discussion. Almost all admitted they had used their laptops for more than just taking notes.

If I’d had a laptop when I was in college, it would have been great. I can type much more quickly than I write, the notes would have been legible, and I could have organized them more easily. There’s also a good chance that if the lecture wasn’t keeping my attention, I would have surfed the Web.

Anyone have a professor ban laptops in a law class? Did the ban make your attention in class better or worse?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT