Professors say today's college kids really ARE dumber and lazier

And sorry for the triple post, but w/r/t to the hours studying, it seems like technology plays a huge role. The amount of reading is one thing, but computers make students much more efficient. Think about how much time students save by finding academic sources in online databases, composing documents in word processors, etc.

Plus, students are more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities. You can laugh these off as "resume builders"-and, in some cases, that's true-but there are many students that dedicate plenty of time to their organizations. Although not "school", that sort of experience certainly provides an education.

 

I would argue very strenuously with the notion that computers make kids more efficient. In my experience, "two hours of homework" can mean "30 minutes of homework, some online chat and a spin through the iTunes store."

Of course, that's often what "two hours of work" means for me these days, so maybe I'm projecting.

 

This actually reminded me of something else tangentially related:

Some of the work assigned today really is harder than what was assigned in the past, to adjust for improving student quality. Harvard Law School just released about 100 years of law school exams. The ones given today are exponentially more difficult-actually requiring analysis rather than memorization-than old ones. I don't know if that's the case in undergrad, but I'd assume it is at most law school.

 

Agreed, and I'd add critical thinking to that list. It's a natural by-product of trying to emulate countries like South Korea, China, Singapore, etc. and their test scores, though. If all you ever learn is what your teachers pass on to you and don't ask questions of your own, it's difficult to surpass them and build upon that knowledge.

 

Just as when I was an undergrad, there are some really good students and there are some really dumb/lazy ones. In today's environment, however, the really dumb/lazy ones have just as much of a voice (maybe even more) as the really good ones in influencing who winds up teaching them. I've run into this at both the schools where I've been employed full-time. At my previous school, where student evaluations were EVERYTHING, a 1.0 average meant everybody hated you and a 5.0 average mean everybody loved you. My departmental colleagues averaged something like 4.4, while I averaged right at 4.0. I thought that was pretty good until my department chair told me I had no chance at tenure unless I averaged something on the order of 4.2 or better. So, in a typical class of 35, if I pissed off 3 or 4 students and then got an even split of 5s and 4s from everyone else, I was barely hanging onto my job. When it's that way across an institution, is it any wonder that a good chunk of students walk out with fancy diplomas and barely a clue?

 

I don't see much value in discussing someone's "college worthiness." Way back when it was MUCH easier to get into many colleges.

 

Following Ragu's college today = high school yesteryear, Pew Research Center releases poll showing a majority of respondents believe college doesn't offer a good value for the money.

http://money.msn.com/family-money/news.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20110516&id=13636617&GT1=33009

Also, 58 percent of college presidents say public HS students are less prepared than they were a decade ago.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about the juxtaposition of those questions. I suppose my own experience can explain the seeming logical disconnect; I believe my degree nearly 20 years ago was a good investment, while at the same time I believe today's college education is not a good value. This is largely due to the increase in costs.

 

What I haven't read in any posts thus far is that there is a definite difference between being lazy and being dumb. There is a difference between being smart and motivated and smart and lazy. And if you have kids in college — which in most cases one would tend to believe that the kids were accepted for the simple fact that they are smart — and they aren't motivated, aren't the professors somewhat to blame?