Main image

The Dumbest Generation? Not So Fast.

15th October
2008
written by kevindonovan

I recently joined the Editorial Board of The Hoya, Georgetown’s student newspaper. Although the articles are edited collaboratively between the five members, the first piece I substantially wrote was a response to Mark Bauerlein’s “The Dumbest Generation“:

“Bauerlein apparently fails to see that there are two sides to every coin. By using the technology at our disposal, we have found means of engaging in society at ages during which young people were formerly kept out of public discourse. Kids, well, they’ll be kids: The ones who ignored Cronkite’s drone 30 years ago will no more pay attention in class today. But what has changed is the ability to mobilize many to engage and discuss — in the classroom, the public sphere or simply with peers… Digital technology, when accompanied by a little bit of curiosity, unleashes intellectual potential in new and exciting ways.”

Check out the rest of it (including a response from Bauerlein) here.

Update: MacArthur Foundation reports that Internet use develops important skills.

Tags: , ,
Technology Policy
  • Mark

    Good points, Kevin, but a couple of clarifications. One, the NAEP exam isn't only multiple choice and memorization. Several portions of it have a prompt and then ask for short written responses. And the writing exam, of course, asks for lengthier responses.

    Two, I saw the UCLA report, but we still don't know how stimulation of extra parts of the brain relates to intelligence of various kinds.

    Three, yes, much social networking has intellectual content, but most of it doesn't. In a Pew report on it from last year, 93 percent of users rated “keeping up with friends” as the main purpose. If intellectual content were a larger factor, then we wouldn't see such abysmal academic numbers for high school and college students.

    MB

  • http://www.blurringborders.com kdonovan11

    Hi Mark,

    1. Good to know. Though I'm not convinced even in that form (of which I am admittedly a product) is the right way to approach quantification of education for today's youth.

    2. True. In fact, I think this hints at a larger point of not establishing value judgments for such new, evolving topics – not only is it grating, it polarizes.

    3. Wouldn't you self identify as such, as well? That is, given a series of choices about how you use _social_ networks, I can't imagine any more than 7 percent saying they use it for more than a _social_ reason. A more interesting statistic would be actual usage, instead of self-reporting. For many people, “keeping up with friends” involves more than gossip and peer-pressure. It involves asking what they thought of McCain's performance or how their theatre performance went — important developmental (social and intellectual) conversations. Secondly, I still think you are drawing causation where it isn't clear by saying that social networks are responsible for “such abysmal academic numbers…”

    Also, tonight I had the opportunity to see John Palfrey, of Harvard Law, and co-author of “Born Digital” speak. If you haven't had the opportunity to already, I really recommend that you check it out as it provides a good counter-balance to your thesis: http://www.amazon.com/Born-Digital-Understandin…

    You might also want to see Andrew Sullivan's new piece on blogging: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/andrew-su… (though it is exclusively focused on youth).

    Finally, I wanted to say how impressive it is that you are willing to debate these issues with me. I know you have other things to do and I appreciate taking the time to discuss this. (Incidentally, this type of engagement between university professor and distant undergrad could hardly have existed before the Internet.)

  • http://blurringborders.com Kevin Donovan

    Hi Mark,

    1. Good to know. Though I'm not convinced even in that form (of which I am admittedly a product) is the right way to approach quantification of education for today's youth.

    2. True. In fact, I think this hints at a larger point of not establishing value judgments for such new, evolving topics – not only is it grating, it polarizes.

    3. Wouldn't you self identify as such, as well? That is, given a series of choices about how you use _social_ networks, I can't imagine any more than 7 percent saying they use it for more than a _social_ reason. A more interesting statistic would be actual usage, instead of self-reporting. For many people, “keeping up with friends” involves more than gossip and peer-pressure. It involves asking what they thought of McCain's performance or how their theatre performance went — important developmental (social and intellectual) conversations. Secondly, I still think you are drawing causation where it isn't clear by saying that social networks are responsible for “such abysmal academic numbers…”

    Also, tonight I had the opportunity to see John Palfrey, of Harvard Law, and co-author of “Born Digital” speak. If you haven't had the opportunity to already, I really recommend that you check it out as it provides a good counter-balance to your thesis: http://www.amazon.com/Born-Digital-Understandin…

    You might also want to see Andrew Sullivan's new piece on blogging: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/andrew-su… (though it is exclusively focused on youth).

    Finally, I wanted to say how impressive it is that you are willing to debate these issues with me. I know you have other things to do and I appreciate taking the time to discuss this. (Incidentally, this type of engagement between university professor and distant undergrad could hardly have existed before the Internet.)

blog comments powered by Disqus