Doug Berman is surprised by Eugene Volokh’s one-laptop policy (in which one student takes notes for the rest of the class):
Indeed, though I am disinclined to assert that this alone shows how quickly professorial power can corrupt philosophical commitments, I do find remarkable the dramatic move to collectivism here. Not only is Eugene severely restricting laptop liberty, but he also is mandating that individuals share the fruits of their labor with a student collective all for purported good of the UCLA School of Law.
Are laptop bans incompatible with a libertarian philosophy?
Posted by Matt Bodie on August 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Comments
I see here an attempt to mash together two different thoughts about learning, and I am not sure how it will work in the end.
One school (and the classifications here are, as many generalizations, imperfect) would say that it is better to stimulate classroom discussion and thereby in-depth consideration of ideas (and careful analysis, one hopes) than to create note-taking automatons capable of spewing back vast quantities of information. This is a more classical model, it seems to me.
Yet, the bar exam is, in many places, all about memorizing vast quantities of information and being prepared to regurgitate that. Thus, the second law school model. Any law class which is not more theoretical / tested on the bar (i.e., jurisprudence) could easily inculcate a classical discussion-based model. However, torts, contracts, etc. would be better spent preparing students for the bar exam, and concentrating less on the discussion aspects of learning.
Laptops more easily facilitate the second model if one equates libertarianism with pure individualism. However, it seems to me that the first model is also compatible with libertarianism – if a professor discloses the one-laptop policy prior to add-drop, or in the course description, then students are free not to take the class, particularly if it is optional, or will be / is being taught by another professor.
Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 22, 2008 1:01:06 PM
No.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann | Aug 22, 2008 11:52:56 AM