Georgetown University has a startling problem with classroom engagement. Although I’m studying government at the best university in Washington, D.C., my “Political Theory” lecture often feels like a class of zombies. My professor asks a question and my peers stare blankly at their laptop screens. My poor teaching assistant in my discussion section is often pulling teeth to get any participation because the majority of the class have not done the readings. 

Our university is not alone in this issue. Writers and professors across the country have bemoaned that students are more disengaged from their classes than ever before. Even at Harvard University, a committee found that students are chronically absent and checked-out, and the university has launched a task force to improve classroom culture in response.

In my experience, much of student disengagement does not stem from laziness, but from the current professional incentive structure. In today’s brutal job market where preprofessional extracurriculars and internships are highly valued, students are certainly working hard –– just outside of the classroom. Georgetown students who spend significant time on clubs and jobs have less motivation to dedicate effort to their coursework or class attendance, and many feel like classes simply matter less. Yet, there are a number of structural changes that Georgetown professors and administrators can take to rebuild students’ buy-in to the academic experience.

The first shift is perhaps the most straightforward: Laptops should be banned from all classrooms. The constant temptation of this technology detracts significantly from intellectual engagement. If you doubt this, sit at the back of any introductory lecture and watch as students answer emails, online shop or do The New York Times’ crossword. While laptops may allow students to take notes and access readings with ease, they invite multitasking and create a barrier between students and their professors. 

Banning screens in classrooms must be a broader policy change and cannot be left to individual students. As my psychology professor told my class, even students who do choose to take handwritten notes are significantly distracted when peers around them misuse technology. I can attest to this — I spent the semester in this class watching the girl in front of me text her boyfriend on Snapchat. All students, whether they already take handwritten notes or not, will benefit from a university-wide ban. 

Secondly, professors should create tangible incentives for completing course readings. In many discussion-based courses, reading completion is central to a productive and beneficial class period. My American studies professor has our class complete a short, handwritten reading reflection before each class. Knowing I will be tested on the material ensures I prioritize my readings, even when I am busy. Furthermore, it also helps me develop my thoughts before we begin our discussion. Some of my peers in larger lectures report their professors cold calling, which ensures they are well-prepared for class. If my other classes enacted similar policies, I’d be far more likely to consistently complete their readings.

Moreover, in order to promote consistent class engagement, professors and administrators should maintain academic rigor and not succumb to the pressures of grade inflation. As a student, I sure don’t like the government department’s policy that only 40% of students can receive As or A-minuses in the four introductory courses. However, knowing I had to fight for an A-minus in my “International Relations” class encouraged me to put in hours of real effort both inside and outside the classroom. Ultimately, I learned and engaged with the course significantly more than if I had been able to just skate through and receive an easy A. 

You may be thinking that these policies sound like a fast-track to unpopularity and dismal Rate My Professor scores. But the last piece of the puzzle helps resist this, and is therefore perhaps the most important. To further active intellectual engagement in class, professors and administrators should invest significant time and energy in building relationships with their students outside the classroom. 

As many government students can attest, Professor Elizabeth Grimm is widely popular, and students put in significant effort in her courses. It is not that her classes are easier than others in the department — indeed, it is probably the opposite. Rather, Grimm learns the name of every single student in her large “International Relations” lecture, takes each discussion section to lunch at Leo’s and hosts social events. She also requires each student to attend office hours at least once, whether that be attending hers or a teaching assistant’s office hours. 

All professors should follow in Grimm’s footsteps to get to know each student in their course individually. This is a significant time commitment, but it is a time commitment that pays off. Personally, I can feel the difference between professors who care about their teaching and their students, and those who prioritize their research efforts above the classroom experience. When students feel personally seen, appreciated and understood, they will give more effort back. 

In my experience, Georgetown students are willing to work hard when they see value and benefit coming from their efforts. Although the pulls of internships and Instagram will persist, if professors and administrators make the shifts towards re-incentivizing classroom effort, engagement will flourish and the zombies will come back to life.