The Dumbest Generation. When
I first read these words, I could not believe that an author would be so overt
at attacking my generation; the generation who typically is the most skilled in
all kinds of technology like laptops, cell phones and television. But as I read
this book a little bit more, it became apparent that Bauerlein did not maintain
a polite facade. Instead, Bauerlein created a steady stream of insults for my
generation. But, there were times when I
understood his viewpoint and even agreed with him.
In his
book, The Dumbest Generation, Mark Bauerlein argues that the current
generation has become too preoccupied with an overdependence on technology,
rather than absorbing the immense knowledge that the world has to offer us. Bauerlein starts his argument by displaying
the current lack of basic knowledge. He believes that this ignorance amongst
teens contributes to the issue of a-literacy versus illiteracy. When someone is
illiterate, they simply are an unlearned person. On the other hand, a-literacy is having the ability to read but
being unwilling to do so, Bauerlein sees
that our generation has focused on other aspects of life, such as social media,
instead of taking advantage of our resources.
Not only have we been careless about our literacy, but our teachers and
professors now have become overly dependent on technology for teaching. Thus,
they unable to effectively teach us. Through these points, Bauerlein vouches for
the argument that the youngest generation is the dumbest generation, because it
does not reach its full potential.
Although this is an accurate description, I think it may be helpful for Bauerlein to explain his thesis himself:
In
order to support his viewpoint, Bauerlein uses testimonials, research data and
surveys. This data measures the teenagers over-dependence on technology. Bauerlein
typically uses a testimonial by offering it as an opposing viewpoint to
consider. But then, Bauerlein tries to break away the argument and point out
its faults. This is his attempt to break away the argument, often through the
usage of hasty generalizations. Bauerlein also chooses the most apt portions of
evidence, from the surveys and other data in order to support his ideology.
Thus, he is using the confirmation bias, in which a person only uses
information that supports their viewpoint.
Although I disagree with portions of Bauerlein’s argument, he did include some interesting passages of the responsibilities of leaders in society and the importance of print.
“[The custodians of culture] They maintain the pathways into knowledge and taste- the school curriculum, cultural institutions, and cultural pages in newspapers and magazines- guarding them against low standards, ahistoricism, vulgarity, and trendiness. If pathways deteriorate, don’t blame the kids and parents overmuch. Blame, also, the teachers, professors, writers, journalists, intellectuals, editors, librarians, and curators who will not insist upon the value of knowledge and tradition”. (page 161)
At this
point of Bauerlein’s argument, I think it is interesting that he states that
society is partially responsible for the way that the students end up. I agree
that the students are not the only ones to blame as society does make a huge
impact on a child’s life. Since these intellectuals are seen as wiser, they are
supposed to lead the students. It is understandable that they would also be responsible
for creating a thirst for knowledge in the students. It is also interesting
that he states that we should blame persons involved with the media, schooling,
and intellectuals, because this is what modern-day students are most influenced
by. So, these “enlightened” persons should be able to show them the light.
“Print far exceeds live and televised speech, even to the point that a book by Dr. Seuss falls only slightly beneath the conversation of intelligent adults on the rare-word-per-thousand scale. And when compared to a television show for the same ages, Sesame Street, preschool books outdo it by a hefty factor eight, Adult books more than double the usage of rare words in adult TV shows, and children’s books beat them on the median-word ranking by 137 slots.” (page 129)
I think
this study is an eye-opener. I now realize why my dad would force me to read
newspapers or news articles because it had a huge impact on my vocabulary. It is also very interesting to think that reading a children’s
book will expose you to 30.9 rare words per minute compared watching a
prime-time adult TV show with 22.7 rare words
per minute. This piece of information is vital to Bauerlein’s argument that
there is an importance of avoiding a-literacy.
However, this data becomes somewhat controversial when compared to Steven Johnson’s article, “Watching TV makes you smarter”: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html
Even though Bauerlein did include interesting aspects, his overall argument included several portions that I did not agree with.
“A 2002 report by the Corporations for Public Broadcasting titled Connected to the Future found that using the Internet has made Hispanic and African-American students ‘like school more,’ and that ‘these positive attitudes from children and parents in under-served populations underscore the potentially vital role that the Internet can play in children’s education.’” (page 119)
I think
Bauerlein’s usage of this piece of information was slightly insulting. Because
Bauerlein does portray the overdependence of technology in a negative light,
stating that these racial groups are dependent on the Internet in order to make
school more interesting, a conception that is looked down upon in society, also
portrays these racial groups in a negative light. This negative light on these
particular racial groups shows that he made a generalization that these races
are over dependent on technology, when it comes to motivation for schooling. Also,
since motivations for schooling greatly differ from person to person, it is not
a well-thought idea to generalize about a particular race. I do not think that
he had to only focus on a few races to make his point. If he wanted to make a
point using the racial ideas, he should have included information about more
racial groups.
“Young Americans haven’t answered the call, though.
According to the National Science Board, engineering degrees awarded in the
United States have dropped 20 percent since 1985…The 2006 American Freshman Society found that only .5 percent of first year
students intended to major in physics, .8 percent in math, and 1.2 percent in
chemistry, although engineering improved to 8 percent.” (page 22)
I think
Bauerlein made some hasty generalizations in this passage. First off, it is
unfortunate that Bauerlein believes that engineering is the main science that
students can be interested in. Thus, he ignores other types of science like
biology or astronomy. After the decades that he refers to, several other job opportunities
in the science field have been created. Thus, it is not reasonable to draw a
link between the decrease in interest in engineering and an emerging lack of
interest in the scientific field. Secondly, he mentions in the American Freshman Society, that some
intended majors in science decreased. However, it would be more accurate to
gage the interest in the scientific field by looking at the declared majors.
This would be more effective because in freshman year, many college students
are still deciding what their interests are. So, the final decision would
display the person’s interest.
All in
all, Bauerlein easily gets his message voiced. His message declares that the
younger generation does not use the vast amount of resources it has in order to
further its knowledge. Therefore, this generation can be considered “dumb” and
should use the resources that it has. Even though Bauerlein wishes to spread a
banal message, with his terse diction and logical fallacies, he is not able to
easily persuade people. First off, the reader who approaches the novel will
most likely be insulted as a result of the provocative title, “The Dumbest
Generation”. Calling the younger generation “the dumbest generation” can also
be seen as an ad-hominem argument because through his action, he is attacking
the younger generation. He continues insulting
the younger generation while he makes hasty generalizations and non sequitur arguments.
Although Bauerlein uses an immense
amount of statistics and research, which should increase the effectiveness of
his piece, Bauerlein uses cherry picking often in order to support his ideology. If Bauerlein had presented his information in a slightly
different light, I think he would have been able to achieve his purpose.
However, I thought he was somewhat condescending when I read the book because
it made me feel like inferior. This is because I am a part of the dumbest
generation. Thus, if Bauerlein had stated that most people of youngest generation
are part of the dumbest generation instead of making a blanket statement, it
would have been much more palatable.
No comments:
Post a Comment