To Everything there is a Season

Obviously it has been a while since I have posted on this blog. Why is that? I suppose it is because I have accomplished much of what I wanted to with Law Career Blog as a solo blog. I felt I had important things to say on teaching and classroom etiquette; on law career decisions; on law firm practice; on mentoring, and more. And I have said many of them, so there you have it.

I am very pleased, though, that my posts continue to draw strong traffic month after month, year after year. What I have said here remains relevant, I think--but that does not mean I need to always rehash the same ground, all in the name of having new posts just for the sake of it.

So for now, my existing posts stand for what they are, and I am proud of them. Call me the Antiblogger, I suppose: I am blogging by not blogging.

In any event, the following is a list of posts that have generated the most interest from readers, some posts on subjects I think are particularly important, and some that are just fun. Enjoy!

Posts on Law School in General:

In a series of posts, I argued that if we want law schools to truly provide the academic and practical education that students (and employers) expect and demand, we should consider adding a fourth year to the law school curriculum. Not surprisingly, my proposal was universally condemned. Check out the comments.

See Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? and Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?

I think that too often, law students don't step back and think about law school and their future careers in a broader perspective. That's understandable given the workload in law school, but it's still unfortunate. My friend and colleague Gene Theroux visited Mississippi College School of Law once to speak to students about his storied career--he opened the first western law firm offices in China and the Soviet Union--and he had wonderful advice for them. Ostensibly the talk was about globalization, but the heart of his message was to follow your heart and practice law the right way and for the right reasons. Sometimes we need to put our cynicism aside and hear things like what he said that day.

See Theroux Part Deux

Posts on LL.M. Degrees:

This trilogy of posts is perhaps the most popular series of posts on this blog--which proves that good things really do come in threes. Lots of discussion in the comments. See The Pros and Cons of LL.M.s, LL.M. Redux and LL.M.s Part 3.

Posts on Law School Exams, Teaching, and Class Strategies

Bainbridge v. Bowman. I wrote a law review article entitled The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty: Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools--a piece I am quite proud of. In it, I use traditional neoclassical trade theory to analyze the advantages of junior and senior law faculty and make some recommendations regarding law school teaching. Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA saw it, and he absolutely hated it. This posts includes our dialogue.

How to Improve your Law School Exams Grades. This wasn't a terribly controversial post--or so I thought until I received scathing comments two years after I posted it. Some fun back and forth on that one. Maybe I should've retitled the post Bowman v. Someone Very Angry.

Law School Orientation Advice. Pretty self-explanatory. My own favorite piece of advice: Don't spill a plate of food on your law school dean at the welcome reception. I actually did that--but lucky for me, I still graduated.

Computer-Free Week and Computer-Free Week, Part 2. There is a good deal of concern in the legal academy about computer use in the classroom. Is it beneficial? Is it harmful or disruptive? So one time I asked students not to use computers for one week to see what would happen. The results were pretty interesting, and as a teacher I found the feedback via the comments very useful. Perhaps the most interesting result was that student comments revealed just how prevalent the consumer mentality is among students--namely, I paid my tuition, so I can do what I want in class.

The Dilbertic Method. I definitely like this post about parallels between Dilbert's boss and the Socratic method. If you want to see the Dilbert cartoon I am talking about, you have to click the link in the article and then enter in the cartoon's run date on the Dilbert site.

Posts on Law Firms:

Much of the attraction to, and frustration with, big law firms has to do with the money they pay their associates. So I wrote some pieces on that subject--something I have firsthand knowledge about.

See Of Law Firm Culture and Compensation Schemes, The Problem of Law Firm Salary Distributions, and Big Firm Economics 101.

In another post, I wrote about associate pay and stress levels. In light of the recent savage downturn in the employment market, this post is perhaps more relevant than ever. See Why Associates Have More Stress than Partners.

On Interview and Job Strategies and Techniques

Job Interview Do's and Don't's. The name of the post says it all.

What NOT to do as a Summer Associate. You'd be surprised what some people do. Don't be one of them.

Posts on Movies:

Finally, I have had some fun with movies on this blog, and for some reason they were always movies starring George Clooney. First, I blogged about Syriana--see Syriana Misrepresents International Lawyers.

Then I wrote a whole slew of posts on Michael Clayton--a movie that had a lot to say about what it is (and is not) like to be a lawyer. I was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune about the Michael Clayton series of posts. See the following (not too originally entitled) posts:

Clooney v. Clayton, which is my review of the movie

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 2, about hyperbole in legal dramas

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 3, on whether there is such a thing as a law firm "fixer"

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 4, on the perverse incentive/reward structure of law practice

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 5, on how law practice affects your family life

Clooney v. Clayton, Part 6, regarding legal ethics

Clooney v. Clayton--Again, regarding my Chicago Tribune Interview

* * * *

So for now, that is where things stand. I hope you enjoy reading these posts as much as I enjoyed writing them.

Greg

Second (Life) Opinions Revisited

In November, I posted about UK law firm Simpson Millar, which has set up shop in the online gaming world "Second Life." I just received an interesting comment on that post--and since some time has passed since then, and since it's an interesting issue, I thought it was worth pointing out again. You can link to my earlier post here.

The subtext of all this is that Simpson Millar is working multiple PR angles in creative ways. Second Life, yes, but also podcasts and blogs. SM is not the only law firm doing that, of course--but that perhaps makes the point an even stronger one. With more and more ways to raise your firm's profile and attract and serve clients, modern law firm practice is a brave new (virtual) world.

Trudeau v. Socrates

A few moments ago an anonymous commenter posted the following comment on my previous post entitled Second (Life) Opinions, in which I talked about both laptop bans in class and the impact of the game Second Life on the practice of law:

"Maybe Trudeau will give you permission to post today's Sunday Doonesbury on your site ... laptops vs. the Socratic Method ..."

I hadn't seen the strip (don't get it in my local paper; don't read it online), so thanks to Ms. or Mr. Anonymous for the reference. The strip is really funny. The Doonesbury strip in question (11/11/2007) can be found here (click the archives link).

Second (Life) Opinions

I'm in the midst of a series of posts on the movie Michael Clayton (here and here), but two news items from the ABA Journal warrant a detour.

Item #1: Professor Kibosh and the Evil Laptop. First, on the ever-popular (or not) subject of laptop bans in classrooms, there is an article in the ABA Journal concerning the increasing popularity of laptop bans in law school classrooms. I've blogged about the subject numerous times; look for my posts labeled by the "computer" category. And of course every time I suggest that a ban might be justified in some circumstances, I get angry reader comments.

I am undecided on the subject, and my current position on the matter is that if I can't decide whether a ban is desirable or not, then I should just leave matters be. Perhaps I should let students vote on the matter? I don't know. But this article points out yet more perils of laptop use: IM harassment in class and obscene videos.

Virtual Law Practice. This article really, really interests me. Apparently at least one law firm is setting up shop in the online 3D gaming world of "Second Life." As Craig Jones of the UK's Simpson Millar explains, "Many of our clients have injuries which can make it difficult for them to meet us at our offices. Others are too busy. Second Life is a way of 'seeing' your legal representative and receiving advice without coming to our office."

So in other words, this is real legal advice, provided in avatar-to-avatar format. How very fascinating, and it raises interesting questions. In a very large sense, this is no different, substantively, from communicating with clients by e-mail or phone. But what if avatars can one day be programmed to provide advice independently (provided, of course, that a fee is paid)? Is that different somehow than having general legal memos available for download for a fee? Is it different from the practice of having canned legal advice that is modified, around the edges, for a client, and then charging the client for it? Could a law firm establish a subsidiary company to provide general "legal" (and perhaps strategic) player advice pertaining solely within the Second Life world? Law firms set up subsidiaries quite often to provide business and personal services-related advice, so why not in this context?

Also, what if a law school set up shop in Second Life? Is this a viable means for long distance (or e-commuting) education? Would this run into trouble with the ABA? Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and Judge Richard Posner have in fact made appearances on Second Life, so the intersection of legal academia and the online world is not farfetched by any means. I don't play Second Life right now (but boy, it intrigues me), so for all I know there is already a law school in the game.

And perhaps most interestingly, what if an avatar-professor decided to prohibit her avatar-students from using simulated laptops in her Second Life classroom?

Makes my (non-simulated) brain hurt.


**Photo credit: Steve Garfield**

Computer-Free Week, Part 2

I have received some very interesting comments in response to my recent Computer-Free Week post. (Look for them at the end of that post.) The general gist of most of the comments is that some people find it disconcerting not to be able to take notes by computer in class. Some are not used to writing by hand in class and feel lost without their computers. So they think computer bans generally are a bad idea.

I sympathize with that view. A lot, actually—notwithstanding that I am the one who did not allow computers in class last week. Which is why this week in my class we will start with a recap of last week’s materials.

I also have sympathy for (and agree with, in many ways) the libertarian view of computers in the classroom—that what a student wants to do is largely the student’s decision, and if the decision hurts that student’s performance and/or grade, then that is that student’s problem. Yet I do not agree when such libertarianism interferes with other students’ learning by distracting them, or by reducing the quality of classroom discussion (which is part of the educational process). And I believe both sorts of interference occur regularly.

But let's sidestep that issue for a moment and just talk about computer use that does not interfere with others’ learning. In other words, let's assume, for sake of argument, that computer use only hurts (or helps) those who engage in it, without harming others in the class. What then?

One of the commenters to my previous post made the very astute observation that professors sometimes have an “I must save them from themselves” attitude toward their students, especially in 1L classes. This is often characterized as misguided paternalism, and things like computer bans and other rules are derided as autocratic. I concede that this may well be the case, but I also think that sometimes such guidance, paternalistic though it may be, is justified and even desirable.

Think of it this way: the professors are there to teach, and even the most junior professors have more practical and academic experience in the law than their students. Maybe, just maybe, some of the paternalism is warranted. Maybe sometimes students do need to be "saved from themselves," as negative as the connotation of that phrase may be. And if I have a choice between erring on the side of being too blunt (or even paternalistic) in the classroom versus not making a very important point, I'll choose the former error over the latter.

That same commenter also made the following very interesting statement that is worth discussing further:

“If I am made to come to class by the ABA (and subsequently the school) and choose to spend my time unproductively, my $2300 per class buys me that right. If I don't want to participate or think "fantasy" football statistics are more interesting, the only person hurt in the long run is me. And that is what most would call an adult decision.”

Hmm. On the one hand, I do understand and to an extent sympathize with this statement. And let me very clearly state (at the risk of sounding paternalistic, I suppose) that I very much appreciate both the substantive nature and professional tone of that comment. Seriously--read the whole comment at the end of my previous post. This blog is, after all, a dialogue, and I appreciate well-drafted and well thought-through input. I learn from it. But on the other hand I disagree with this statement fairly strongly, and from a number of angles. Here's why.

Neither the ABA nor your law school makes you come to law school. Yes, there are ground rules if you choose to attend a law school and be a lawyer, and class attendance is generally one of them. But law school is not junior high; you are not legally obligated to be there.

Law school is not a consumer product. There is a “consumerist” mentality common amongst current higher education students, and it is troubling to many in the teaching profession. Having said that, many in higher education also take this view--and schools certainly compete for students--but that is problematic too (and a good subject for a future post).

According to the consumerist student view, colleges and universities are largely institutions of credentialization, not of learning. I think many students subconsciously buy into this presumption without thinking too much about it, because in a way it is very attractive. A consumerist student naturally seeks to do the minimum necessary to obtain the degree. While I think efficiency is valuable—and I think the workload in law school helps teach efficiency to an extent—if a student is only (or primarily) looking for a degree, that serves to disengage the student from the educational process. A student might say, Well, I will come to class because I am required to, but I am not going to pay much attention if it does not engage me more than the Internet. But of course, the Internet is always going to be more interesting than, say, subject matter jurisdiction, or expectancy interest, or proximate cause.

The result is less attention paid, and less learned, and a lesser lawyer on the outflow end of the educational pipe. On the one hand, what was not deeply learned may have no negative impact. On the other hand, you never know when knowledge will come in handy. I was constantly amazed in practice by how arcane points from class ended up being a relevant way to make myself stand out from the pack—be it in researching an issue, writing a memo, or talking with clients at a cocktail party. Arcane knowledge can be a great conversation piece; you never know what people are going to be interested in.

Law school is not primarily entertainment. This is closely related to the previous point. Material that is technical, and sometimes boring—like economics, or accounting, or contract law—does not compete well with other distractions, as I already have said. The appropriate standard for deciding whether to pay attention in class is not necessarily whether the material is more interesting than your e-mail account, fantasy football, online shopping, or a crossword puzzle. I am not saying that teachers have a license to be boring; indeed, they have an obligation to teaching engagingly. I am also not suggesting that teachers should ban computers because the class material is hard. What I am saying is that “Class v. Internet” is a comparison of apples to oranges. And while it may seem objective on the surface, the result is preordained.

Your tuition buys you the right to do whatever you want in class, at least as long as you don’t distract others. I have a strong libertarian bent, and generally speaking I agree that if someone chooses not to pay attention in my class that is less of a concern than if she or he is distracting others. But the proper characterization is that this student has the power to do what she or he wants, not the right. Your qualifications and tuition dollars buy you the privilege of attending law school to obtain an education and a degree—which is a very different thing than buying the right to come to class and discretely do whatever you like.

Plus, in my class the syllabus expressly prohibits non-class use of computers in class. So it's part of the contract you have agreed to, if you will. So in that sense too, it's a power, not a right.

I will end with two observations. First, current educational research suggests that there is a difference between multitaskers in class (with computers) and those without computers. Repetitive tasks and memorization can be accomplished well when multitasking. But deep cognitive thinking appears to be hampered by computerized multitasking. A student surfing the web during class may simultaneously win the online fantasy football league and memorize the basics of restitution in contract law, but that student is less likely to see and grasp the subtle connections between, say, expectation damages, specific performance, and service contracts. Not that this alone justifies a computer ban in class. But it does suggest that the libertarian computer user in class is taking a greater risk than might be supposed.

Second, my week-long computer holiday in class was an experiment that I think was useful on several levels, notwithstanding that it probably cost me some popularity or goodwill points with some students. For any readers in my class—any readers anywhere, for that matter—bear in mind that teaching is a creative process. (And not a popularity contest.) If there is no experimentation, teaching is stagnant and does not grow or improve. There will be people who think the ban was helpful, some who think the ban was not, and others who are indifferent. That’s fine, and in fact good—there should be dialogue on these subjects, because there is no easy or absolute answer. But there are multiple viewpoints to be considered and weighed.

Just like in my classes. And just like on this blog, as the comments to my posts so helpfully show.

Computer-Free Week

Yesterday I promised I would post about my "Computer-Free Week" experiment in my 1L Contracts class. The week is not over, so perhaps I am a bit premature in posting on this subject--but on the other hand I am not reporting final results, only first impressions and links to other information on the subject.

Links to Other Information

The Association of American Law Schools' (AALS) Section on Teaching Methods is sponsoring a discussion panel at the AALS Annual Meeting in January 2008 entitled "Laptops in the Classroom: Attractions or Distractions?". Which, of course, ties in directly to my Contracts laptop holiday. I will be at the conference and plan on attending that session.

Other, current discussion of the issue is available online. Here are a few good sources. Thanks to Professor James B. Levy of the Nova Southeastern University's Shepard Broad Law Center for bringing these to my attention.

1. An interview in October 2007 on National Public Radio with Professor Daniel T. Coyne of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, in which Professor Coyne argues in favor of laptop bans.

You would think this sort of position would make him highly unpopular with students--but in 2007 he was named "Faculty Member of the Year" by the Chicago-Kent Student Bar Association.

2. An April 2007 Washington Post op ed by Professor David D. Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center, entitled "Laptops vs. Learning" (great title).

Very interestingly, Cole banned laptops in his 1L class, and then took an anonymous survey of his students to get their views on the ban. 80% said they were more engaged in a no-laptop class, and 70% said they supported the ban. That's very interesting--and it makes me wonder what the results of such a survey might be in my class if I were to implement a long-term ban. I strong recommend his piece; he lays out very well the primary criticisms of computer bans and why he largely rejects these criticisms. These criticisms are, in fact, the very types of arguments that have been made in comments to my previous blog posts on this subject, which are as follows:

Computers in Class
Computer Bans
More on Computer Bans
Multitasking in the Classroom
Multicommenting on Multitasking
Computer Bans Hitting the Mainstream?

3. A similar interview by Professor Cole on NPR in April 2007, in which he basically takes the same line.

This interview goes into greater detail on this same subject. There are also comments from callers that are interesting. One particularly relevant point Cole makes (concedes?) in response to one caller is that not all classes are alike. Cole is largely concerned with how computers might impair classroom discussion--but in a lecture class, that's not an issue. So in some classes, computers might not be liabilities. And I suppose that computers might actually be beneficial in some classes, depending on what the class is and how it is structured (say, a seminar on "Technology and the Law").

My Impressions Regarding My Computer-Free Week

It's too early to tell, really. One class does not a trend make. But class was awfully quiet earlier this week. Perhaps exhaustion and burnout are starting to set in. Perhaps it's because the class material is getting harder (which it is). Perhaps a laptop ban would make no difference. I do not know. What does seem clear is that a longer experiment than one week would be needed to get a feel for a ban's impact. And frankly, in the first semester of law school, and with a generation of computer-wired students, I'm reluctant to ban computers for the sake of an experiment.

Of course, if people are using their computers for non-class activities and distracting other students, that is another story entirely . . . .

Computer Bans Hitting the Mainstream?

I was gratified recently to see an article about laptop bans in college classrooms hit the mainstream--which in this case means my computer's MSN homepage. The article, Laptops: A College Essential, But for Class?, can be linked to here.

Regular readers of this blog know that computer (mis)use in class is a subject of strong interest for me. Recent posts on this topic include the following:

Multicommenting on Multitasking
Multitasking in the Classroom
More on Computer Bans
Computer Bans
Computers in Class

These posts (which are in reverse chronological order) pretty much lay out my thinking on the subject to date.

Why do I find this subject so intriguing? I've been accused of being more concerned with preventing people from "computer doodling" than with being interesting and engaging in front of the class--a cheap shot to be sure, but this is the Internet after all, the domain of the anonymous jab. No, what really draws me to the subject is the fact that I am of two minds about computer use in class. Namely:

Computers are good in class, because they can be used to make class more engaging. In that sense they are at worst a fancy chalkboard for professors, and at best an interactive learning tool.

• When computers work this way, they can really liven up class. Students can do instant research and contribute to the discussion.

Computers are bad in class, because of the many siren songs they sing (like Internet access, e-mail, IM, movies on DVD, games, etc.).

• I often take my laptop to faculty meetings, and I hear these songs myself (but heroically resist them).
• I have actually received e-mails from students that they sent while sitting in class. Which sort of boggles my mind--especially since they told me that in their e-mails! On the one hand, at least they weren't sitting in my class at the time--but since my goal is not to interfere with my colleagues' lectures, that doesn't make me feel much better.

Computers are good in class, because some people take notes better with computers than by hand.

Computers are bad in class, because people do more transcribing of lectures and less listening and engaging in class discussion. I teach at a law school, not a stenography school.

Computers are good in class, because students can IM each other to keep up with the lecture and help each other out when called on.

Computers are bad in class for the same reason.

Computers are bad in class, because when people misuse them, say to watch a movie or surf the web, it is distracting to other students. It is one thing for a student to be distracted by choice, but entirely another for that student to distract others against their will.

What's interesting to me about the MSN piece is that it demonstrates that the subject has gained enough traction to be considered a mainstream issue. Which makes me feel good, since I think about it a lot.

All in all, I have decided to let things lie this year, or at least this fall, given that my views on the matter are in conflict. So computers are allowed in my classes, and many people are using them (hopefully for class purposes). But I do plan to declare "computer free" days and see how that affects class. Whatever happens, it is almost certain that I will be blogging on this subject again sometime soon.

Multicommenting on Multitasking

This is not the most substantive post I have ever written, but for readers who did not read the comments on my last post, Multitasking in the Classroom, please check them out. That post was yet another one on the use and misuse of computers in the classroom. I recommend the comments for your reading pleasure.

I particularly liked these reader comments because they are opinionated, well-presented and argued, and civil. In another recent post, I lamented the prevalence of incivility in the blogosphere. I hold these comments out as excellent examples of civil debate--namely, how being professional and polite does not mean being nonsubstantive.

Multitasking in the Classroom

There's an interesting article by law professor Catherine Ross Dunham in the Spring 2007 issue of The Law Teacher regarding the use of computers in law school classrooms. (Sadly, the article is not yet available on TLT's website, but check back later at the above link; it will be posted at some point.) I have blogged several times about the use (or banning) of computers in the classroom. Those previous posts can be linked to here, here, and here. I encourage you to glance at those posts for a little background on the subject if you are interested--and be sure to read the comments. It's a topic of no small discussion and debate within the legal academy.

In any event, Professor Dunham's article can be summarized as follows:

ONE: She confesses to having surfed the web in law school classes.

TWO: She went back to law school for an LLM last year (she received her JD a few years prior to that), and in her LLM classes she observed most students multitasking with computers in class--instant messaging, surfing the web, paying bills, gambling online--while also paying attention in class. In her opinion, it did not hurt their concentration, grades, or learning. She also claims it did not hurt the quality of class discussion.

THREE: She concludes that there is a generation gap between most professors, including relatively young ones, and their students.

FOUR: She thinks that "much of a law faculty's apprehension about laptops in the classroom relates to us, not [the students]."

Let me respond to these points in reverse order. As to point #4, I fully agree--much of it is about faculty perceptions, and in some cases it is also about faculty insecurities. And yet, that does not mean it is all about faculty perceptions or insecurities. A previous commenter suggested that I run an experiment in class, in which on some days I ban computer use and see what happens. That's something I am likely to do at some point--especially if a class seems filled with zombies, not law students.

Regarding point #3, ouch. She is right. I graduated from law school in 1994, and only one student in my 1L section (100 students) used a computer in class. I didn't have a computer with Windows until after I graduated from law school. And I neither own an iPod nor have plans to get one, which officially qualifies me as a neo-fogey. But again, her point goes to striving to understand our students. That may mean allowing computers in class. But then again, it may not. Which is a good segue into . . .

Point #2: I am sure modern students are better multitaskers than many professors, including those of a certain age like me (30s and 40s). Having said that, I multitasked quite well in law practice--you have to--but on the weekends I could get a "full day" of work done (what would take me a full weekday, including interruptions) in about 5 hours (that is, without interruptions). Not much multitasking efficiency in that.

And while I am at it, I do have to observe that just because students can do something does not mean they should be encouraged or permitted to do so. Little kids want to eat dessert for each meal, yet should we let them? They are better off, we generally think, being made to eat broccoli sometimes, even though they may want chicken nuggets and fries for any and all meals. In like fashion, would law students be better off in the long run (that is, be better lawyers) if we were to force them sometimes to "uni-task" in class on just a single matter--just as they are supposed to in client interviews, in court, and in depositions? They already know how to multitask, but I wonder if some of them know how not to.

And finally, as for point #1, I know the temptation is strong to surf or do other stuff in class. I sometimes take my computer to faculty meetings, so that I have have access to relevant files on my laptop during the meeting--and believe me, the temptation to work on other matters and check the news online is quite strong sometimes during those meetings. But I don't. It's disrespectful to my colleagues, and ultimately does not further the purpose of the meetings. The same can be said for non-class use of computers in the classroom.

My intuition tells me that my classes would run better--better interaction, better student concentration, fewer distractions to other students--if I were to ban computers. And yet Dunham has very good points. And at the end of the day, is such paternalism worth the effort? I don't have my mind made up on this one. The tension between anti-paternalism and concern over classroom dynamics is quite strong in my mind. But if I do make up my mind, I'll certainly post about it on this blog.

More on Computer Bans

In one of my recent posts, Computer Bans, I discussed whether computers should be banned from law school classes. It's a topic that has interested me partly because of the strong feelings it brings out in people, partly because computers are in some sense a distraction in class (like it or not), and partly because computers have revolutionized learning and the classroom in phenomenally positive ways. So it's not an easy topic--lots of pluses and negatives cutting against one another. And it's an important topic, too, since it pertains to learning.

I received a very good anonymous comment in response to that post. The first part of the comment was as follows:

I find that using a computer is beneficial only because it is what I am more comfortable with. Banning laptops in a classroom, to me, would be like telling a right-handed student they could only write with their left hand. Though there may not be a significant difference between those who type and those who write by hand, I foresee a significant difference between those who originally wrote by hand and those who used to type, but due to a ban, now write by hand.

That's an excellent point. Is banning laptops like making righties write with their left hand? Are some people so dependent on taking notes by computer that banning computers truly impairs their ability to take notes? In many cases, I suspect not--which means that in many cases, I suspect the analogy does not hold all that well. On the other hand (ha!), I suspect the analogy may be a very good one for some students.

Perhaps the point is that while I might suspect this or that, it's hard to actually know. So let's assume for a moment that the left hand-write hand analogy does hold in some cases. Is the question then one of cost-benefit analysis? For example, if the diffuse benefit of improving classroom dynamics (which benefits the whole class) is great, does it outweigh the specific disadvantage imposed on a few in the class? Or do we want to take the position that even if you could measure this diffuse benefit versus concentrated harm, such concentrated harm is not justified?

I sound like an economist, I know. My point is that these things are hard to measure, and even if we could measure them, harming a few people a lot through a computer ban might just be unacceptable from a policy perspective. So maybe things should be left as they are.

In other words, the left hand-right hand argument is a compelling one, so thanks to this commentator for sharing it. It's a good example of powerful advocacy. And if the commentator had stopped right there, I might have simply conceded the point. But then comes the really fun part of the comment:

I do not understand why a professor would want to handicap students. Does a game of solitaire bruise your ego that badly? It seems that a student who engages in laptop activities that are not class related would perform poorly and the problem should correct itself. If not, then what is the problem? It may be the devilish sense of schadenfreude that law school has instilled, but please support the laptop revolution.

Hmm. Here, the comment misses the point. The point is not my (not so tender) ego. At least in my classes, a computer ban would not be about ME. It would be about the students, believe it or not. (And if you don't believe it, that won't bruise my ego.) Here's what I mean.

ONE: As a lawyer, you have to learn to pay attention, and sometimes even take notes on a legal pad (gasp!). Lawyers are professionals, and paying attention is a professional skill. So is asking students to do it in class such a bad idea? Yes, we all multitask, but are you really going to answer your phone, send an e-mail, shop online AND interview a client at the same time? No, you are going to just interview the client, and not always using a computer. So a computer ban might help model that behavior in law school--since the students are there to become lawyers. And with all the current criticism of how law schools are not practical (including comments on this blog), this would be a very practical approach to training people to focus, which is essential in law practice.

I concede that a ban for this reason would be paternalistic. But that alone does not mean it could not be beneficial.

TWO: Shopping during class, or watching movies during class, or IM'ing during class--doing anything non-class related during class--can be very distracting TO OTHER STUDENTS. I have had students (this academic year, mind you) tell me how distracting it is when people with computers do this in class. A computer ban would help those people.

THREE: I am not sure how well I am going to articulate this point, but here goes. If a teacher asks people in a class to not do something, and then people do it anyway, and the teacher then takes action to prohibit that behavor, why is the teacher the problem? Let me requote the comment: "I do not understand why a professor would want to handicap students. Does a game of solitaire bruise your ego that badly?" I would answer with a question of my own: If I tell students not to use computers in class for non-classroom activities, and then they do it, why is that somehow my shortcoming?" How would I be engaged in "taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune" (the definition of Schadenfreude) if I were to prohibit computers in class in that situation? All rhetorical questions, of course.

This third point of course ignores other possible benefits of computer bans, such as improved classroom discussion and closer attention to the lecture (as opposed to transcription of the lecture).

* * * *

The more I think about computer bans, the less sure I am that a computer ban is what I would want to do--even though it might have some benefits. It's a complicated issue, and the comments I have received on this blog have been very, very helpful for me, so please keep them coming.

Let me close by pointing out the irony in this case: if students didn't use computers in class for non-class activities, didn't distract others in class through this behavior, and didn't focus on transcription of lectures versus participating in class discussion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In other words, I wonder whether the focus of criticisms and discussion should be less on professorial egos or shortcomings and more on the reasons why such bans have been implemented by some, and considered by others. That's why I find the "analogy of the hands" compelling, and discussions of ego off the mark.

Computer Bans

Recently I blogged about whether computers should be banned in law school classes. That post can be linked to here. Today I found another several articles on the subject. The articles involve Professor June Entman of the University of Memphis.

Anyone in my classes this semester will note that I currently allow laptops in class. I like computers. I like the flexibility, power, and portability that they provide students (and faculty, and lawyers). I'm not a dinosaur (yet). Yet they may have their downsides, especially in a classroom. Read the following articles describing Professor Entman's laptop ban and see what you think. They appeared in USA Today, OrinKerr.com (see also Kerr's original post on the matter, in which he did not support Entman), and Conglomerate.

I should note that this is not exactly breaking news--Entman's ban took place in the spring semester of 2006. But "not so recent" does not mean "not so relevant," so I am taking a detour from recent posts on exams to revisit the issue. Let me know if you have thoughts on the matter.

Computers in Class

I have been intrigued by some articles I've read recently about law profs who have decided to ban computers in their classrooms. In my class there would be an irony in such a ban, since I sometimes use A/V equipment (PowerPoint slides, videos, websites, and the like). But I have to say that, as unpopular as the move might be with students, it has intuitive merit. Discussion of this subject has appeared on the WSJ Blog, Boston.com, TaxProf Blog, and Conglomerate.

So should computers be banned from law school classes? (Exceptions would have to be made, of course, for students with special needs.) Here are some considerations for and against such a general ban.

Some Reasons to Ban Computers in Law School Classes

Some law profs believe computers get in the way of class discussion. Harvard Law School's Professor Elizabeth Warren takes this view. (See an article discussing her position here.) She teaches commercial law courses such as Secured Transactions, which I have also taught, and in my experience commercial courses can be dry. So maybe in such classes, law profs need all the help they can get, in order to make the class (and class discussion) more interesting. But Harvard Law School's Professor Bruce Hay teaches subjects with a far higher cool factor (Law & Drama, anyone?), so maybe it's not just a dryness issue.

Two anecdotal points from my own experience are worth mentioning. Recently, I had a student tell me that she would take notes furiously in class, and then go home and try to figure out what the professor had been saying. Hmm. Maybe it works, but I think the better approach might be to listen to what happens in class, and then go home and expand your notes or work on your class outline. Just because you took down every word does not mean you understood what was said, or will be able to understand it better later. One student does not a trend make, but her observations ring true. Plus, when I tell my classes to stop taking notes and just listen, I usually see improved class discussion.

Second, during my days in practice I learned not to take too many notes during a client meeting, either on computer or on paper. Scribbling or typing furiously did not help nearly as much as really listening and taking sparser notes. Lawyers often complain that law schools do not prepare students for the practice of law. OK, then, perhaps classes should be structured so that they not only teach substantive knowledge, but also practical skills. If computers get in the way of developing effective listening and note-taking skills, perhaps they should be kept out of the classroom. Taking notes is a lawyerly skill. Being a stenographer is not.

Some Reasons to Allow Computers in Law School Classes (and Some Counter-Arguments)

What are some reasons not to ban computer use in law school classes? First, are we being old-fashioned fuddyduds if we require digital age students to take handwritten notes? Haven't many of them gone to colleges (and even high schools) that have actually required computer use in class? I find that a compelling argument.

Second, shouldn't we treat students like adults and let them make their own choices? If they want to type versus write--or even play Spider Solitaire versus pay attention--isn't that their choice? How dare we be paternalistic! In fact, isn't the ability to play FreeCell and conduct a teleconference call practically a necessary skill for the modern lawyer? If you can't do it in class, will you be able to hack it in the real world?

I think the answer to these questions is "Yes, but . . . ." The "but" part is this: with respect to paternalism, others have observed (see links above) that law schools often make class attendance mandatory (i.e., not a matter of free choice), and we have no problem with that sort of paternalism. Yet maybe it's that law school itself is voluntary, and if you sign up for it, you have agreed to attend your classes--but you haven't agreed to take notes in a certain way (that is, by hand). What I am saying is that a computer ban is paternalistic to a degree, and how paternalistic depends on how you characterize it.

With respect to multitasking on a conference call, I am not sure that is a skill law schools need to be teaching. Even though it happens in practice. A lot. There are other, more socially valuable skills than computer games that lawyers need but we don't teach them--like how to eat spaghetti without getting it on your shirt. (Try and make partner looking like a slob. You may do it, but it's harder.) So maybe we let them learn Minesweeper skills on their own.

Ultimate Indecision

In the end, I am up in the air on whether computers should be banned by profs in law school classes. I find the idea interesting, but I wonder whether it is more trouble than it's worth. Perhaps one day I will try it as an experiment, and see how it goes. But for now, I'll just let things ride.

In fact, maybe letting it ride is indeed the right answer. The modern world has so many distractions, so many tech gadgets, that perhaps the student who can succeed in the classroom despite computer use is the student who will end up being able to best deal with it in practice. So by trying to control in-class computer use, maybe we would do as much harm as good.

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this--especially if you are a student who has been in a class in which computers were banned.