We have an interesting seed for a significant thread in the comment supplied by Mr. Engeset yesterday -- following on the earlier comments by Messers. Corbin, Muldoon, and Nadipuram. From my reading, the discussion seems to feature two paths familiar to students of attribution theory from social psych: the "external" attributionists, i.e., those who see individual behavior as primarily determined by situations, are represented by Mr. Nadipuram and, to a more nuanced degree, by Mr. Muldoon. Mr. Corbin and Mr. Engeset, by my reading of their comments, seem to share the "dispositional" path in attribution theory: the behavior of an individual, or in this case a generation, can be best ascribed to "internal" factors of those behaving. In this instance, the dispositional attributions to GenYers with respect to public life and engagement with it vs. detachment from it are, if nothing else, direct and pablum-free. Overly compressed to some degree, GenY is removed from political life by "choice" -- for the lazy, less-demanding option rather than the tougher choice. In fairness, neither Mr. Engeset nor Mr. Corbin are blaming their generation entirely without taking into account the considerations noted and explicated by Mr. Muldoon, namely a pre-collegiate (and collegiate) educational system that is standardized-test-based and indifferent, at best, to the idea of multiple intelligence or the value of creativity, individually or socially.
My questions about these disparate assessments are twofold. First, what do others on Obamadogs among GenY think? Are you and your peers defined by your music and your choice of "distractions"? Are you "lazy"? Or are you victims of a so-called "educational system" that is fundamentally what one would expect if the Radical View of American democracy is correct: a system of control aimed at producing unquestioning cogs for the Corporate State, not independently-minded, articulate citizens whose search for genuine solutions to vexing problems takes them, comfortably, out of the box?
Second, if this line of attributional thought is correct -- i.e., if GenY is fundamentally a bunch of couch potatoes in public life -- what does such a diagnosis mean for our collective endeavor in designing via democratic deliberation a culminating capstone experience that is satisfactory to the quality-conscious and productive in generating the elusive qualities -- analytical reasoning, critical thinking, clear and purposive writing -- that research has recently found to be a very short supply among today's college students?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think the lack of creative thinking from college students is the result of distractions like Facebook and iPhones, but from the current education and labor situations in the country. 40 years ago a high school graduate could easily find a decent manufacturing job in thier hometown, with benefits and solid pay to provide for their families. Now those jobs are just not there, which is placing more pressure on high school students to get good grades to go to college, focusing more on facts and less on ideas.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time I don't think a bachelor's is worth nearly as much as it used to be even 10 years ago. There has always been pressure on students to get good grades for medical and law school, but now more students in all fields are feeling the heat of getting good grades for grad school than before.
This type of atmosphere is not ideal for conversation because courses place more emphasis on tests and papers, which are important, but the lack of participation only aids in students relentless quest to satifiy course requirements and get satisfactory grades to get them to the next level of education and not take the time to converse with their fellow students and develop new ideas.
Young people are not any lazier than previous generations. I don't even think GenYers are more distracted than younger generations in the past. There are more technological distractions out there, but I think items like Twitter and YouTube are much more useful to promoting education than the main distractions 40 years ago like LSD.
I think it is up to students and educators to promote the use of technology like this blog to further promote critical thinking. Professors can grade blog posts to promote participation if it is lacking, but I think students are more comfortable voicing their opinions on a blog, without the pressure of an immediate counter argument from one of their peers, which could deter comments in class.
If used properly, I believe this can allow for class time to be used more efficiently, as the use of blogs outside of class can serve as a kick start to conversation instead of wasting 15 minutes while everyone waits for someone to start up the talks.
Mr. Muldoon has offered a helpful elaboration of his "external" attribution on GenY's "detachment" from a participatory engagement in public life and in education, particularly about public life. The environmental emphasis is broadened to include the very forces that public policy and globalization are fundamentally responsible for: the nature of employment opportunites following college as these have affected college itself and the nature of the education that transpires within college.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to argue with Mr. Muldoon's characterization. But with the greater pressure that he cites on students that traditionally need not worry about Law or Medicine seems not be be associated with a stronger work ethic on the part of most students. The research cited on the Collegiate Learning Inventory seems to document that students today spend far less time on studies and far more time socializing than even ten years ago. And then we can't ignore faculty's role: few papers and less reading are required at the same time that average grade points have climbed to 3.2. One might think that the test-saturated, competitive environment might produce student orientations that are averse to invitations to create but obsessive about getting into good grad programs for survival purposes -- somewhat like the situation in South Korea today. There more college students than not take private tutoring outside of college to do well in LSAT-type tests, and because the good jobs are swamped by the number of college grads, suicide rates are sadly extraordinarily high for those who don't realize their ambitions. I for one don't see such ambitions as a part of the stress-ridden environment Mr. Muldoon refers to, at least not at Wartburg.
I don’t think that it is fair to call our generation lazy. We are just not focused and passionate about the problems that are facing us today. I do not doubt for one minute that if we found that passion or had something truly motivate us, we can and would come out of our trance. Just look at President Obama’s election. The young people were “fired up and ready to go.” We were there to get him elected by calling, walking, and donating.
ReplyDeleteThe problem came after the election when President Obama chose not to use his grassroots to go and do the work that he needed to have done. Instead he brought in old Clintonites like Rahm and focused on back room deals to try to get healthcare passed. Our generation was there after the election, ready to be productive in moving our democracy forward. We were just not engaged by the Obama Administration so instead of hearing our voices, you heard there old, white tea partiers screaming and yelling “Keep Government out of my Medicare!”
It is about finding that passion. When JFK challenged the nation to go out and be the best, it worked. You had kids like DT marching 15 miles in the heat of the day. Where is our calling? Is our calling just to buy stuff to keep the Corporate State and materialism afloat? Or is someone or something going to engage us and get us out solving problems?
I don't necessarily want to blame our generation, for its care-less behavior,on high expectations or high pressure...there's always going to be expectations and pressure to every generation, but in a different way. We are expected to be educated, but as for my father's generation, they were expected to grow up quick and get independent. How many of us still receives stipends from our parents? So, a different set of expectations. The questions is however, are we living up to our expectations? The study DT presented to us our last class tells us that we are not. "We aren't gaining knowledge from our education..." I don't think its fair to draw a conclusion based of that study on our entire generation, for example, I don't think that study is representable to our class, but to all of Wartburg's students?...maybe so. To students in athletics, I'd say more so (no offense). Therefore, I totally agree with the notion that we need an educational reform. Education needs to progress at the same rate as technology because technology is our "the now" as well as "the future".
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting link DT forwarded last semester in our American Presidency class. It is very thought provoking, and most definitely worth a watch! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
Interesting thread . . . We don't want to overlook the first introductions of book possibilities for the term. Mr. Corbin nominated two: The Shadow Elite and Ill Fares the Land. The former aims at probing the roots of America's governing ills; the latter I'm not familiar with (not because it has a European author). These are worth taking a few minutes to check out via the Amazon links Isaiah provides.
ReplyDeleteIn the near term, however, we have a series of interesting thoughts on the not-so-good condition of our educational system. The link that Daniel provided to the Robinson piece on youtube is worth considering. The idea is that ours is an educational system whose idea of "enlightenment" is drawn from the period in history known as The Enlightenment. In other words, it is morbidly outmoded, and we're in need of a "new paradigm" -- one, according to Robinson, that is based on creativity (which is killed in his example of paper-clip usages) in groups. But maybe we shouldn't take his or anyone's premise that the current system is broken. Mr. Engeset, after all, cites the dubiously representative nature of the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the test on which the performance of the same students over time did not improve in three critical categories for 45% of the sophomores and 36% of the seniors. You will be interested to know that this exam has been utilized twice at Wartburg, but not in a longitudinal way that it's used by the authors of the Academia Adrift study. In the first administration, to Wartburg sophomores, our students outperformed the seniors from other colleges in the writing portion!! In the second administration, our seniors did no better than our sophomores had the year earlier!! The reason for such anamolous findings? The first set of respondents, paid ten dollars each for participating, were drawn principally from our pre-Med students. In the second administration, to seniors, an effort was made to draw a more random sample. The result was as disappointing as the first was affirming. I call attention to this not because it is any basis for generalizing to a whole generation, including the members of this class. Indeed, I do not. Here, I'd agree with the Robinson piece that standardized tests are far from problem-free as tools of assessment for educational progress on outcomes like analytical reasoning, critical thinking, and even writing competence. But what I'm interested in here is Mr. Engeset's use of the term "expectations" in the context of discussing a "failure to meet expectations." I've done a few studies (yes, using Q sorts) on academic expectations -- among entering students, among upper-classmen, etc. -- and one thing I can say is that we're not all on the same page expectation-wise here at Wartburg. Not only do students vary in what they expect; the vary as well in the source of their expectations academically. Some ascribe the source of their expectations to peers, some to faculty, some to administrators, some to parents, some to all of the above. But no matter the source there is no culture or "habitat-wide" set of expections here at Wartburg. This is signficant because Robinson's pursuit of a new paradigm in education is premised on the development of "new habits" (including expectations) that are developed in a "habitat" (i.e., a given college). So I'm not seeking to be a jerk in asking, but I'm genuinely curious: Are we really falling short -- as a cohort and a generation -- in meeting our expectations? How is this known?
Isaiah, if you don't mind, I'd like some clarification on your stance. Earlier, you scrutinized the YGen by saying, "They want everything to be handed to them [the YGen] instead of going out and getting it themselves." You go on to say that we shouldn't blame delegates' lack of discourse with the YGen for our aversion to public life.
ReplyDeleteThis was in response to comment I made regarding national officials lack of enthusiasm to engage with our age-group. Above, you say something a bit different. You say that President Obama, a delegate for all of us, I would say, stopped engaging us after the election. You seem to blame him for not engaging us more. But yet, before, you didn't feel like we could blame national officials for their lack of involvement with the YGen.
DT, you once told us the story about when your daughter, Jordan, first became enthused with Barack Obama, and how that led you to believe that he would become elected the 44th President. It's a story that has stuck with me because it helps me realize, that even when it seems as though the youth is the most disengaged with the world's events, the 2008 election did, indeed, rekindle the youth's engagement and interest in public affairs. Never before have we seen this type of competitiveness to gain internships on The Hill, well known non-profit organizations such as the Sierra Club, and other service-oriented jobs. Additionally, we see a new wave of innovation among our generation related to policy initiatives such as health care, technology and the environment. If anything, our generation's top bracket of creativity and talent seems to be growing, even though we may be sucked into things such as Facebook, Twitter and other related schemes.
I guess I'm in favor of Isaiah's view above (perhaps altered from his previous post). We (the YGen) have done a lot, and it's up to those who have some power (i.e. members of congress, the President) to not underestimate our ability to act as active, engaged citizens and bring us into the conversation. Now.
To some extent I agree with everyone's comments but I also offer a differing opinion. During the 2008 election it was somewhat the "fad" to follow Obama and get enthused about voting for his ascension into office. Now, after Obama did in fact win the election, the furor is gone. Its no longer major headlines or Facebook posts to support Obama and really anything to do with politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our generation is not lazy or un-caring, it’s just we have nothing to care about. One may point out that the economy is weakening, that Social Security will be a thing of the past when it comes time for us to draw on it but at the current time I feel that most of our generation simply does not care. Most of us in the capstone class may be aware of the bigger picture but it is my opinion that most of our generation does not see it.
I have no doubt that once we all join the work force and enter the "real world" and exit the "Wartburg Bubble" the foggy haze that has been clouding the majority of our version that it shall become all too clear that we need to do something and indeed, we will find the means to come together as a generation to make those changes occur.