Great answers, I'll add my perspective.
I think we are in a huge transition phase and questioning what is considered 'valuable education' (if I spelled that right, lmao) should really be put under a microscope with a view ahead not to the past.
I think our educational models are 30 years out-dated and train us to enter a world that existed 30 years ago. Our colleges are pumping out so many lawyers, engineers, businessmen and the like who have no ability to "cross-craft" and so don't meet the needs of today's society or businesses. Our educated have nowhere to go.
For the first time ever, more women are entering college than men. This speaks highly of the so called 'womens movement' but shows a non-confidence in college overall, in spite of the statistics that promise higher pay for life.
Mass communication in the past was the written word and demanded a solid foundation in history, the classics, latin and philosophy. Using the written word demanded excellence in the use of the tool - spelling, punctuation, penmanship.
Mass communication in the present is achieved in many ways -- including the written word, like in blogs or this site and yes, using the tools like spelling is necessary. But not demanded!
We may seem dumber. But we are more quick to adapt, more aware of national and worldwide influences and as a whole keeping pace with a rapidly shifting world. Our focus is "keeping up" which includes computer use, technology, society's mores, the environment and the uber-connectiveness that's happening.
Letting a 'classical education' and it's murky definition slide in the light of larger more profound changes is not only natural but necessary.
2006-08-31 06:37:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by wrathofkublakhan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sometimes it seems that way. I would really like to see a survey on the education level as a percentage of population. I'd bet we would both be wrong.
But then again, maybe perhaps the source of applicable common knowledge has a much wider base than it did 40 - 50 years ago. Back when I was growing up, we didn't have computers or television, or other sources of knowledge. I know kids who can run circles around me when it comes to computers. They are more educated in that sense. It just shows to go ya that standards change.
2006-08-31 06:14:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by rb_cubed 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Excellent philosophical question. I do not know if people are less educated today then they were 40 or 50 years ago, but it appears that way. Education is not as highly prized in the USA as it was back in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Many peopel miss the fact that it was not always so easy to go to school, get an education, and move ahead in life. Compared to culture in Japan, education is the only way to move ahead. In Europe, if you cannot pass your testing past certain grades, it becomes twice as hard to continue higher education. I would say people take it for granted and are spoiled in the USA, not so muc that they are less intelligent.
2006-08-31 06:18:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by PDK 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I will say population todays has more exposure to all the information from everywhere. They are less concentrated when it comes to study, comparing to the older generations.
Say one or two generations ago, there is no such thing as video games at home. Home base video games are started in the 70's.
Also, there are no PC to vast majorities of the house. People goes to library more often and read more books and magazine.
They tend to have deeper knowledge on the subjects they studied because they have more time and less distractions.
I am not sure about dumber. I think they are smarter but they have much shorter attention span and less concentrations.
2006-08-31 06:17:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Just_curious 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good answers here. The standards are definitely much lower today than they were 100 years ago. I blame this on the public education system and a low teacher/student ratio, along with teachers who have no vested interest in the success of their students.
Also, do not confuse technical advancement with knowledge. Our culture of entertainment and computers is creating a generation of robots who cannot think for themselves.
I am amazed at the simple-mindedness of some graduate-level people I know.
P.S. This site only helps to prove your point...
2006-08-31 06:21:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by bandit 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a very difficult question to answer because it must be referenced to the eras in which people learned. Without a doubt, there is a great deal more information available today. However, and I am sure your question is addressed to this, the accumulation of information is not knowledge.
People seem to read less and less, unless it is directed to a particular field of study. In high school getting a class to read a simple book for a report is like pulling teeth. I find reading skills to be much lower in secondary education. I feel it often skews the results of math exams simply because students cannot read and interpret a worded math problem. In addition, despite what test scores suggest, the level of written communication is often bordering on deplorable with poor grammar, spelling, run on sentences and just rambling ideas. When asked to interpret written paragraphs and give written written responses, students respond very poorly indeed at this level. The high school graduate is very poorly prepared to meet reading and writing and even math requirements in the modern day.
At the university level, reading skills are equally bad, but it is the depth that is sorely lacking at this point. I find that it is often the case that the requirements are met, but that the ancillary reading that supports this area of study is often completely lacking. In other words, students seem to read what is required and no more.
In technical areas, we have thrived; math skills have increased and there are a great many more opportunities for advanced subject matters than there was some twenty years ago. I would bet if you showed someone a slide rule he would think it something from the 18th century when in fact it fell out of favor after 1973. The same thing would happen with punch cards for a computer program. One learned nothing except endurance from waiting for another person to run a computer program for them.
On the other hand, fifty years ago, tests reveal that the body of information a student was expected to master was fairly straightforward. No computers were available, access to information was limited to the books in a given library or the occasional exotic guest lecturer and students in secondary school had texts that didn't change all that much. It was a big deal when Alaska and Hawaii were added as states, no doubt. Still, it must have been nice being able to quote Montaigne,r Boccaccio or Proust without getting funny stares. These days it would be nice to quote Kurt Vonnegut Jr without getting funny stares!
Lastly, speaking of advanced degrees, I think the subject matter of many Masters degrees borders on the inane. It is a nice convenience not having to pay someone to type pages perfectly only to have a professor mark them all up in red, but the level of scholarship seems very narrow and very poor. Allowing the change to the first person thesis is, I think, a real step backwards. Papers now seem to drone on without saying anything of very much significance, usually written because they are critical of a once favored position or idea, now no longer held in high esteem. Oftentimes I find the writer, him or herself, an incredibly pretentious bore, which is not so much different than yesteryear, perhaps, except that they seem to have little or no understanding outside their field of endeavor. Ask an historian about the literature of the age in which he specializes and you are often met with a blank stare. In their defense, there are a lot of books spouting different opinions of the same historical periods.
2006-08-31 08:26:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bentley 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
the comparable psychological state you're in, mutually as you bypass a bridge or bypass the line. you have faith that the bridge won't cave in (you anticipate it would desire to no longer inspite of the undeniable fact that scientific actuality has shown, bridges have collapsed in opposition to all odds) in case you probably did no longer have self assurance of a few style, you will possibly desire to be afraid to get far off from mattress interior the morning. We take numerous concerns as a top! The 'straightforward scientific information (you're so happy with) are frequently theories now no longer empirical actuality. look at what those scientists might desire to declare "Can a smart individual have self assurance in God". Michael Guillen Ph.D Dismantling the enormous Bang. John Hartnett, Ph.D The Genesis element, Myths and Realities, Henry M. Morris. M.S. PhD, LL.D. Litt.D Christopher B. Cone, M.A.B.S., M.Ed., Th.D. those are in basic terms probable the main many books on the sphere, written by ability of ability of scientists, now no longer non secular persons. inspect what those persons have found out. a very beautiful perspective. some thing you will possibly enjoy as solid.
2016-11-06 03:51:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, the general population has lost a lot of common sense. I believe that it is due in large part to the addiction to television and stupid movies. But maybe that's just me. And the quality of education is slipping, as well. So yes, in a way, the smarter we get, the dumber we are.
2006-08-31 06:12:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, compared to our ancestors we are far more educated. Particularly since it was only relatively recently that webegan to require high school. What makes it seem as though we are less educated is a prevailing lack of common sense and many adults failing to keep up with the influx of knowledge.
2006-08-31 09:42:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by James F 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
definitely. standards of education are definitely lower so that more people can enter higher education and pay tuition bills! That's what I think. But I agree that the amount of knowledge out there is subtantially more advanced.
2006-08-31 06:15:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by SBG 2
·
1⤊
0⤋