Wow is my generation really this dumb?

[ailchim 216]

Before anyone heads off in an anti-American direction (or thinks anyone else is), the article is about British teenagers  and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

The good news is that the idea that people in the UK should be able to vote at 16 seems to be gaining ground.  I hope with that thought in your mind you'll all sleep soundly in your beds.   

[WhiteKnuckle 11]

“The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you actually don’t know.” 

― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

[Dave Morgan 68]

Hi.

 

I've just read through most of this thread and seen a number of points to which I'd like to reply. There were none in the last dozen or so posts because my attention had wandered by then, and I've forgotten most of the others in any case. There are a few comments about standards and trends in education but I suspect they are based loosely on figures, mostly for pass rates, delivered by newspapers (I saw no citations). Even the National Literacy Trust relies on the support of key-stage pass rates for its arguments.

 

But consider the following.

 

The 1968 and 2012 eleven-plus maths papers don't seem very different. Eleven-plus was once an entry exam for enrollment at grammar schools, which were considered academically superior to the alternative secondary modern school. The exam was dropped for many years as being divisive, which I assume is one purpose of exams. Here are two past papers, one very recent and one from before I was potty-trained. Calculators are not permitted.

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/assets/195/CGP11+MathsTest.pdf
http://www.burtongrammar.co.uk/category/life-and-times/school-exams/1968-11-plus

 

O-levels, now GCSEs, were for 16 year-olds (tables were provided and no mention is made of slide-rules so you may use a calculator). There were two standards of examination in 1968, of which the O-level was rather more stringent so I've linked to the GCSE Higher paper. I see a big difference between these, in both the nature of the questions and the difficulty.

http://www.burtongrammar.co.uk/category/life-and-times/school-exams/1968-maths-o
http://www.wjec.co.uk/uploads/papers/w13-4351-02.pdf

 

I would say that the similarity of the eleven plus stems from the reintroduction only having been made recently, whereas continued political pressure to show 'improvement' in pass rates has diluted the difficulty of GCSEs to something not far removed from the eleven plus. The problem, as I see it, started with a certain prime minister's demand for 'Education for all', which rapidly became a-certificate-for-everyone, a-prize-every-time. It's said that death is the great leveller- in the UK we now have thoroughly levelled education: division (sorry) is not permitted. I have a friend who is about to embark on an applied maths doctorate having done his master's modelling the passage of foam bubbles through porous rock (oil extraction). He complains incessantly about the abysmal standard of UK education while noting that his first year students need their first year to be brought up to under graduate standard.

 

I like the emphasis given to practicality in modern exam papers but I feel the simplicity of the questions, coupled with the instant gratification (and instant forgetfulness of the inquisitive), has led to a general loss of mental flexibility:

 

Get your stop-watch ready and put your calculator away. What's sixteen and a half times three quarters of eight?

 

Or, not very likely I suppose but this is really just a trig question. You're approaching the centre of runway RY19 on a heading of  240° and have been given permission to join left base. If you want to make a right-angled turn onto final at 6 miles out, about how far from the field would you turn onto that imaginary base leg? Sort this one out in your head while performing some other task.

 

If this has happened in the sciences, I expect the same has occurred in the arts and in social and cultural education. I feel standards have slipped or polarised similarly in social graces but that's just my old-fashined outlook. If life is easy what need is there of academic self-discipline. The current passion seems to be for a more physical excellence and that's fine because we can all look up anything we need to know. To argue that we can't be sure of the veracity of online resources is a bit fatuous. Which would you trust more- Wikipedia or Ask FM? Personally I like to work through stuff for myself, if only to confirm the answer I just received but I don't think we're likely to become John Wyndham's clods even if we boast about having read nothing more taxing than the Daily Sport since we left school.

 

Regards,

Dave

[Howellerman 104]

I'll sign off with this thought. Every generation lambasts the next generation as dumb. The 20's were the jazz babies, the 50's rock and roll teens, the 60's flyover power, the 70's punks and so on. Each generation has looked bad to the previous. It's the nature of things.

 

Nice Freudian slip, Jess: now slowly back away from the flight controller...  

 

The problem with the people you referenced that created these disasters was they think themselves too clever by half... And will use lies, misdirection, and subterfuge in order to forward their agenda. 

 

But, that is for a different thread, yes?

[sascha 314]

As for fallacies, it's equally fallacious to imply that any criticism of the next generation is invalid because previous generations were criticized, just as it's fallacious to suggest that all prior criticisms of previous generations were invalid.

+1

[Q_flyer 766]

The internet and social media can be thanked for some amazing positives; information sharing, medical application, resource sharing, security (in it's least political form!), etc, and some harrowing negative aspects; mass dissemination of poor role modelling and poor moral and ethical behaviours, hate spreading, bullying, etc.

 

They probably cancel eachother out.

 

I believe all of our current societal and social problems are down to the fact that our human nerve-based learning system is evolving faster than our ability to truly empathize.     The result being, an exponentially increasing sense of ego and sense of 'self', far overtaking our ability to empathize.

 

Not sure what we could do about that.  

[Captain_Barfbag 31]

History was a lot easier when I was in school.  That's because there was so much less of it back then..... :rolleyes:

 

On the bright side, one of the most popular TV shows earlier this year was "Vikings."  Yeah, it's got gratuitous sex and violence, but it spurs interest in the historical facts the story is based on.

 

With all of today's easy access to historical information on the Internet, I find it easy to research a bit around my favorite TV shows.  Besides "Vikings," my wife and I have been enjoying "Hell on Wheels," a western about the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, "Copper," a cop show set in New York City in 1865, "Ripper Street," another cop show, London, 1880s, and "Americans," Russian spies in the 1980s.

 

These shows, by the way, go very much against the grain of dumbed-down television.  The characters are multi-dimensional, and if you can break away from your yoke and pedals for an hour, well worth checking out.

[Captain_Barfbag 31]

 

 

Partly because I'm as guilty as anyone for decrying the generation below as 'stupid, idiotic or dumb'.

 

I'm a leading-edge Boomer, just hitting retirement age, something I'm not quite ready for yet.  I've got a unique perspective, because we've got a daughter who is only 22.  We got to know a lot of her high school and college classmates, and see the work they were doing.  Yes, there are some genuing dolts out there, but there are also a lot of very bright and curious minds.  Remember, while there will always be a bunch of fools who are too stupid to keep from falling off the bottom of the bell curve, there are just as many who balance them out on the other side.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

 

 

I doubt the blue part and would like to point out that, from your post, you did learn because the authority acted on you. Not because somebody intrinsically motivated you or showed how much value a good education can have.

 

And how would she have handled critical thinkers by the way?

 

"handled critical thinkers" in the 11th grade? In 1967? You are kidding right? The only critical thinking going on at the time, age, and generation, was driven by hormones (or the fear of being drafted into the Army, then bound for Vietnam if you quit school - you know, canon fodder). Critical thinking was not really expected until college and then that didn't always happen either because of hormones, Vietnam, or partying.

[BillW 216]

"handled critical thinkers" in the 11th grade? In 1967? You are kidding right? The only critical thinking going on at the time, age, and generation, was driven by hormones (or the fear of being drafted into the Army, then bound for Vietnam if you quit school - you know, canon fodder). Critical thinking was not really expected until college and then that didn't always happen either because of hormones, Vietnam, or partying.

Right on!

[Bjoern 1,177]

sascha, on 02 Oct 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

In research you have to work things out for yourself, you can't look things up.

 

You have to look at a lot of disparate facts and try to build a coherent whole.

 

You have to look at a piece of complicated technology and try to determine why it is not performing as it should, or how to improve it's performance.

Welcome to the world of developing aircraft for MSFS. Same required skills, different field.

 

Your argumentation in whole is exactly the same as once in a while expressed by any CEO of a random big company.

 

Look at it the other way 'round: The PhD. student from your example clearly has a good grasp on the workings of social media. Which would come in handy when the subject of distributing research results arises.

Also, the location of the "Like" button on a webpage is in no way related to any reading habit. If I'm interested, I will read the text. And maybe press that button. Period.

 

Quote

I know that in Germany education has become a real rat-race at least, with lots of additional stuff crammed into curricula and people having less time to do it ...

That's where the antiquated teaching methods come into play. Why spend hours in forcing yourself to learn something by heart if you can simply look it up on the web or use the library's online catalogue to find bits of relevant literature?

There's also an added neutrality bonus as you won't have to swallow pre-chewed facts but get to draw your own conclusions from multiple sources.

 

 

The research for my Bachelor thesis was entirely done with Google. Our library didn't have any relevant literature and vising universities around the globe to dig up papers, disserations and other stuff on the subject would have been a bit time and cost intensive. I did not have to do any lab work, I just drew conclusions from information found on the web.

The average resercher may now be shocked and disgusted, but my professor was A+ happy with the result and won't pursue any more cost and time intensive studies into the subject (a certain method of energy harvesting).

One way to bring mankind zero point zero zero zero zero five femtometers closer to...something.

 

 

 

Q_flyer, on 02 Oct 2013 - 4:55 PM, said:

Not sure what we could do about that.

Oh, oh, I know!

 

 

It involves nukes!

 

 

 

Guys...?

 

 

Guys?

 

 

 

Captain_Barfbag, on 02 Oct 2013 - 5:16 PM, said:

History was a lot easier when I was in school. That's because there was so much less of it back then..... :rolleyes:

Wow, must've bee tough growing up in the triassic age...

 

Honestly though, the subjects taught vary over time.

 

You can't make WW2 and Churchills dinner plan in December 1941 the biggest thing in history class forever, because at one point, the subject of the geopolitical consequences of the dissolution of the USSR and its relation to modern-day terrorism, is going to be a much more important subject to schoolkids.

 

Quote

With all of today's easy access to historical information on the Internet, I find it easy to research a bit around my favorite TV shows.

The internet and resulting book purchases have made me an expert (hahahaha, as if!) on airlines of the 1980s in the USA.

And I have no rational, personal connection whatsoever to this subject. Thank you, internet!

[january 19]

How things have changed!

My high school days in the 1940's comprised grades 9 to 13 - the latter including 2 English subjects, a language,  3 maths and 2 sciences plus a hitch in the school Cadet Corps.  ( I was 2IC in my last year and also led the Bren machine gun team. And yes the school had its own rifle range in the basement! And no, this was NOT a private military academy but a public high school in Toronto.) 

Given good marks in Gr 13, you were finally deemed fit for university or the working world. 

Part time jobs were standard- those who didn't have one were seen by their peers as not very ambitious. 

i started mowing lawns at age 10 - in Gr 13 I worked every afternoon & all day Sat. in a gas station, and Sat. evenings running a pop concession at a local high school dance. A good way to chat up the girls!

Bought my first house at age 24, and made it a boarding house for my university pals for a year before getting married.

I won't recommend the above for all today- it no doubt was a legacy of growing up in the depression and war years. But it sure helped when I hit the adult years!

january

[sascha 314]

sascha, on 02 Oct 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

In research you have to work things out for yourself, you can't look things up.

 

You have to look at a lot of disparate facts and try to build a coherent whole.

 

You have to look at a piece of complicated technology and try to determine why it is not performing as it should, or how to improve it's performance.

Welcome to the world of developing aircraft for MSFS. Same required skills, different field.

 

Your argumentation in whole is exactly the same as once in a while expressed by any CEO of a random big company.

 

Hmmmm, I'll say you are barking completely up the wrong tree. Where to begin replying?

 

Firstly, saying that developing a gravitational wave detector (ground- or land-based) compares to developing MSFS planes is like saying it is like building a real plane - except that a large-scale astronomical observatory usually is lots more complicated than your average airplane...

 

I suggest you look it up in the web.

 

Secondly, an international research community is in almost no way comparable to a large conpany. It is open to new ideas per definition and it is a very unforgiving environment for people not pulling their weight or working their own agendas.

 

 

 

 

Look at it the other way 'round: The PhD. student from your example clearly has a good grasp on the workings of social media. Which would come in handy when the subject of distributing research results arises.

Also, the location of the "Like" button on a webpage is in no way related to any reading habit. If I'm interested, I will read the text. And maybe press that button. Period.

I'd say you did not read my post properly, my colleague stated that he would press the like button BEFORE reading an item. This is also what I wrote.

 

Clearly this is a dangerous habit in a research environment where you have to second- and third-guess each step, not shoot off in a direction based on your first impression.

 

By the way, research results are not really distributed in social media.

 

 

..

That's where the antiquated teaching methods come into play. Why spend hours in forcing yourself to learn something by heart if you can simply look it up on the web or use the library's online catalogue to find bits of relevant literature?

Strangely enough, there IS such a thing as assimilating knowledge to draw conclusions. If your personal store of knowledge is not great, you will look at the facts and not see patterns, probably not even recognize the facts themselves.

 

This is very apparent in research. If you are trying to develop a piece of technology you need to know a lot of the facts (laser technology, quantum physics and so on) before you can even understand the problems involved, never mind build a superior laser.

.

II believe that the term generally used in this context is 'in-depth knowledge'.

 

Another point which is grossly underestimated in modern education IMO is the acquisition of random knowledge by being forced to read through books to find items you need. Looking up things in the web tends to only bring up results matching your search criteria little chance of stumbling across interesting new lines of thought.

 

As I wrote, my wife teaches language classes. It is necessary to practice a language by reading and yes, looking up words you don't know. But you need to learn the words! By heart, yea, and also the grammar, otherwise you end up talking BS.

 

Heck, as I wrote my wife would be happy if her students looked up things in the internet! But these days, some seem to to go into class and come out with a perfect grasp of the German language (which is quite difficult)..

 

Note that my wife is Russian and so it is quite an achievement to become so proficient in German (she has no German roots, it is a foreign language to her) to teach it at a German university. So she understands how to learn and teach a language.

 

 

Regards,

Sascha

[CoolP 283]

Yikes, Tom. I guess there's been some progress taking place in between which we are both happy about. :smile:

 

Had to applaud to the positive views from Captain_Barfbag. See, he's 'struck' with the fate of having a daughter. Seems like he's caught the vibe of making the good examples the role model. Contagious policy.

 

I don't think anyone would think that telling a young person how good you are, how disappointed you've been so far and how stupid their generation in general is would be able to cause any change. For the better.

 

So that's were I can agree to Jessica, stating that it wasn't the young generation causing their own status. They tend to get born and then try to find their place. We could assume that a lack of grumpy old people leads them to become incapable of relating to guys like Churchill, which might be true, but if we focus on this single fact we're leaving out the rest and, most likely, our own role.

[Vineguy 37]

I am amazed when reading posts in any forum, the number of college educated people that don't know how to use grammar school English.

The misuse of words such as, there, their, to, too, two and of course your and you're.

Well I guess their is just two much stuff to remember so your not going to get it correct. :wacko: