November, 2006


30
Nov 06

Banning Laptops in Classrooms- a Student View

[Cross-posted from First Movers; comments off here but on over there.]

In the Contracts and Civ Pro classes I just finished yesterday, laptops were banned and ‘strongly discouraged’, respectively. At the beginning of the semester, I described this as understandable but ‘regressive and damaging’, so I thought it was fair to revisit this, especially since Prof. Dorf blogged his own thoughts on the experience in our Civ Pro class. Some thoughts in response to his post and my own at the beginning of the semester:

  • Prof. Dorf says that by the end of the semester, only ’0 or 1′ students were using laptops in his class. There were actually two daily laptop users. I’m not sure that this oversight means much.
  • I used a Tablet PC every day in class, instead of a traditional laptop. I used to speak to computer conferences, so I sympathize with complaints about the literal wall that laptops put between speaker and audience, and I use a tablet PC in large part because I don’t want to create such a barrier. If Prof. Dorf thought that 0 students were using laptops some days, then the Tablet probably worked. (Or he’s generously ignoring me…)
  • Comparing to the experience in my laptop-allowed class, the internet is definitely an attractive nuisance. Killing the internet (as one of Dorf’s commenters points out) would remove a lot of the professor’s problems, while still allowing students to type/organize/craft notes in ways they can’t do on paper.
  • Prof. Dorf cites as a benefit of banning laptops that using paper forces active reorganization and rewriting of notes, which helps learning. I’m not sold that the laptop really impacts that- everyone I know is still reorganizing and rethinking all their typed notes from other classes, just as they are doing for their paper notes. In some cases they are copying and pasting instead of typing it for the first time, but I’m not sold that this really has that much of an impact.
  • Both Prof. Dorf and Prof. Scott sent out written summaries (not powerpoint decks!) after each class, which supplemented our own notes and made people less nervous about the need to take verbatim notes themselves. This was an excellent technique which I think every professor should emulate, not just in law schools. It allowed people to focus more on discussion in class, and focus less on becoming court reporters (as Prof. Scott put it.) If the professors wanted to be really bold about it, they’d put the notes in a class-editable wiki, but maybe that is too much to ask.
  • Dorf mentions that the internet does occasionally allow for interesting in-class research, especially in seminars. Professors might consider doing what Prof. Zittrain sometimes does, and having a designated class Googler each day- that person (and only that person) is connected to the internet and can google/wikipedia/etc. whenever someone requests it, without getting half the class all hitting Google at once. If the classroom permits it, Prof. Zittrain will actually put that person’s screen up on a projector- both to keep them honest about what they are googling, and to have better class participation around that searching.

If you looked just at those factors above, you’d probably conclude that there are no strong reasons to permit laptop use in classrooms. But on the other side, though, is the sense that students feel entitled to use the laptop, and that professors feel entitled to undivided attention- with all the problems (on both sides) that a sense of entitlement creates. In his blog post, Prof. Dorf linked to this article, saying it explained why he wanted to ban laptops. The article does have a lot of good points, but I think it also captures why so many law students are skeptical of professors who would seek to banish laptops- right in the first paragraph:

It was a privilege to have a captive audience… Teaching felt like a cooperative enterprise between me and my students.

(Emphasis mine.) My immediate reaction to reading this was to think that the audience is either captive or cooperative- you don’t get both. After mulling it over, I’m not sure that is necessarily right- obviously the best professors can create a cooperative experience, and almost by definition their students are still captive. So the conflict isn’t inherent, but it is often going to be present- because, well, most professors do think of their students as captives, and most don’t ever actually achieve a “cooperative enterprise” with their students. Dorf and Prof. Scott (the other professor of mine who banned laptops) are among the best teachers I’ve ever had. So it isn’t surprising that students would reasonably happily turn off laptops in their classes. The real friction between students and professors who want to ban laptops will happen in classes where students really do feel like captives- and unfortunately, that is all too many classes. (I’d bet, actually, that if all students were asked by professors to not use laptops, but they weren’t explicitly banned, the percentage of laptop use would almost perfectly correlate with teaching evaluation results.) For professors who can’t or don’t want to be good teachers, allowing laptops in class seems to me like a good counterweight- freeing students to make more efficient use of their time, and (to a certain extent) allowing them to communicate their displeasure in a semi-socially acceptable way.

So: the internet is going to remain distracting; laptops (at least until people switch to tablets) will continue to create a wall between speakers and audience; and most professors will continue to be pretty bad at teaching. That makes it pretty difficult to create school-wide policy, as several schools have tried to do. Given my experiences this semester, if I were asked to create a school-wide policy, it would probably look something like:

  • professors may ask (but not require) that laptops not be used in their classes; if professors do request that, they be required to send out regular summaries to the class, to encourage focus on the discussion and not on note-taking.
  • the school should tell incoming students that Tablet PCs are generally preferred.
  • the internet (perhaps except for lexis/westlaw/the library) should be turned off in class, with the exception of a panel/panelist who is responsible for googling for relevant questions in an interactive class.

I’m curious what others here think of this- having only gone through one semester (and with more classes that ban laptops than not) I may not be well positioned to give this a fair and complete analysis.

[Picture: Rebecca MacKinnon using a laptop at iLaw 2005, part of a flickr set that is probably the only way I'll ever be able to link to myself and Lessig in the same breath.]


28
Nov 06

I want these guys to be my trademark lawyers

The (very good) Trademark Blog discussing a list of TV catchphrases, some of which may have potentially acquired trademarkable status:

Moralists will note that two catchphrases on the list end in ‘Bitch!’, including Dave Chapelles’ ‘I’m Rick James, Bitch!”, which, coincidentally, is how our firm signs its demand letters.


28
Nov 06

art is in the eye (mouse?) of the beholder

Mouse art. Heh. (From the very cool eyebeam.)


27
Nov 06

pending substance abuse

I have on my bag a half-pound bag of chocolate-covered espresso beans, likely the first of many. It is that time of year. Apologies in advance for not responding to emails, blog posts, personal appeals from family, etc., etc., etc.- I’ll be high on caffeine and fear.


22
Nov 06

krissa got a job!

Krissa got a job she’s really excited about at Greenmarket, the organization that runs all of New York’s Farmer’s Markets. Their website is a real mess, but here it is. I’m excited she’s got this weight off her shoulders, and she’s excited to be able to help people improve the quality and sourcing of the food they eat. Win-win situation. :)


22
Nov 06

and ubuntu’s patent stand?

Seeing this (wherein the author leaves suse for kubuntu as a result of the recent hubbub) reminds me that Ubuntu still has no clear patent policy that I can find, nor are they (again, as far as I can tell) contributing to some of the anti-patent work being done by others. Compare to Red Hat’s strong patent policy, to Novell’s continued support of OIN, Red Hat’s support of NoSoftwarePatents.com, or IBM and Red Hat’s support of the patent peer review project. (Novell’s open letter gives a list of such steps they’ve taken; Red Hat has noted some caveats on some of Novell’s claims there. However you slice it, Novell has done more than Ubuntu/Canonical on this critical issue, even if you think their agreement with MS may make it a two steps forward/two steps back situation.)

Am I overlooking something, guys, gals? I’d like to think that the distro I’m using would take a clear stand on patents, and use some of their resources to make the situation better, but I’m not seeing it from Ubuntu/Canonical. I think that given Ubuntu’s position on mp3s, I’m pretty sure that Ubuntu, corporately, does have the right overall perspective on patents. But given where we are right now, it would be better if they came out and made it explicit, like Red Hat has done, instead of just implied by their codec packaging choices.

[Amusingly, or perhaps depressingly, the only page you get using the ubuntu.com search tool that mentions patents is... a broken link.]

[Ed: again, I hate wordpress's whitespace handling. Anyone who has a fix for it, please let me know.]

[Ed. later: As I've pointed out in discussing IBM's patents, I can at least understand any company that is pro-patent. So if Ubuntu wants to come out in favor of patents, but against the current patent system, as IBM has done, that would be understandable. What I primarily want right now is transparency- I want to be able to judge Ubuntu one way or the other, instead of the current situation, where they've been given a free pass to say nothing.]


20
Nov 06

weekend in Boston

I had a great time in Boston over Thusday and Friday, seeing friends and discussing software patents. I was pleasantly surprised to see that despite being held at a law school, many (perhaps nearly half?) of the speakers at the software conference were not lawyers, but rather economists and others.

I took copious notes, but haven’t had time to edit them- life is not fun right now, and won’t be until December 21st. Nor to get the pictures off the camera, despite the great one of a whole lot of whiskey about to be shot on Friday night. Oh well… hopefully Wednesday morning if tomorrow afternoon is mega-productive. We’ll see.

On the plus side, for those interested, the slides and some related papers are up. The James Bessen slides are particularly interesting- lots of great data there. Unfortunately, it is not footnoted. I have to assume the draft chapter from his book is also good stuff. Page 3 of Mark Webbink’s slides are also stark and frightening.
Was of course good to see Dave and substantial other chunks of the Boston crowd on Friday night; sad, though, that some of them are leaving Boston. Hopefully we’ll all make it back for summits in the future.


20
Nov 06

two good reads

Things I spotted while putting off my real work:

Biella Coleman, talking about bringing free software perspectives to other domains. I used to get irritated when people said ‘oh, this is just like open source!’ but I’m getting more positive about it. Our discourse is so saturated with the notion of the market that an alternate framing for non-market or extra-market interactions isn’t necessarily a bad thing, even if it does use and abuse what free software is/was about.

Clay Shirky, talking about costs and benefits of new systems, in this case, wikipedia and expertise. I don’t think I’ve fully digested this post, but the gist of it is fairly thoughtful: what happens when the costs assumptions you take for granted are blown up? What does that mean for other aspects of your product, and for your competition? Shirky makes a pretty good argument that this does particularly nasty things to Britannica because the cost of certifying expertise and filtering out non-expertise is very high. Much more nuanced understanding of expertise and certification of expertise than the last link of his I posted.


16
Nov 06

Talk Proposal for LCA and/or GUADEC (2011)

This came to me in the shower, which means it is probably a terrible idea:

Legal English as She Is Spoke- From Legalese to Hackerese, by Way of English

or

How The Legal System is Worse Than You’d Feared

or

How The Legal System is Better Than You’d Hoped

As Jeff would say, book your tickets now.


15
Nov 06

thursday/friday night in Cambridge

Looking forward to spending the next two nights in Cambridge- am going to a software patent mini-conference with some neat speakers, including Mark Webbink (Red Hat General Counsel), Eric Von Hippel of MIT, and Dan Ravicher and Richard Fontana of SFLC. Should be a fun 48 hours. I have no idea what my Thursday and Friday night schedules look like exactly (besides a 6-8 reception on Thursday), but if you want to get together, drop me a note. :)


This work by Luis Villa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States.