Your post offers a lucid analysis, thanks. As one of your former students, yes, I almost never took notes because I found it a less than efficient use of my time. I used a laptop briefly, but found it an obstacle for the reasons you noted. I had you for Contracts in my first semester; this was before I became jaded with respect to the large-class experience of the core curriculum. Your class, and the late and magnificent Prof. Welsh White’s class are the only classes that I’ve seen any form of the socratic method used effectively. In both, there existed much more of a lab feel, as I had experienced in my BFA/MFA Writing and Literature programs. If only this type of interplay was the norm; quite the opposite is the case, in my experience. Although Prof. Lobel’s Con Law had a very effective structure. The Profs are brilliant and knowledgable, but faced with far too many students, and a self-perpetuating tradition based on what I believe to be antiquated leaning theory.

In response to many factors, students either transcribe or tune out, in large numbers. Banning laptops doesn’t cure the underlying problem: too many students in one room, coupled with very little benefit gained from engaging in risk-laden participation (as in ego-stomping criticism from peers). This goes to your externalities discussion.

My suggestion is to offer 20-30 minutes of lecture every class, with no questions. Then open up the floor to debate. I know this sounds crazy and possibly disrespectful, but I’m an old man. Additionally, I’ve seen this format work extremely well for English Lit. II, Form and Theory of Poetry and many other worthy subjects.