I just came across this article on yahoo, it makes some interesting points: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1946088,00.html?xid=rss-biztech-yahoo
Well, time change along with new technology. How many 5-year old kids in 1972 know how to use the computer? How many 5-year old kids in the present day know to how use the computer? Of course, the number has increased. That shows people are smarter than the old day due to technologies and environmental adaption.
Well, not necessarily smarter. A 5-year old Chinese boy knows how to use a chopstick, while, a 5-year American boy doesn’t know how because he has never used it before. Is the Chinese boy smarter than the American boy?
Given, Americans are more educated, but I'm not sure you could say we are generally any smarter. We use technology to do many of the tasks we used to do with our brains. We might appear to be smarter than we were, we are certainly more advanced, but is the aggregate American population truly smarter? There are certainly individuals who are more intelligent than ever, but I think the general population might just be less intelligent than ever. My prejudice showing here, but I think that television has gone a long way toward "dumbing down" the American population.
Television gets a bad rap, and so does chronic computer use. I think both are tools of knowledge often misused or over used. Is it impossible to learn vocabulary from television? In that way isn't it much like you would a book if you watch at least somewhat intelligent programming. Is the sci-fi channel that much poorer a resource than the a sci-fi book? I've seen quite a bit of good and bad from both. People assume that we see lower quality stuff than what we would normally read, but I'm not certain that is the case. Of course if you are reading HL Menkin, Mark Twain, Henry David Thorough, you are learning more than if you are watching a piece of drivel on TV... but that's a choice of content quality and purpose not medium. That said I will acknowledge that we can show less discretion with television.. I've never read a book simply because "it's on"
I'm not sure you can even make a statement comparing the two different cultures regarding who is smarter. It all depends on your home environment and what subject are you referring to as who is smarter? For instance, if you grew up on a farm, then you may be more educated about farm related issues than a city boy. Does that mean one is smarter than the other? No, not necessarily. It solely means one's strengths are different than the other. It isn't something you are able to compare in terms regarding who is smarter.
The article is pretty interesting. I think it's fair to say that the bachelors degree has long now been preached as the means to a successful career and middle class life. This is the main reason I worked toward my bachelors degree. I always heard that at one time high school diploma was all you needed for a good middle class income. I guess it was only a matter of time until the market of job applicants became so saturated with bachelors degree holders that it would become less meaningful. This is a big reason I entered a graduate program. However, the more people I meet and the more people I see hired in my company, I can see how at a certain point experience can trump education. The article talks about finding a skill you possess that cannot be outsourced; that's a great point. I see that a lot in the consultants and full-time employees we hire, as well as in the employees of companies we work with. While I plan on finishing my masters degree, and I'm sure it will hold value, I am noticing the skills I pick up along the way professionally may be just as valuable if not more so. I wonder what direction higher education is going to go. It seems like we are entering a time where something is going to have to change. Costs can't keep going up especially if the value is going down. Something's gotta give; I just wonder what's next...
There's another reason why the value of the bachelor's degree is eroding. It's not just the sheer quantity of bachelor's degrees that are being granted -- it's the nature of those degrees. Realistically, some fields of undergraduate study are more rigorous and more likely to equip graduates with marketable skills than others. There is reason to believe, however, that an increasing percentage of bachelor's degrees are at the other end of the spectrum. To pick an example, it's generally true that the most marketable bachelor's degrees overall, with the highest starting salaries, are in engineering. Yet the percentage of engineering degrees, as a percentage of all bachelor's degrees, has steadily fallen over the years. For example, according to the Digest of Education Statistics, there were: 80,632 engineering bachelor's degrees issued in 1981-02 82,072 engineering bachelor's degrees issued in 2006-07 (increase of less than 2% over 25 years) So virtually no increase over 25 years. Yet over the same period, the total number of bachelor's degrees issued rose by 60%. Clearly undergraduates today are much less likely to major in engineering than they were a quarter-century years ago. The same is probably true in disciplines like sciences, nursing, accounting, etc. ***** For comparison, here is the count for degrees in the discipline of "parks, recreation, leisure and fitness studies": 5,729 bachelor's degrees issued in 1981-02 27,430 bachelor's degrees issued in 2006-07 (increase of 378% in 25 years) This is not to suggest that everyone should major in engineering, and that no one should major in leisure studies. But realistically, it seems likely that a cohort with a higher percentage of engineering degrees is likely to be more marketable than a cohort with a higher percentage of leisure studies degrees. And that kind of difference does exist between the Class of 1982 and the Class of 2007. Numbers from the 2008 Digest of Education Statistics
