dumb and dumber. americans hostile to knowledge?

[Tim McG]

I actually think that the old have a vested interest in believing the young are less intelligent/educated/cultured/independently minded than they are. When you think about it, that's quite sad.

I want to make it clear that I do NOT think that my students are "unintelligent." There are a lot of different kinds of genius, and since I've been teaching, I've been exposed to several kids who undoubtedly qualify as physical genuises or mechanical genuises, etc. What bugs me is the apparent lack of curiosity about the wider world. These kids know all about the ins and outs of surviving on the streets of Schenectady, New York. But they couldn't care less about what's happening in Washington, D.C. or in Iraq or Darfur, much less things that happened over a hundred years ago. I sometimes think that their brains have learned to reject all information that it regards as unessential. In fact, it may be a survival technique.

Exactly, Alexander.

You are spot on.

[A Lark Ascending]

In my first year of teaching I had a lad escape out a first floor window and down a drainpipe. The following year he was in a colleague's class and sat for a whole lesson one day with a bird of prey perched on his shoulder (you will not be surprised to hear tht he did not get reprimanded for not doing his homework!!!).

Last thing I heard he was in Lincoln (prison). The lad. Not the bird of prey.

And that was a comp!

Great story Bev.

I didn't get reprimanded (grammar school) for not doing my homework, either, and I didn't even have bird shit on my shoulder. It was, "I don't suppose YOU'VE done your homework, have you?" I just shook my head. Everyone knew I hated it.

Ten years later, when I went back to see if I'd passed any O levels, one of the teachers actually remembered me, even though I'd only been in that school 15 months.

MG

My memory of grammar school in the late 60s was of being largely ignored for three years (except by a couple of wonderful history teachers!). My German teacher never twigged why I always got bad marks in verb tests. I only twigged much later - I used to learn them religiously, but no-one had ever taught me what first person singular or second person plural were. So I guessed!

Ah, the golden days of the grammar. I was much happier when we moved into a brand new all-purpose comp in 1969!

[Jazzmoose]

I rather suspect that's mostly because of their age. I'm pretty sure kids were like that when I was a kid. And I don't doubt it has always been the same.

That's a good point; there were some friggin' rocks in my graduating class. Maybe it's just my snobbery showing up, but I kind of doubt many jazz fans were at the bottom of their high school class...

[7/4]

I rather suspect that's mostly because of their age. I'm pretty sure kids were like that when I was a kid. And I don't doubt it has always been the same.

That's a good point; there were some friggin' rocks in my graduating class. Maybe it's just my snobbery showing up, but I kind of doubt many jazz fans were at the bottom of their high school class...

You must not know many musicians.

[Jazzmoose]

I rather suspect that's mostly because of their age. I'm pretty sure kids were like that when I was a kid. And I don't doubt it has always been the same.

That's a good point; there were some friggin' rocks in my graduating class. Maybe it's just my snobbery showing up, but I kind of doubt many jazz fans were at the bottom of their high school class...

You must not know many musicians.

Hey, I only said the fans!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

My memory of grammar school in the late 60s was of being largely ignored for three years (except by a couple of wonderful history teachers!).

I wasn't ignored - I think I was too much of a challenge - but my history teacher bet me I wouldn't pass history. I didn't go back to collect though, because I couldn't stand the place. I didn't do any homework, but I read a hell of a lot of proper history books, starting with Herbert Fisher's "History of Europe" in 1955 or '56.

MG

[Neal Pomea]

This is speculation but young people don't appear to me to be hostile to knowledge. If anything, they seem to think they are more knowledgeable about today's world than their hopelessly outdated and technologically unsophisticated parents.

They live in a "secret" world of their own, even more than teenagers of previous generations did, with things they know (pop and Internet culture, inside humor, slang, video games, exposure to musical genres, etc.) that are almost unknown to older people. And it would probably be miserable for a young person today to be without all this generation-specific knowledge.

Maybe there's something to the idea that there's only so much attention you can pay and gray matter you can use. If you are expending so much attention on keeping up with your generation, how much less can you give to attending our common history and heritage? Maybe previous generations had to spend less time on keeping up with generation-specific knowledge so they could devote more attention to the world at large. Just my 2 cents.

[AllenLowe]

what gets to me is how few points of cultural reference there are - I find that even very aware, socially, culturally and politically astute younger people do not know things they should know - just to give a lesser example; I meet a guy who plays "new music" in Portland, Maine; an accordionist, into, he tells, me, improvised music, the Knitting Factory, etc etc -so we start talking - he's never heard of Julius Hemphill or Roswell Rudd; yikes, I'm ready to go crazy - I'm polite but appalled -

and it's politics too - who was Henry Wallace? Irving Howe? Michael Harrington? Allard Lowenstein?

anyone here who has trouble with any of these names needs to hit google AND the library -

sorry - this is a sore spot for me -

Edited February 19, 2008 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

I rather suspect that's mostly because of their age. I'm pretty sure kids were like that when I was a kid. And I don't doubt it has always been the same.

That's a good point; there were some friggin' rocks in my graduating class. Maybe it's just my snobbery showing up, but I kind of doubt many jazz fans were at the bottom of their high school class...

You must not know many musicians.

Hey, I only said the fans!

Yes Sir, you are so right. My boo boo.

OK then...in the fan dept., there's me.

[AllenLowe]

just decided - I'm going to write a book on cultural frames of reference - the things and names everyone should know - willing to take suggestions -

[AllenLowe]

Alain Robbe Grillet died yesterday - everyone know who he was?

find out -

[7/4]

Alain Robbe Grillet died yesterday - everyone know who he was?

find out -

French author?

[Neal Pomea]

Wouldn't his Wikipedia entry be longer if he were important?

No, I see what you mean but "cultural references" are more and more a subject of negotiation from one generation to the next. I think it's likely that what's useless to the younger generations will more quickly be deemed arcane knowledge.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said that if it can't be found in Google, then it doesn't matter enough to be in the Wiki! Along those lines, it's as if there's this mindset: if you can't find the music in emusic, Rhapsody, iTunes, or Walmart, then it must not have been worth keeping. I see this already with niche genres.

[Alexander]

Alain Robbe Grillet died yesterday - everyone know who he was?

find out -

I was very sad to read of his passing. I started a thread on it just before I saw this post.

[Tim McG]

This is speculation but young people don't appear to me to be hostile to knowledge. If anything, they seem to think they are more knowledgeable about today's world than their hopelessly outdated and technologically unsophisticated parents.

They live in a "secret" world of their own, even more than teenagers of previous generations did, with things they know (pop and Internet culture, inside humor, slang, video games, exposure to musical genres, etc.) that are almost unknown to older people. And it would probably be miserable for a young person today to be without all this generation-specific knowledge.

Maybe there's something to the idea that there's only so much attention you can pay and gray matter you can use. If you are expending so much attention on keeping up with your generation, how much less can you give to attending our common history and heritage? Maybe previous generations had to spend less time on keeping up with generation-specific knowledge so they could devote more attention to the world at large. Just my 2 cents.

History isn't generational any more than comparing one generation to the next is legit.

Given the sheer weight in numbers of techological gagets and media based/web based distrations available and owned by young people, there is absolutely no comparison to be made between the current generation and the WWII generation or the Baby Boomers. GenX pales in comparison as well.

It would be comparable to saying there is a comparison to be made in computers. The only comparison between old 8888's with blinking cursor and the PC you're reading this on now is they both use electricty. Beyond that, they are night and day different.

Same is true of students. The only real comparison to be made is that we are all human. Experiences don't translate well generation to generation.

Edited February 20, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[AllenLowe]

"more and more a subject of negotiation from one generation to the next. I think it's likely that what's useless to the younger generations will more quickly be deemed arcane knowledge."

but the names I mentioned were largely before my youth - Harrington, Howe, Henry Wallace - and that's to the point . I've always rejected the very middle class idea of history/tradition being "good for you" and thus necessary - to me the old stuff is important because it's so worthy and fascinating and because it feeds me - enough of "relevance" - give me Beckett and Brecht and Buchner and Teddy Weatherford and Jelly Roll Morton - in addition to the Bad Plus -

[BERIGAN]

Alain Robbe Grillet died yesterday - everyone know who he was?

find out -

Someone who was in poor health???? Do I win anything??? Perhaps an autographed copy of Allen Lowe's pamphlet, My Heros of the far left???

Edited February 20, 2008 by BERIGAN

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Alain Robbe Grillet died yesterday - everyone know who he was?

find out -

Someone who was in poor health???? Do I win anything??? Perhaps an autographed copy of Allen Lowe's pamphlet, My Heros of the far left???

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

I've always rejected the very middle class idea of history/tradition being "good for you" and thus necessary - to me the old stuff is important because it's so worthy and fascinating and because it feeds me - enough of "relevance" - give me Beckett and Brecht and Buchner and Teddy Weatherford and Jelly Roll Morton - in addition to the Bad Plus -

That IS a middle class view - only the middle (and upper) classes can afford the luxury of having their sons and daughters studying things just because they are fascinating.

The kids I teach history to - in a former mining area with more than its fair share of social problems - demand to know what the point is of the history they study.

Personally, I'd agree with you - my historical interests are not shaped by utilitarian reasons. But studying things for their own sake will not wash in a world where a thousand and one things are demanding a place on the curriculum. You have to prove your practical relevance or you are gone. There are many schools in England where only a handful of students study history beyond 14.

[AllenLowe]

Bev, you are confusing the reality with the ideal, as though the reality is the ideal; as Sartre said, "there are always those who confuse disillusionment with truth." Just because the intellectual life has become a nearly un-affordable luxury (for me, as well, btw; I have yet in my 54 years to make even a small living from my musical/intellectuall endeavors) doesn't mean it should be characterized as a bourgeouieis luxury. This is a dangerous sort of anti-intellectualism that plays into a certain vulgar Marxist perspective.

More important is to reject the academic ideal of the intellectual life, as something that is apart from day-to-day reality; this is something that has scarred a lot of academic work in all areas from music to musicology;

"only the middle (and upper) classes can afford the luxury of having their sons and daughters studying things just because they are fascinating. "

This is silly and likley to become somethng of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you're not careful; it's also dangerously snobbish, as though saying "those people are too stuck on day-to-day life to really underdstand the nice things in the world." In the tradition I come from (I'm Jewish) the intellectuals were the working class, which, in places like Stalinist Russia, got them killed; so please don't try to out-proletariat me.

Edited February 20, 2008 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

and by the way, Berigan, my politically and historically challenged friend - Robbe Grillet was a right-winger in his political views -

he was also the most important literary theoretican of the last 50 years, in my opinion.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Bev, you are confusing the reality with the ideal, as though the reality is the ideal; as Sartre said, "there are always those who confuse disillusionment with truth." Just because the intellectual life has become a nearly un-affordable luxury (for me, as well, btw; I have yet in my 54 years to make even a small living from my musical/intellectuall endeavors) doesn't mean it should be characterized as a bourgeouieis luxury. This is a dangerous sort of anti-intellectualism that plays into a certain vulgar Marxist perspective.

More important is to reject the academic ideal of the intellectual life, as something that is apart from day-to-day reality; this is something that has scarred a lot of academic work in all areas from music to musicology;

"only the middle (and upper) classes can afford the luxury of having their sons and daughters studying things just because they are fascinating. "

This is silly and likley to become somethng of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you're not careful; it's also dangerously snobbish, as though saying "those people are too stuck on day-to-day life to really underdstand the nice things in the world." In the tradition I come from (I'm Jewish) the intellectuals were the working class, which, in places like Stalinist Russia, got them killed; so please don't try to out-proletariat me.

Gasp!

Thank you, Allen.

MG

[AllenLowe]

any time -

[A Lark Ascending]

Bev, you are confusing the reality with the ideal, as though the reality is the ideal; as Sartre said, "there are always those who confuse disillusionment with truth." Just because the intellectual life has become a nearly un-affordable luxury (for me, as well, btw; I have yet in my 54 years to make even a small living from my musical/intellectuall endeavors) doesn't mean it should be characterized as a bourgeouieis luxury. This is a dangerous sort of anti-intellectualism that plays into a certain vulgar Marxist perspective.

More important is to reject the academic ideal of the intellectual life, as something that is apart from day-to-day reality; this is something that has scarred a lot of academic work in all areas from music to musicology;

"only the middle (and upper) classes can afford the luxury of having their sons and daughters studying things just because they are fascinating. "

This is silly and likley to become somethng of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you're not careful; it's also dangerously snobbish, as though saying "those people are too stuck on day-to-day life to really underdstand the nice things in the world." In the tradition I come from (I'm Jewish) the intellectuals were the working class, which, in places like Stalinist Russia, got them killed; so please don't try to out-proletariat me.

Most working class kids find the thought of education beyond the compulsory school leaving age pretty frightening. There's little family tradition of higher education, paid work (if it can be found) brings immediate financial reward, and the prospect of student debt is alarming. So if they do go on, they generally want something that they feel can give them a secure future (of course there are individuals who always break out of that - I work with a colleague from a mining community who went to Oxford to do history (did well, loathed the academic atmosphere, loved the football!) and has one of the most incisive brains I know; but he would be the first to tell you how a-typical he was of his year, most of whom left school at the first opportunity).

Middle class kids - like my nephew - have been raised in the expectation of going on to further education, nourished in an environment where learning in all its forms is valued and experienced with parents and their friends and have the ultimate fallback of parents bailing them out if the debt becomes overwhelming. So the 'intellectual life' comes inside their radar as a possibility.

This may not be as we want it to be, it may not be as it should be. And schools go out of their way to broaden horizons as far as possible within the constraints placed on them by league tables, funding streams favouring practical courses etc. But it's what actually happens. Walk into any state school on Post-16 sign up days and see the queues at maths, science, ICT, business studies, health and social care and the like (we now have courses in motor vehicle maintainance and construction that fill up immediately). There's no compulsion from the school to move that way - these children are making a free choice, based on what they and their parents see as having the greatest opportunity.

If schools in Britain have been guilty of anything in the last 50+ years it has been of trying to steer pupils through a curriculum model that places academic learning as the be all and end all, with more vocational learning as second best. That is being righted at present, though with a danger that it will tilt too far the other way. The real challenge will be to attain some sort of balance.

It's also worth noting that the drive towards vocational learning in the state system is not reflected as strongly in the private school sector where studying Latin and Greek 'for their own sake' remains quite normal. Now who sends their children into private education?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Bev, you are confusing the reality with the ideal, as though the reality is the ideal; as Sartre said, "there are always those who confuse disillusionment with truth." Just because the intellectual life has become a nearly un-affordable luxury (for me, as well, btw; I have yet in my 54 years to make even a small living from my musical/intellectuall endeavors) doesn't mean it should be characterized as a bourgeouieis luxury. This is a dangerous sort of anti-intellectualism that plays into a certain vulgar Marxist perspective.

More important is to reject the academic ideal of the intellectual life, as something that is apart from day-to-day reality; this is something that has scarred a lot of academic work in all areas from music to musicology;

"only the middle (and upper) classes can afford the luxury of having their sons and daughters studying things just because they are fascinating. "

This is silly and likley to become somethng of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you're not careful; it's also dangerously snobbish, as though saying "those people are too stuck on day-to-day life to really underdstand the nice things in the world." In the tradition I come from (I'm Jewish) the intellectuals were the working class, which, in places like Stalinist Russia, got them killed; so please don't try to out-proletariat me.

Most working class kids find the thought of education beyond the compulsory school leaving age pretty frightening. There's little family tradition of higher education, paid work (if it can be found) brings immediate financial reward, and the prospect of student debt is alarming. So if they do go on, they generally want something that they feel can give them a secure future (of course there are individuals who always break out of that - I work with a colleague from a mining community who went to Oxford to do history (did well, loathed the academic atmosphere, loved the football!) and has one of the most incisive brains I know; but he would be the first to tell you how a-typical he was of his year, most of whom left school at the first opportunity).

Middle class kids - like my nephew - have been raised in the expectation of going on to further education, nourished in an environment where learning in all its forms is valued and experienced with parents and their friends and have the ultimate fallback of parents bailing them out if the debt becomes overwhelming. So the 'intellectual life' comes inside their radar as a possibility.

This may not be as we want it to be, it may not be as it should be. And schools go out of their way to broaden horizons as far as possible within the constraints placed on them by league tables, funding streams favouring practical courses etc. But it's what actually happens. Walk into any state school on Post-16 sign up days and see the queues at maths, science, ICT, business studies, health and social care and the like (we now have courses in motor vehicle maintainance and construction that fill up immediately). There's no compulsion from the school to move that way - these children are making a free choice, based on what they and their parents see as having the greatest opportunity.

If schools in Britain have been guilty of anything in the last 50+ years it has been of trying to steer pupils through a curriculum model that places academic learning as the be all and end all, with more vocational learning as second best. That is being righted at present, though with a danger that it will tilt too far the other way. The real challenge will be to attain some sort of balance.

It's also worth noting that the drive towards vocational learning in the state system is not reflected as strongly in the private school sector where studying Latin and Greek 'for their own sake' remains quite normal. Now who sends their children into private education?

Most of what you say, Bev, is as factual as can be (though queues at post 16 vocational courses doesn't seem to match very well with a majority of working class kids fearing education post 16). But I think it misses the point Allen was making, which is that YOU (and me and us) shouldn't undervalue intellectual pursuits by thinking of them as innately suitable only for the middle classes, because that attitude - and, because of your position, yours more than his or mine - is catching (or has been caught already). And, even if the pass has indeed been sold and the position is hopeless (but is it?), we should continue to resist.

MG