Stupid in America Part II

[monsoon]

This Article called Flunking in Life details how kids of today are 3 years behind the same aged kids in 1976.

As a product of the 70s, it really does seem like younger people these days have a lot less common sense than they did when I was a kid. The incompetance that we all experience almost every day, unfortunately is very real.

[Snowguy716]

Keep in mind this study was done in England and is not comparable to the U.S.

While you can all speculate that kids today are dumber than 30 years ago, this study is not a viable reference.

[monsoon]

Keep in mind this study was done in England and is not comparable to the U.S.

While you can all speculate that kids today are dumber than 30 years ago, this study is not a viable reference.

Possibly, but I will note that in today's world, British kids do far better when tested for skills than their American counterparts. This despite the fact that kids today are educated to pass tests.

[Snowguy716]

I agree that British kids do better than us, but you can't say that American kids are dumber today than 30 years ago unless you also provide something that says we were dumber than British kids in the '70s as well.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you. Students today learn a lot less of the basics and have more "electives." These classes include things like world languages, which are often required now, music, family and consumer sciences (Home Ec.), and Industrial education classes. All this with no significant change in time spent in school.

The goal of opening the system to more electives was meant to create more well-rounded students, but in many cases their basic educations have been lacking.

I agree that at the high school level, electives are an important component of your education, but basics should be stressed at the elementary and middle school levels.

Minnesota just passed a law that says students must complete Algebra by the 8th grade, something that most students did not do when I was in 8th grade.

New graduation standards no longer focus on how you learn, but what you learn. While this is more practical and easier to apply, I don't know that it stresses effective learning enough.

Education should absolutely not be about preparing people for jobs nor should it be about attaining certain facts and figures. Once in high school, students should be able to branch out and choose the subjects they want to concentrate in while still having to take the basics (English, history, math, and science).

My graduation standards in high school looked something like this:

4 years of English with 2 tracks: Standard and Advanced Placement

4 years of social studies: Civics and economics in 9th grade, world history (std or AP) in 10th, U.S History (std or AP) in 11th, and Sociology or Psychology in 12th (Psych being AP)

2 years of science: Standard 9th grade science which mixes physics and chemistry and bilogy in 10th. Now students must complete 3 years, including a full year of chemistry.

2 years of math: At least Algebra and Geometry. Now students must complete 3 years in high school and have completed Algebra by 8th grade, meaning students must take Geometry, Trigonometry, and Pre-Calculus at the high school level or an equivalent (statistics, etc.)

You must complete 2 years of a world language, 1/2 year of music or art, 1 year of phys. education, and 1/2 year of health.

You must also pass the Minnesota standardized Reading and math tests in 8th grade and the writing test in 10th grade. You also have more standardized in 11th grade that are not required for graduation but are used as a measure of your academic success.

We continue to lead the nation in college entrance exams, graduation rates, and have a well educated workforce. But the trend is going the wrong way, and turning that around has been fresh on everyone's mind as we head into the fall elections.

Everyone should also know that comparisons to European students are hard to swallow as well, considering that the average test scores for 100% of American high school students are compared to that of, say, the Gymnasium students in Germany, which represent only the top 40% of students in Germany.

[Cadeho]

I know I'm dumber now than I was back in 1976... wait... I'm 27...

Just from my own observation, children are much smarter and more aware of things than I and some of my friends were at their age. It always amazes me what they know and how much they know by certain ages. Now that really makes me feel like I really was a dumb child!

[peaceloveunderstanding]

And this is with the bar being set too low as it is.

[Snowguy716]

I just don't really buy it.

[suburban george3]

And just think, when we're old and in the nursing home, the kids of today will be giving us sponge baths and figuring out our medicines. SCARY!

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I think the top of my generation will do exceptionally well, and the middle tier will do as their told. The bottom tier will be as is every bottom tier, a burden.

The brightest of today are just as bright or brighter than ever before and they're the one's that truly matter, we just have to be careful not to limit their ability to get things done.

[Snowguy716]

The millennial generation (1980-2002) is considered to be a "Civic" generation by Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 by William Strauss and Neil Howe, Morrow and Co., p. 79.

The last civic generation is the "G.I" generation born between 1901 and 1924. As children, these generations tend to be protected by their parents but become heroic and powerful throughout their life cycle. This generation fought both WWI and II.

Take a look at the generation chart here:

http://www.univcon.com/SGen/sgchars.htm

The boomers are considered "Idealists", the Gen Xers as "Reactive", the Millennial generation as "Civic", and the silent generation as "Adaptive".

[dtown]

This Article called Flunking in Life details how kids of today are 3 years behind the same aged kids in 1976.

As a product of the 70s, it really does seem like younger people these days have a lot less common sense than they did when I was a kid. The incompetance that we all experience almost every day, unfortunately is very real.

As far as academics go, i dont think kids are 3 years behinds kids of 1976. Im in 10th grade, and ive got geometry, and im not even in the advanced program/smart class. My mom said she didnt have geometry until 11th grade.

As far as common sense goes, i think there is quite a few people without very much of it. But i would imagine that always has been people without a lot of common sense. Then again when i see how little common sense some people have, i wonder how they stand themselves sometimes.

I guess, in a way, common sense is more important than book smarts. Some people know a ton of info about algebra or triginomitry, but dont know how to use a computer very well. Or they know everything about history, but dont know what gas does once you put it in the car. Or they are a whiz at chemestry, but dont know who founded their own city, or any of their history. What bugs me the most is people who live somewhere, but have absolutly no idea about anything about that area.

You can know everything about something very hard, but know very little about all the things that are very easy or very common.

Thats why i tend to think im pretty smart, i might not get all a's like some people, but i know a lot of things that actually matter.

know what i mean?

[Charlotteman]

I'm not sure if I see kids as less educated than years past, but I do see an odd proclivity for them to be somewhat sheltered. When I was a teeenager, everyone I knew was quite "worldly".

[Recchia]

If anything, my generation is less street smarts than generations before, with the majority of us being products of the suburban lifestyle. Less book smart, I doubt it, but less street smart, maybe.

[monsoon]

I am amused at the way people answer the question "Which is heavier? 1000lbs of feathers or 1000lbs of bowling balls"

[Snowguy716]

I'm sure older people just perform top notch with that question...

It's kind of like "Make your hand into an "okay" sign, now put it up against your nose" as the guy puts it up to his cheek. MOst people put it up to their cheek.

That has nothing to do with how smart you are, but how you look at questions. Trick questions like that are rarely used in tests because people are taught to look at key words like bowling balls and feathers first and then the weight afterward.

Now to add to that question, Metro... which would fall faster from a tall building in a box? 1000lbs of feathers or 1000lbs of bowling balls?

[michaelskis]

I think that on the same information, it would is very true. However in 1976 if you asked a kid if he knew how to program a VCR, E-mail a friend, or to upload a song into a compressed format for portable use, an 11 year old in 1976 would have no idea as to what you were talking about, but an 11 year old in 2006 would have no problem.

Having said all that, I think that the quality of education has decreased in the US. A small fraction of it is the Education Department, Teachers, and Facilities, however the majority of the blame needs to be placed on the parents. Too many parents these days are apathetic to what their kids do in school, and often don

[monsoon]

I think that on the same information, it would is very true. However in 1976 if you asked a kid if he knew how to program a VCR, E-mail a friend, or to upload a song into a compressed format for portable use, an 11 year old in 1976 would have no idea as to what you were talking about, but an 11 year old in 2006 would have no problem.

You can train a monkey to do these things. These are not tests for intelligence, but rather the memorization of processes revelant to the times. You could ask a kid today how to milk a cow and I doubt that many would know but 100 years ago it was common knowledge.

[monsoon]

Now to add to that question, Metro... which would fall faster from a tall building in a box? 1000lbs of feathers or 1000lbs of bowling balls?

The answer to that question of course is they would fall at the same speed assuming you put them in the same box. However you would be amazed at how many people today would not get that question right. A more interesting twist on that question is to ask people which will fall faster on the moon, a feather or a hammer. Many people in our technologically advanced 21st century culture, simply refuse to believe the correct answer to that question. Forget that, there is even a thread posted here in the CoffeeHouse by teenagers that don't even believe people have been to the moon.

[Snowguy716]

I can guarantee a lot of former hippies have "been to the moon".. so there's no doubting that

I think the education system needs to expect more out of students, but it needs to tailor more to their learning style. Some people learn differently, and that's why many people believe that women perform better in school now days.

I personally believe that girls do better than boys because boys are distracted by video game companies, drugs, and believe or not.. are just as obsessed with their bodies and looks as women are. We like to pretend we're macho and manly and could wear sweat pants and flip-flops to a presidential dinner... but I think this small minded definition of masculinity really harms mens' ability to perform top-notch in the educational world.

Boys tend to learn better through tactile methods. I am this way. I learn better by doing and practicing than by reading/seeing or listening. High school educations and college educations are generally tailored to reading/listening learning environments, which women and girls tend to excel at.

Let's have real, tangible results by not only stressing what we learn, but also how we learn. And also stress that learning isn't about finding a job.. it's about doing the things are passionate about and exploring those subjects. It's a life-long process, and I think we've dumbed down kids to the point where they think that by attaining a degree in business will get them whereever they want to go...

Companies simply do not care about that. I have a friend who graduated from my university in 2005 with a degree in Management and Communications, and after a year of working for Target Corp. has decided to quit and was accepted to medical school.

Why? He had had one bio class in college, and no chemistry. They were looking for people who could communicate effectively and had a well-rounded education...

And Bush stands up there and goes "We need more money for technical colleges so Americans can get the skills necessary for their jobs"...

Yes, it's a good idea.. if he'd increase the funding.. and you were a drone that simply works and separates work from play completely.

[krazeeboi]

Possibly, but I will note that in today's world, British kids do far better when tested for skills than their American counterparts. This despite the fact that kids today are educated to pass tests.

Very true. It becomes even more interesting when you look at the rankings of states that tend to score high in certain categories and compare them to their educational proficiency standards. In many cases, they tend to be inversely proportional.

[krazeeboi]

It's kind of like "Make your hand into an "okay" sign, now put it up against your nose" as the guy puts it up to his cheek. MOst people put it up to their cheek.

That has to do more with how our brain processes instructions (verbal vs. visual). That reminds of the letter in which all of the letters in each word are rearranged, yet the first and last letter of each word retains its position, and it's pretty easy to decipher the message.

[michaelskis]

You can train a monkey to do these things. These are not tests for intelligence, but rather the memorization of processes revelant to the times. You could ask a kid today how to milk a cow and I doubt that many would know but 100 years ago it was common knowledge.

Wow, that must suck for older people who had problems doing it knowing that a monkey can be trained to do that.

The point that I was trying to get across is times change, lives change, what people know change. As for the intelligence factor, I don

[monsoon]

Wow, that must suck for older people who had problems doing it knowing that a monkey can be trained to do that.

Or maybe they just don't care. Older people are not as fascinated by the latest gimic, as they have seen it repeated time and time again, and are not interested in taking the time to learn things that fascinate kids.

[Cadeho]

I think that on the same information, it would is very true. However in 1976 if you asked a kid if he knew how to program a VCR, E-mail a friend, or to upload a song into a compressed format for portable use, an 11 year old in 1976 would have no idea as to what you were talking about, but an 11 year old in 2006 would have no problem.

I thought I had replied to this. Those things weren't around in 1976 for an 11 year old understand. But our kids were brough up around all this technology. I'm sure an 11 year old for 1976 were whizes with the new technologies of the time. Hey, they saw the beginning of the home video game systems. I don't think there's too much of a difference, just different contexts.

[MR-2]

I would have to see more about this test to determine whether it's scientific or relevant to any extent. It doesn't seem to be. All it amounts to is "kids today know different kinds of things than they did three decades ago," which makes sense due to the changing nature of the world economy.

I know anecdotal evidence is taboo, but generally I see the opposite trend. Due to the internet culture, kids tend to be more worldly now than they used to be, at least on the higher end of the intelligence bell-curve.