There are times when I really struggle with just going along with what Mark Bauerlein claims in the “The Betrayal of the Mentors” in his book, The Dumbest Generation. Bauerlein throws so many quotes, other people’s opinions, and even just a ton of summaries all throughout his book. This has been a huge complication for me because I feel like it makes it difficult for me to understand exactly what he thinks when his claims are all through everyone else’s opinions that he just simply agrees with. Since this is the last chapter we’ll be discussing in class, I guess it’s fair to say that there have been many times that I get lost in all of the statistics, quotes, and summaries. It is hard for me many times to pick his claim out of everything he is trying to say.
Bauerlein’s opinions many times leave me feeling defensive. I know that much of children these days even up through the “Twixter” generation may appear lazier and less driven than they supposedly used to be, but are they really? I can’t help but defend the students who do work hard, don’t get to watch television, and are working to get somewhere in life. I know that I am part of a rare population at Allegheny College, but I don’t think all students are exactly as Bauerlein describes and hearing these things makes it difficult to want to believe anything he says.
Bauerlein goes on a huge rant about a sub-cohort of people, which in the Time magazine are called “Twixters”. While I do not quite meet this “Twixter” age cut off (22-30 years old), I can’t help but want to defend my friends who are apart of this supposed sub-cohort. Claims made from the magazine are these young people “pass through a series of service jobs…move back home with their parents or into a house or large apartment with several Twixter peers…engage in serial dating.” Bauerlein says books don’t matter at all to them and their education really has done nothing for their future (172).
I struggle believing that this is the first time people have ever been lazy throughout parts of their life, why does this cohort take the brunt of it? What is so different about them that make them deserve these accusations and title? How can generalizations such as this be made? It seems as though releasing articles like this and republishing its findings in books would simply make students slump into this stereotype just because everyone else already believes it. It would almost give this generation of young adults an excuse to be part of their norm.
On another note, I was really upset by the reports that Bauerlein gives about students and their professors. I have a very hard time believing that so many students NEVER have talked to their professors outside of classes. On page 187, he notes studies; however, never actually gives the colleges or universities that the students were tested at. I know there are probably some very large universities that would make it difficult to talk to professors, but not all schools are like that. Coming from Allegheny College, once again I know that we have a fairly large amount of students who are interested in discussing literature or class with professors so it is hard for me to read such findings, let alone believe that the numbers could be so high.
I know this cartoon is a little ridiculous but I thought it was funny. Maybe other schools do have professors such as this guy who don't want to be at office hours. If professors don't want to be talking to students then what would make students want to talk to them? So I know the cartoon is a bit ridiculous but at Allegheny our professors are all (from what I've encountered) very happy to hold office hours and to talk to students. So at the very least this cartoon shows us a different perspective, maybe instead of blaming the students for not being interested in learning, it could have something to do with their professors not wanting to teach outside of the class. A bit far fetched I know, but I think a lot of student engagement comes from comfortable settings.