Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

[Taualumna]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Strauss and Howe defined Gen X (calling the "13th generation") as those born between 1861 and 1981.
.

You mean 1961 to 1981.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

1977 is not Generation X in any way, shape or form. If you can't remember MTV never not being there (and I don't mean because you lived in the boonies w/ no cable), you are not Generation X. Per the ORIGINAL definition of it from Coupland's book, Gen X births probably at the LATEST ended in 1974 (Nixon's resignation).

Coupland's book is a pretty poor judge (although ground-breaking in some of its conclusions - it really started the 'field' of study), especially since it was published in '91 so the '81 group did not have nearly enough time to actually matter. MTV is not as good a dividing line as the generalized pre-Internet destruction of long-held trust or monoliths, including MTV, tainted Tylenol, Berlin Wall, etc. Coupland's book was a starting point, and has been refined since - those born in '79 in most parts of the country likely have more similar upbringings to those in '74 than '84, I would posit.

Almost all research I've read agrees closely with what MysticCat posted, although the edges are quite fluid (up to five years in some estimations) as I posted earlier - and that's if you think the 'trends' are worthwhile at all to start.

The term "millenials" is suspect at best, in my mind.

Originally Posted by Taualumna

You mean 1961 to 1981.

No, he clearly means 1861 - anyone born post-slavery is Gen X. Seriously?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

No, he clearly means 1861 - anyone born post-slavery is Gen X. Seriously?

LOL.

I think she was just excited at the chance to correct MysticCat. The opportunities present themselves so infrequently. Not unlike yourself, RC.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Taualumna

You mean 1961 to 1981.

LOL. Yes, I do, although some days I feel 146.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, there's a problem with our language here - I would also like to see studies that link learning styles to different generations, but this type of research is in its infancy (to say the least); especially in a "cognitive sciences" sense.

I mean what I wrote in a literal sense - Gen Y learns in a different way, in that they choose to acquire their preferred information in a far different way (and not so much that they are unable to obtain information in the same fashion, or excel in different areas). I realize I was quite unclear there - I can probably dig for a few studies if you choose, but I think it's self-evident that Gen Y is not gathering information (which I shortened to "learning") in the same way on their own (and it's a lesser point, honestly).

I have no foundation for any conclusion on the "problem" being the methods used, in the sense that I am not a teacher and I have no background in teaching. I have a background in group and individual decision making, persuasion, and communication. In my line of work, it is important for me to be able to craft a message that makes sense across multiple backgrounds, learning styles, experience filters and intellectual capacities - it's super nerdy, so I can explain better in a PM if you'd like. Basically, part of my job is to keep up with generational trends - most analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative (by necessity, unfortunately), though, if that interests you.



OK - but I've never seen any real evidence that this is true for Gen Y, either. Just like you said before, I've heard this, but I don't see anything that really lets me know any causation at all. If it is endemic, it would seem important (and possible) to identify these things, to me anyway.

We just say "kids today are stupid!" but can't account for bias or potential causes (beyond incredibly lame things like "the Internet" or "text messaging") - and I know you're not necessarily doing that, but that's the attitude I abhor, really.



That's what I'm saying though - it's another "chicken/egg" argument. If most people don't read at an 11th-grade level, don't you have to lower the textbook level? Doesn't keeping the level higher have negative consequences for your earlier points about Gen Y "just not getting it" or not having comprehension of materials?

This is really my main point of interest - after all of the alarmist articles and hand-wringing, I don't think we're any closer to really identifying the problem (if any) with the Gen Y set. That's frustrating for me, and it sounds like it might be for you, too.

I'm not sure that embracing the preferred learning style or method is where it's at, but we can just disagree about that, I suppose. To me that's a superficial priority that ought not drive instructional decisions, but I don't believe in making people do something just for the sake of tradition, either.

My take is that we keep defining proficiency down when we're talking about the whole group of learners presently in public schools. Sure, some at the top end are way beyond what most people in previous generations might have learned, but the majority who just progress through at grade level are behind.

Maybe because people don't usually get re-elected to public office by proclaiming that excellence is really only available to some and that's the natural order of things, the rhetoric is always about getting everyone to higher levels of achievement. But since I really don't believe that intelligence is uniformly parceled out, I don't think it's truly possible and since we sure as hell don't spend our time really systematically and scientifically examining teaching and learning or even what it is that kids are supposed to learn, we never really get any place.

Rather than holding the 11th grade books at the 11th grade level and maybe not getting everyone to that level of mastery, we drop the reading level of the 11th grade books, and as a result, the majority of kids aren't getting the chance to receive what had traditionally been 11th grade instruction. They don't even get to attempt it until college. And I believe that most could have done the work had they been required too instead of experimented on the name of the latest educational fad. We're dumbing it down farther and faster than the level of the kids in most districts dropped. And I agree that some of it is the rhetoric of educational catastrophe that creeps in. But again, I think it goes back to political rhetoric and what sells voters on candidates.

I honestly believe that back when we kind of accepted that everyone didn't make it through high school, more kids actually mastered more and more complex material.

ETA: I don't think the kids are any stupider intrinsically. I just don't think we're teaching many of them as much as we could and should. I think the methods are bad, but they're bad because they are too trendy, not that they aren't current enough. And we're also not requiring kids to master basic "employability skills" that I think school used to expect and require (show up daily; on time; with materials you need, etc.)