The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future(Or, Don 't Trust Anyone Under 30)

"Postman contrasted George Orwell's 1984 nightmare, in which totalitarian power is imposed from without, to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, in which people enjoy so many mechanisms of pleasure that they "adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." Bradbury and Postman form high points in a tradition of media commentary that claims the screen "atomizes" individuals, isolating and pacifying them while purveying illusions of worldly contact."The Dumbest Generation, Screen Time, pages 103-104, paperback editionI began reading Dr. Mark Bauerlein's book due to its mention in Dr. Diane Ravitch's Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and School Choice Undermines Education. In combination, both books were cathartic.As a means to an end, I took and passed a certification exam for teaching math and physics at the high school level. There were no high-tech firms hiring at the time in my field. Both schools I worked at seemed interested in my background, and thought my years in the semiconductor industry as an engineer and a web master for my youngest son's basketball booster club would provide a bridge that kids could cross; I'd give "real world" experiences to problems in Algebra, Pre-Calculus and Science. I could, and I did.I found myself witness to the "entertainment-industrial-complex," the notion that for education to have value, it must be a performance. At a few Saturday teacher trainings, I heard just that: "as a teacher, you must have `stage presence.'" Or the other one I'm fond of: "it's important that the kids get to know things about you...that they like you."Like became a relative term. Since I was in the industry, mastery was my goal and objective every day that I stood to teach. Confiscating cell phones, disrupting an argument that started the night before on Facebook; explaining a concept I'd lectured on in class DURING an exam was not.Two of my college engineering professors from a generation ago:"Good morning! Sixty-three percent of you will FLUNK this course!""My name is __________. EVERYTHING you've heard about me is true. I will take drop slips at this time!"In a classroom of 200+ kids, neither of these gentlemen were the least interested in being "friends" with me. The second prof went from 250 students to 7: I as physics major and the other six chemistry majors. He flunked the chemistry majors. The former essentially announced proudly a failure rate that would get you fired in secondary education (1st high school: 10% or less, 2nd: 15% or less). No, in the previous generation, they challenged me and my classmates: "you want this? Come and GET it!" Any student had a right to major in science and engineering; it was a privilege to actually acquire a degree. That is what these gentlemen communicated. Mind you, I did have professors that were more approachable and had a sense of humor. They were no less strict in their dictum: MASTERY. Your goal was to become her/his colleague, a living, breathing representation of what they could transfer into another; possibly a graduate student if you showed you had "the chops," and knew your way around the Dewey Decimal System at the school library. That took sacrifice, dedication and concentration.That was before "the Google," and phone apps.Dr. Bauerlein has accomplished a literary anthropological study of what is wrong with America, education and the future of our nation."... people enjoy so many mechanisms of pleasure that they `adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.'"CNN published an article on the web titled Does life online give you `popcorn brain'? See: [...]Quoting the article: "...constant stimulation can activate dopamine cells in the nucleus accumbens, a main pleasure center of the brain."Over time, and with enough Internet usage, the structure of our brains can actually physically change, according to a new study. Researchers in China did MRIs on the brains of 18 college students who spent about 10 hours a day online."This is apparently becoming a health concern, especially in developing minds and the full-embrace of technology in the classroom. As one teacher put it to me "we're kind of like television, she said." The kids either tune us in or tune us out."Her statement reminded me of the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business," by Neil Postman (deceased). His commentary centered on the advent of 24-hour news in the 1980s: CNN was the first such network that has since spawned others. Children that used to stay up to watch the "snow" on TV as stations signed off now have 24-hour entertainment, hundreds of cable channels to surf and an Internet to post information to Facebook, Myspace and Twitter.I saw kids with phones that have apps I could only envy. Everyone could seem to afford an I-phone, yet no one seemed to have the cash-on-hand for a TI-83/84 calculator. Taking a cell phone from a child was almost oxymoron when his mother was texting him at the time you confiscated it. A $15 fine is the only sanction a teacher can levy: providers have fought technologies that would block cell phone signals because of the bottom-line: the kids are making them a truckload of cash for every tweet, text and social network update while you discuss: series and parallel circuits (that they promptly flunk on the next exam). The same child will follow you to the office and pay the fine; everyday if necessary. You eventually succumb to the shear pressure of policing, classroom management and drill-drill-drill the vaunted standardized exam for the school's rating (and your job)."We're kind of like television": we can be tuned in or tuned out at will. It's never the child's fault if he/she fails. The teacher obviously didn't connect, control their class or wasn't "entertaining enough." I'd personally gotten emails asking me to "bond" with the parent's child. (Even typing that was creepy!) The replied suggestion to another parent to take the cell phone from her child herself got this response: "I just read what you said. It wouldn't have occurred to me to do that."According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States Ranks 15th in Reading Literacy, 19th in Mathematical Literacy and 14th in Scientific Literacy, see: Who's No. 1? Finland, Japan and Korea, Says OECD: [...]So quietly, subtlety we've become a nation of entertainment addicts, I-phones with apps, games, texting and academic distractions. The development of young minds used to be simple before levels of video games were invented. Now we compete with them and with what the latest "reality show" is (I believe the kids I previously taught were viewing "What Chili Wants" from TLC fame:[...]).And if I was not entertaining, be it Algebra 1, Pre-Calculus or Math Lab, I was TLC would have crooned: a "scrub."I am out of secondary teaching, thankfully back in the semiconductor industry, something I understand and I think appreciates me, my skillsets and the dilemma our country is in.Alas, our students are not prepared for college, civic responsibilities, critical thinking, problem-solving skills or life. That justifies outsourcing, hurts our nation financially and puts us on a troubling course.I suggested a documentary be done on Dr. Ravitch's book. I think that much of The Dumbest Generation as well, but my suggestion for Dr. Bauerlein's excellent read is a game show:"Who's Smarter than a Baby Boomer?"Limitations: no Internet, no phone apps, no phones, no life lines.Weapons: memorized times tables, slide rules, Encyclopedia Britannica and/or Dewey Decimal System, pencils and/or chalk.Contest would take place in a notable library, moderated by college professors and AP teachers for respective categories. It could make a valid point.En Garde!Reginald L. Goodwin[...]

People fault Bauerlein for being an alarmist and a curmudgeon. He does come across that way at times, especially because of his tongue-in-cheek title (most seem to miss the sarcasm he intends). But his critics consistently misunderstand his most valuable arguments.The key contribution of this book is some extremely eye-opening evidence/data that lofty and pervasive claims about the "educational benefits of digital technology" are more marketing rhetoric than empirically-verified reality. Bauerlein is correct--and does a superb, if dry, job of demonstrating--that parent and educator attitudes toward technology and its "usefulness" are disturbingly uncritical. Much of the evidence in this book (often cleverly cited from pro-technology folks and studies) shows that technology IMPEDES education and maturity as much or more than it promotes it.Teachers will consider much of this evidence and Bauerlein's claims to be "obvious," but the value of the contribution is that very top-level educators and education writers have NOT been upfront about these issues. An overwhelming majority of those folks--including, not surprisingly, those who have staked their careers on being innovative and digital-savvy educators--have instead "wowed" the general public with hype about moving learning/education into a new (digital) era. Largely, this occurred to justify the explosion of online universities, which are capitalizing on an excellent business (education is the only commodity in which the consumer consistently demands LESS for his/her money: "Take my tuition, but don't make me learn anything or take tests or write papers..." etc.). Those same online programs are now the subject of legislation in many states, who are trying to block Master's and Ph.D's earned from such programs from being employed at traditional univerisites. Why? Because anecdotal and statistical evidence consistently shows that those programs are not actually providing people with the rigor and skill that is needed to justify the degree. Only those seeking basic technical skill and knowledge from such programs are really served--to a varying degree--by an online program. They deliberately cater to our cynical cultural attitude that "all you really need is the certificate to get a job." Since the economy turned, people are now starting to find out differently, the hard way.Wisely anticipating that readers will rebut his statistics by saying "statistics can be made to prove whatever you like," Bauerlein draws on data and reports often compiled by folks who have a vested interest in JUSTIFYING and DEFENDING the benefits of technology (folks such as those behind the "free laptop to every student" program). What he uncovers is that even they are often forced to admit that their well-intended embrace of technology turned out to have NO measurable benefit on learning or--in several cases--a measurably NEGATIVE effect on learning.As an English/Writing professor, I've seen many of the detrimental effects on study habits, integrity, and maturity that he describes. His views are not just curmudgeonly (I myself am only 32 years old and was on the front edge of the digital explosion.) I love technology and know how to use it well, but in the decade I've been teaching college (as a grad student for 7 years, and now as a professor for 3), I have observed a significant shift in student values--especially with regard to insularity, egoism, and the decline of intellectual discourse among younger peer groups.Bauerlein doesn't claim or think technology is evil. His essential point is that it is misused. The principal, oft-touted benefit of technology is CUSTOMIZATION. You can now tailor your entertainment and news to get only what you want and nothing that you don't. From a logical and a practical perspective, this almost certainly guarantees the increasing insularity of an individual's viewpoints. They can wrap themselves in a digital cocoon (24/7) of their own values and never have to hear or encounter a dissenting word. This is, as Bauerlein implies, very dangerous, and he includes a number of representative quotes from young persons which shows (quite startlingly) how unapologetic a new generation is becoming about silencing every viewpoint but their own. Hence, I think, the rapid spread of conspiracy theories and radical politics into the popular sphere... views that once were marginal and relatively unappealing to the masses now are becoming surprisingly "popular" while more responsibly reasoned views get silenced because they lack the hype and appeal of the loud, irresponsible voices that now dominate the Internet and politics in general.Is there such a thing as "too much freedom"? Perhaps there is, Bauerlein suggests, when you can become free to control what viewpoints reach your ears and which don't. This is something very different than the dangers of TV or other old curmudgeonly concerns. And Bauerlein shows this well by pointing out that pullitzer-prize-winning journalists have been replaced at some major news outlets by teenagers who are more savvy at blogging and working up hits from site visitors. The result is a general "dumbening" of our culture, and there is good reason to believe that it will lead to far more damaging repercussions in society than any of the comparatively silly preceding fears (like TV "rotting your brain"). Read it with an open mind (not a technological- or generational-defensiveness), and you are sure to learn some very important things about the responsible and irresponsible uses of technology.The real importance of this book is that so many of these views have not been admitted into popular awareness. As we expect our first baby, I can't tell you how many parents have told us how important it is to get our baby using a Fisher Price laptop as soon as possible so she can "get comfortable" with technology and "thrive" later. Ugh. I can tell you with total certainty that the only folks who consistently use technology responsibly are those who do NOT grow up with it initially. That is how they learn to appreciate, not abuse, its efficient benefits. Bauerlein confirms this by sharing the statistic that the ONLY age group who consistently uses the Internet to learn (rather than to avoid the "discomfort" of encountering information they don't already understand or know) are folks aged 55+!By the way, Bauerlein's point is NOT that prior generations were any more intellectually inclined that youths today, or even that they were any smarter. His point is that they had FEWER OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID LEARNING (less opportunity to "plug in" to whatever they liked, at any given moment of the day) than previous generations. He implies (rightly, I think) that all human beings are naturally lazy and prefer entertainment to education, but for previous generations, the cartoons eventually ended and were followed by news, or Tiger Beat magazine would run out of pages and you might have to find something else to read. Now, you can plug in 24/7 and--if you wish--watch nothing but YouTube clips of folks kicking themselves in the testicles or lighting their farts on fire. Think about that for a moment... it is very, very dangerous to live in a world where immature folks can feed ONLY that desire if they choose. What is EVER to push them to something more substantive or mature? Maybe boredom isn't such an unhealthy thing for a person after all... Maybe it is NOT the best idea to give kids a DVD to watch on family trips just to shut them up... Maybe they should have to read, or exercise their imaginations, or learn to be silent for a 6-hour car ride even when it bores them. I'm musing here, but trying to show you how truly important it is to consider the "benefits" of technology in a much more critical manner than society and educators have heretofore done.

Given the author's arguments about tradition and his politics, which are Catholic-libertarian, I figured this would be a far more opinion-driven jeremiad. Upon re-reading a decade-and-a-half out, Bauerlein, however, has the stats and strong counter-arguments to the more optimistic interpretations. Furthermore, Bauerlein is concerned about the effects of instant gratification through technology and focusing on telling students their immediate worth. This book came out when I started teaching and I read it then and largely rolled my eyes. Reading this now after 15-years in the educational profession, Bauerlein was more right than he even knew (as he articulates in his most recent book). While the technological references are dated, the only arguments that don't see relevant was his fear of the de-politicization of millennials because of their ignorance.His critique is accurate, but I do think what is driving the problems is far more than just the cultural turn. Bauerlein mentions Christopher Lasch but doesn't contextualize the current educational decline in it's political economic context and thus he doesn't really have a way to reverse the problems. He is right that the abnegation of responsibility of educations and the problems of technology, but we can't easily reverse the technological problems and the political-economic problems of babyboomers, where Bauerlein thinks the problem began, was rooted in cultural changes related to economic changes. Lasch understood this, particularly in his pre-1984 works, whereas Bauerlein acknowledges it may be a problem but doesn't really propose an answer to it. I look forward to his recent sequel to the book to see how his analysis has matured.

Having started reading this book with big expectations, one could easily fall into disappointment about a couple of points. But this should not overshadow the overwhelming interest brought about the main matter: the mounting ignorance, passivity and blankness of the younger generations, the latter worse than the former. And this is one reason this book is worth reading through (although the very people that does desperately need to read it and ponder over it, by definition, doesn’t read at all).Although the author concentrates describing U.S. teenagers, the analysis can too much easily be applied to their European counterparts, in highlighting their lack of interest in anything even loosely linked with what has defined “Culture“ over human history, in their spending their time (a time that will never come back) stupefied at some kind of screen reading or posting idiocies), and in their subsequent inability to understand, let alone to cope with, the most basic topic of politics, law, science or history. And this also shedding some light over the claimed “other“ skills developed by our youngsters instead, in fields raised to higher ranks by the current apologists of the new era and the new medias, as, for instance, IT: as a matter of fact, only a tiny portion of people spending their lives scrolling down FB pages or gawking at funny youtube pranks develops some proficiency in computer science (if any).This is really bad news for not just the future, but the actual present of our post-modern societies, in spite of all the boasted technological development and welfare. We can actually witness the results of this retreat of large portion of society from the public sphere into online isolation, and noting that this portion is composed by those generations usually driving human societies toward change and innovation, will just make the picture more depressing.As the pars destruens is clear and convincing, so the pars construens of this book falls short of expectations. This is not that I disagree with the author when he claims that the only way to break this vicious deadlock of visual content and alienation would be to foster reading, participation and a reappraisal of the Past. It’s that I don’t believe the appeal to the “American tradition” will help to face the causes of the deadlock in any sensible way. I even find questionable if anything dating from 1776 can even be defined as “tradition”: such a thing originates not in a barely two centuries time span, neither in a materialist-rooted culture, as the enlightenment-formed one of the Declaration of Independence was. Moreover, the author did not even address another much disturbing topic, although one can easily sense it by reading his narrative of teenagers deserting museums and libraries while crowding Apple or other media-stores: the structural interdependence among the development of a marketing-based, consume-centered economy, and a stolid, blank and easily manipulated public eager to waste his own money, and life, on it. Until our finance-driven economy will put its stakes on this kind of market, appeals to art, culture and smart readings will be short-lived.Said this, the book is anyway a stimulating read that get all the points of the recent years’ cultural degeneration. If there is any remedy to this, that’s another matter.

While I do agree that some of the factors that has led to the malaise of the present generation are both the over-saturation of teenage social networking and the lack of singular focus by some of our educators, to state that these are the only factors is highly simplistic. The other influences on US society, as a whole, are:#1. Narcissism- The child-centered rearing practices of the past decades has led to a generation of young adults who have seldom heard the word "NO." and, instead, have been inundated with "Good Job!" or "You're Special!". The increase in rates of narcissism among our younger generation has sky-rocketed. While the author on page 192 briefly mentions this topic he, obviously, does not view it as being one of the driving factors behind this malaise. Our newly cloned narcissists feel that they are talented and smart no matter what the data may show, feel entitled to only the best that life can offer and rebel against anyone who stands, as an authority figure, against their grandiose delusions. The social networking that the author does define only reinforces this irrational behavior through the posting of personal web pages and hour-by-hour updates on Facebook. It's all about the "me".#2. General US 'laziness'- Since the passing of the Great Depression and WWII, a great number of US citizens have taken our democratic life style for granted. Outside of a healthy uprising against the establishment in the late 60s and early 70s little, if any, progress has been made in the area of civil and human rights. We have almost developed an attitude of 'I've got mine, so you are on your own.' that was alien to life at an earlier era. The youth of today, have simply taken our model of selfishness to a a slightly greater height.#3. Change of the family makeup- We are no longer a family of four where the husband works and the wife raises the children. Due to shrinking economic opportunities most families have two wage earners who arrive at home late at night and don't have the energy or time to spend with their children. This is not to fault the system we are in, it is merely meant to point out the differences from the times that the author seems to idolize. Today's parents too easily send their children to their bedrooms where they are surrounded with audio-visual stimulations instead of going for a picnic in the park or toss the ball around the back yard. The day can only be divided so many ways and can never be lengthened no matter how good the intentions.#4. IQs are genetically formed- The number of high vs. low IQ students has not changed from past times. IQs are genetically determined and not fully a product of the environment they are thrust into. Granted, what they are learning may be quite different from what was learned decades past, but it is unfair to label this generation as being the 'dumbest'.#5. Older generation has not kept up- To many of the older citizens, technology remains, at best, a mystery. Being so they allow the under twenty year olds to use this technology unaided and unsupervised. All of us owe it to the next generation to more fully understand the new technology such that we can more fully realize that most of what our children are doing on the internet has little to do with learning and a lot to do with simply 'wasting time and hanging-out'.As I said previously, I too agree with the two factors that the author brings out in this text. I did not, however, appreciate his redundancy in the repetition of the same premises over and over again. It was more like going to a fundamental religious service that was poorly prepared than it was reading a well argued and thought provoking text. Lastly, his last chapter seems less like it belongs in a book with the title of "The Dumbest Generation" than it does in a book of essays on democracy. Yes, I, too, realize that we, as a country, are slipping into some dangerous habits. What we need are some ideas of how to stop the fall and not some Madison-like oratory that solves little or nothing at this point. Mr. Baurlein your ideas for this dilemma are found wanting.

I am very impressed with this book. As a high school Physics and Mathematics teacher, I have noticed an alarming decline in fundamental skills and intellectual curiosity in my students over the last ten years. The rhetoric expounding that technology and the Web promotes "problem-solving" and "higher-order thinking" in students has only become more strident in the last decade -- unfortunately, these outcomes have proven to be an illusion, as clearly demonstrated by the results of many esteemed surveys and skill tests referenced in Bauerlein's book. My experiences in the classroom have proven to me that "problem-solving" and "higher-order thinking" cannot occur without a mastery of the fundamentals of the discipline, and now, after reading this book, I understand why my students are lacking these prerequisite skills.While the Web is indeed an amazing resource for those of us with an interest in history, civics, the arts and the sciences, the Web does not create that intellectual curiosity in adolescents. In fact, the data referenced in this book proves that teenagers use technology almost exclusively as a social networking tool, and the time spent in peer interaction is taken from pursuits that would actually benefit the intellectual growth of our youth. Even Bill Joy, cofounder of Sun Microsystems, is skeptical of the learning potential of blogging and games: "It sounds like it's a lot of encapsulated entertainment... This ... sounds like a gigantic waste of time. If I was competing with the United States, I would love to have the students I'm competing with spending their time on this kind of crap." Perhaps this explains why more than 50% of the engineering doctorates granted by American universities go to foreign students.How ironic that, at a time when technological innovations lead the global economy, illiteracy and innumeracy are overtaking our youth as a direct result of using this technology.By the way, to the reviewer who admittedly did not bother to read this book, yet proclaimed that it was a waste of money: sadly, you proved the author's point quite well.I highly recommend this book to all educators and parents, and everyone who has an interest in nurturing the potential of our next generation.

This book offers a very compelling case that kids are not reading anymore: instead, they prefer to play with their expensive electronic gizmos. Contrary to what many technophiles would have us believe (that technology will make them all genuises), this electronic gadgetry makes it harder for students to knuckle down to the kind of concentration that's required to attain real knowledge and understanding. The wilful ignorance which is not only tolerated, but celebrated as a badge of honour by some young people is quite shocking (Bauerlein recounts a student on a radio phone in who proudly said that he never read. When prompted to remember a book, he said, 'oh yeah, the guy who was great.' The radio DJ replied 'You mean The Great Gatsby?' The student replied 'Yeah. Who wants to know about him?'While all of this is quite convincing, and backed up with statistics, things go awry in the last chapter when Bauerlein's politics come to the fore. He makes favourable references to the Neo-Conservatives, signalling them as indicative of the intellectual level which kids should be aiming for. I could think of better examples for kids to follow. Bauerlein also mentions the Culture Wars as an example of healthy public debate, which amazed me. The Neo-Conservatives have done as much as anyone to debase political debate in the US, and they are not intellectuals worthy of the name, at least not in my book. This final chapter set off alarm bells. But as a whole, its a crisply written book which should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about education and culture. There's no doubt that Bauerlein asks serious questions about the role technology should play in student learning.

First let me admit that I am not competent to comment on the American education system and the threats that jeopardize its future. In this book, Buerlein, who teaches English in a university and is a commentator on “culture and American life”, argues that the digital age is taking the students away from the realm of liberal arts. As a result they are not growing up to be an informed and involved citizen which is the very foundation of a democratic society. Buerlein also criticizes the mentors – parents, teachers and others guardians of society – for abdicating their responsibility and lapping up the youth culture: “Fewer books are checked out of public libraries and more videos. More kids go to the mall and fewer to the museum. Lunchroom conversations never drift into ideology, but Web photos pass nonstop from handheld to handheld. If parents and teachers and reporters don’t see it now, they’re blind.” What is true of America of last decade is true of India of this. The advent of smartphone and social media, Facebook and WhatsApp is changing the societal landscape of the country beyond recognition. Are all social media bad? No. But indiscriminate use of social media – much of it of recreational variety – is beginning to have a deleterious effect on a country that is caught between its 21st century ambitions and 19th century traditional mores. Laden with statistics Dumbest Generation makes for a dismaying reading. But Buerlien’s call is unlikely to the heeded.