Facinating stuff. Chicago’s trying to force legal education back into the Kingsfield model. A smarter solution would be trying to figure out how to leverage these behaviors. After all, our students aren’t going to stop multi-tasking when they get out in the workforce.

A few random thoughts.

(1) Dean Levmore should apologize for using a BlackBerry during meetings on grounds of basic courtesy, but never for the sake of placating law students who might become disgruntled because they have to interrupt 24/7/365 Internet connectivity for a handful of hours each week to actually pay attention to a law prof in a lecture hall.

(2) Good heavens. Levmore is a real lawyer and a law school dean who presumably has paid his dues. Law school students have not, and their professed need for 24/7/365 Internet connectivity is entitled to no serious consideration. Law school is not a day care center.

(3) To take up Bainbridge's idea of leveraging the behaviors of law students who demand 24/7/365 Internet connectivity, even in law school classrooms, why not enlist Al Gore? The former Vice Prez could present a lecture, or videotape it for wide distribution, to pampered law students and try to explain how they can stay connected, or cope if unable to do so, in the event of cataclysmic climatic, economic, or political change.

BAH. Let the law students take notes with a pencil and a Big Chief pad.

Re: surfing being a behavioral, not technological, problem, I've got to agree. The "too cool for school" mentality that permeates law school (as evidenced by web surfing or hating on gunners) really surprises me. After we've all busted our asses to get in to law school, you'd think we'd be more interested in what goes on there.

Steve- I think of multitasking as doing more than one thing at a time. I'm thinking that those who are shoe shopping aren't paying attention, too, but have tuned out. Thus the frequently recited "could you repeat the question?" I could just be projecting, though...
I wonder if judges are hearing the same request from trial lawyers?

Gordon,

I agree. It is a behavioral, not a technological problem, but I don't believe that's a satisfying answer to the issue; neither is it a persuasive argument against cutting internet access in the classroom.

I totally agree with U of C. I think they did the right thing. Even if longer term solutions are needed, that is no reason not to cut internet access now. I have to really question whether the threat of a significant amount of students going mobile broadband is a serious one - and frankly, why not ban mobile phones from the classroom??? The only thing I have ever seen a mobile phone accomplish in a classroom is a disruption.

Most of us young adults these days have some perverse notion of feeling we have a right to constant electronic connectivity, but we really don't - and I don't believe the paternalism line is even relevant to this discussion. In fact, I think it is a tremendous distraction to the real issue here - and the issue is learning.

Too often this agrument is parroted when this issue arises. "I am an adult. I am paying X amount of dollars for this service. Therfore, I should be able to do whatever I want with the service I have purchased, even if that means surfing the class away on the internet." That is simply the wrong premise!

I like the way my torts professor put it - to roughly paraphrase. "This is not about you and it's not about your grade. It's about whether you leave my class adequately prepared to competently represent your future clients. Period."

And whether students are going to multi-task in the workforce is irrelevant to whether they "multi-task" in class. As my Dad used to say "I can't keep you from doing what's wrong, but you're not going to do it under my roof."

Kingsfield wasn't such a scary guy, anyway...

Cliff-- My thought is that a professor's authority ends at the student's grade, and worrying about the student's future clients is pretty presumptuous. If U of C did the right thing, it's because they're not obligated to subsidize surfing, not because they ought to prohibit it.

A couple of observations:

1. I recently sat in on a colleague's class and I was quite surprised to see how LITTLE emailing, IMing, and surfing was going on. Everyone, by and large, only had their notes open.

2. There was no internet access when I went to U of C, but I was one of 5 or 6 students who used laptops in class (I used to carry around an orange extension cord because there were only two outlets in class, way in the back of the room). I don't know about the others, but I found plenty of other things to do on the computer (not even just games) to distract me periodically - the internet is not the only distraction.

I'm not sure what the conclusion is from the above, but I think both should be factored into any policy.

Non:

I have to disagree. If law prof's aren't preparing future lawyers to go forth and serve future client's competently, then what are they doing? I don't see the presumptuousness.

The point is that this is not just about grades or student autonomy - it is not about "ME" as so many students of our age seem to think it is these days. It is about students who will assume a protected status of power in society, and the obligation that both students and teachers have to ensure that students are well prepared to assume that role responsibly and competently.

Limiting a professor's authority or realm of concern to simply doling out grades is entirely too narrow of a perspective. If a professor or group of professors determines that effective learning can't happen in their classrooms with internet access, they have all the right or authority to pull that access.

Cliff: Re: what lawprofs are doing (or should be), it's teaching a subject. What a student does with that (serve clients, teach it, forget it, use it to lure Jedis to the Dark Side) is really up to them. The oath-taking, if it comes at all, comes after graduation. Out of the dozen or so lawprofs I've had so far, there are only two who I've taken subsequent classes from so as to become more imbued with their worldview. I'd have taken their class whether it was Law, Theology & State or Inverted Underwater Basketweaving. The rest, though, I'd rather just get information from (not to disparage that-- they channel that information in very unique and splendid ways).

I do wish I'd hear more lines like the one your torts professor delivers when students perseverate on "the test" and actually have the audacity to ask whether a given subject matter will be on it. I think it's rhetoric, though. The parrotted student argument you cited in your post above seems valid to me. If a professor has a problem with surfing, I suppose she can appeal to our higher aspirations or cut the internet juice, but her real stick is the grade. If she's a decent professor, she'll write an exam which will allow her to sort students on the basis of their learning, whether they've been distracted by the internet or a Batman comic book hidden in their hornbook or the cutie in front of them.

It's not in question whether they've the authority: of course they do. Whether it's wisely exercised is the better question. Nor do I believe anyone has asserted that effective learning CAN'T happen in classrooms with internet access. I suspect that a simple comparison of pre-internet exam answers and post-internet exam answers would put that to rest. Rather, it seems like professors are embarrassed that they're not holding their student's attention, and are axing the competition.

Non:

Worldviews and competence to serve are two different things.

The line from my torts prof was definitely not rhetoric. I had him for two semesters of classes, and I can tell you, not just from his words, but from his entire approach to teaching that he really believes what he said - and he didn't say it in response to any question about an exam. He said it at the very beginning of our 1L year when he was explaining the attendance policy.

Also, the embarrassment/cut the competition theory seems like a reach. I suppose it might be a factor, but I doubt it is a controlling factor.

"Cliff: Re: what lawprofs are doing (or should be), it's teaching a subject. What a student does with that (serve clients, teach it, forget it, use it to lure Jedis to the Dark Side) is really up to them. The oath-taking, if it comes at all, comes after graduation."

This might have soem merit if a law degree was a generalized degree that people were generally expected to do "whatever" with, but it is not. A juris doctor is a "professional degree" - one that is intended to be used to go practice law. The fact that some students either choose to do something else with their law degree or exit the field of legal practice shortly after entering the field does not change the general aim of the degree - which is to prepare people for the practice of law.

Why does the oath not come until later? - Because the degree is prerequisite to taking the oath. Why is the degree prerequisite to taking the oath? Because every U.S. state has determined that a law degree ought to be earned in preparation to practice law - which goes right back to what I said. So, yes, law professors are preparing people to competently serve in the legal field.

Regardless of what a law prof's students might do with their degree, those students are the only people in society who will ever be allowed to sit for the bar exam, take the oath, and assume that privileged class of power in society. Recognizing that law prof's only "teach a subject" does not change any of this. In fact, it falls short of the point. Law prof's teach the subject with the aim of preparing students to practice law.

I'm gonna pull the rip cord on this one. Starting to feel a bit esoteric...

I recently read that a law firm has banned smart phones from meetings. Maybe you should send the partners of that firm a copy of your son's newspaper?

Yank the plug, I say.

Law clinics are very much in fashion at law schools these days, so I understand.

Such law schools studies should dispatch their students who demand 24/7/365 connectivity to the Web to local federal courts and let them learn what an Article III judge does when an uninvited cell/PDA/Blackberry goes off in the courtroom.

It ain't pretty, folks.

But that's the way the world is, and the way it should be. Discipline matters, and self-discipline most of all.

I'm at a loss to figure out why law schools should invite undisciplined people, or turn them loose on the world as undisciplined lawyers (of which we already have a surfeit).

I don't see any behavioral problem on the part of students internet-surfing during class. It strikes me as rational utility-maximization. To the extent it's a problem, let's put the blame where it belongs--on law schools and law professors.

What makes a law school hire a potential teacher? Is it teaching skills? Not really. Of course, they prefer not to hire total stiffs, but they care far more about publication record and potential. (I have quite a bit to say, based on my own journal experience, of how little practical benefit most law review articles have, but that's another discussion entirely.)

Engaging teachers have fewer students who surf the internet. I don't have numbers to back that up, but I feel confident saying it. If schools want their students to pay attention in class, then they should be hiring teachers who can get them to.

Let's face it, if a student can surf the internet through class, cram at the end, and do fine on an exam, then a) the teacher hasn't been using class time effectively; b) the exam was not based around what was taught in class; or c) classes weren't worth having in the first place.

Law school is geared toward teaching students how to look at a legal problem, find the legal issues, and analyze them. If a student can do that on a given subject without paying attention in class, why waste time paying attention? It makes much more sense to shop for shoes, read web pages, or somehow be entertained.

As to the argument that teachers need students to pay attention in order to inculcate them in legal arcana, I just don't buy it. It probably tickles a professor's ego to think that his or her legal mastery is shaping young lawyers into effective advocates. But most class time is spent studying doctrines that any second-year law student can learn on their own in less time than it takes to do the extraneous reading and sit through class. More importantly, they will need to do that anyway if they confront the issue in practice, because relying on a several-year old memory of class is a recipe for malpractice.

Finally, if a teacher has a problem repeating questions for someone, I have a simple solution--don't. Leave the passive-aggressive internet-banning at home and just go the full Kingsfield route. If a student asks you to repeat a question, say no, make a mark on your seating chart, and ask his or her neighbor. I guarantee you'll have more people paying attention, especially first and second year.

You'll probably have a hard time cowing third year students this way, but I never saw a need for the third year anyway. The first year is crucial, the second year helps. The third, well, when someone figures out the need for it, let me know. Until then, I'll spend my class time on abovethelaw.com. I might actually learn something useful at a law firm that way.

As a side note from a recently-graduated (?!) law student, the students are paying for the education. I think it would be a more effective deterrant for professors to talk about certain subjects in depth in class and then ask in depth questions on those subjects on their exams. If the kids who are surfing the internet are able to adequately recreate a nuanced in-class conversation on the exam, perhaps they didn't need to be listening anyways...

This is to be distinguished from my least favorite exam question of all-time, which was "Name one of the companies being sued in X movie that we watched in class." The exam shouldn't include referential trivia from class, but it's perfectly fair game to mirror the path of class discussion in the facts of a hypothetical. If students still don't want to pay attention, let them make that decision at the risk of their grades.