Slashdot Mirror
U. of Chicago Law School Blocks Internet Access
Scott Jaschik writes "While some individual professors have banned laptops from classes at various colleges, the University of Chicago law school is going further, cutting off wireless and wired access in its classrooms to confront what officials see as out-of-control Web surfing. The story was first reported in the Above The Law 'legal tabloid' late last month. Students and the university's CIO question the strategy." Things will get interesting when Sprint WiMax service lights up in Chicago later this year.
If you spend all your class time surfing the web, you should fail.
If your students are able to pass without paying any attention to you, you must not teach very much in your lectures. And if you don't teach anything, well, why should they pay attention?
This isn't high school, it's college . The people there are paying good money to be there (well, at least their parents are...). If a student wants to cheat himself of the maximum benefit of a very costly education bu dicking around on the Web during lectures, that should be his lookout. As long as they're not bothering other students, I don't see how this is an issue.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
That said, overall I don't have a problem with students wasting their tuition money (or their parents' tuition money) by browsing the internet in class all day. But this isn't some power grab to squelch independent thinking. These students are free to browse the internet in their dorms, or the library, or the dining halls, etc. It might be poorly thought out, but I think people (or at least you) are freaking out over nothing.
Why would the school or university care if their students are wasting their own time and money by surfing the web in class?
I graduated before the age of ubiquitous laptops and wi-fi, so this wasn't a problem. Even still we had our distractions and it probably irked certain professors to know that they didn't have the rapt attention of every single person in the room. Generally speaking though, we were left alone as long as our snoring didn't disturb others.
I wonder if these profs take a roll call before every lecture. Does the school have truant officers on staff to keep these law students on the straight-and-narrow?
The right solution is, IMO, to simply ban laptops from being open during lectures. It sends the same message as people using laptops during meetings basically: if you can't be arsed to even pay attention (to the lecture, or the meeting), why are you there in the first place. For meetings it may be the case that you are basically "forced" to attend, however this is seldom the case for lectures (at least at my university).
So I fully understand lecturers who urge (or force) people to make a conscious decision *either* to stay in the lecture room and (at the very least pretend to) pay attention, or if you don't feel like paying attention, want to browse the internet, or absolutely *have* to chat with your neighbour about the previous weekend, can you please just go to the lunchroom next door, thank you so much and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Because it's not like anybody is *forcing* you to be there. If you think you'll do fine by reading the lecture sheets and/or the book, you're free to do so (and in many cases that's perfectly possible, too).
If you want to take notes during the lecture (the excuse everyone uses), paper still works just fine, as it has for ages.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Um, a lawyer does have a number of duties to his client, especially in a court setting. Perhaps a perusal of the rules of professional responsibility would help your understanding of them?
Internet access in the classroom always seemed to me like a boon from the "ignorant IT gods" of hasty wireless implementation by blithering idiots who didn't know how to make it secret and only let professors in the building have access (or smart peoplel like us.). It never made sense that it would continue long past this point, kind of like internet tax freedom or net neutrality. Once people realize its just too good to be true, they're going to stamp down it somewhere.
But no, controlling internet access in a classroom is not hand holding, its simply a common-sense measure to direct attention towards the teacher, like facing all the chairs in the same direction at the beginning of the class.
Um... no, you're completely wrong. The lawyer has numerous ethical duties to his client. The most notable of these duties is a duty of zealous representation - the lawyer's personal feelings have to be put aside to represent the client's interests. The lawyer also has a duty as an officer of the court to not make false statements to the court (judge/jury) and to not counsel or assist the client in acting illegally. Maybe if you were paying attention in your mandatory ethics class in law school, rather than dinking about on the internet on your laptop, you would have learned some of this...
The problem is that U of C is one of the most respected law schools in the nation. The administrators can do whatever they want--the school has, like, a 5% acceptance rate.
There is a certain advantage to taking notes on paper. The attention I pay and the way I take notes when I'm using paper is markedly different then when I use a laptop. I'm usually doing it to be lazy (which may just be me), but I'm a kinesthetic (sp?) learner, which means taking notes and paying attention in that manner helps sear in the information in my brain. It also forces you to occlude information, and consolidate, instead of simply typing nearly word for word (which is usually just by brain saying, 'I'll retake this lecture later.') I'm just saying, like most synthetic inventions (margerine, vitamins, artificial suntanning) there are usually always drawbacks compared to the harder, "natural" method. Maybe that's just me though.
So, how would your school react to a student doing disruptive things like squirting a watergun at other classmates or breaking a stinkbomb or chatting away on a cell phone? The professor would likely demand they leave at a minimum, probably recommend disciplinary action if it's a regular occurrance up to an including expulsion.
I don't see why they can't treat electronically disruptive individuals the same way they would treat conventionally disruptive individuals.
More Twoson than Cupertino
As much as an internet junkie as I am, I don't think the classroom (in general) is the place for it, any more than talking on a cell phone, or cooking a meal would be appropriate. It's a place where you're supposed to pay attention and take part in a discussion, not check your facebook constantly. If you don't want to go to the lecture, don't; get someone else's notes, read the text, or whatever. But if I'm a prof (and I was, part time, awhile back) I'm not going to waste my time interacting with a class that is doing something else at the time.
And it's not just people doing other things. I did a couple of seminars on Java in its early days, at a progressive local university, that had internet (wired) at every seat. Only a couple of people were using it, but it's awfully hard to get across concepts when people are constantly googling what you say and trying to point out problems or sound smart before you finish getting a point across.
A lot of the time in teaching, you have to start with generalizations to get the general concept across, some of which aren't 100% correct, technically; then you delve into the details clarifying those points. (As a broad example in another field, teaching newtonian physics as a basis for relativistic stuff.) One smartass with Google/Wiki can ruin that process for the whole class.
(On the other hand, those who are genuinely curious about something that is said and want to take a quick detour, I could support; but like most liberties, where there's a tendency towards abuse, you sometimes have reduced those liberties in certain agreed upon circumstances. It's similar to the cell phones on planes arguments. There are those that would use it respectfully, moderately, and quietly; but there would typically be a more noticable inconsiderate contingent that would just drive everyone nuts.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
They've already paid. What they do during lectures is there business. Plenty of people--in general--can pass classes without paying attention. Many people just go for the wittle piece 'o paper saying that they do indeed know the material, despite already being well versed in it.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I suppose next citizens will want every single state and federal law posted on there so they can try to interpret it themselves!
The parent makes one really good point. I was recently talking with a friend of mine just fresh out of law school. Aside from learning the language and protocol of courtrooms and some law theory a huge portion of a law degree today is learning to use some very expensive law databases. These for profit databases are the _only_ practical means of knowing the law. It seems to me, that of all the things our government could spend money on, making the law and cases knowable to the general public at an accessible price to everyone would be somewhat high on the list.
I totally agree with the spirit of your jest - and while I think lawyers can be the bane of existence (except when you need one or they're saving your ass), the real issue in my mind is judges and the institutionalized corruption of some (particularly federal) judges and the legal/legislative system in general.
I a not saying that there aren't are good and ethical judges, I am sure the majority of them are just that; but there are many judges who are political instruments, who refuse to inform juries of their rights and taint the process with extremely limited instructions to the jury which attempt to control the verdict. They get their position via a politcal maneuver, and repay the powers involved by doing everything they can to make things turn out those who put them there would like.
I am mainly referring to three types of cases: The first, tax cases where the constitutionality of the tax code and IRS are involved. The second is high profile cases where the government or MIC are taken on, and the third would be high profile cases involving setting a precedent that the powers that be would like set. These types of cases can be shopped to the "correct" judges.
I have even read read transcripts of a tax law case where the judge refused to allow the defendant to admit several supreme court precedents set that would have made his case and who said (and this is a direct quote) "I will not allow the law in my courtroom."
It just seems to me (especially in the past 8 years) that the law is selectively applied and even more selectively enforced. When we have a president that attaches signing statements that invalidate parts of laws or compeltely changes their meaning and spirit and we have a judicial system not upholding it's responsibility to the people in many ways, what do we have?
Certainly we no longer have "rule of law." I would say that what we have now in regards to these things are a large part of what enables the current predicament the people of this country are in as we head deeper into fascism.
Why take notes? The material is in the text. You get a copy of the lecture slides from the instructor.
I always found that taking notes was a distraction, and they were never useful to me anyway. Just paying attention and thinking about the lecture was far more useful.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
As a professor I just don't see the issue. It's stupidly egoistic to think that what I have to say is soooooo important that if every student doesn't listen to me then they're missing out. If the student can surf all class whilst still doing well in the class, then good for them. More likely than not though, the more general it is becoming for students to do this, the more likely the average student will become below-average. But this isn't my problem. If student's want to do poorly by not paying attention, that's their issue, not mine. The only time this is an issue is when the student is being disruptive to students who are trying to pay attention. Short of that, let them waste their time and money in showing up.