<p>Stephens:</a> To the Class of 2012 - WSJ.com
I've been looking at commencement speeches to inspire me while writing our HS graduation speech...But it wasn't quite what I expected. There seems to be so much polarization across generations, based on comments. Is this how you really feel?</p>
<p>It’s the editorial page of the WSJ. What do you expect? They have been known for their extremism for decades, even when the actual reporting in the paper was respected. This is clearly a vicious, highly partisan piece. Par for the course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree and agree at the same time. Disagree that not knowing who the president was in 1956 (or after) is a sign of our overall knowledge. I bet I could ask many highly trained professionals from decades ago (now middle-aged doctors, lawyers, etc) who would not know specifically who the president was in 1956. Especially if it wasn’t during their lifetime. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually really disagree with this. If anything, I think we come from a really polarized generation. Not surprising given that we learn from our elders and this is probably the most polarized government (both Bush and Obama) in generations. </p>
<p>Honestly, by the end of the article, I felt like the author was telling me that I was a failure for not going to West Point and living my life in bulletproof vests. </p>
<p>As a whole, yeah we could be an entitled and egotistical generation. But if we are, we are only that way because we were brought up that way. I truly don’t think it’s any different than our parent’s generation.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m a student, but I felt the need to respond because I truly just felt insulted. I’m tired of “parents” telling me that my generation is a bunch of no-good, egoistical, lazy, etc people. Well, if we are, then it’s YOUR fault. We didn’t raise ourselves.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, the reason that we’re having a hard time finding jobs is not because of decisions WE made- it’s because of decisions our parents and their parents made. The reason that the economy is in shambles is because of our elders. The reason that we have to spend 100k+ on a PUBLIC education is because of our elders. So how about looking at what YOU did before you blame us for any of this. </p>
<p>(I am responding as a cranky young woman to a cranky old columnist.)</p>
<p>I am a parent and I found this article very offensive. I disagree with all those generalizations, because that’s what they are. </p>
<p>This generation faces a lot of really difficult challenges: international competition, wars, poor economy, environmental problems etc. They are not spoiled, but will instead have to struggle to find the resources to go to school or get jobs because a lot of past generations squandered them and were greedy. Shame on the author and the WSJ for promoting that view.</p>
<p>Huh? Only those in the military are worthy? I don’t think my kids feel they are entitled. They have worked, or are still working very hard and in fact have thought about what useful skills they can offer in addition to knowing how to think. One of them certainly knows who was president in 1956, and could put all his acts in context. The other would probably figure it out with a bit of thought. They could certainly tell you who talked about the industrial military complex and who was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in WW2.</p>
<p>WSJ is a Rupert Murdock owned entity. So read anything on the editorial page with that in mind. I used to subscribe back when it was a business focused newspaper… can’t stomach the editorial page any more and gave up my subscription.</p>
<p>My kids would never hear the end of it if they couldn’t tell me who was President in 1956, or who succeeded him, for heaven’s sake! And neither one is particularly interested in politics or American history. Now . . . whether they would know who was President in 1926, I’m not so sure. But I would have known that when I was their age (and when I was 12, and now). (I’m cheating a little, though, because I don’t know exactly when Harding died and Coolidge became President, but I know it was long before '26.)</p>
<p>Come to think of it, thanks to the Animaniacs song they are pretty strong on the Presidents – both of them can name 'em all, if you let them hum to themselves while they are doing it. The problem with talking to Ivy League graduates with astonishingly high GPAs is that many of them (us) are tools.</p>
<p>One grows tired of this type of sentiment, honestly, as I’m sure the previous generations grew tired of it. However, the lack of humor displayed by this particular speaker shows a shocking disregard for the history of intergenerational misunderstanding. Particularly ironic, given the speech itself.</p>
<p>I happen to like the current generation an awful lot, personally. </p>
<p>Perhaps the WSJ is afraid of this generation? I would be if I were them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the author of the article is missing the point. My kids really have done all the cool stuff on their resumes. They were working hard, sometimes juggling multiple jobs while in school, seeking out internships to further their career interests, recognizing early on that they needed to build real-world work experience as well as attend school, in order to be reasonably competitive in the employment market. </p>
<p>From my perspective, the current generation is far more focused, hard-working, level-headed and hard working than my own. (I grew up in the 60’s, attended college in the 70’s… the word then was “turn on, tune in, drop out.” ) </p>
<p>But I do feel depressed over this generation, because of the tough road they face. My college education cost a fraction of theirs, I attended law school for roughly $700 a year tuition. The one-bedroom apartment I rented when I started laws school was $145 a month. My kids are political science majors whose careers certainly would be enhanced by a law degree, but they will never attend – my alma mater, an in-state public, now charges more than $50K a year tuition for state resident, more for those coming from out-of-state. </p>
<p>My daughter was advised coming out of college, BA in hand, to opt for an unpaid internship. Rejecting that advice, she found a goo entry-level job in her career field, but she barely makes enough to make ends meet. After paying rent, transportation, and her student loans she has nothing left over at the end of the month. Her employers have noticed that whenever they have an opening for the same position, they are flooded with applicants who have Master’s degrees – so they have decided to make that a requirement for the position in the future. So my daughter is questioning the wisdom of grad school – would she be taking herself out of the work force for 2 years and incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt, only to come out and find herself applying for jobs at the level of the one that already has? But keeping the current job isn’t an option – aside from the low pay, there is no path to promotion – naturally any higher position requires that master’s degree. </p>
<p>My generation had our educations handed to us for relatively nothing; we came out of school with little or no debt. I graduated during a recession and it was hard to find employment, but it didn’t take very much money to live – so there wasn’t the same pressure to find work. </p>
<p>It seems to me that the WSJ article is worse than wrong: it represents a mythology created to justify the patent inequities faced by this generation. The value of their degrees is discredited (one young man didn’t know who the President was in 1956, therefore, according to Stevens, every young person is stupid<em>) – and educational costs are increasingly out of reach for all but the wealthiest. (</em>I can’t think of anything more stupid than extrapolating a generalization about money from an anecdote about one)</p>
<p>Cal, what public school is charging $50k for tuition for instate???</p>
<p>[Berkeley</a> Law - Fees & Cost of Attendance](<a href=“http://www.law.berkeley.edu/6943.htm]Berkeley”>Fees & Cost of Attendance - Berkeley Law)</p>
<p>Shocking. It’s more than 10 times what I paid in tuition at Berkeley’s posher cross-Bay rival. And, believe me, current Boalt graduates are not making 10 times what my classmates and I made when we graduated from law school.</p>
<p>I found this terribly depressing. I am a parent and I do not agree with the negativity that the speaker heaps upon young adults as they enter into the adult world.</p>
<p>The author is only 38! His descriptions of the current generation do not fit the young adults I know.</p>
<p>So the author is a bitter Gen Xer that came about during the time when the Baby Boomers were still grabbing the attention and he wants to rip on how their offspring will fare in this world. We are only a few years apart in age, so I need not remind him that it didn’t take long for America to go from Recession to dotcom boom and it can happen again, mainly from the spirit and creativity of those coming to age today. </p>
<p>Of course I respect the young woman who was his intern that is serving her country. I also respect the hard-working kids that don’t even have the luxury of unpaid internships as they pay for their own schooling. Each generation will have their own set of challenges and will be defined by collective successes and failures, and maybe a bit of humility would be a good thing but few generations before in the US can be described as humble either.</p>
<p>It appears Calmom and I went to the same school, at approximately the same time. I agree with her that our children have it MUCH harder to get into said school, to pay for said school, and to land a reasonably-paying job after graduation from said school. Could it be that the 70’s really were the last decade when true social mobility was possible?</p>
<p>As to that WSJ article - cultural illiteracy (not knowing presidents - or artists - or writers) IS rampant. Yes, among college grads, and among the public at large. And it’s symptomatic of a culture that constantly cuts funding in schools. A culture wholly supported by WSJ. We got what they wanted and now they’re whining. What a crock.</p>
<p>My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to undergrad! Law school makes much more sense.</p>
<p>Interesting. I sent this to my mom, who trains LOTS of young people. She has been working in a bank (a few different ones) for more than three decades now (started working at one in her early 20s). She has been training people for more than two decades now and she agrees that there has been a change. However, the biggest difference that she notices is in how quickly we pick up skills. Since a very young age, my generation has adapted to rapidly changing technology. It is a part of life for us. She admits it’s not something she would have been able to do at our age. Programs that takes her generation weeks to learn can be picked up by young people in just a few days. And she’s been around computers since high school- she’s very proficient with them and she can type very quickly. However, she says that older generations’ brains are just not designed to constantly adapt like younger generations’ brains. </p>
<p>I thought it was interesting. It makes sense. She says that’s the best thing we’ve got going for us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But my response to that is… so what? There are very few job markets out there where it’s going to be at all necessary to know who the president was in 1956. Yeah, it’s a nice bit of trivia- but who cares? Do these memorized facts really make any difference to the average person?</p>
<p>Jeez. What on Earth is Bret Stephens trying to accomplish with that rant? If he’s attempting to boost his own credibility, it was (to use the senior class vernacular) an epic fail. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Hmmm I don’t know what I think. I know my kids and their friends are terribly concerned about the environment. Which is a pro. I know they are fairly well read albeit on-line. Which is a pro. I know they are fairly ignorant about what has happened financially from the 70s to today…the good and the bad. Which is a con. I don’t think they are lazy, but I do think they have inflated expectations from years of “everyone gets an award” and growing up with the purple dinosaur. Which is a con. I don’t think they care when Eisenhower was president, but I do think they care about Cuba. I think they will learn quickly in their twenties…about everything. But so did we.</p>