The Dumbest Generation

The Dumbest Generation is a book written by Mark Baurlein (Baurlein 2008; see Book Reviews, this issue). Its title is a parody of “The Greatest Generation,” the expression coined by Tom Brokaw describing the generation that endured the deprivations of the Great Depression and World War II. After the trials of World War II, soldiers from the Greatest Generation returned home to build America and to create the Great Society. An iconic moment for the Greatest Generation was the raising of the American flag over Iwo Jima. The Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph capturing that moment symbolizes the rise and ultimate triumph of the United States. A similar image graces the cover of The Dumbest Generation: an American flag is being raised by a group of soldiers in the pose made famous by the photograph, but in this case the soldiers raising the flag are not people, but video game robots. Baurlein’s thesis is that American youth are systematically getting stupider, thanks to computer access, and in particular the Internet.

This thesis would seem counterintuitive. The Internet has provided unparalleled access to knowledge and the world of ideas. Humankind’s recorded intelligence is no longer concentrated in fragile repositories such as the ancient library of Alexandria. Thanks to the miraculous Internet, facts, interpretations, great works, the whole collected works of recorded human thought are easily assessable everywhere, often in seconds. Painstaking research that used to take days can be done instantaneously. You don’t have to go to a dusty library anymore. You don’t have to open books. You just need to sit on a couch with your laptop, log in, and Google. Basic facts and more in-depth studies are immediately available. A centralized location for facts is no longer needed, and this is one reason why the basic function of libraries today is being challenged and reassessed. Who needs a library when you have your couch and Wi-Fi?

With this incredible distribution of knowledge and easy access to it, clearly we should be experiencing an educational Renaissance. Today’s students should be wizards, exposed to more thoughts, intellectual challenges, and experiences than any group of adolescents in history. They should all be burgeoning Einsteins.

Baurlein points out that this Renaissance has not occurred. It is true that the Internet has provided virtually unrestricted access to the stored knowledge of humankind. Unfortunately, it has also provided unrestricted support for teenage self-absorption. Today’s youngsters do not use the Internet to expand their heads. They use it to log into Facebook. Adolescents have never been the most self-disciplined bunch. Today, they have unlimited distractions in instant messaging, blogging, gaming, and so on. Teenage students are wired in and tuned out to deep thinking.

The genie has escaped and the Internet is here to stay, at least as long as we still have a civilization to support its use. I don’t think the Internet is necessarily a bad thing. In writing this essay, I was able to quickly Google some facts and figures, saving me time and energy over the old-fashioned way. As I was typing, I looked over at my old, ratty high school dictionary. It was sitting forlornly on top of a bookshelf. If dictionaries had feelings and were sentient, mine would be wondering why I abandoned it. It was nothing personal, really. But since Microsoft Word alerts me with a red squiggly line every time I misspell something, and the program even types in the correct spelling for me, I don’t have to look the words up manually. Of course, I am probably losing the capability to spell by myself.

Computers are tools, and criticism should not be directed at the tool but how it is used. General education has not caught up with the reality of computer use and misuse. There are analogous processes at work in engineering education. Computers have facilitated exceptional ease for engineering data management, analysis, and design. Consider the following examples from structural engineering. In the old days (not that old actually), indeterminate frames could be solved by the painstaking hand method of moment distribution. This method is time consuming and increasingly tedious for more complex structures. Frame analysis using moment distribution could take hours or even days. It had to be performed meticulously and with great care, lest one simple mistake throw in doubt an entire sequential calculation. To be successful, this task required great concentration, organization, and planning.

Yet, embedded in the tedium was the development of an understanding of structural behavior. To succeed in using the analysis method of moment distribution, you had to learn and understand the basics of structural analysis. You had to get a feel for the structure—the shape of the moment and shear curves, where the tension was, where the compression was. You had to know and apply basic rules such as the equilibrium of forces and moments to check results and stay on track. Engineers who wrestled with moment distribution received the benefit of learning how structures behaved. The method could not be treated as a black box.

Today, indeterminate frames can be solved in seconds with structural software—no more tedium. But our application of this excellent, miraculous software may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water when used the wrong way. Structural engineers no longer have to struggle for hours distributing moments and calculating carry-over factors. Structural analysis has been made into a video game: Grand Theft Auto, Building Frame Version. But with instant gratification, young engineers can lose a feel for and understanding of the structural behavior.

The fix for this problem should not involve reintroducing tedious manual methods. There is nothing inherently wrong with having spectacular analysis and design tools. In fact, these are good things if we learn how to use them properly. Graham Powell, professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, shared his thoughts on this topic in two articles in Structure magazine. In the first article, “Structural Analysis: Are We Relying Too Much on Computers? Part 1: The Problem,” he writes: “I do agree that problems can arise when computers are used for structural analysis. However, the computer is not at fault. The computer is merely a tool, and like all tools it must be used in a craftsman-like fashion. In my opinion, the problem lies not with the computer but with the craftsmanship” (Powell 2008a).

In each application, we need to consider the underlying concepts and processes. In the structural engineering examples, analysis should be taught with aspects of the old manual methods alongside the new computerized approaches. For concrete column designs, students should be taught to derive column moment-axial design curves by hand, then apply them. They should then apply concrete analysis software and compare the results. At every step of the way the key question is, “why?” This is a question that should also be asked in engineering practice, long after classes have concluded.

Measurement of progress also requires some updating. In his follow-up article, Powell writes: “Currently, the structural analysis sections of professional licensing examinations require analysis of statically indeterminate structures by hand. Why? To get a driver’s license do you have to show that you can ride a horse?” (Powell 2008b).

In The Dumbest Generation, Baurlein directs some of his most caustic comments at educators and mentors. He believes that adults have, to an extent, defaulted on their role of managing and guiding students. The digital world makes it easier than ever for adolescents to fly off into ether space in their own self-absorption, and it makes it harder for adults to follow. The kids spend their time at Google and Facebook. The adults smile and marvel at how adept the kids are at maneuvering around the computer.

To avoid “The Dumbest Engineering Generation,” we have to learn to work with computers in a way that maximizes their great ability to streamline analysis and data management, without turning the users into bleary-eyed idiots. As Powell points out, this can be accomplished by focusing on what we’re trying to accomplish, and then work backwards to figure out a better process to get there.