I’m not
going to lie, before I opened word document to write this essay I went on
Facebook. In fact, that is my automatic action whenever the Internet is
accessible, along with most of the people I go to school with. True, people in
past generations probably spent more time in the library than they did focusing
on online social networking, but does this inference justify saying this
generation is less intelligent than the ones before? In the book the Dumbest Generation, Mark Bauerlein
expresses his belief that Americans are, in fact, growing dumber as time goes
on. He specifies on the current, or youngest, generation by arguing we are
stupid due to our lack in proper motives for gaining knowledge, excessive
“screen time”, and the previous generation’s incompetency in guiding us
properly.
“Books make
people smarter. Nowadays, people don’t read as many books as they used to.
Therefore, the current generation is dumber than the rest.” This quote, (said
by nobody in particular) demonstrates one of Bauerlein’s reasoning’s on why we
have become more stupid. Inspired by his first chapter where he argues the
knowledge discrepancy between this generation and it’s preceding one, he claims
young peoples choose not to read. With many numbers and statistics, he grasps the
potential in the improvement society could make by reading more tangible books.
Bauerlein further
argues the need for less computer time. Much of his verdict comes from the
progression in technology. He believes online learning coincides with no
learning at all because of its many distractions. Television, books and
magazines, parents and other adults, text messages, music, and the Web affect
our language abilities. Apparently digital uses also “close the doors to maturity,
erode habits of the classroom, and pull hours away from leisure practices that
complement classroom habits.”
Bauerlein’s diction is very
sophisticated, further establishing to his argument. If a person reads his book
and doesn’t understand certain words or meanings, they will feel stupid. “Even if we grant that visual media cultivate a
type of spatial intelligence, they
still minimize verbal intelligence, providing too little stimulation for it,
and intense, long-term immersion in it stultifies
the verbal skills of viewers and disqualifies them from most every academic and professional labor.” Say
what?!
I’m sure
our flawless prior generation could explain.
Despite his
direct attack on my friends, classmates, future coworkers, and myself,
Bauerlein includes several passages that I do agree with and found interesting,
even inspiring. Personally I connected more with his case centered on the TV,
computer, cell phone, and any other digital objects with screens. When he
stated,
“In 50 years…
Knowledge will reside less in the minds of people and more on the pages of Web
sites. The past will come alive on the screen, not in the imagination. The
factual inventory that makes for a good Jeopardy!
contestant will belong to individuals who tap quickly into the right
information sources, not to individuals with the best memories and discipline.
Texts will be more visual, reading more “browsy” and skimming.” (page101, Bauerlein)
my head was nodding along with the text. His hypothesis is
based off credible inferences, because it seems quite possible that the
dependency of the future will reside online. Game shows currently are played
with knowledge within the brain and past experiences that put a contestant
there. However, with technology growing and becoming more prominent in our
lives, it is completely plausible that the value of a person is based, not on
the content of their character, but in the content of their computer.
Mark Bauerlein
continues to gain my perspective when he confronts online learning, expressing
specifically, “In 2001, Henrico Country Public Schools in Virginia distributed
Apple laptops to every high school student in the system, and a year later the
State of Maine gave one to each seventh and eighth-grade student in the state,
along with their teachers.” (pg. 117). Shouldn’t schools focus on the students
that can’t even afford to buy their own textbooks or calculators before
distributing iPads and laptops? Does it really make sense to put those
glamorous items before basic needs? I relate this to my own school districts
approach. Elementary schools have laptops assigned to each student, giving them
access to learn online. As early as next year at the High School, kids entering
freshmen year will be given iPads to use for educational purposes. Yet, last
year when I was a volunteer at JamFest, an organization for Fund-A-Need
(program that raises money for the students inside WHS who can’t afford basic
school supplies), the turnout was depressingly low. So low, in fact, that they
decided to discontinue JamFest in the future.
Just
because he is essentially condemning my generation doesn’t mean I don’t accept
some of his points. But- for the comparison factor- I would be delighted to
share excerpts that I disagree with. I
understand the goal of his book was establish an argument. However it was hard
for me to not scoff at some of his
logic.
Bauerlein includes, “While 64 percent knew the name of the
latest ‘American Idol,’ only 10 percent could identify the speaker of the U.S.
House of Representatives.” (pg. 19). Excuse me Mr. Bauerlein, but you only
interviewed people ages 15-26 years old. My stats teacher and I could both
explain a sample size that small does not justify the views of the entire U.S.
population. While it does give decent insight on our generation, what about the
previous ones? Perform another study showing responses from 30-60 year olds and
see if they know any better than we do. (By the way, I had no idea who had won
the latest American idol).
On page 31
he brings up that kids nowadays have more money to spend. “Not many
20-year-olds in 1965 had a credit card… by 2002, 83 percent of college students
carried at least one.” This argument wasn’t effective to me because the amount
of money a teenager has now compared to what they had 50 years ago is obviously
going to be significantly larger due to inflation and the advancement of our
economy. If teenager’s back then did
have the same amount of money, I find it hard to believe they would choose to exclusively
purchase intellectual objects either.
Apart from
the sarcastic tone and examples against Bauerlein included in this essay, I do
appreciate his effort in wanting to change the youngest generation. Obviously I
am going to be defensive about his suggestions because they are directed at me.
Nobody enjoys being called stupid- nonetheless being told they are becoming more stupid with time. The constant
statistics, references to smart people, and claims he stated over and over
bored me often. Though they did provide excessive credibility for his facts,
and produced a large quantity of facts to support his claim, using too many of
them left me overwhelmed. By starting off his proposal with a whole chapter on
evidence similar to the Jay Leno show, he provides the chocolate cake parents tell
their kids they could so they eat all their veggies first. It’s sustenance.
Support. Motivation.
Overall, the effects of Bauerlein's argument are propelling because they make kids either want to change their reputation, or counter argue why the concept "dumb" shouldn't be applied to them. It creates strong emotions.
Bauerlein provided many personal
examples from kids in this generation (the interviews by Jay Leno and the
guests appearing on the Tonight Show)
that moved his argument forward because many of his readers have most likely
seen interviews like this. It makes his audience feel ashamed of
representatives from our generation, prompting them to think, “He isn’t
attacking me personally- he is attacking other
people my age. So I can see why he is arguing that our generation is dumb… for
the time being.” After reading this, I also feel guilt for going on Facebook before I do anything productive. The women in this video should feel even guiltier.
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment