To the Editor:
Please, could The Chronicle provide some voice of reason in the ridiculous article “The Net Generation Goes to College” (October 7)? Certainly young people today come to college with some different technical skills and attitudes, but to leap to the premise that education needs a complete overhaul seems absurd. While I respect students, is it really wise to allow 18-year-olds to determine the style and content of their education? Remember how much you did not know at 18.
Also, these attempts at labeling generations and assigning values and behaviors to young men and women seem specious and of little value. It is nothing more than trendy stereotyping. What do those of us in academia have to gain by catering to these ridiculous notions — which appear every 20 years or so — that the new generation of students is so different, we must modify our teaching styles?
I went to college in the mid-1980s, and everywhere at that time were warnings that the MTV generation could not learn from the old-style university. Our attention spans were too short; our cultural knowledge was limited to bad television sitcoms and popular movies; our technological skills were too advanced for old-fashioned lecturers. ...
Richard T. Sweeney’s digital student has many positive attributes on the surface, but if you look closely, there are many negatives. Are the members of this generation as slavishly devoted to technology, wrapped up in their own selfish concerns, and characterized by attention spans more appropriate to first graders as he proposes? I am dubious.
He also seems alarmingly content with the rudeness with which some of this generation uses its technology. Should the university train students to be so self-absorbed that they cannot pay attention in class because they just received an instant message? How would these people survive in the business world, if our system of higher education catered to the worst of these proclivities? ...
Having written what looks like a reactionary, old-school diatribe against the digital generation, I must admit that I like this generation of students. They bring a great deal to the classroom. I tell them not to believe all the negative press about them, and that previous generations — contrary to popular mythology — were not innately smarter, more patriotic, or better prepared for college.
My problem is not with students, but with educators who seem to cater to the lowest common denominator of this generation. ... Do these students a favor, and use your research to find ways we can take advantage of their strengths and not cater to their weaknesses.
Joel D. Shrock Assistant Professor of History Anderson University Anderson, Ind.
***
To the Editor:
“The Net Generation Goes to College” reported that today’s generation of “tech-savvy ‘Millennials’ have lots of gadgets, like to multitask, and expect to control what, when, and how they learn.” It’s a shame that we increasingly surrender to those preferences.
It’s wonderful that wireless networks, providing Internet access in every nook and cranny of the campus, are now common. It’s not so wonderful that e-mail, instant messaging, and Web surfing can be done even in class, should focusing on the professor’s topics for an entire 50 minutes prove less than compelling.
Let’s admit that the average lecture on the average campus is an uninspiring event — crying out for better organization, more interesting methods of delivery, and closer connections to meaningful learning objectives. But is the best solution really to “make blogs, iPods, and video games part of your pedagogy,” as the technophiles assert? And to “learn to accept divided attention spans”?
Most professors I know believe that the average student has a tough time comprehending a significant new idea, even without enticing distractions. ... Perhaps our pedagogical theory is that students just don’t need to comprehend quite so much now, in a world where they’re always connected to the Internet and the answer is just a click or two away. Or perhaps the theory is that we are preparing our students to be the workers of tomorrow, who must toggle among a mind-numbing array of information channels, both in the office and out of it. ...
Human beings just aren’t that good at multitasking — as the experience with cellphones and driving shows — and it’s a rare e-mail message that really needs an instantaneous response. ... Anywhere, anytime e-mail and instant messaging are built on the fiction that it is otherwise. We go along with the fiction because it reflects our need to feel loved and important enough that others would never want us beyond the reach of immediate communication. Academics are no less subject to that illusion than are business executives.
Still, there’s evidence that business executives at least sense the problem. They are resisting the Federal Aviation Administration’s recent moves to relax restrictions on in-flight cellphones and Internet connections. ... Airplane travel has become executives’ most productive time because it permits uninterrupted work or reflection that is otherwise no longer available in a 24/7 world.
Perhaps we in academia should pay attention and at least limit the distractions inside the classroom. Our students will thank us for it in the long run.
Reid Cushman Research Assistant Professor of Ethics and of Administration and Finance Miller School of Medicine University of Miami Miami
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 52, Issue 12, Page A55