I visited a university recently and brought up IRC in a conversation. Some students did not know what it was and some said “that’s for old people”. So, that’s the genz perception. I wonder to what extent that’s true… what proportion of IRC users on the notable networks are genz.
I have doubts, because it seems there are still snot nose trolls demonstrating that children are still around. But it would be interesting to have some reliable stats.
Seriously, dude, take a step back and realize what a “kids these days” take this is.
It is well established science that differences between the generations are largely overstated. Typically, “generational” differences are actually just differences between age groups. Comparing 20 year olds to 40 year olds in 2020 isn’t an apt comparison - we need to compare 20 year olds in 2020 vs in 2000. And when we do that, many differences disappear.
What differences remain tend to be driven by environmental factors, or are statistical artifacts. For example, it has been said that these days, the bachelors is the new high school diploma - you can barely get any job that is upwardly mobile without one. Which means a lot of average or below average people are pursuing them. So it may be more apt to compare bachelors students in the past to masters students in the present.
You, on the other hand, seem to be lumping whole generations together and ascribing the differences to some kind of moral decay. Which, oh my god, is the most “get off my lawn” take ever. Seriously, you are acting the cliche.
tf are you talking about? Yes, students in university are more concerned about their economic future these days…? This seems like a straightforward fact.
Yeah, and I sometimes use the battery on my cordless drill as a hammer to pound in drywall hangers. The usefulness of a tool is determined by how the user sees fit to use it. And modern young people see going to college very much as a means to an end - it has become the technical school for knowledge workers, a change which happened gradually over time, since before they were born. Really, due to economic concerns, most young people who want to pursue a meaningful philosophy of life would be better served by learning to swing a hammer and attending local intellectual discussion groups.
Because here’s the problem all the Gen Z kids are solving - if pursuing a meaningful philosophy of life, if delving deeply into problems and looking for the best solutions, was actually the path to a comfortable material life and could be taught by the university, then we woud expect philosophy majors to graduate to comfortable jobs and be satisfied with their lives. But we see the opposite - philosophy majors have some of the highest rates of regretting their choice of major post-graduation. Why? Because it turns out that “learning how to think” - at least how the university teaches it - isn’t worth jack shit in today’s job market. They end up baristas, saddled with a mountain of debt and no way to pay it off.
Most likely what is really happening is:
This is hand waving. It’s useless for countering science to the contrary which pinpoints a specific difference. Science does not work like you think it does. Abstract social science does not defeat actual survey results.
Yes, and? This is just assigning blame. It’s fair enough to blame the adults for cultivating the money-centrism in the young. It’s interesting, yet still irrelevant to the thesis.
The science speaks for itself. This emotional plea against survey results is just a show of desperation. It’s not compelling.
You’ve lost track of your own claim, which was to say that the cost of university is /why/ the survey results are what they are. Now you are talking about economic future, which is more what the survey was getting at – the prioritisation of money post-grad and thereafter.
Lol. If that’s how science works for you, you are following some shit science. Survey results are notoriously the cheapest and shittiest way of gathering information about the world. Anyone saying that their survey results should supercede the opinion of actual experts in a field shouldn’t be taken seriously.
And those same adults would be the ones who said they were going to college for oh-so-noble reasons. Surveys are worth somewhere between jack and fucking shit in science because people can answer differently based on what they had for breakfast this morning. We could easily imagine that the difference exists because modern students are simply more self aware.
It isn’t an emotional plea. I’m pointing out your biases, which are leading you to a myopic and closed minded view of the situation. I am hoping that by pointing out that “kids these days don’t have any work ethic” is such a worn out cliche, existant aince the time of the greek philosophers, that you will take a step back and consider the fact that you are just an old man yelling at clouds.
Are you high? The cost of university is intrinsically linked to students’ economic future. If you are staring down the barrel of tens of thousands in student debt, you will be much more concerned about your economic future for entirely rational reasons.
Anyone saying that a general finding supercedes a specific finding by actual experts in a field shouldn’t be taken seriously. Anyone who proposes disregarding evidence should not be taken seriously, and certainly not more seriously than Dr.Bregman who cites the research in his talks.
If you don’t control for that, you’re doing it wrong.
We could imagine that, only if you actually study the wording of the survey and first find that it was incompetently worded to ask the questions straight, prima facie, so as to leak to the study subjects what is being studied.
The bias is evident in your emotion. You cannot counter the evidence so you look to attack the person. It’s despirate.
To be close minded is to disregard the facts. Such as claiming the evidence should be ignored because a survey was used.
You would do better to actually look at the evidence and find specific flaws, rather than rely on broad hand-waving at every level of analysis.
It’s a worn out strawman. It requires you to misquote me to make an emotional plea.
Plz don’t post when you are drunk. Surely if you were sober you could separate the cost of university from future goals and outlooks. It is in fact extrinsic motivation that is replacing intrinsic motivation.
There is no intrinsic link between the cost of university and the students’economic future. You are conflating cost with attendence. Attendence is intrinsicly linked to the students’economic future. The cost, which may or may not be paid by the student whole or in part, is extrinsic.
That concern requires being money-centric to begin with.