Up for Discussion...

[Pons Asinorum]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This article has been floating around the blog-world for a couple of days now, and I'm just curious what your thoughts are as a group who (I assume) have some college experience in the past and some college experience in the present. I guess my n=1, anectdotal data would tend to agree - the late 90's cohort I graduated UG with were required to study/work harder than the 2010 cohort who I'm taking UG biology classes with right now. Here's the gist, from Ezra Klein:

They just don't study. Or, at the least, they just don't study like they used to. Students at four-year colleges devote about 14 hours each week to studying. In 1961, their parents were spending 24 hours each week studying.
There are a lot of things you could say about this number, but I'd just observe that it's common to justify high incomes by invoking hard work, but I'd much rather be a 20-year-old studying for two hours a day and hanging out with my friends than a 20-year-old working full time in retail because I didn't have the money or grades to go to college. There are perfectly good economic reasons to spend more money on people who the market values more highly, but our tendency to substitute a moral reason -- "hard work" -- is generally off base. Being a college-educated worker in the richest country the world has ever known is a pretty good deal, and given this country's crummy economic mobility, it's only rarely the result of an individual's hard labor.

Any thoughts? Not trying to start a generational war or anything. Just found the article interesting and that it agreed with my experience. If you combine the evidence from this article with the steadily increasing GPAs for med school applicants and where does that leave us?

 

[Lazarus]

They may be more efficient at studying? (technology?)

My understanding is that test scores are going up (MCAT, SAT etc.) which would suggest that students are getting smarter? At least getting better at taking tests.

 

[mspeedwagon]

Based on what I'm seeing, kids these days are just smarter. They score much higher on tests, are most more efficient and are generally well-rounded (my sample size is slightly biased seeing that the only college students I've been in class with are Harvard, Brown, UC Berkeley students... the one class I took at a cc people were just lazy and didn't care and didn't study at all).

 

[Inspire Aspire]

It would depend on how you define smarter. Yes, GPA's are going up, as are standardized test scores, but there are alot of variables at play that can account for this. Such as better access to information, more study aide resources (test prep books,prep class, special school programs), the push for improved early childhood education, etc. Not to mention economics that allows more parents to afford to present their kids with new and exciting opportunities. So yes in terms of pure academics kids in 2010 are surpassing the previous generation.

However, I've also seen a steady decline in kids ability to be able to think critically and logically and their desire to do so. I've notice a decline in independent thought. I've noticed memorization take the place of actual learning and application of knowledge. And I've also noticed the decline in a work ethic. Note that I said an actual work ethic not just doing the minimum to get the job done.

When I was growing up my mom told me "there was books smarts, streets smarts, and common sense. In my opinion the smartest among us possess all three, dream the impossible, and then work their ***** off to make the impossible a reality.

 

[TriagePreMed]

My parents generation is the same generation that sunk America and votes for guys like Bush and Dick Cheney... yeah, I can see why they needed to spend longer studying.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

My parents generation is the same generation that sunk America and votes for guys like Bush and Dick Cheney... yeah, I can see why they needed to spend longer studying.

*Sigh*

I'll avoid the politics of your comment, and focus on a "sunk America."

Do you believe that America is sunk? And if it is, you blame (I assume) the baby-boomers for "sinking" it?

Since your generation didn't vote for Bush and Cheney, and by extension are much smarter (I'm assuming your point there), do you think they will un-sink America? Since they have so much more free time now that they're studying half as much as previous generations, will they use their combined smartness and efficiency to change anything for the better? Or will they just use it to retweet their "friends'" ironically-hip Facebook status updates?

 

[AcclratngCharge]

*Sigh*

I'll avoid the politics of your comment, and focus on a "sunk America."

Do you believe that America is sunk? And if it is, you blame (I assume) the baby-boomers for "sinking" it?

Since your generation didn't vote for Bush and Cheney, and by extension are much smarter (I'm assuming your point there), do you think they will un-sink America? Since they have so much more free time now that they're studying half as much as previous generations, will they use their combined smartness and efficiency to change anything for the better? Or will they just use it to retweet their "friends'" ironically-hip Facebook status updates?

I have always considered myself a generation too late, and that article adds to my sentiment. I spend more like 25-30 hours studying, while my classmates (most of them) spend far less time. I could see this being true, college seems more, and are advertised as such, of a lifestyle and experience than education. Obviously, I was born in the 80's and don't know about anything of previous generations other than what they say.

I must disagree with the article where it says technology has only had 'slim' effects. I used to attend a small college where I had to hand write notes, refer to pages in the book rather than wiki and google(before I had internet), and not have access to sound/video files of the lecture. Technology has made studying much more efficient, and there could certainly be an article just about that.

I didn't really understand your last question, about where this leaves pre-meds in the context of increasing GPA's.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I didn't really understand your last question, about where this leaves pre-meds in the context of increasing GPA's.

I guess I should have made that question more directly non-trad applicable: many of us on here got our first round of college out of the way when a)GPA's were statistically lower, and b)you had to study more to make that numerically-lower GPA. Those stats are what we're presenting as evidence of our capacity to thrive in a medical school curriculum, and it's being compared to the traditional students' (I would say) inflated grades which required less outside-class time to get. Above it's argued that today's students are smarter (as measured by standardized test scores,) but I'm think that if SAT score trends were overlaid onto a graph of test-prep company revenues, there would at least be a strong correlation. It's part of our current educational culture: test scores mean everything (NCLB, college applications soaring, etc) and all sides (administrators, teachers, parents, students) are vested in maximizing them. Of course test scores are improving! But our old scores/grades/stats are what we have to use as comparison. That's what I meant by "where does that leave us?" Us = non-trads, at least the older ones.

 

[Gfliptastic]

They may be more efficient at studying? (technology?)

My understanding is that test scores are going up (MCAT, SAT etc.) which would suggest that students are getting smarter? At least getting better at taking tests.

I will mostly agree. The Internet makes research a lot quicker and easier to do, which means less time spent in the library.

I was in undergrad in the mid 90's. If the 'net weren't just a way to look at porn and send email, I would have spent less time doing "busy work" ie - trying to find textbooks and reference books on shelves AND reading thru chapter and chapters to find the few pieces of information that I needed. [I mean really, all you have to do is Google the words you want and boom!]

The reason I don't agree more tho is we have to remember that these standardized tests have changed!!! Back when I took the MCAT in 2000 it was 100 mins long for PS/BS w/ 74 questions/section (and up to 10 passages), and VR was 85 mins for 60 questions. Added up, it was over 8 hrs long!!

For comparison, the MCAT is now PS/BS 70 mins w/ 52 questions, and VR is 60 mins w/ 40 questions. (Writing Sample has not changed, oh except now they can type it!!!! Do you know how hard it was to do when you had to print legibly?!?)

Any guess how much stamina you needed to do the 8 hour paper exam??? 😱

However, I believe technology is making scholastics easier.👍

 

[TriagePreMed]

*Sigh*

I'll avoid the politics of your comment, and focus on a "sunk America."

Do you believe that America is sunk? And if it is, you blame (I assume) the baby-boomers for "sinking" it?

Since your generation didn't vote for Bush and Cheney, and by extension are much smarter (I'm assuming your point there), do you think they will un-sink America? Since they have so much more free time now that they're studying half as much as previous generations, will they use their combined smartness and efficiency to change anything for the better? Or will they just use it to retweet their "friends'" ironically-hip Facebook status updates?

Way to over complicate a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if you're a baby boomer.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Way to over complicate a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if you're a baby boomer.

You've made the same political "joke" a few other times in the forums. It didn't seem like a joke then, so I didn't take your comment above as a joke either. My apologies. Knowing that you were joking, I'll gladly infer that you agree with the basic worldview that the questions I posed in response represent 🙂

 

[Lazarus]

But I think it is also important to keep in mind that there are many more students going to college now, I think colleges are getting better at taking advantage of economies of scale (e.g. large lecture halls with good profs.?).Basically I think schools are getting better are cranking out higher quality students. Also technology is not just wikipedia, it is also power point, "learning portals", web demos, computers in class etc. I do not buy into the notion that students "nowadays" are not good critical thinkers, the rise in MCAT scores disproves this idea. (MCAT being a critical thinking test).

Slightly off topic...

Also in regards to our predicament we are having to compete against an ever expanding number of traditional pre-meds for a constant supply of med school spots. Its simply a problem of supply and demand, so that the bar is continually set higher and higher year after year.

Am I correct in assuming that there is not such a supply vs. demand problem in Europe? If doctor salaries come down more in par with European providers will this alleviate the problem of too many pre-meds?

 

[AcclratngCharge]

But I think ...
Slightly off topic...

Also in regards to our predicament we are having to compete against an ever expanding number of traditional pre-meds for a constant supply of med school spots. Its simply a problem of supply and demand, so that the bar is continually set higher and higher year after year.

Am I correct in assuming that there is not such a supply vs. demand problem in Europe? If doctor salaries come down more in par with European providers will this alleviate the problem of too many pre-meds?

I never thought of that. Take away the financial benefits, weed out the ones just looking for the nice salary. Although I'm more interested in science and health, if the pay sucked I would probably pursue something different, and not put myself through the hoops of applying/going through med school.

 

[Lazarus]

If a non-trad is doing it for the money then they are most probably crazy or foolish. The NT medicine route is not a money maker due to the opportunity cost of lost wages + debt. I would like to think non trads are doing it for the "right reasons" whatever that means.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

If a non-trad is doing it for the money then they are most probably crazy or foolish. The NT medicine route is not a money maker due to the opportunity cost of lost wages + debt. I would like to think non trads are doing it for the "right reasons" whatever that means.

Say what you will about the "right reasons," and I agree that the NPV analysis of the decision go into medicine as a NT is problematic in all but a few instances. Regardless, I will argue that if the expected pay for physicians were to decrease significantly, you would have a lot fewer of the "right reason" applicants as well as fewer paycheck seeking applicants. Lowering the expected pay doesn't just weed out the income-sensitive; you'll have a lot of "right reason" applicants faced with even bleaker NPV analyses who decide that those "right reasons" just don't make enough sense to pursue. They'll join the Peace Corp, or Teach for America or some other service-oriented, intellectually-demanding field that doesn't require many years of hard work and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt before they get to change the world. People respond to incentives. There would be no physicians if the job came with no pay. I think that anyone who would argue the the field of medicine is immune to the incentives that income provide are being unserious at best.

 

[AcclratngCharge]

Say what you will about the "right reasons," and I agree that the NPV analysis of the decision go into medicine as a NT is problematic in all but a few instances. Regardless, I will argue that if the expected pay for physicians were to decrease significantly, you would have a lot fewer of the "right reason" applicants as well as fewer paycheck seeking applicants. Lowering the expected pay doesn't just weed out the income-sensitive; you'll have a lot of "right reason" applicants faced with even bleaker NPV analyses who decide that those "right reasons" just don't make enough sense to pursue. They'll join the Peace Corp, or Teach for America or some other service-oriented, intellectually-demanding field that doesn't require many years of hard work and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt before they get to change the world. People respond to incentives. There would be no physicians if the job came with no pay. I think that anyone who would argue the the field of medicine is immune to the incentives that income provide are being unserious at best.

I agree, there are many other ways to help people, besides deciding if people need chemical medications and surgeries. I think this brings up one of difficulties with applying to medical school, convincing the adcom that you are more of a "right reasons" person rather than seeking a nice cushy lifestyle that most people associate with doctors. They aren't stupid, and they know if you are there interviewing you are quite intelligent and understand the benefits. It's un-human to think someone would go through hell just to help others if they themselves were not going to be rewarded. I consider myself a "right reasons" persons (who doesn't?), just because I've began to live a life of not having an interesting, or in my opinion significant responsibility. I'm a fellow non-trad.

 

[TriagePreMed]

You've made the same political "joke" a few other times in the forums. It didn't seem like a joke then, so I didn't take your comment above as a joke either. My apologies. Knowing that you were joking, I'll gladly infer that you agree with the basic worldview that the questions I posed in response represent 🙂

Well, I do lean left on the political spectrum, but it was a joke in this instance in that I know you can't make conclusions based on an entire generation through voting patterns and study habits.

If you do want an answer to my political beliefs, I do believe that the baby boomer generation has left the country in worse shape than other generations. There are a number of studies and commentators that believe that my generation will be the first to grow poorer than his parents, and this is in direct consequence to the baby boomer's mishandling of the country. However, this is not to say that only negative things have come from the baby boomer generation.

Do I think my generation will be better? Given how the greatest generation arose from the fact that the previous generation handed them an oblique world, all I do is hope so, but seeing the sense of entitlement my generation has and the amount of distractions that promote stupidity, my hope is shaken.

 

[wholeheartedly]

Interesting article. I'm not that far out of the chute from the first time, but I do think accessibility of information has something to do with it. My mom just got a laptop and was saying how she wished she had one in college instead of typewriter for papers because it would've saved so much time.

The other thing I wonder about, is perhaps these students are spending less time studying because they have to spend more time doing other things like working or volunteering. I had to work anywhere from 10-30 hrs a week. As tuition keeps rising more students are going to have to work which would cut into study time.

I also agree with the notion that you can't really compare test scores and gpa's from 40 years ago. Even the content has changed dramatically. I tutored a jr. high student in math and even though I took advanced math growing up they were learning stuff a good year or two ahead of what I had learned just 5 years prior.

 

[wholeheartedly]

I've also been to a few different schools at this point and have noticed that the work ethic is very school/degree dependent.

 

[Gfliptastic]

But I think it is also important to keep in mind that there are many more students going to college now, I think colleges are getting better at taking advantage of economies of scale (e.g. large lecture halls with good profs.?).Basically I think schools are getting better are cranking out higher quality students. Also technology is not just wikipedia, it is also power point, "learning portals", web demos, computers in class etc. I do not buy into the notion that students "nowadays" are not good critical thinkers, the rise in MCAT scores disproves this idea. (MCAT being a critical thinking test).

Slightly off topic...

Also in regards to our predicament we are having to compete against an ever expanding number of traditional pre-meds for a constant supply of med school spots. Its simply a problem of supply and demand, so that the bar is continually set higher and higher year after year.

Am I correct in assuming that there is not such a supply vs. demand problem in Europe? If doctor salaries come down more in par with European providers will this alleviate the problem of too many pre-meds?

I mostly agree w/ u. Again, w/ reservations tho because the MCAT is much shorter than it used to be. Pre-meds are being asked a lot less of them, mental-stamina wise. However to say they are getting "dumber" is inaccurate. Inasmuch, I'm not keen on video games, but listening to my bro-in-law go on about them, I believe there is a lot of spontaneous critical thinking going on. Hearing him talk about putting claymores and sticky grenades and using this gun w/ that - it's really impressive (ignoring the fact it is after all a computer game).

[Picture me, ca 1991 figuring out which tektite to shoot 1st on Zelda w/ which weapon. 😛]

Access to colleges (and good colleges) is improving for people not normally included in the "equation" like minorities and low-income students. W/ better access to better universities, of course the pool of applicants is improving.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table17-fact2009mcatgpa98-09-web.pdf

Shows the increasingly competitive trend for medical school applicants vs. matriculants.

Also, we can't compare the US to Europe. The system in Europe is much more different than here. Physicians are usually "tracked" into med school from high school. For the most part, there is an equivalent "SAT/ACT" score required to track into medicine.

 

[EdLongshanks]

My parents generation is the same generation that sunk America and votes for guys like Bush and Dick Cheney... yeah, I can see why they needed to spend longer studying.

This is the worst sort of generalizations. Generations don't have that consistent of voting patterns. The same age classifications voted for Carter and Reagan, for Clinton and Bush. Each election stands on its on merits and can't be blamed on a specific generation or class of people. When the young people who supported Obama in the last election have a few more elections under their belts, then we can see how their choices play out. It's really not very wise to let the political passions of the moment affect one's view of the country as a whole. The government is only one small (I wish it were smaller) part of what America is.

 

[FiremedicMike]

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Why? Which part of the discussion?

 

[QofQuimica]

Why? Which part of the discussion?

I really am tired today. Neuroanatomy was never my best subject anyway, and I'm going, which part of the pons is the asinorum?

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I really am tired today. Neuroanatomy was never my best subject anyway, and I'm going, which part of the pons is the asinorum?

This is a family establishment, Q...

 

[student1799]

However, I've also seen a steady decline in kids ability to be able to think critically and logically and their desire to do so. I've notice a decline in independent thought. I've noticed memorization take the place of actual learning and application of knowledge.

Have to agree with you here. I'm an even older fogey than most here (went to college in the early 80s), but I've been in classes with much younger people for the last few years, first in postbacc and now in med school. These young people can be plenty smart about a given subject area, but their knowledge is very narrow, and they don't even seem curious about what is going on in the world beyond the slice that they've chosen to specialize in.

So if I'm in conversation with a classmate and I mention an interesting article from the paper, I get a blank look. Even if it's something related to science or medicine, I still get this puzzled reaction that seems to say, "That's not part of the assigned reading, is it?" And if I dare to talk about something far afield from medicine, like history or literature, they stare at me like I must have landed from an alien spaceship.

Maybe I'm a total old fart, but I actually believe in that "liberal education" ideal that prevailed when I was in college. I think students should have to get some exposure to all the major branches of knowledge, and should acquire basic skills like how to reason and write clearly. Most of that seems to be out the window nowadays.

At least among premeds, I think med school admissions bears a lot of the blame. If it's all about grades, grades, grades and taking upper-level sciences to prove your prowess to adcoms, why would you want to "waste" your time on 17th century English poetry? Students are just doing what the system pushes them to do.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Guess you're going to ignore the fact that it was a joke and that I subsequently (before you posted) admitted that you can't make such conclusions based on voting patterns or study habits. Good job, Ed.

This is the worst sort of generalizations. Generations don't have that consistent of voting patterns. The same age classifications voted for Carter and Reagan, for Clinton and Bush. Each election stands on its on merits and can't be blamed on a specific generation or class of people. When the young people who supported Obama in the last election have a few more elections under their belts, then we can see how their choices play out. It's really not very wise to let the political passions of the moment affect one's view of the country as a whole. The government is only one small (I wish it were smaller) part of what America is.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Students are just doing what the system pushes them to do.

So true, on so many levels.

 

[FiremedicMike]

Sorry pons, I was talking about the political side-bar..

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Sorry pons, I was talking about the political side-bar..

Not a problem. I agree.