Interesting thought experiment. If the aim were to exploit "the true value of laptops as efficient note-taking, concept-organizing devices," then laptops without Web browsers and wireless connectivity would suffice. Student laptops thus configured would largely eliminate the distractions that weigh against rolling out laptops in classrooms.

But how in the world would you get any students to pay for such a device?

Jake,

I'm not sure that is exactly what Gordon is getting at, but even if it is, there is no need to get students to pay for such a device.

All law school need to do to eliminate a major portion of laptop derived distractions is to simply turn off the wireless access in classrooms during class time.

I am continually baffled by my own law school, which expressly prohibits use of the internet during class, yet transmits crystal clear wireless transmissions in all classrooms, throughout the entire school day.

I might add that the thought is interesting, but I'm not sure that I would buy into it. ie: I'm a bit too slow to see how one could effectively "embrace laptops" in the classroom environment, though I could be swayed by effective reasoning.

I for one am a law student who would not argue with a wholesale ban of laptops from all legal classrooms.

Suppose we require all students with laptops to log into a chatroom at the start of class.
The login each class period would link the student’s name to a more generic, anonymous screen name. The login would be securely recorded, providing the professor with a record of who was logged in under each generic name. The professor can then award points for extraordinary insights or impose sanctions for blatant stupidity (use of extreme profanity and the like). Aside from those two reasons, professors would commit to maintaining their own ignorance re: poster’s identities, so as not to chill a free and open exchange of ideas. This latter concept isn’t too different from “blind grading.”
The chatroom would be projected at the front of the room throughout class (this is probably most appropriate for “pit” classes of 50 or more). Students would be able to comment real-time on what’s going on in class, offering insights, suggestions, critiques, questions, etc.
Pros: This would engage students more fully in the classroom experience, taking advantage of the laptop as a tool and harnessing it for the purpose of instruction, rather than lingerie-shopping and Doom-playing. True, the “deviant” activities could still occur, but then, they already are. I think it more likely that the deviant activities would be curtailed in proportion to chat-participation, which is an improvement over our present situation.
It would also provide an anonymous outlet for those questions we’ve all had, but were too afraid to ask. C’mon—it’s happened to everyone.
Cons—It would require professors to be more on their toes. For those employing the very popular “modified Socratic” method, this shouldn’t be TOO difficult (all you’re doing is asking questions, after all:^)). For those “merely” lecturing, it would certainly require on-the-fly improvisation in response to what they’re seeing on-screen as student’s weaknesses in understanding. But that’s why you get the big bucks, right?
Another con is that the anonymity of the experience, and the experience itself, have no counterpart in “the real world.” So what? If we were that concerned about Lawyers In Training (the acronym is not a mistake—not in Wisconsin, at least) getting hands-on experience, we’d have never departed from the apprenticeship model in the first place. Adopting for the classroom tools or methods uniquely suited for the classroom and not for “real” practice isn’t a real con—it’s a recognition of the reality that we’re not in “real” practice yet.
Finally, just a bit off-topic: if we want to ban a classroom activity, let’s consider eating. If the Victoria’s Secret ad on the computer in front of me is distracting me from lecture, I can look away. The auditory and olfactory intrusions of Doritos and tuna-fish sandwiches respectively are much more an intrusion.
(Is this too long a post? Does posting constitute a “poor man’s patent?” I want credit if this idea is used!)

And while I'm at it, I couldn't agree more with Professor Cole's article.

Thank you, Anthony! I was so stuffed up on this topic, but that is the sort of thinking that unclogs my sinuses. I hope others follow up on this, either by refining the idea or offering equally innovative takes on this thought experiment.

Anthony's description of class reminds me of the way some people watch sports. They turn on the TV and open the chat room. They listen to the commentators and offer commentary simultaneously. Of course, those people aren't in the same room. If they were in the same room -- imagine watching a game in a sports bar -- they would just comment orally. Sometimes loudly.

This seems like a crazy way to think about studying law -- words, words, words crashing together. Or is it? The image that I can't shake is that the students are interacting with the professor and each other through the conversation on the screen. Everyone is intent on the screen. But what is going on in the room? Anthony seems to be imagining a regular class with a projected chat room overlay, but surely the projected chat changes the activity in the room.

How different is Anthony's idea from the live-blogging classroom presented by Laura Appleman over at Concurring Opinions on October 2?

Larry, Completely different.

Most importantly, live-blogging requires only one person. It does not entail live interaction among the students. Anthony's idea is all about interaction.

Live blogging takes the class to people outside the classroom. Anthony's idea engages the people inside the classroom.

Live blogging memorializes the class, but chat is ephemeral.

Lawrence: Substantially there's not a whole lot of difference. I was unaware that this had been tried. The idea I proposed is slightly better for two reasons-- First, it would be a prof-controlled rather than student-initiated. That means there's both a higher level of accountability (in terms of regulating the chat and using it for participation or attendance purposes)and greater resources (to, for instance, project the thing in front of class). Second, a chat room is a superior medium for this sort of thing because it's faster and one needn't continually refresh the screen (which would likely be distracting, as some of the posts on that blog indicate). Thank goodness that this inferior method has been explored, though-- while it makes for boring blog reading, it has preserved a transcript to give an accurate picture of what you would see in a chatroom. These are the sort of comments you would have to attend to and navigate through as a professor during class. See link below. Having reviewed it, I can say it's exactly what I was imagining.

Laura Appleman referenced "The Daily Ross" (note-- I think you should give credit to Ross, not Laura, since the idea was his and she merely pointed to it), particularly http://rossarmstrong.blogspot.com/2007/09/liveblogging-torts-92707.html

LOL-- I must have been typing while Gordon posted. I think the difference in our opinions ("completely different" vs. "not a whole lot of difference") has to do with the terminology we're using. While I'm not too familiar with "live-blogging," I think the term appropriately refers to one person blogging while participating in an event (ex: Althouse watching American Idol). It wouldn't matter whether there were any other participants or not. What Ross did in the cited post was more similar to chat than to blogging (which is why I said “not a whole lot of difference”), albeit with a clunkier vehicle.