Kids these days!

The Question: Are college freshmen today dumber than college freshman of the past?

I try not to get too bent out of shape about my students and what I perceive as their lack of academic intelligence (notice that I wrote academic intelligence, not intelligence in general). I try to remember what a dumbass I was at 18 (and boy, I was a dumbass), my lax work ethic, my know-it-all attitude, etc. And, of course, I remember that I am getting my PhD, I've devoted my life to education & academia, and very few of my students, at 18, will have anywhere near the same passion for the material that I have. So, I can, should, and do cut them some slack. But still... sometimes I wonder, "What's wrong with these kids today, and why won't they get off my lawn?"

Just for fun, I decided to take a look at papers that I wrote my first semester of college (I'm a narcissistic pack-rat, so I keep everything). My idea: Did I, 18 yrs old and the product of a private school education, have the same failings as my students today? Or was I already demonstrating the brilliance that would make me such a super star today? (note the sarcasm, please) Just how smart was I?

A little context: I went to the University of Texas at Austin. The first year gen-ed English sequence was English 306k (Writing & Rhetoric) and English 316k (Intro to Literature). Since I had scored 5's both AP English tests (Language and Literature, I believe they were called) I was allowed to place out of both classes. So, my first semester I took English 314L, an honors section of an "Intro to Lit" type course. The equivalent at the University of Arizona would be something like a cross between English 109h (Honors Writing) and English 280 (Sophomore level, gen-ed intro to lit)-- that is, a focus on reading and writing. I don't have the syllabus, but I remember that we read Stephen King's The Dead Zone, Morrison's Beloved (which I hated at the time, and then 2 years later when I read it again I realized how dumb the 18 yr old me had been), Hamlet, and a number of short stories and poems.

I found 3 papers that I wrote for this class. Let's take a look at them.

OK, paper #1: "Literary Allusion in The Dead Zone." Not a catchy title, but accurate.

First line: "In The Dead Zone, Stephen King frequently refers to other works of literature." Wow, that's bad. I mean, again, accurate, but DULL (which the instructor, an English grad student by the name of S. Prosser, noted; she writes, "This intro gets the point across, but try to really grab your audience's attention. Add some transition.")

Skipping down to the final sentence of paragraph 1, I see that I do have a workable, if mundane, thesis statement: "The end result is that John Smith's alienation from the world is heavily emphasized by the allusions to the similarly alienated and freakish characters in the three stories previously mentioned." She notes that the last clause is awkward, which it is. (The 3 works, by the way, were "Rip Van Winkle," Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.) Ugly use of passive voice; somewhat dull, but at least there's a sense that I'm going to talk about something substantial.

Second paragraph: Follows the PIE format pretty well. First line: "One aspect of John Smith's isolation that King emphasizes is his placement in time." OK. Some pronoun confusion, awkward phrasing at the end, and lame to organize the paper like a list. One thing I notice, though, is that I didn't organize it along the lines of the 3 works. Instead, I organized the paper along thematic lines, with each paragraph discussing some aspect of the protagonist's alienation. That's not bad, and stronger, I think, than organizing it by allusions to each work. In fact, now that I think about it, I remember getting feedback from an older grad student at my apt. complex, and he suggested this organization.

I followed that with some summary & a quotation from the novel, then explanation of the relevance of the quotation to the point I'm trying to make. Mistake on the parenthetical citation: put the period in the quotes, before the parentheses, instead of after both.

Ugly line in this paragraph: "What is interesting is the preoccupation of the two characters [Rip Van Winkle, John Smith] with political events that they have missed." Not a bad observation, but badly written, and just what is so interesting about it? I never say. Paragraph ends with "The existing power structure had been overthrown and those who ran the country before his accident were now disgraced." True, I guess, but so what? How does that relate to the notion of alienation introduced in the thesis?

2nd Paragraph topic sentence: "There is another phenomenon of being out of time that John undergoes." Ugh. Weak transition. But, at least a topic sentence of a sort. The rest of the paragraph describes the second childhood Dead Zone's protagonist undergoes upon waking from his coma, comparing him to Frankenstein's monster. Last line: "This feeling of being out of sync with time is one manifestation of John's uniqueness and separation from society." Eh.

3rd paragraph: "Another important apsect of John's alienation..." God, that is lame. So, as many of my students do today, I structured my paper as a list. But, unlike a lot of my students, I at least had a specific point to make in each paragraph, which I supported with evidence from the text. Sure, the explanations and the overall argument are pretty bland, but there's something there.

This paragraph talks about 'returning from the dead.' Middle of the paragraph: "Other comparisons are made with Frankenstein." They are? Who makes them? Why? My instructor's marginal comments: "What are the moral implications of bringing something back from the dead ... ? Is Johnny guilty of overstepping his human [unreadable], like Dr. Frankenstein?" I assume she wrote something like "morals" or "limits" there, but I can't tell.

4th paragraph: "It is rather ironic" -- LAME -- "that 'Frankenstein' has gone from an affectionate nickname to a term used to describe physical repulsiveness." Meh. Next line: "The ironic reversal of meaning traces Johnny's alienation from society." OK, that's not bad. The paragraph goes on to attempt to answer the questions my instructor posed in her marginal comments, but only on a superficial level.

Next paragraph: "The final aspect of John's alienation that is emphasized..." Stupid. Why did I keep using the word "emphasize"? That's a pretty mundane verb. Do writers "emphasize" things in their fiction? I notice that this paragraph is rather long and contains a number of different examples of the protagonist's "dual nature." My analysis here is fairly simple, as I appear to have been simply listing all the examples in order to make the point that the John is "alienated" and "different" and that the allusions to other works help to convey this. What it all means, though, is missing from my reading.

The conclusion, 2 paragraphs later, begins, "King attempts to portray John Smith's isolation from the rest of humanity." That's pretty weak, but serviceable, I guess. The rest of the conclusion summarizes the major points made in the paper. Final sentence: "The allusions that King makes allow him to provide the reader with an image with which to compare Johnny, and King successfully uses them to expand the meaning and depth of John's ability and isolation." OK, but nowhere in the paper did I actually make a claim about what the "meaning and depth" of John's alienation is. This should have been something I considered as part of the thesis.

Instructor's comments: "This paper is well-organized and your writing is nice & clear. You locate several fine literary allusions in the novel & relate them to Johnny capably. ... My main suggestion ... would be to answer or at least acknowledge the difficult question: is John Smith a monster? ... This is strong work. Next time really push yourself to address tough, underlying issues beneath your observations." Sing it, Sister. I agree with her assessment -- the paper was a series of observations (although pretty decent observations) without much consideration of their significance. Final grade: B.

For an honors course, I think a B is about right. For English 101, maybe an A. This could definitely fit in with the work I get from most of my students, in terms of intellectual content. Where it succeeds where many (50-70%?) of my 101 students' don't: it has an identifiable, if boring, thesis; it has an explicit and thought out structure; few (if any) spelling or grammatical errors; some complex sentences (but, admittedly, mostly pedestrian writing); and it demonstrates some familiarity with literary conventions & terms.

Briefly, some instructor comments from my 2nd paper, "Indivividualism vs. Collectivism in 'The Lottery' and 'The Man Who Was Almost a Man.'"
--"This is very well organized, & your style & presentation are fulid, precise, & attractive. This is a good paper with some fine insights, but I'd like you to dig a little deeper into these stories & heighten the complexity of your own arguments. ... There's a lot going on in these stories, & it's tempting to boil them down to black & white themes, but if you examine their contradictions -- shades of gray -- you & your readers will get more out of them."
Again, I think that's a pretty accurate assessment. Grade: B.

Final paper: "Struggles and Acceptance in 'In Memory of W.B. Yeats.'"

I guess my model for paper titles was "[Themes] in [Names of Works]"

I'll quote the entire intro:
"Auden's 'In Memory of W.B. Yeats' was written, on the most literal level, as a tribute to the English poet Yeats. The poem, however, exists on many more levels."
HA! duh.
"It exists not only as a tribute to Yeats, but a commentary on his life, a description of his death and its effect on the world, the nature of the relationship between art, specifically poetry, and everyday life, and finally, as Auden's own struggle with these issues. It is this last level that unifies all of the themes within the poem, and it is at this level that the reader gains a comprehensive understanding of the poem."

S. Prosser's comment: "Nice intro." I guess. I mean, it does demonstrate that I had a somewhat complex understanding of the poem and that I planned to examine it from a few different angles. I would be willing to bet that many of my 101 students (and even some of my students from upper-division courses) would have a lot of difficulty with this poem and wouldn't have some of the insights I had. But, my thesis here is still fairly weak.

The first body paragraph discusses the poem as both a tribute to Yeats and a commentary on his life. Reading it now, I see that I was able to explain some of poem's metaphors fairly well and that I did have a complex understanding of the poem. However, there are lame lines like, "Another interesting point is the use of the word 'parish.'" Ultimately, this paragraph is mostly explication, and it is not grounded in any particular argument.

From the next paragraph: "The word 'disappeared' in line 1 implies a sudden, [un]expected death, which only serves to sharpen the loss." Hey, I was kinda close reading! I'm a bit proud of my young self, because I've had seniors who can't explain the significance of words/phrases in poetry on that level.

A little ways down: "The tone here implies some disdain on the part of Auden for the interpretations of others, as he portrays the readers not as interpreting Yeats' work, but as controlling Yeats' existence." Hmm. OK, I see what I was trying to do, but this is not very elegantly phrased/explained.

Further down: "[Auden] sees to be struggling with the idea that poetry is useless, and he is superimposing his struggle on Yeats." Hey, so I sort of recognized the psychological complexity of the text and the multiple voices within. OK, not too terrible!

2nd to last paragraph: metrical analysis! Wow, now that's not bad, and I think probably a majority of the BAs we graduate in my current department would have trouble identifying iambic hexameter or trochaic hexameter, much less offer up some explanation of its significance. To be fair, though, I recall spending about 6 hours just taking notes about this poem, not even counting the time I spent writing the paper.

From the conclusion: "The struggle between freedom and human limitations and the struggle between art and life are superimposed over Yeats' life, and thus they are resolved by using his life and works as examples and building blocks." Poorly written, yes, but not a totally dumb idea.

Instructor's comments: "This is an excellent analysis." Yay! "My only suggestion would be to focus a little more in the future & edit for length. ... [Y]ou need to select the main ideas & highlight them for a paper this length. I'd also like to see you incorporate your observations about form with your careful analysis of content." Grade: A. Final grade for the course: B :(

So, after that rather painful trip down memory lane...

I'd say that intellectually, I wasn't too different then from the way my freshmen students are today. The main difference, I think, is in the preparation I had. I went to a private school that focused on a traditional liberal arts, college prep education: so, I had some understanding of literature and the terminology used to discuss it; my high school writing had been focused on investigative essays rather than timed writing (meaning, no 5 paragraph theme BS, no teaching to the test); and I had a greater facility with the written word than do many of my students today -- which is not to say that I was a great stylist, but I could express myself.

Now as the clock ticks on into the wee hours of the morning, I am somewhat at a loss as to what my original intentions in all of this were, but here's what I think I can take away from my experiment:

1) I was an honors student 15 years ago, and I think I was probably about as smart then as is the average honors student today.
2) I was a better ENGLISH student than most kids I teach now in 101 (who are usually not English majors), but not necessarily a better student than other English majors today, and not necessarily a better student in general than this year's incoming class.
3) I had better preparation in high school to write analytical papers than many of my students have had.
4) The fact that I actually enjoyed reading and was willing to read long works played a huge role in my ability to do even the B-level work that I was doing then. Without my personal investment in reading, my work would have suffered greatly.
5) I don't think standards for this level of work -- short, analytical essays by academically solid freshmen -- have changed radically, as I now think the grades I received were justified. (I'm sure that in 1994 I thought these papers deserved A's.)

Perhaps some other night I'll take some of my upper-division work and give it the same treatment.