Our generation is stupid?

This article sort of disturbed me… I honestly don’t have enough friends/acquaitainces to know if its true or not. What do you all think?

I know that for along time now people have been saying “Generation Y” is spoiled etc.

Is this merely the normal cycle of the older generation thinking the younger one are all a bunch of fuck-ups, or do you think there’s merit?

have this ongoing discussion with a longtime reader who also just so happens to be a longtime Oakland high school teacher, a wonderful guy who’s seen generations of teens come and generations go and who has a delightful poetic sensibility and quirky outlook on his life and his family and his beloved teaching career.

And he often writes to me in response to something I might’ve written about the youth of today, anything where I comment on the various nefarious factors shaping their minds and their perspectives and whether or not, say, EMFs and junk food and cell phones are melting their brains and what can be done and just how bad it might all be.

His response: It is not bad at all. It’s absolutely horrifying.

My friend often summarizes for me what he sees, firsthand, every day and every month, year in and year out, in his classroom. He speaks not merely of the sad decline in overall intellectual acumen among students over the years, not merely of the astonishing spread of lazy slackerhood, or the fact that cell phones and iPods and excess TV exposure are, absolutely and without reservation, short-circuiting the minds of the upcoming generations. Of this, he says, there is zero doubt.

Nor does he speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified and don’t spend enough time outdoors and don’t get any real exercise and therefore can’t, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.

No, my friend takes it all a full step — or rather, leap — further. It is not merely a sad slide. It is not just a general dumbing down. It is far uglier than that.

We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.

It’s gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.

Now, you may think he’s merely a curmudgeon, a tired old teacher who stopped caring long ago. Not true. Teaching is his life. He says he loves his students, loves education and learning and watching young minds awaken. Problem is, he is seeing much less of it. It’s a bit like the melting of the polar ice caps. Sure, there’s been alarmist data about it for years, but until you see it for yourself, the deep visceral dread doesn’t really hit home.

He cites studies, reports, hard data, from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid’s basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life), to the fact that, because of all the insidious mandatory testing teachers are now forced to incorporate into the curriculum, of the 182 school days in a year, there are 110 when such testing is going on somewhere at Oakland High. As one of his colleagues put it, “It’s like weighing a calf twice a day, but never feeding it.”

But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens’ decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words “agriculture,” or even “democracy.” Not a single student could do it.

It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he’s taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.

It is, in short, nothing less than a tidal wave of dumb, with once-passionate, increasingly exasperated teachers like my friend nearly powerless to stop it. The worst part: It’s not the kids’ fault. They’re merely the victims of a horribly failed educational system.

Then our discussion often turns to the meat of it, the bigger picture, the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens.

Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don’t arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog.

This is about when I try to offer counterevidence, a bit of optimism. For one thing, I’ve argued generational relativity in this space before, suggesting maybe kids are no scarier or dumber or more dangerous than they’ve ever been, and that maybe some of the problem is merely the same old awkward generation gap, with every current generation absolutely convinced the subsequent one is terrifically stupid and malicious and will be the end of society as a whole. Just the way it always seems.

I also point out how, despite all the evidence of total public-education meltdown, I keep being surprised, keep hearing from/about teens and youth movements and actions that impress the hell out of me. Damn kids made the Internet what it is today, fer chrissakes. Revolutionized media. Broke all the rules. Still are.

Hell, some of the best designers, writers, artists, poets, chefs, and so on that I meet are in their early to mid-20s. And the nation’s top universities are still managing, despite a factory-churning mentality, to crank out young minds of astonishing ability and acumen. How did these kids do it? How did they escape the horrible public school system? How did they avoid the great dumbing down of America? Did they never see a TV show until they hit puberty? Were they all born and raised elsewhere, in India and Asia and Russia? Did they all go to Waldorf or Montessori and eat whole-grain breads and play with firecrackers and take long walks in wild nature? Are these kids flukes? Exceptions? Just lucky?

My friend would say, well, yes, that’s precisely what most of them are. Lucky, wealthy, foreign-born, private-schooled … and increasingly rare. Most affluent parents in America — and many more who aren’t — now put their kids in private schools from day one, and the smart ones give their kids no TV and minimal junk food and no video games. (Of course, this in no way guarantees a smart, attuned kid, but compared to the odds of success in the public school system, it sure seems to help). This covers about, what, 3 percent of the populace?

As for the rest, well, the dystopian evidence seems overwhelming indeed, to the point where it might be no stretch at all to say the biggest threat facing America is perhaps not global warming, not perpetual warmongering, not garbage food or low-level radiation or way too much Lindsay Lohan, but a populace far too ignorant to know how to properly manage any of it, much less change it all for the better.

What, too fatalistic? Don’t worry. Soon enough, no one will know what the word even means.

Your post is essentially right on. Anything I could say would just add to the points that have just been made. You just need to look at the attitude people have towards learning, how the people who are smart are usually discriminated against because the population as a whole glorifies stupidity in order to accept itself. You just need to look at the fact that there are fewer and fewer native individuals from the US (or a few other western countries) like Canada pursuing rigorous higher education. A lot of politicians are trying to push more people into science because of the fact that the US is becoming more and more dependent on importing scientists from other countries in order to maintain their intellectual superiority. But this is difficult because of the sheer volume countries like China are now pumping out simply because of their larger population. This is also difficult because there comes a point where you have to address national security issues from who dominates your intellectual field. Ironically at the same time you have large swaths of politicians villifying science and recruiting lots of their stupid and uneducated constituents and creating all kinds of problems. Go Intelligent Design! Go Global Warming!

1 point that your post fails to address is the active role the stupid parents of these stupid children are playing: they are reinforcing their children’s stupidity by refusing to accept that their children are stupid. They blame the system for being too hard on their child instead of asking their child why they don’t work harder. People are convinced that they are all born equal and are all capable of doing everything if they choose to try, but it doesn’t work that way. This is especially true when you have a whole generation of people who never try and thus fail when they give up because they have no resilience. Overall, this is a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle.

Ultimately, anyone that speaks the truth on this subject will be burned to the stake because they will be espousing views that will be highly controversial and that society will not want to accept. Therefore the only thing that can happen is that things will continue to spiral down until things are bad enough that people will be willing to accept the truth, at which point things will be too late.

The irony is that I was wondering yesterday what I would do if I had kids. Would I try to go to Japan where he’d get a more rigorous education? I don’t know. What I also think of is that I am an MD / PhD. I don’t consider myself particularly smart. I wasn’t bad in high school but I wasn’t the best. I wasn’t the guy everyone in the class looked to for the answers and who got it all right or who just sat there understanding everything. The fact that someone as apparently average in ability as me can get where I am , I feel is not due to my greatness but how lousy my competition was.

I do think that a lot of the problems can be pinned on the educational system. Here in Ontario, my mother’s a teacher (a private school teacher, but one which slavishly sticks to the Ontario curriculum) and the things they make her do and say make my head explode. Kids can’t just learn any more, they have to learn in specific ways and specific topics and frankly, I don’t know if I would have been able to handle it if I’d been born twenty years later. The more I see of the system, the more I’m convinced it was created by people who have absolutely no idea what they’re doing, and simply experimenting with new tactics just because they can.

I’ve had a couple girlfriends who’s moms were teachers and what they’ve said about how things have changed echoes what Cid just said.

I think on a related note, we need to ask a few other questions which pertain to this topic. The first of which is “is this generation stupider?”. I don’t know if that is necessarily true. What we need to take into consideration is that what happened with this particular generation is part of a spectrum, it is not a radical break from the past. This is something which I alluded to in my post but didn’t really discuss, which is the stupidity of the parents. The parents are different from their offspring, but the flaws of the parents are reflected in the way they have raised their offspring and thus the attitudes which their offspring have adopted. Therefore, I would argue that the problems which we’re seeing probably were set into motion around maybe 40-50 years ago and we’re only seeing the aftereffects of what was set up then, now.

This means that any remedial action will take a long time to get into place as the current generation of individuals would need to be educated as to what the problems are and they would have to subsequently change how future generations are raised and educated. Which means we wouldn’t see any real positive influence, even if we do all the things right, for at least another 20-30 years. This doesn’t even begin to address the problems that one might see if there is an unevenness between generations that would be better raised vs the one which was not as relatively well raised.

In conclusion: since we’re most likely not going to see positive changes any time soon ANYWAY because of the complacency and non-chalance adopted by the current generations, we’re pretty fucked.

It’s gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.

I hear Canada is a good place, and it’s not that far away.

Our generation is not stupid, just spoiled, lazy, and arrogant.

It’s not just America. I can’t speak for anywhere else, but the overall spread of modern society pretty much had the exact same effect here. Last year there was a report on TV about 70% of the students taking college entrance tests failed, many of them not even knowing absolute basics like who was San Martín (The equivalent of someone asking an American “Who was Thomas Jefferson?”). Teachers, particularly high school teachers, have a horrible time as they are trying to balance out what they need to teach with the absolute incapacity of those they are supposed to teach. Hell, you could actually feel the exhilaration in my high school literature teacher whenever me and like the other four non-retarded students used words bigger than two syllables long.

Thankfully that stops in college. There’s a skyrocketing spike in how demanding college is compared to high school. On one hand that’s absolutely horrendous since it means everything before college clearly doesn’t work worth shit and creates an enormous surge of uneducated bums, but at the very least we’re certain that the guy building that bridge or that one performing heart surgery actually earned the diplomas.

This is what happens when the public education system is designed to make sure everyone passes no matter what.

In order to unfuck our schools we need to re-introduce real standards and hold students accountable for meeting them. If that means everyone doesn’t pass and some people get held back, well, that’s tough. And if people drop out they’re not the kind of people we should be wasting money trying to educate anyway. If they decide they don’t want to scrub toilets anymore (because someone still has to do it) they can still get a GED and go on to college later.

Knowing who someone is isn’t an absolute basic. I can’t tell you who any of my prime ministers were or what they did, and I don’t really give a shit, and no one else does either. Because it’s absolutely useless to know that.

Not knowing how to use a ruler though, thats fucking nuts. It just can’t be true. That’s not even something you need to be told how to do. It’s common sense. You want a straight line, you find a straight line to guide you. I’m having a hard time believing anyone couldn’t do that. Unless you’re talking about units of measurement and such, in which case… still the teachers’ fault.

I’m pretty much with Rast on this one. I don’t even really believe stupidity or smartness exist. We’re all about equal, we’re just motivated in different ways to do different things. And yeah some of those things don’t really help our society out much, but that’s less the fault of the younger generation than it is the unfocused, direction-less motivations imposed on them by the older generation.

being able to define the words “agriculture,” or even “democracy.” Not a single student could do it.
That has nothing to do with intelligence. No one can define those words if they’ve never been told what they mean. And whose fault is that?

And if they HAVE been taught what those words mean, and forgot… then how important could they be anyway? Not very.

The AP curriculum can be okay in terms of pace. Of course, it’s nothing compared to most developed Asian countries’ curriculums, but it’s a start.

And Canada’s education system (Ontario’s in particular) is not much better. Just a while back they took out calculus almost entirely from the curriculum so that exposure to even the basic concepts of calculus will be fairly new in your freshman year at university. Not to mention taking out grade 13 (OAC year) about four years back. Thanks, Mike Harris :[

Edit: Yeah how important could the concept on which all of occidental society was built be?

Living in occidental society doesn’t require you to understand it’s foundations. At least not in high school.

All I’m saying is that students can’t be blamed for certain things, people are pointing fingers to make their failure to teach important concepts appear to be more acceptable.

I think at that point of the article, the author is more or less just sighing dramatically instead of pointing any fingers, which could be directed at a variety of people, including the teachers, the parents, society in general, the politicians, and the students themselves. :[

Yeah, I was just gonna point out that I’ve been pointing my finger at the older generation, when really both generations have been collaborating to fuck shit right up, together. Haha oh man we’re fucked.

Knowing who someone is isn’t an absolute basic. I can’t tell you who any of my prime ministers were or what they did, and I don’t really give a shit, and no one else does either. Because it’s absolutely useless to know that.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Although I’ll agree that most people get along fine without knowing who Lester B. Pearson is, far more people know who Abraham Lincoln is. Most of our prime ministers did very little in terms of advancing the cause of Western civilization or influencing world politics, something you can’t argue similarly for American presidents.

I’m pretty much with Rast on this one. I don’t even really believe stupidity or smartness exist.

So intelligence tests are totally fake, then? If you explain something to one person and he gets it first try, and you explain it the same way to to someone else and it takes him five tries, they still have the same intelligence? The best I can tell you there is that they learn things differently - but there are medical and psychological conditions for “slow learners”, which are emphatically real.

That doesn’t really have much to do with what we’re talking about though. We’re not talking about intelligence and stupidity, we’re talking about knowledge and ignorance.

That has nothing to do with intelligence. No one can define those words if they’ve never been told what they mean. And whose fault is that?

People can tell them what it means, but if they aren’t internalizing it, it won’t stick. And yes, it’s the teachers’ and parents’ jobs to instill the motivation in those kids in the first place.

And if they HAVE been taught what those words mean, and forgot… then how important could they be anyway? Not very.

Just because it hasn’t been important yet doesn’t mean it won’t be important in the future. If you want to be a politician, for example, you’d damn well better know what agriculture means.

Anyway, yes, Ontario curriculum is severely flawed, and gets worse every year.

You’re all committing a falacy that goes back 3,000 years: the “growing decadence” fallacy. The idea’s that somehow – morally, physically, or intellectually – <i>we’re getting worse</i>. The argument at its best goes, “Look how bad [topic] is nowadays! Why, I’ve personally seen x, y, and z. Unbelievable. That would’ve been scorned in my day.” What the arguer tends to miss is that, for his argument to resonate, “x, y, and z” <i>still</i> have to be scorned by his <i>modern</i> readers. It’s never the readers who are decadent; it’s always some abstract “them.” Where is this “them”? The arguer fails to consider that a) maybe “they” are a minority, or b) maybe “they” <i>always have been</i> the majority, but because history records only <i>memorable</i> people and <i>their</i> works, we mistakenly conclude that the stupids are new to our generation. That’s the basic anatomy of the error.

But that’s also all vague and psychological; let’s look at this scientifically. To really analyze intellectual decadence, we’d need an objective, comparative, and holistic study of one generation versus another. We’d need to measure how thoroughly people understood <i>every</i> subject – whether that subject be biology, a foreign language, pottery, or farming techniques – and total up their effective knowledge in a single variable. That’s difficult. Why can’t we just compare the specifics? Because it’s misleading.

For instance, 40 years ago, I bet most young males could repair ordinary problems in the family car. Not anymore. Does that mean 1967 young males were better educated? No. First, cars back then followed relatively simple principles of engineering, such that a non-specialist didn’t need a large knowledge base to figure out what was wrong. Second, young males nowadays concern themselves with repairing other things, such as computers. Does it all balance out? Well, since the <i>genetics</i> of constructive ambition haven’t changed since 1967, and it’s basically impossible for us to thwart human instinct on a societal scale, I’d say yes.

So, back to school. It’s indisputable: we’ve gotten worse in certain subjects. Geography? We’re pathetic. Math calculation-by-hand? We’re terrible, next to our grandparents. Literary analysis? We’ve traded the ability to close-read, for the dubious ability to search texts for hidden political messages. But do we really <i>know less</i>? I doubt it. For example, we take our AP math and science classes for granted, but our parents didn’t encounter those subjects till college, if ever. You couldn’t “pass out of” Calculus II, Electricity and Magnetism, or basic Chemistry. Nowadays, a lot of students take Calculus III in high school. Somehow, we’ve packed the first year and a half of college into high school. That doesn’t sound like “decadence” to me.

Moreover, even if our “general knowledge” has decreased a bit, there’s the countervailing fact that every subject now is intensely specialized. In the 19th century, a doctor was a doctor and a lawyer was a lawyer. Now – just as a small sample – we have neurosurgeons, intensivists and immunologists, and tax lawyers, corporate lawyers and land-use lawyers. Even as we keep people in school longer and longer, as our knowledge base increases, <i>something</i> eventually has to give. If we’ve got to give up geography so our college freshman can take organic chem, well, that’s a valid trade.

In any event, my point is this: It’s very hard to pick out <i>real</i> social trends. Our very psychology incites us to ignore certain facts and blow others far out of proportion. We end up revising both the present and the past to suit our judgmental inclinations. The only way to escape this is through a thoroughly deliberated, <i>objective</i> and <i>holistic</i> study – and there’s still no guarantee that we’ve covered all the relevant facts. This is why I say to myself, “Our genetics basically haven’t changed in the last 3,000 years. We have natural impulses to work and learn, and meanwhile scorn diversions. We have natural impulses to rest, and meanwhile embrace diversions. No amount of effort can thwart a <i>society’s</i> natural impulses. Yeah, the world’s changed, so our working and learning now are qualitatively different. But as long as our genetics themselves don’t degrade, we probably don’t have to worry about decadence.”

So intelligence tests are totally fake, then? If you explain something to one person and he gets it first try, and you explain it the same way to to someone else and it takes him five tries, they still have the same intelligence?
Yes. The first person just has some other kind of advantage. For one reason or another, because of something else he knows or something he’s done in the past, the concept will click more easily with him. That doesn’t make him smarter. It just makes him different. I can probably fill a Sudoku grid 100 times faster than Garry Kasparov. Does that make me a better logician? Any answer to that question would be as arbitrary as any answer to who’s smarter based on a specific intelligence test. Intelligence tests might be able to measure certain quantifiable things, but they’ll never be able to tell you if any one person is smarter than any other. And it doesn’t really matter because our brains are all made of the same gray shit and all they can do is what we’ve trained them to do, anyway.

People can tell them what it means, but if they aren’t internalizing it, it won’t stick.
And why doesn’t it stick? Because they don’t need to use it at the time. Education is as much about timing as it is about anything else. Teaching a student useless concepts is as bad as failing to teach them useful ones. Education isn’t just about knowing shit. It’s about using what you know, and if you don’t use it, you’re going to forget it. If the younger generation is really as stupid as the author of the article wants us to believe, a huge reason for that is probably that students are being taught so much useless shit they’re never going to use, and the ones who do use it will have to be re-taught anyway, “in the future” as you say, when it’s actually important to know.

That got me thinking. Maybe stuffing the heads of youngsters for the first 20 or so years of their life isn’t the right way to go with education? Maybe we need a LOOSER system? One that’ll get them working faster, producing and solving problems instead of stagnating in a hive-mind high school that isn’t worth shit? I’m not saying that should definitely happen, I’m just brainstorming a bit.

I don’t have time to reply to the entire post right now and while you make good points, Xwing, you also ignore that there is a lot of relevant data that points to the fact that there are problems that need to be addressed. For example, Hades mentionned that if people don’t know what “democracy” means, then it doesn’t matter. This is false because people who don’t understand what democracy is really about is not an effective citizen. When you have an entire populace that doesn’t understand fundamental concepts like this, society as a whole suffers and we run into problems, like the current political problems we are facing with the Bush administration. When you have a general trend in your populace where they can’t do the basic math to evaluate the cost per unit of a given material in a supermarket, this is a problem. You don’t need to go far behind to see why people are runnning into these issues, you just need to look at what they’ve been taught and how they’ve been raised.

Your point echoes partially what I mentionned earlier, “does anything really change?”. The individuals advancing our species and civilization are in the very small minority. The question isn’t “are we advancing forward?” , because the answer is simple, and we are advancing forward, but because of a small non-representative minority’s efforts. This discussion is about everyone else. Its about very basic necessities.

I’m going to have fun with Hades’ post later. I’ll just say that most intelligence tests are irrelevant becuase a test just tests what it tests. What meaning you draw from that test is usually a subjective interpretation of what the tester wants to believe.

I hope by “fun” you mean good, agreeing-with-me fun. Because I was pretty much trying to point out exactly what you just said.

Same here, only it doesn’t stop at college. In order for someone to be a lawyer here, they have to pass a few tests, which are conducted by a federal department. These exams are taken by people who have already graduated in law, which is one of the hardest courses to get into. Less than 10% of the people who just got their diplomas manage to pass the federal test. The remainder cannot, by law, have any jobs related to the area (lawyer, judge etc.). In other words, over 90% of the people majoring in law here will never be able to work in the field because they are incompetent.

There’s a clear distinction forming in classrooms. In about every school I know, there is a group of smart students which are seggregated in special classes. These classes are called, in a very cruel manner, “for college” or “top students”. The other classes are called “regular students”. These are not nicknames by which we call the groups, the schools put those as formal titles to the groups. The difference in the level of the classes, for the same year, is sometimes absurd. And the seggregation is now starting at ages as young as 14. Oh, and it takes a very hard exam to get into the “for college” classes, mostly because there are more students trying to get in, for a better education, than the schools can take. Now, imagine how a parent would feel when his/her 14-year-old child is denied the right to study in a good class and is doomed to live the remainder of his school years with idiots. I’ve seen it happen more times than I’d like to.

I have a cousing who is turning 14 this December and has applied for the “for college” classes in the last school I went to, and I’m cheering her.

And why doesn’t it stick? Because they don’t need to use it at the time. Education is as much about timing as it is about anything else.

Not really. Education is all about making the subject matter interesting enough that it WILL stick, even later in life. There are plenty of things I learned that had no practical application, but which still stuck. Heck, what practical application could there possibly be in subjects such as astronomy, poetry, or history? Saying that kids should only learn things which are practical destroys half of human knowledge.

The first person just has some other kind of advantage. For one reason or another, because of something else he knows or something he’s done in the past, the concept will click more easily with him. That doesn’t make him smarter. It just makes him different.

It goes back to what the term “intelligence” means, which is quite nebulous. And while your claim may be true… well, then again, it may not. Everyone has different abilities. I can definitely tell you that I don’t have the same hand-eye coordination that my next-door neighbor does. I can’t be taught that, nor is it part of my past experience. It’s part of my innate abilities and skill set. I don’t have any problem in believing that different people simply have different skills, both mentally and physically.

Now… labeling someone “stupid” isn’t really useful, just because the label is too vague. But the idea that someone can intrinsically internalize information faster than someone else, or can latch onto ideas easier than someone else, isn’t so ridiculous.