I have a serious question I want some serious answers and opinions on

[Mark F. Barnes]

Something I have noticed in traveling around, you sit next to people on long flights and try to talk about something. Well here lately it seems the more younger people I talk to, the more I find out out how little they really know about the general workings of our government, and how things actually work. Perhaps this election has stimulated the younger interest in voting, but do they really have a clue about what is really going on. It seems to me Civics and Government use to be taught in school. How the government worked, your civic rights and responsibilities etc. It was mandatory to take to graduate. Is it not this way anymore? Is it that it's being taught but being taught poorly? Or has it been dropped from the curriculum in lew of other things? This boggles me if it's true because, we are setting ourselves up for losing the the very values, that this country was built on. When was the last time you heard the term, "Civic Duty"? It use to be our civic duty to help support the system by serving on juries, by supporting your local food bank, my donating blood, and so on and so forth. What is the state of the civic duties, in today's world? Houston use to have one of the greatest "Civic Duty" infrastructures in the world. There were people that had the means, to make serving their civic duties as a full time job so to speak. The huge socialite groups back in the 60's and 70's, were so active in fund raising for charities, and local needs. Take the River Oaks Theater for instance, 40 years ago if there was a need to restore and save this historic structure, a group of local Socialites and Debutantes, would have gotten together, thrown some get together, and Bingo, the money would be raised, and issue resolved. Nowadays everybody is looking out for number one and that's it.

Also it seems that lost in the current generation is the power you have to make the government work for you. In just basic conversation with the younger people these days, it appears that the schools must be putting less attention to preparing students for competent citizenship. Why is this happening? Am I missing something here? I mean I can see that this lack of civics in education serves a useful purpose, however, if people do not know what is going on or don't know what to do about something they don't like in government, those in power will find it much easier to stay in power. The more confused and ignorant your constituents are, the easier it is to feed them a line of BS and get yourself re-elected. What brought all this on was two conversations I had on planes, while I was traveling home. As you can imagine the election is the hottest topic going, and that's about all anybody is talking about. On the flight from Heathrow to JFK I sat next to young man from Abu Dhabi, that was returning to NYC where he works. And we talked for several hours, and he actually addressed this subject in our conversation. He said it amazed him on how little students in the US knew so very little about their own government and how it functioned. I found this very curious, and asked him to explain further. He attended NYU and now worked in the city, but he almost went on a rant, on how little the kids he attended NYU with, actually had a clue to the basic structure and workings of the government. I guess it kind of blew my hair back, and maybe I just haven't been paying attention. I had another conversation with three people on my flight to IAH and all of a sudden it was more prevalent as to what he was talking about. These kids didn't have a clue. Now I fully understand that civic courses usually don't teach you about the sleaziness of politics, particularly what the relationship of lobbyists to legislators are often like, nor do they tell you about FBI wiretapping, the CIA's role in overthrowing democratically elected governments, etc... However they should understand the balance of the House and Senate, and how it effects basic government function. Have I now all of a sudden become hyper-sensitive to this and am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Chime in and give me some more insight to this scary subject, because I am starting to lose sleep over it, because all of a sudden this is bothering me. I've already been calling my kids and quizzing them, and I feel better about them, of course I raised them to fully understand what's going on, and one of my daughters is a PS major and can talk a blue streak on the subject. But did I just get caught on a plane with some that slipped through the cracks? This is very alarming. I mean we owe it to these kids and our next generation to provide them the civic education they deserve. Not only do we owe it to them, we owe it to our country to educate our kids so that we don't lose what has taken over 200 years to build. Are the districts giving lip service to the importance of civic education, but in reality blowing it off, and not stressing the real importance of it? This really befuddles me. How can we be expected to maintain a society, generation after generation, that is totally based on theory and ideas, if we are not teaching it to every person involved in that society. I mean our society is a very new one, when you put it up against other countries internationally. And our government is totally based on an idea, and this idea was recorded on parchment and is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. We have a society that is multi-cultural, and is made up of people from all over the world, only people from Native American heritage, can be considered local. I mean think about it. Just pick a country in Europe and think about it. The Italians have been there for thousands of years, the Greeks, the Spanish, and so on. They have a deeper Heritage that we as Americans do not. Our society is something that has to be taught, it's not an ancient heritage. And Civics is the way we instill this in our kids. This election has had me distracted I guess from a lot of things, but I feel in a way it has got me questioning this, and this is something that I think is being taken for granted. We have got to right this ship, and it's going to start right in your home. I don't care who you are voting for, that's your right, and Civic Duty to do so, as a matter of fact I'm fixing to go do mine at the Annex in a few minutes. But this is a topic I think really needs to be explored, just to see where we really stand on it. Civic ignorance will be the downfall of the entire system, if we don't really do something about it and not just talk the talk.

[memebag]

I don't know if civics courses are still taught, or how they are taught. I know that when I was in high school (early 80s) the basics of US government operation were taught, but not very well.

My belief is that most intelligent people greatly overestimate the intelligence and awareness of the people around them. I didn't realize this until the mid to late 90s, when regular folks started to use the internet. Before that, most of my friends were professional programmers or technically savy early adopters who sought out new technology and were not intimidated by complexity. These people gave me a skewed vision of just how uninformed most people are. I was shocked. I started to socialize with people (young and old) who didn't know much about government, politics or history, among other things. They lived small lives, consisting mostly of surviving from paycheck to paycheck and trying to figure out how to occupy themselves with the latest fads. They would jabber endlessly about tabloid gossip and refuse to even try thinking about anything more important.

I realize I sound like an intellectual snob to some, but so be it. That was my experience.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine this is nothing new. I don't think anything has happened recently to make the majority of people dangerously ignorant of the world around them. I think it may be easier to see now for reasons similar to those that exposed me to it. Just as the barriers to entry for online social networks lowered with the advent of the web, the barriers to entry for mass media have lowered as a result of the digital revolution.

[dbigtex56]

I agree with much of what you're saying. For a democracy to work, people need to understand how it functions and be engaged in the political process.

Many of the workings of government manage to be both boring and complex. As someone who has reviewed grant proposals for a non-profit, I'm very aware of what a mind-numbing exercise funds allocation can be. Try it sometime; you'll come away with a new-found respect for (and wariness of) 'the bureaurocrats'. Those who dismiss everyone in government as a bunch of free-spending, clueless crooks overlook that it's our government that has made America what it is; the greatest nation on Earth, some say.

Yet, as Mark pointed out, people seem willing to substitute government for community. Having grown up in a small town, volunteering was an expected part of everyday life. My father was a volunteer firefighter and ambulance driver. Getting out of bed at 2am on a winter's night to pry some drunk kid out of his wrecked car isn't much fun, but if he (and others like him) hadn't done it, it wouldn't have gotten done. Without peole like my mother, our town wouldn't have had a public library or historical society. She also taught piano, purposely keeping her rates low enough that any family who had a child willing to learn could afford them. These values seem rather old-fashioned now. We have more urgent matters to attend to now; TV shows to watch, video games to play.

But many people no longer expect to stay in the same communities for decades at a time. Material goods seem more important than the good will of their neighbors. The only function of government, it seems, is to increase the resale value of their homes.

[Daniepwils]

The American government has become this colossus amoeba of offices and departments making it so complex that it basically is "dumbing down" America with regards to our government. Today, as I see it there are two America's: The people of America and The American Government (which is basically run by corporations).

Maybe if the government went back to the KISS method, most people would be inclined to become more involved and active.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I agree with much of what you're saying. For a democracy to work, people need to understand how it functions and be engaged in the political process.

Many of the workings of government manage to be both boring and complex. As someone who has reviewed grant proposals for a non-profit, I'm very aware of what a mind-numbing exercise funds allocation can be. Try it sometime; you'll come away with a new-found respect for (and wariness of) 'the bureaurocrats'. Those who dismiss everyone in government as a bunch of free-spending, clueless crooks overlook that it's our government that has made America what it is; the greatest nation on Earth, some say.

Yet, as Mark pointed out, people seem willing to substitute government for community. Having grown up in a small town, volunteering was an expected part of everyday life. My father was a volunteer firefighter and ambulance driver. Getting out of bed at 2am on a winter's night to pry some drunk kid out of his wrecked car isn't much fun, but if he (and others like him) hadn't done it, it wouldn't have gotten done. Without peole like my mother, our town wouldn't have had a public library or historical society. She also taught piano, purposely keeping her rates low enough that any family who had a child willing to learn could afford them. These values seem rather old-fashioned now. We have more urgent matters to attend to now; TV shows to watch, video games to play.

But many people no longer expect to stay in the same communities for decades at a time. Material goods seem more important than the good will of their neighbors. The only function of government, it seems, is to increase the resale value of their homes.

This is huge especially the red part, and dead on the money. Growing up and still living in a small town I have taken a lot of this for granted. Us as parents, have dropped the ball on a lot of this, because we can't lay all of this off on the schools. Believe me, my wife being an educator, had plenty to say about this last night at 2 a.m. However she agrees the district could do more, but are too interested in Sports and some things are being shelved for ESL and other things. But parents can start the education at home, and put the damn Wii's and PS2's away, or better yet, don't buy them, get your kid a damn Library card instead.

[TheNiche]

It seems to me Civics and Government use to be taught in school. How the government worked, your civic rights and responsibilities etc. It was mandatory to take to graduate. Is it not this way anymore? Is it that it's being taught but being taught poorly? Or has it been dropped from the curriculum in lew of other things?

My high school experience (in the RGV from 1998-2002) was that 85% to 90% of students were taught the required Government, U.S. History, and Economics courses by coaches. The other 10% to 15% of students enrolled in such courses actually got decent (sometimes even passionate) teachers who specialized in those fields, usually teaching Pre-AP or AP courses almost exclusively.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the coaches were incompetent. I can recall one, at least, that taught an AP U.S. History class and that was a very thoughtful Libertarian (his office always reeked of weed). They just weren't motivated to go above and beyond the State-mandated curriculum and were only doing it to pick up a little more income.

Also it seems that lost in the current generation is the power you have to make the government work for you. In just basic conversation with the younger people these days, it appears that the schools must be putting less attention to preparing students for competent citizenship. Why is this happening?

I don't think that this is a recent issue. The youth of today is mostly disengaged from politics with a core of outspoken political junkies that only seem to make up for it in terms of media focus. How is that different from Gen X? Even the Boomer hippies were mostly disengaged, only riled up or manipulated to meaningful action by yippies every now and again. As with previous generations, Gen Y will grow into it...there's even an argument to be made that they'll really step up to the plate in coming elections, becoming much more engaged than the Boomers or Gen X ever were.

Of course, whether they'll be prepared to make good decisions is another matter altogether.

--------------------

OK, now for my own little rant:

The curriculum needs to be tweaked. My preference is that much more focus be given to Government, Economics, and History than is presently the case. By high school, English grammar should not need to be focused on and courses teaching literature should be treated mostly as electives promoted only for the college-bound students. To the extent that literature is taught, it should be tied into the Government, Economics, and History curriculae.

Government, Economics, and History should be taught as seperate subjects up until the Junior years to provide students with a core knowledge of the mechanics of each subject, then taught as a combined 'capstone' course in the Senior year, tying it all together as integrated theory under a teacher that is required to have more credentials and that is paid commensurately. And this goes for all students, whether vocational or college-bound.

[editor]

Civcs is no longer taught in schools. Through three elementary schools and a high school, I never saw Civics as a course. I only knew about it from the Brady Bunch or some other TV show.

You are absolutely correct that young people today have no idea how their government works. Witness the frenzy over the presidential election, when neither candidate has the power to accomplish half of his promises. If the children today (and by "children" I mean 20- and 30-somethings) would get half as excited about their local congressional and city races they might actually be able to Change™ things. For some reason they think "grassroots" efforts are only for national contests and not for school boards, city councils, and other offices that actually make a difference at the grass roots of their everyday lives.

As for "civic duty" -- again, we're in Leave it to Beaver territory. Philanthropy for philanthropy's sake is on the way out. Warren Buffett may be the last of the big time givers. These days if you can't slap your name ("Trump") or the name of your company ("BP Promenade") on something, the wallets stay closed.

Personally, I look forward to certain civic activities like voting and jury duty. I give more to charity than I probably should. But I don't think of these as my civic duties. I think of them as the things that help define me as a person, and simply the right thing to do.

[memebag]

Government, Economics, and History should be taught as seperate subjects up until the Junior years to provide students with a core knowledge of the mechanics of each subject, then taught as a combined 'capstone' course in the Senior year, tying it all together as integrated theory under a teacher that is required to have more credentials and that is paid commensurately. And this goes for all students, whether vocational or college-bound.

I like that. My personal dream is for every course to be taught as part of history. Everything, from scientific discoveries and mathematical inventions to alphabets and grammar has a history surrounding it. Learning that history places the facts and figures in context and weaves them together. I find it much easier to remember and use information if I'm familiar with the history that brought it to me.

[sarahiki]

Interesting ideas here. I would love to see the kind of interdisciplinary curriculum you all are proposing. I teach a rather esoteric subject, and I am under no illusions about that: I know that students don't NEED to know the meat and potatoes of what I teach. So I make sure that my courses include writing, reading, critical thinking, politics, current events, and social issues such as feminism. These topics are raised for consideration and discussion, and linked to the more esoteric subject I teach.

I am continually shocked by how poorly college students write... and I don't just mean grammatical errors. I mean that they cannot express their meaning through their writing. This is why literature and composition MUST be taught in high school. You can't write well if you don't read well-written books and journals. And if you can't write well enough to express your thoughts or your argument, you won't succeed at many jobs.

The difficulty is in creating a replicable curriculum that combines all these topics: civics, ethics, history, government, and also demands reading, writing, and critical thinking. They are hard things to measure through standardized testing.

[sevfiv]

I agree as well about interdisciplinary teaching and also not cutting corners in earlier education.

One of my undergraduate degrees is in Art History (UH) and I feel that and I learned the most and a lot of my general analytical skills were expanded because of it - even though I have experienced that some think arts are expendable.

That being said, I think that kind of outcome is possible in any subject and depends on the educator (like what sarahiki explained above about including other areas).

[editor]

I am continually shocked by how poorly college students write... and I don't just mean grammatical errors. I mean that they cannot express their meaning through their writing. This is why literature and composition MUST be taught in high school. You can't write well if you don't read well-written books and journals. And if you can't write well enough to express your thoughts or your argument, you won't succeed at many jobs.

Ugh. This is one of the things that gets my undies in a bundle. I've written about this elsewhere on HAIF before, but I'll say it again -- many of the students coming out of college today simply cannot think or write. Even the ones graduating from the so-called "top" journalism schools (I'm looking at you, Northwestern!) are horrible. Sure, they learned how to blog and crop digital photos and use the computer for social networks (without creating any real life social networks), but they can't write a resume. They can't express themselves through the written word. They don't know the first thing about sentence structure, and if you ask any of them to diagram what they've written all they can do is stare at you and blink.

I have actually gotten resumes from college graduates with "u" "ur" and "4" used as complete words.

[tanith27]

Nowadays everybody is looking out for number one and that's it.

This is very true. I look at my grandfathers generation, from the war, and they were a tight knit and helpful group of people. And when that generation got a job, their employers took care of them all the way to the end.

Today, things are different. Employers will dump an employee who has devoted 20 years of loyalty without even thinking twice. Fresh out of school, I worked out in the field, 7 days a week 16 hours a day, for 6 months straight. No weekends, no days off. Just because I was eager to prove myself. And to top it off, I was in the US earning Canadian wages which at that time were about 1: 1.50. So as an educated person, I worked over 100 hours per week, and made just under $500 each week as I was salaried. Silly? Perhaps. But the oil fields aren't for the timid. I moved up quickly in the company though. Then they shipped me off to the Arctic Circle during the dead, dark winter. That was interesting to say the least. And weeks after I return, I got laid off by some HR staffers who knew me as only a number, and had no idea what I had contributed previously.

So, yeah, I make decisions that are best for me personally now. I can't expect the job I am in now to be there for me in 20 years. Nor can I expect Social Security to be there for me in 20 years. I'm contributing to a cause I will not likely see any benefit from.

However, that said, all things seem to ebb and flow. I have been in Houston for a few years now and find myself developing roots. I live in the Heights which has the benefits of many small town, while retaining the anonymity of a large city. My wife is a musician and volunteers at local hospitals. I support and donate to the local neighborhood civic association regularly. I walk for breast cancer and run for the heart association. And United Way gets their biweekly deduction from my paycheck.

I know this topic was about educating about government, but I had to detour for a second.

So back to topic, its interesting that up north we were taught not only our system of government (Canada) but also the US system. It is shocking to hear that these courses are not taught, or poorly taught, down here. If you look at it from an election standpoint, an uneducated vote carries the same weight as an educated one. And thats scary!

[TheNiche]

Interesting ideas here. I would love to see the kind of interdisciplinary curriculum you all are proposing. I teach a rather esoteric subject, and I am under no illusions about that: I know that students don't NEED to know the meat and potatoes of what I teach. So I make sure that my courses include writing, reading, critical thinking, politics, current events, and social issues such as feminism. These topics are raised for consideration and discussion, and linked to the more esoteric subject I teach.

I am continually shocked by how poorly college students write... and I don't just mean grammatical errors. I mean that they cannot express their meaning through their writing. This is why literature and composition MUST be taught in high school. You can't write well if you don't read well-written books and journals. And if you can't write well enough to express your thoughts or your argument, you won't succeed at many jobs.

The difficulty is in creating a replicable curriculum that combines all these topics: civics, ethics, history, government, and also demands reading, writing, and critical thinking. They are hard things to measure through standardized testing.

To be clear, I do think that college-bound students should still be very much encouraged (albeit not necessarily required) to take an English lit, and especially a comp course. But even in the comp courses I was required to take, literature/poetry seemed to be the real focus. And it'd be one thing if the literature had been more contemporary, but knowing the style and prose of middle english, romantic writers, or of poets--leave that for college or for a class treated more like a fine art in the high school curriculum requirements. I actually had to test out of a couple of semesters of failed English classes because instead of reading Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, 'Once and Future King', 'Beowulf', or 'The Scarlet Letter', I was reading the collected works of Vonnegut and Sartre, and bits of Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and Kafka...for fun.

But the truth is that most students don't even need very much English comp, if any at all. If they aren't college-bound, give them a core knowledge of Government/Economics/History (i.e. Civics), Math (esp. algebra, geometry, and trig), and a science education that focuses on transferrable vocational knowledge, mostly physics and chemistry. Merge biology and health under one umbrella for them. These are the kinds of students that will drive English lit teachers up the wall and prevent them from doing a better job with the students that might actually get something out of the course; they once made an English lit teacher of mine break down in tears in front of the class because she felt so completely helpless at doing her job given that she had to accomodate such disinterested students.

[dbigtex56]

I agree as well about interdisciplinary teaching and also not cutting corners in earlier education.

One of my undergraduate degrees is in Art History (UH) and I feel that and I learned the most and a lot of my general analytical skills were expanded because of it - even though I have experienced that some think arts are expendable.

That being said, I think that kind of outcome is possible in any subject and depends on the educator (like what sarahiki explained above about including other areas).

Discussions such as these are what keep me coming back to HAIF.

Critical thinking has fallen into disrepute. To possess an intellect, let alone pride in having one, is now considered 'elitist'. How much easier to toss around a few trite, hot-button phrases than to make a reasoned argument!

A few terms which (to me) indicate a writer who is lazy, imprecise and given to hackneyed expression:

Coddling criminals

Tax-and-spend

Liberal media

East-Coast (or Hollywood) elite

Washington bureaucrats

Bleeding heart

Leftist

Right-wing

Love it or leave it

Unless a writer can be more specific, these phrases only tell me how someone feels; they in no way express what someone thinks.

[20thStDad]

I agree completely about the poor writing skills of today's graduates. As part of our interview we have a technical writing assignment, and usually reviewing that part is where we all get a good laugh. I think it goes way past college, all the way back to grammar classes up through 6th grade. I don't know if those classes are what they used to be.

Also, I had Civics in high school. It was fun. We did a mock trial exercise and learned about voting, elections, etc.

[Fringe]

I have actually gotten resumes from college graduates with "u" "ur" and "4" used as complete words.

Are they text messaging resumes now?

It's all part of the "dumbing down America" syndrome. A dumb citizen will gladly let the government think and do for him.

[Vertigo58]

This is one of the best topics I have ever seen on Haif. Clear to the point, well thought out & well written. Most of all makes perfect sense. Bravo!

There are numerous examples but one I would love to describe is of a recent event.

We have hired at least 2 - 20 something recent college grads. They only had maybe 2 yrs of experience in this particular work environment. Almost immediately after hiring they have made numerous comments or snickered of the old employees. Joke about how they dont know how to use various work tools like Powerpoint, Excel etc. Talk in a belittling style to most of the others, will be talking to you then suddenly a cell phone call and cut you off as they grab the phone and you become invisible. In meetings start playing online games while the speaker is pointing to the screen and trying to have everyone focused on the topic. Have a real swagger and cockiness and always brag about thier travels and how many awards they won. It goes on and on.

Its more of a serious desensitized or lack of any class or manners work place now. How did we create these little monsters?

[Mark F. Barnes]

"Elitist" Now there is a word that is like some-one's nails being dragged across a chalkboard, to me. Because someone want to better themselves through education, and hard work, instead of just hard work, that term gets tossed around loosely, when in reality it should be stricken from the English language. It's nothing more than a negative insult, thrown about by those too lazy to come up with a way to express how they really feel. Which is if the truth be known, those that use the term, are nothing more than jealous of the person, to which it is hurled, and is a camouflage of sort, to hide the disappointment of the hurler, of their shortcomings. Whether it's hurled at education or intellect, or social status and wealth, it's cheap shot at trying to be insulting, and only reflect the hurlers own lack on content. And blogging and forums, (oh yes even HAIF), and texting, is killing the English language. LOL, IMHO, BFF, all this crap is taking over basic expression, and I can be as guilty as anyone. We are always in such a rush to get it done and move on to the next subject, that we have lost all ability to generate a common thought through the written word. Even the books that you see now days are just a tidbit anymore. Where did all the Mark Twain's and Jack London's of our time go to. All these Barnes and Noble literary waste generators, are just filling the shelves with crap, to rot your brain. Growing up without a television in your face all the time, reading was all we had as kids, to stimulate the imagination. Even the cheesy westerns of Louis L'Amour, open your mind to thought and dreaming. Someone used the term "Dumbing Down America", I think that pretty much sums it up. We have got to get our younger people back on track, with expressing the common thought through the written word. Life has got to be slowed down just enough, to be able to think things through, and catch all these issues in mid-stream, instead of letting them all pile up, and then come down on us all at once. Pretty soon there will nobody left to have a decent conversation with, much less an intelligent discussion. Jesus, I have hi-jacked my own thread. But none the less it's all interactive when it comes to education, or rather the lack of in some instances.

[VicMan]

A few terms which (to me) indicate a writer who is lazy, imprecise and given to hackneyed expression:

Coddling criminals

Tax-and-spend

Liberal media

East-Coast (or Hollywood) elite

Washington bureaucrats

Bleeding heart

Leftist

Right-wing

Love it or leave it

This is why I sometimes ask people to define words they use. The question forces the people to explain what they really mean. I.E. if I hear "I don't want this program because it's socialist" I would ask the person to define socialist.

[memebag]

Does anyone have any convincing evidence that this is a recent phenomenon? It seems to me that every generation has similar complaints about young people.

[TheNiche]

Does anyone have any convincing evidence that this is a recent phenomenon? It seems to me that every generation has similar complaints about young people.

I would tend to agree with what you just said here, but would add that the perceived problem as the old fogeys on HAIF may interpret it is that college grads ain't what they used to be. And given the increase in the proportion of the population that attends college in this generation as compared with previous generations, I would imagine that the average IQ has slipped meaningfully, effectively devaluing the utility of a college degree in the eyes of prospective employers.

I have heard it said that "a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree;" I'm not convinced of that quite yet, though.

[memebag]

I would tend to agree with what you just said here, but would add that the perceived problem as the old fogeys on HAIF may interpret it is that college grads ain't what they used to be. And given the increase in the proportion of the population that attends college in this generation as compared with previous generations, I would imagine that the average IQ has slipped meaningfully, effectively devaluing the utility of a college degree in the eyes of prospective employers.

I can definitely see that. Pushing more of the population through college doesn't increase average intelligence.

[TheNiche]

I can definitely see that. Pushing more of the population through college doesn't increase average intelligence.

...not to mention that it influences the audience to whom college professors will tend to teach.

[crunchtastic]

Life has got to be slowed down just enough, to be able to think things through, and catch all these issues in mid-stream, instead of letting them all pile up, and then come down on us all at once. Pretty soon there will nobody left to have a decent conversation with, much less an intelligent discussion. Jesus, I have hi-jacked my own thread. But none the less it's all interactive when it comes to education, or rather the lack of in some instances.

Mark, you are so right. We have let the pace of life be our excuse for not taking the time to be mindful.

Heh, tv--- I went through a phase were I lived intentionally without a tv. Did it mainly just to see if I could. Despite people thinking I was either crazy, or a some sort of boorish public radio snob, I learned just how little value that device added to my life. I find that the older I get, the smaller my circle has gotten, and I place a premium on intelligent conversation often at the exclusion of other things. Quality over quantity, I suppose. The HAIF has allowed me to expand the circle a little, which is wonderful.

[editor]

Critical thinking has fallen into disrepute. To possess an intellect, let alone pride in having one, is now considered 'elitist'. How much easier to toss around a few trite, hot-button phrases than to make a reasoned argument!

Agreed. Even using certain words can get you looked at strangely, or negatively, or worse, even though they're perfectly correct words and well used in more educated circles. Think about the careers that have been threatened by words like "niggardly" or "tar baby" that uneducated people assume have meanings other than the correct ones. Too often we let loud, dumb people decide the fate of the smart ones. Not that long ago commercials would tout that their products are for "discriminating" customers. Not anymore, because of the fear that some dummy somewhere won't know what it means and be *offended*

Remember all the heat that Rumsfeld took over "known knowns" and "unknown knowns." He was pummeled for demonstrating high-level strategic thinking because the masses hadn't been exposed to it. Now the four-box of knowns and unknowns is part of everyday business strategy, catastrophe planning, and more. Yet society allows the loud, dumb people to beat up on the smart ones.

Also, many people don't seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. I remember way back in elementary school we'd have days and weeks of workbook drills comparing written statements and having to choose if they were fact of opinion. I see little evidence that that sort of thing is taught anymore.

I have heard it said that "a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree;" I'm not convinced of that quite yet, though.

From what we've seen on Wall Street lately, the MBA is the new bachelor's degree!

[RedScare]

I can definitely see that. Pushing more of the population through college doesn't increase average intelligence.

This is getting to where I was going. In decades past, a far smaller percentage of the populace went to college, and worked in white collar jobs. As more people move into the white collar, or service sector, the average level of intelligence will decline. In some respects, it may only SEEM that young people are more disconnected because more young people are in the office buildings.

I read a study last year that suggested that only 44% of Americans (of all ages) can read an editorial and logically deduce the point the author was making. This is important news to politicians and the media. Over half of Americans cannot even figure out what an intelligent debate is about. They do not get the point. The winning politician, realizing this, will pepper his audience with words and phrases that his target audience thinks is bad. Once the association is made between his opponent and the bad word or phrase, no logic is needed. As a larger percentage of people with no logic skills enters the white collar world, it appears that the populace is getting dumber, when the reality is that we merely see them more often.

I believe some things exacerbate the problem. As the nation has become more prosperous, we have, as a group, become lazier. This is easy to quantify when it comes to physical laziness, as the numbers of overweight and obese people skyrockets, and diseases linked to sedentary lifestyles increases. But, we have also become intellectually lazy. We revel in our laziness. And, we pass that laziness on to our children. We even do it to our pets. It has been shown that dogs who are too regimented in their play, with agility training and other structured activities, are less inquisitive and therefore less intelligent than dogs who are allowed to roam and play in an unstructured manner. A dog who is allowed to get INTO mischief quickly learns how to GET OUT of mischief. The same thing happens with our children. Moms brag of shuttling their children to various activities, as if their child is so smart, when in reality, they are limiting the child's ability to think, to dream, to fantasize and solve problems. To use a term attributed to our president, we are encouraging a lack of "intellectual curiosity". Kids don't wonder "how things work" when they are playing 3 sports and going to birthday parties at Chuck-E-Cheeze.

It is interesting that our quest to make life better is contributing to our downfall. Wealth is not a bad thing. It allows us to purchase what we need to survive. College is not a bad thing, as it nurtures a quest for knowledge. Service sector jobs are less strenuous than manual labor. Yet, by advocating too strongly that everyone deserves to go to college, get a white collar job and become wealthy, we have upset an equilibrium, that existed, that some will run the factory and some will build the widget. Because we have demonized the middle class (not rhetorically, but in reality), because blue collar work is now considered underachievement, there are dwindling opportunities for the less intelligent to achieve.

Our young people are a product of their surroundings. As the adult population puts more emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and consumption, and less emphasis on research, education, and manufacturing, when it becomes more important to SELL it than build it, our youth begin to think the same way. When profit is more important than design, we adapt our thinking to maximize profit, and away from the engineering and design. As a country, putting all of our resources into "business" and less and less into manufacturing skews the national equilibrium. The middle class disappears. College grads work in cubicles playing with spreadsheets, without knowing what the numbers mean. Both the corporation and the worker of average intelligence suffer, as neither has the tools to do the work well.

You may have noticed that I have touched on many areas in explaining one initial problem, the apparent lack of intellectual curiosity in today's young people. The reason is that I believe it must be looked at holistically. One cannot look at young people in a vacuum. We cannot say, "look at what they've been given, and they have squandered it". WE have made them this way. WE have shown them that only wealth and over-consumption matters, then WE wonder what is wrong with them.

[crunchtastic]

I read a study last year that suggested that only 44% of Americans (of all ages) can read an editorial and logically deduce the point the author was making.

And chances are, the editorial is written to a 7th grade reading level.

I think one thing we're up against is the effect of educational trends that were popularized in the 70s and 80s (gold stars, unique and beautiful snowflakes, etc).

One simply does not learn rhetoric or logic by osmosis and cultural relativism. It's learned by practice.

[sarahiki]

I may be getting off topic here, but I have a problem with students' attitude toward college. This is not a new thing; it was like this when I was in college too: going to class in pajamas, or flip-flops; showing up late; missing exams with a lame excuse... this is totally acceptable behavior at many colleges. I think it keeps students in an extended state of adolescence, at exactly the time they should be learning to be professional adults.

I am a professional with a Ph.D., and it makes me absolutely crazy to be sharing my expertise with someone who is lounging in his chair, flip-flops kicked off, computer open, and a solitaire game going. It's totally disrespectful. And it teaches the student nothing about professional conduct.

I guess I'm an old fart, but I'd like to see college students show up for class dressed in business casual, and behaving accordingly. I think they'd learn more.

[TheNiche]

You may have noticed that I have touched on many areas in explaining one initial problem, the apparent lack of intellectual curiosity in today's young people. The reason is that I believe it must be looked at holistically. One cannot look at young people in a vacuum. We cannot say, "look at what they've been given, and they have squandered it". WE have made them this way. WE have shown them that only wealth and over-consumption matters, then WE wonder what is wrong with them.

I disagree that the problem is that we (as a society) have overemphasized wealth and consumption as priorities, though I think that over-consumption is symptomatic of a different problem.

Rather, I think that it is the promotion of the sense that everyone is entitled to an 'American Dream'. Not everyone is cut out to attend college, be a successful white-collar professional, to be a homeowner, to own a small business some day so that they can be their own boss, or to be able to afford a half-million dollars in cancer treatment so that they don't die a few years earlier than would otherwise be expected. These concepts are exceptionally alluring to most of the population, be they able and willing to accomplish these objectives or not.

The trouble as I see it is that American society has redefined the traditional sense of poverty, which formerly was living below subsistence...this is a far cry from contemporary concepts of poverty, where poorer people seem to be the most prone to obesity! Instead there is a sense of entitlement to something better than subsistence, on the grounds that everyone should have the same opportunities. College, home ownership, healthcare, retirement, all are increasingly considered opportunities (but actually as ends in and of themselves) that are necessary and as serving the social good. And in and of themselves, the concepts are important. However, as public policy has been adapted to this attitude so as to promote the concepts as something applying to more people than would otherwise have been the case (i.e. home ownership), we run up against reality and get ourselves into trouble.

Wealth and consumption should be a priority--for those who value it. They should have the opportunity to pursue it, but should be prepared to work their asses off to get what they want and not be under the impression that they are in any way shape or form entitled to it. And they may need to prepare themselves for being told that they aren't good enough; they are not a unique and special snowflake; and mommy won't always be there either as an advocate or as a safety net.

...incidentally, it is amazing the number of people from my generation that go back to live with their parents well into their late 20's!!!

EDIT: Way to go crunch! I see we're on the same page.

[SchwinnChopper68]

Mark, you have reason for sleepless nights. What's more important nowadays is a pop stars latest tattoos/piercings, the latest video game/timewaster and the poor child's "feelings".

Every generation did/does address this issue but this very old fogey here saw a spiral downhill starting somewhere in the early to mid 60's. The water around the drain has been spinning faster and faster since the mid 80's.

It's called the dumbing down of America. What does it say when 85% of students cannot even locate Paris, France on a map and mark Indonesia or Australia as Greece?

Read it and weep.

Could You Have Passed the 8th Grade in 1895? or Are Schools Being Dumbed Down?

Probably Not