Today’s college students often face criticism for lacking essential soft skills such as communication and teamwork, which are crucial for career success. During a recent Grand Valley’s Economics Advisory Board meeting, I proposed a controversial solution: banning cell phones in college classrooms. This suggestion sparked a passionate debate, underscoring the complexity of the issue.
Some of the professors in attendance were skeptical of the idea, and their level of pushback surprised me. One professor mentioned that she tried telling students to put away their phones, but it turned into a game of whack-a-mole. Another stated that college students are adults and should be treated as such. He pointed out that students don’t have to ask permission to go to the bathroom, and he wasn’t willing to enforce a no-phone rule.
Considering that everyone in the room had a background in economics, I should have reframed my recommendation as a solution to a collective action problem. In game theory, this scenario closely resembles a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Each student’s “best” individual choice is to stay on their phone, avoiding boredom or awkwardness. But collectively, this results in a suboptimal outcome: a silent classroom devoid of interaction. If all students put their phones away, they’d gain confidence and soft skills through engagement with one another, but no one wants to be the first to unplug, fearing isolation if others don’t follow suit.
Here’s a traditional payoff table from game theory illustrating the “Students’ Dilemma”.
| Student B | |||
| Interact | Phone | ||
| Student A | Interact | (3, 3): Both benefit from meaningful interaction. | (1, 4): A feels awkward while B enjoys the safety of their phone. |
| Phone | (4, 1): A enjoys the safety of their phone while B feels awkward. | (2, 2): Both stay isolated. | |
Student A doesn’t know what decision Student B will make, so he analyses his payoffs. If he chooses to interact, he’ll either get a payoff of 3 or a payoff of 1. That’s a total of 4 with an expected value of 2. If he chooses to use his phone, he’ll either get a payoff of 4 or a payoff of 2. That’s a total of 6 with an expected value of 3. Therefore, he always chooses to use his phone. Student B faces the same incentives, leading both to end up with payoffs of 2 each and staying isolated. This is suboptimal compared to the 3 each they would get from meaningful interaction. What we need is an enforcing mechanism to move them to the cell with higher payoffs. A policy or rule could serve as that mechanism.
To drive home my point, I offered the professors a bet: Let me audit their class, and before it started, I’d win if I found the room silent, with students absorbed in their phones. Nobody was willing to accept this bet. This contrasts starkly with my college days when the moments before class were filled with conversations and collaboration that strengthened my soft skills.
One professor at the meeting shared his enthusiasm for teaching Urban Economics, which focuses on correcting market inefficiencies like public transit and housing through better pricing of externalities. A graduating class lacking soft skills is a significant externality of unchecked phone use. Imagine if a city hired an economist to solve transit inefficiencies, and their only advice was to “let citizens figure it out because they’re adults.” It wouldn’t fly and neither should ignoring phones in classrooms.
Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation suggests an alternative: a voluntary pact. Students agree to go without phones, with enforcement triggered only after enough classmates join. This could create a tipping point. If enough students laugh, chat, and connect, those glued to their phones might feel compelled to join. It’s a fragile solution compared to a ban, but it could be worth testing as a voluntary pact is likely to lead to much less resistance than an outright ban.
My own recent experience illustrated what students might miss when phones dominate their attention. I recently needed to take several connecting public transit rides to get home, so after my phone’s battery dwindled, I turned it off to save power for the train ride home since I only had digital tickets. What could have been an isolating commute turned into an unexpected and enriching experience: I struck up a conversation with a fellow passenger, and others soon joined in. It reminded me of what students miss in classrooms: spontaneous, meaningful interactions that build connections and confidence.
Phones make it too easy to isolate ourselves, even in a crowd. While they have become central to our lives, we must consider the costs, especially in the classroom. Whether through bans, pacts, or other creative strategies, we must foster environments where students can grow both socially and intellectually. It’s time to experiment, innovate, and prioritize the human connections that prepare students for successful careers after college.
Haidt’s book focuses on the harm cell phones do to children, but I often found myself incredulous that they could be so harmful to children while also being just fine for adults. Cigarettes are bad for kids; they’re also terrible for adults. If you’d like an article summarizing his main points, here’s a great one.