There's a theory that we, as a species, are getting dumber.
To that end, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/history/take-this-1931-8th-grade-gradu.html just posted a .pdf of a 1931 8th grade (13-14yrs old approx.) grade test.

Perhaps take a peep at the Harvard entrance exam for 1899 here.

Given that when I'm dealing with students at work, when I ask them 'What course are you doing?' I'm more often than not greeted with a 'Uhhmmm... a diploma or something?', and it appears that we're spending longer teaching them basic life skills rather than getting on with the subject, I'm kinda leaning towards yes, our educational standards are slipping. We're becoming mentally lazy.

Any thoughts?

There was an article in the daily Fail comparing exams from the last few years to those from bygone eras. the older eams were considerably more difficult. The problem is that exams have been alter to make it easier for people to pass because governments are rated by how many people pass, so they fix the system to make it eaiser. The private schools realise this and have tougher exams or baccalaureate so their pupils end up getting better education for the best university entrance. I think that we need to scrap all but one exam board and teach that alone. If you add in league tables they divert attention away from actual performance towards measuring some criteria.

Though generally I do agree that we are getting more stupid as a nation. Hardly surprising when someone as thick as jade Goody could be an aspirational influence.

I remember reading about the first paper a while back. Apparently, a lot of the answers were taught via rote learning and were heavily localised. Given that the age of the students would have been about 13-14, they don't seem too difficult. In fact some of them ask things like "describe the layout of a good writing desk" and "abbreviate the following".

You could only say current exams were easier if you could take the current exam papers back to 1931 and ask the students to take it. If they all got 100% (or at least very high marks), you could argue that they were easier.

There's a lot of focus on teaching people to learn and think, at the moment, rather than memorising facts by rote.
Now this is great, but you need to feed the machine. It's like building a fabulous engine on a workbench but never putting it in a car. Nil practical application.

Which, I think, is where I, (and my team) come into the equation. In case any of you don't know, I'm a Functional Skills tutor. I teach English and IT, (my colleagues also teach Maths, but I haven't been given any session yet) and the point of these sessions are to teach the learners skills that they can actually use once they leave college, to help them function in society, (hence the name)

Although I haven't been in the job for a long time I have found that challenging the students to think for themselves and guiding them to the facts is far more effective than merely spoon feeding them facts and figures and expecting them to remember them all.

Wot u askin?

Dawkins said something similar to this: we know enough thanks to modern science that, if Aristotle were to somehow speak to a person on the street, he would no doubt learn something that would blow his mind.

That is to say that we are capable of learning so much now that we don't have to learn Latin and Greek to prove our education standards. Instead we can learn a little about a lot, and still have an education, a basic understanding of the universe, far in advance of previous generations' geniuses. We must be doing something right. Also, isn't it a bit inefficient in today's world of centralised data and ubiquitous, easy, global communication, for us all to aim to be polymaths?

I also think that too many look down on manual work, we are not all destined to be academics. Not all skills can be expressed in a written exam. What about great musicians or artists?

Are people getting dumber? Well on Facebook there are a high number of my "friends" who cannot spell can't - they write carnt.

Are we getting dumber? - No
Are we getting more dumb? - No
Are we getting more dumberer? - Yes

Inefficient? Not at all. Would you rather have all the ingredients for a recipe in the cupboard, or have to go to the shop every time you cook?
Perhaps, but in this age of diversification of skills, isn't that precisely what we need to be? For instance, a photographer needs to learn to be a web coder, accountant, videographer and editor these days.
The broader your skill set, the better equipped you are for life is what I'd suggest.

Equally, if were I to be talking with Aristotle, I might astonished at things he knows and takes for granted that we have simply forgotten.

The skills required for life in society have changed. It's now much more important to know how to txt than it is to know how to cook, for example.

Are we getting more dumberer?

Well, someone asked me at work earlier if I had something more powerfuller

I'm with Chris.

Do I need to know how a computer works to use it? No.
Do I have to use correct grammar for someone to understand me? Not always.
Do I need to know the gravitational pull of the earth to live on it? No.

Personally, I'm quite fond of the Newton's "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." as an argument for capitalising on the discoveries and work of others to find new understanding. Yes, the fundamentals need to be there - but to be academically proficient in all things is a big ask. It's like when I dabbled in HTML & CSS - it soon dawned on me that it would be more efficient (and have more potential for progression) if I were to forego that stage of learning and use WYSIWYG tools to get on with actually creating websites. I don't need to know how to make paper, or how a pencil is made, I just want to use them.


My work's a good example. 100 years ago computer drafting didn't exist but buildings still got built. 30 years ago the idea of CAD was born, and today its a multi-billion pound industry, with countless players in the game, and building design is getting ever more complex - but is our architecture any better? It could be argued so (in terms of the science of building) but has CAD improved the daily lives of those in the industry? Certainly what once required large drawing offices can now be done with smaller teams - but efficient tools mean increased expectations from smaller fees and shorter timelines so we work just as hard. Where's the humanistic gain to the worker? Have we just made things more complex? The promise that computers make our lives simpler doesn't actuality translate in reality - it just means there different problems to be had.

If we focused on our well being as the endgame, as opposed to produce and profit, then maybe we'd be working fewer, and shorter, days. But we're not - we're just making more work for ourselves.

Sorry, I'm rambling.

No you're not.

There's some sense in what you just said.