This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I certainly wouldn't say that
any and every
instance of someone using the phrase "kids these days!" is obtuse or ignorant. Kids demonstrably aren't all or always angelic and I've certainly come across some dreadful little tykes in my time. I just think you're always on a losing path whenever you make sweeping statements like that and I certainly think the author of the linked article is guilty of that. Though it's clearly a piece intended to stir up some discussion I don't really even get the feeling they believe everything they're saying. A teacher who really thinks those things of their students is someone I'd be happy to describe as a bad teacher.
I'd be interested in a study that demonstrated what "kids these days" do compared to prior generations. I know pregnancy rates are lower in the US, but I suspect drug use is up since 100 years ago, but maybe down from 30 years ago. Friggin hippies.
Post by
Ksero
I certainly wouldn't say that
any and every
instance of someone using the phrase "kids these days!" is obtuse or ignorant. Kids demonstrably aren't all or always angelic and I've certainly come across some dreadful little tykes in my time. I just think you're always on a losing path whenever you make sweeping statements like that and I certainly think the author of the linked article is guilty of that. Though it's clearly a piece intended to stir up some discussion I don't really even get the feeling they believe everything they're saying. A teacher who really thinks those things of their students is someone I'd be happy to describe as a bad teacher.
I'd be interested in a study that demonstrated what "kids these days" do compared to prior generations. I know pregnancy rates are lower in the US, but I suspect drug use is up since 100 years ago, but maybe down from 30 years ago. Friggin hippies.
In the last 100 years the US population has increased by 200 million people, it makes sense that there are more people using drugs. Also the hard drugs like meth, MDPV, and psychedelics like MDMA and LSD weren't even around back then. Not to mention cocaine was prescribed as an anesthetic (and was in coca-cola). It's kind of Apples to Oranges.
Post by
Squishalot
I'd be interested in a study that demonstrated what "kids these days" do compared to prior generations. I know pregnancy rates are lower in the US, but I suspect drug use is up since 100 years ago, but maybe down from 30 years ago. Friggin hippies.
Does the US have census data of any sort that could show these sorts of stats?
In the last 100 years the US population has increased by 200 million people, it makes sense that there are more people using drugs.
Proportionally, not in raw numbers.
Post by
Ksero
In the last 100 years the US population has increased by 200 million people, it makes sense that there are more people using drugs.
Proportionally, not in raw numbers.
I understood that.
Say you live in 1912, you have 1/3 of the chance of knowing someone who does drugs than if you lived in 2012, just by the amount of people in the country (assuming that there were the same amount of people that did drugs proportionally). that was my point.
Edit: population density also has a huge effect.
Post by
MyTie
In the last 100 years the US population has increased by 200 million people, it makes sense that there are more people using drugs. Also the hard drugs like meth, MDPV, and psychedelics like MDMA and LSD weren't even around back then. Not to mention cocaine was prescribed as an anesthetic (and was in coca-cola). It's kind of Apples to Oranges.
The drugs WERE around back then, at least, meth was. Difference was, people weren't interested in using them. There was no market. Apples and Oranges indeed.
In the last 100 years the US population has increased by 200 million people, it makes sense that there are more people using drugs.
Proportionally, not in raw numbers.
I understood that.
Say you live in 1912, you have 1/3 of the chance of knowing someone who does drugs than if you lived in 2012, just by the amount of people in the country (assuming that there were the same amount of people that did drugs proportionally). that was my point.
Edit: population density also has a huge effect.You meet more people in your day, but do you meet the same % of the population? Anyway, this isn't conclusive causation.
Post by
Ksero
In the last 100 years the US population has increased by 200 million people, it makes sense that there are more people using drugs.
Proportionally, not in raw numbers.
I understood that.
Say you live in 1912, you have 1/3 of the chance of knowing someone who does drugs than if you lived in 2012, just by the amount of people in the country (assuming that there were the same amount of people that did drugs proportionally). that was my point.
Edit: population density also has a huge effect.You meet more people in your day, but do you meet the same % of the population? Anyway, this isn't conclusive causation.
I understand that, there are way to many factors to say it's just the way kids are these days, The culture is completely different, population density is a lot higher, social media has exploded, and you can't beat your kids into believing what you want them too, of course they will be more opinionated.
Post by
MyTie
I understand that, there are way to many factors to say it's just the way kids are these days, The culture is completely different, population density is a lot higher, social media has exploded, and you can't beat your kids into believing what you want them too, of course they will be more opinionated.
I ignored the first time you pointed out that kids today are different because you can't "beat" them. As far as I know, we aren't talking about "opinionated", we are talking about "disciplined", and your argument is based on the assumption that kids back in the day were kept in line through regular beatings. Kids today still get beat. There are still bad parents. That's not what we are talking about, so let's leave that out. Kids today have different problems than they did 100 years ago. If you had to choose between being a school teacher in inner Detroit 1912, or a school teacher in inner Detroit in 2012, which would you choose? Drop the arguments as to WHY the kids were better behaved then, and just establish that the obvious answer is 1912 because you stand less of a chance of getting
shot to death
. Kids these days...
Post by
Ksero
I understand that, there are way to many factors to say it's just the way kids are these days, The culture is completely different, population density is a lot higher, social media has exploded, and you can't beat your kids into believing what you want them too, of course they will be more opinionated.
I ignored the first time you pointed out that kids today are different because you can't "beat" them. As far as I know, we aren't talking about "opinionated", we are talking about "disciplined", and your argument is based on the assumption that kids back in the day were kept in line through regular beatings. Kids today still get beat. There are still bad parents. That's not what we are talking about, so let's leave that out. Kids today have different problems than they did 100 years ago. If you had to choose between being a school teacher in inner Detroit 1912, or a school teacher in inner Detroit in 2012, which would you choose? Drop the arguments as to WHY the kids were better behaved then, and just establish that the obvious answer is 1912 because you stand less of a chance of getting
shot to death
. Kids these days...
The article addresses how kids today think that their opinions have more value than they should
on the point about beating I was talking about in school. In 1912 if you speak out in class you get the strap, or a ruler across the hands, or depending on where you are lashes from a whip, this starts from a young age and continues until you stop speaking out in class. your brain associates pain with speaking out so the behavior is suppressed, it's basic psychology.
Teacher's today can't do that, and that is one of the reasons some kids today speak out in class, they aren't afraid of teachers that can only give them detention, or suspend them (free time off school, why not get in trouble).
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
Well, yes and no. That sort of thing depends a lot on the kind of exam being taken and the focus is often far less on simply recalling facts these days with more exams providing reference materials, but rather on understanding concepts and being able to demonstrate that understanding.
Also, I don't believe any great instruction in memorisation techniques were given in the past when more emphasis
was
placed on memorising large mounts of items. I'm pretty sure kids just had to keep chanting until they remembered it all - a technique which simply does not work for all kids.
When my wife is preparing lessons she'll often task me to help her come up with fun mnemonics to help her kids remember a series of data or an illustrative way to describe or demonstrate a mechanism - knowing that the best way to help kids remember something is for them to have a fun or interesting association attached to the memory (eg. Horrible Histories).
There's definitely less emphasis placed on chanting out times tables until they're firmly and indelibly lodged in the brain but doesn't necessarily equate to less emphasis on helping kids memorise things or commit things from short-term to long-term memory in a meaningful way. I think it's just done differently now and perhaps it's done in a way which poor teachers find difficult to do, I don't really know about that.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
Yes, I suppose you're taking things on a step to higher education (since my wife is a primary school teacher I tend to think always in those terms) but you're totally right that early education needs to prepare people for the more advanced stuff.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
What are people's thoughts on
this
?
I know it's a little old, but it was linked from something else I was reading, and I wondered what people thought.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think there was some speculation about that- whether it meant that corporal punishment causes low IQ, or people with a lower IQ are more likely to hit their kids, as well as more likely to have kids with lower IQ's. However, they said something about kids showing symptoms of PTSD from spankings, and that this might play a role in the findings.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.