When I first arrived at Tulane as a college freshman, a four-day long move-in orientation ensued. The most memorable event took place in the auditorium as the college president and deans addressed the entire freshman class all dressed in freshly handed out olive green "Only at Tulane, Only in New Orleans" t-shirts. I remember being told by the deans and president that we "are the smartest class Tulane's ever had" based on our entering class's GPA and SAT scores. Sadly, soon after, that statement was no longer true as each entering class was reported to being more higher achieving (in terms of SAT scores and GPA) than any previous classes. As I read the e-letters sent by my alma mater each spring gushing about its new promising class, I always wondered when my old high school records won't be enough to grant me admission to Tulane anymore (or when will my SAT scores be below the mean SAT score for the incoming class)? Based on that, I always thought of the younger generations as becoming smarter and smarter.
 |
"Class of 2012, I now proclaim you the smartest class at Tulane
--until the class of 2013 arrives!" |
One of this week's "reading" is a
debate about the Millennial generation. In the debate, Mark Bauerlein argued that the Millennial generation--although having improved behaviors (teen violence, better attitudes toward parents and college, etc.), increased ambition (more AP tests and college enrollment), and enriched resources for intellectual development (increased number of museums and libraries)--is dumber than ever before thanks to the digital age. The digital age, namely social networking and youth's attachment to talking/interacting with peers, makes it hard for adult voices to reach the youth. As a result, young people are reading less (according to self-reported reading hours), their SAT scores are declining, and college professors are reporting that college students are less prepared for college than before. On the other hand, Neil Howe argued that the Millennial generation are not only improving behavior-wise (declining pregnancy rate), they're becoming smarter too. To support his argument, Howe cited the Flynn effect (increasing IQ ages), the fact that there's a vast increase in college enrollment, the positive increase in NAEP Nations Report (especially math), and the comparison of the then and now winning products and words in the National Science Fair and Spelling Bee, respectively.
 |
Skepticism. It doesn't just apply to things
you don't believe or don't want to believe. |
First of all, it's very interesting to hear two educated opposite views about how the Millennial generation stacks up to other generations. Especially interesting is how two sides can interpret the same statistics to support their claims. For math teachers, I can see this debate itself (with its statistics) be a hook to teach the power of statistics, how it can be manipulated to support different claims, and how an educated public with a healthy skepticism is needed to not be fooled by politicians and their charts/figures/claims (Do you just believe the numbers that come out of politician's mouth because it's something you want to hear and believe?). For me, the take-away message of this debate is that as educators in the 21st century, instructors (especially the oldies...) should stay current on the culture of the young generations. To do that, he/she can learn about what's it's like to be a teenager nowadays, what's expected of them, what do they value, how much work do they have to do inside and outside of school, and how they communicate and learn inside and outside of school. Teacher expectations/instruction can then be tailored to fit adolescents for maximum learning efficiency/engagement. For example, one of the debate points in the video is the amount of homework and assigned readings (one argues it's decreased and the other argues it's increased). The teacher could simply survey the class to gain an idea of the students' course load and then adjust homework load accordingly. Similarly, how instructors evaluate student work could also be adjusted accordingly as younger generations become more tech-savvy than before. Smartphones, Podcast, and videos are just a few examples of alternative ways to turn in assignments.
I admire how you were able to work your field into how you looked at the podcast. Latin does not lend itself very well to this, as Roman rhetoric embraced brutal, borderline NC-17 rated ad hominem as a valid (and favored) debate tactic.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I felt the "core" of the dispute was that there are some members of the older generations that have observed our generation is different from theirs, and that this is bad. And this in turn reminds me of something I thought of back in our "Introduction to Secondary Schools" class when we were discussing cyberbullying: Older people surveyed don't feel it is very problematic, whereas younger people do. I believe that both these feelings (cyberbullying and the interpretation of the Millennial statistics) are primarily due to ossified opinions of, well, older people refusing to readjust fully to the times.
Man, I feel absolutely sordid after all that generation-baiting...