Teens are having less sex nowadays? Hm.

[Evren]

Times have changed and unfortunately not for the better. Even while I was a student, I would see how "investigation" papers had 15 to 20 "sources" and they were all net addresses that had no real in depth analysis or content. And students only regurgitated what they read. Ask them to elaborate and the response was "..............."

I was talking to someone about that last year. They said that college sources were treated very differently than in their day. That they were used to finding two to three very good sources and reading the whole thing, in depth, with notes. While younger people were getting about 10 sources and lightly skimming them to find the parts that supported their arguments. I myself am guilty of the later, and I do it because it saves time, and I don't really want to read through all of the little boring bits about how exactly they went about collecting information. However now I am unsure if I should be trying to do the first version instead, it seems like that would be much more informative and really cement my understanding of the subject.

My partner went back to school and it's been a trip seeing what university classes are like now. Did you know that instead of real work and learning, a large part of many grades is based simply on talking on discussion boards with other classmates? I took a couple classes for her because I wasn't doing anything, and I must say, one needn't actually learn anything, as long as one posts the proper citations and/or chats on the class message boards.

Yep, I did know that. College isn't about learning so much anymore. Not like it's supposed to be. Some colleges are but the main college experience doesn't seem to be, that's why I am being very selective when I am looking into colleges.

[m4rble]

Times have changed and unfortunately not for the better. Even while I was a student, I would see how "investigation" papers had 15 to 20 "sources" and they were all net addresses that had no real in depth analysis or content. And students only regurgitated what they read. Ask them to elaborate and the response was "..............."

I was talking to someone about that last year. They said that college sources were treated very differently than in their day. That they were used to finding two to three very good sources and reading the whole thing, in depth, with notes. While younger people were getting about 10 sources and lightly skimming them to find the parts that supported their arguments. I myself am guilty of the later, and I do it because it saves time, and I don't really want to read through all of the little boring bits about how exactly they went about collecting information. However now I am unsure if I should be trying to do the first version instead, it seems like that would be much more informative and really cement my understanding of the subject.

My partner went back to school and it's been a trip seeing what university classes are like now. Did you know that instead of real work and learning, a large part of many grades is based simply on discussion boards conversations with other classmates? I took a couple classes for her because I wasn't doing anything, and I must say, one needn't actually learn anything, as long as one posts the proper citations and/or chats on the class message boards.

None of the classes I took had anything like that.(and that's certainly not what they do in math, science, or coding classes)

[fuzzipueo]

Times have changed and unfortunately not for the better. Even while I was a student, I would see how "investigation" papers had 15 to 20 "sources" and they were all net addresses that had no real in depth analysis or content. And students only regurgitated what they read. Ask them to elaborate and the response was "..............."

I was talking to someone about that last year. They said that college sources were treated very differently than in their day. That they were used to finding two to three very good sources and reading the whole thing, in depth, with notes. While younger people were getting about 10 sources and lightly skimming them to find the parts that supported their arguments. I myself am guilty of the later, and I do it because it saves time, and I don't really want to read through all of the little boring bits about how exactly they went about collecting information. However now I am unsure if I should be trying to do the first version instead, it seems like that would be much more informative and really cement my understanding of the subject.

My partner went back to school and it's been a trip seeing what university classes are like now. Did you know that instead of real work and learning, a large part of many grades is based simply on discussion boards conversations with other classmates? I took a couple classes for her because I wasn't doing anything, and I must say, one needn't actually learn anything, as long as one posts the proper citations and/or chats on the class message boards.

When I started college in 1988, doing history papers was a real chore. We had to uses several books to back up our arguments and actually do research properly in the library with cards, etc. I kinda enjoyed that part. Fast forward, coughcough15yearscoughcough, and I took my last history class in 2005 ... There was no paper, but a series of responses to readings. No more than a paragraph at most as to how the reading made you feel about the subject at hand. What a joke. My response at the end of the course was to leave a nasty remark on one of those Course Review sheets was to say that responses to readings was not the way to teach history and were essentially worthless.

[Amedot]

We're becoming far less social very very quickly thanks to the internet. Suddenly, just being around people is weird and scary... kids these days have a very hard time with IRL intimacy. They're not used to it.

I disagree. I think kids are far more social than they once were. Young people are growing up with constant connection at their fingertips, constant interaction. I can message any friend or stranger anywhere in the world (so long as they have internet connection and access to the same social media websites I use), at any time of day. I feel that children aren't spending as much time alone, spending time being less social. I feel we become accustomed to the idea that if you always have someone who wants to communicate to you, that's a good thing. Spending time alone is an important part of development.

Good sex information is available online but one thing I've noticed with the younger generation is that they seem to have no idea how to discern real information from garbage. They think blogs are news, they think private ideological websites (think: religious, highly conservative, porn, etc) are the same as unbiased, researched data... I don't for the life of me understand how this happened, but I swear to god kids raised on the internet have no ability to separate good sources from bad.

How are "kids these days" any different from every other adult? You have studied law, and you understand how to use reliable sources. Maybe your peers are similar. The adults I spend my time with (including family) think any opinion spouted on television is reliable, unbiased, researched data, when it reality it's just a person speaking their opinion. People in general are not educated on finding reliable sources, I don't understand why this is jabbed specifically at "kids these days" when everyone is like this.