The Other Generation Y

I hate it when Generation Y is pinned down as lazy or spoiled by older generations. Check out this blog post from "Bayou Renaissance Guy" where he addresses my generation citing other articles that reflect the attention my generation is currently receiving (because of our coming of age) through analysis and criticism:  http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2010/06/generation-y-spoiled-rotten.html. There's also this article:  http://www.offthegridnews.com/2011/12/08/generation-jobless-victims-or-spoiled-losers/. In fact, google "generation y lazy" and see what comes up.

I resent this stereotype for various reasons, namely that it reflects generalization, fundamental attribution error ("I got a job, so if you can't- tough"), a lack of awareness of changing economic climate, and truly it stems from this Objectivist idealism that people are not held back by circumstance or upbringing or anything like that, like why poor, black inner city youth can learn  computer code even though they may not have access to computers in their environment (http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/12/12/if-i-was-a-poor-black-kid/). That's the thing; there's this notion that, as my Ayn Rand-influenced friend put it, sociology and psychology are the "sciences of making excuses for people." Essentially, this means that factors such as socioeconomic development, parental guidance and raising don't affect cognitive development and that people use this as an excuse to their laziness and that the elites and people who succeed are that way through their own hard work. 

Bull-wait for it-http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/For-my-fans-of-the-wire-sheeeeit-obama-hope-change.jpg.

Of course there are people out there who did not grow up in fortunate circumstances and had low income families but were often able to find through their human experience moments of clarity, or having the right people raise and take care and influence them, or interacting and creating bonds with the right people, or being influenced by the right models or right philosophies. There are definitely instances of this, but that doesn't mean there are not adverse circumstances that adversely affect people. People's cognitive development, perspective on life, and life's philosophy are certainly affected by being around the wrong people, having the wrong type of parental raising (or not any parental raising), and having a human experience where exposure to raw and awful shit affects you. 

There's evidence in neuroscience for this in neuroplasticity, where the brain remaps itself based on human experience. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz even wrote a book about how he helped people with OCD by having them  just think that they don't have OCD: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Mental/dp/0060393556. People learn to survive through models, through experience. With good parents, people grow up learning to survive through hard work and dedication and develop empathy for other. Not everyone will have these parents, or upbringing. 

This is The Other Generation Y. 

Generation Y is stereotyped as trust fund kids, people who followed their impulses to impractical degrees who suffer through unemployment, people who occupy Wall Street with  no aim, and were spoiled by technology, instant communication, and financial wealth and upkeep. 

Behind this and unnoticed is the Other Generation Y. See, Baby Boomers were stereotyped in very much the same way as Generation Y's were; impulsive, spoiled brats who vest themselves in material needs and status symbols like sleek cars, and such, but this wasn't the case for a lot of them. During this time there was The Other America, where people suffered through low incomes, low circumstances, and low chances. When the kids of The Other America came of age they were the ones who went to Vietnam, not the Benjamin Braddocks. They came home to an economy like it is now, they turned to drugs and impulsive relationships and unplanned parenthoods. These are the people who were devoured by Cocaine and Crack and had children that became The Other Generation Y. This Generation Y subgroup had to grow up in broken families, through divorce and fighting, had to see low incomes go lower because of the shift of manufacturing to overseas markets, were devoured by meth and now they're coming of age. 

Like many posts, this one comes about because of a specific incident. A former childhood playmate was arrested, with someone else his own age, for home invasion and theft. He put a gun on a senior citizen and took his wallet and money. This guy is a member of The Other Generation Y. 

It saddened me, truly, to see him on the front page of our local newspaper, because he wasn't a terrible kid growing up. He was smart and had a wit about him; he picked on me quite a bit, but I was a nerd and he was one of the few kids who came over to my house for my birthday. Unfortunately, he had a mother who was a substance abuser and lived on a street that notoriously was full of people like that. He barely got to be with his father, who died a few years ago only 56 and said father neglected if not outright abandoned his family. His father was a drunk and impulsive, having 6-8 kids with 3 different women. 

I was lucky; even though my dad was a member of the Other America he grew up with good role models in his extended family, like his Great-Uncle Arthur, his uncle Carlton, and his employer Otis Stonecypher. Therefore when he got out of military service in 1975, he knew better than to go into drugs and instead used his GI Bill to go back to school and get trained in a trade. Though my dad worked a lot and I didn't see him a lot, I wasn't raised by someone who didn't understand his position as a parent. When I played recreational sports, my dad didn't always throw the ball with me because of his job and his fatigue, but I never had to worry about whether or not I was going to be picked up. 

See, the guy I mentioned earlier did. Let's call him D. D was on the same football team as me and I remember we had practice then when it was over, my dad was at his truck waiting to pick me up. D's wasn't, even though he was supposed to. Because my dad knew D's father, he and I waited, giving D some change to use the pay phone (before cell phones became popular) to call his dad, and waited for him to come pick him up. We waited 20 minutes, during which time D cried because he was certain his dad wasn't going to pick him up. My dad was just about to take him home, when D's dad finally showed up. I'll never forget that, because to me it seems basic that as a father you show up and pick up your kids, but that's because I was raised in an environment where that happened. D wasn't, and unfortunately he didn't have role models, parental guidance, or an upbringing that showed him necessary skills and developed a sense of self-awareness. Instead, he learned through his human experience that he had to make it on his own, and through impulses (word of the blog, if you couldn't tell) he led himself into robbing a senior citizen (who chased him out with a shotgun, by the way).

The idea of "Generation Y" almost seems asinine to me, because it fails to capture the entirety of people born in my date range. Not all of us had exposure to technology from an early age. Not all of us have iPhones, not all of us went through school without working or had new cars or new stuff. A lot of us grew up like this Bayou Renaissance man did, or came up with worse, because of the shift in the job market, because of how unplanned parenthood and drug addiction ate up people who needed help.

That's another word of the blog: help. Like, I hope D gets help and can clean himself up and make good decisions. People need help, and getting help doesn't mean you're spoiled either. Everyone gets help in one way or another.

Contemplation of MAT Programs and On Student Loans

I'm a firm believer that loan debt is not indicative of maturity.

This seems trite, but when discussing loans with a colleague of mine last summer this individual's response to my justification that some people choose GSC because they don't want to take on so much debt was "Well then you grow up and take up a loan" and this was echoed a year before by a fellow student as well. These were, like me, theatre majors.

In my earlier post "On College" I talked about how college has been in my mind lately because it has been a year (actually a year and two days from this post) since I walked. Also, college is a major topic in the media because of how unemployed young people are, something Obama has noticed and is trying to alleviate with lower interest rates on student loans (which would make me happy).

Today I started thinking about loans and debt because I realized that the MAT program looms over me, even though I wish to not undertake this program. I truly want to teach, and find immense gratification in education and especially English education, but the MAT program doesn't seem worthwhile to me. It seems to be more theory than practice; you come in and undertake one year and a half of theory then a semester's teaching for one class. For me, as someone in the classroom three and sometimes four times a day three days a week as a substitute teacher I find that I get a fair amount of classroom experience and really this is the best way to get prepared to be in the classroom. Any teacher will tell you that, and I know because I've asked them.

There's also something worse about the MAT program; no funding. There's no funding for most programs (there's a few like Emory's MAT program which provides some funding for matriculating second year students but it's freakin' Emory so tuition is pretty high) and most classes are during the day. So, really, you're not in grad school you're in extended undergrad and the MAT program is essentially designed like the last two years of a Bachelors in Education program is, just for non Bachelor's in Education holders. Most teachers who obtain MAT programs usually have to do MEd programs, depending upon their focus. Here's the catch though; it can charge so much because it is an alternative route to certification. If you have a Bachelor's degree but not in education and therefore not certified you can either get hired after passing GACE scores and go through the least expensive GA TAPP (or equivalent for other states), do a post-bachelor's degree that lasts a year, or the MAT. Unfortunately, because of teacher layoffs and the low demand for specific teaching subjects (a la my subjects) the MAT is looking like the only route to certification.

This worries me. As I mentioned in the above the MAT program doesn't really suit me or my needs and experience (and probably, honestly, very few people). More importantly, however, is the cost. A MAT program has the same costs as any other Graduate institution, which is per hour usually. At North Georgia, this is around $17,000, At other institutions this is around the $20,000 ballpark. Plus, it's usually two years of my time, and as I mentioned because it is during the day you either have to support yourself through a night job or just take more student loans for living expenses.

That brings me back to the subject of loans. I think people are starting to realize what I have felt, and what I argued against with my colleagues, which is that the idea of good debt ie student loan debt is an outdated illusion. There is no good debt; there's debt. Twenty years ago student loan debt may have been good debt, because of the job market for college educated people, but now with the economy and the saturation of the good market student debts are just more debt. There's necessary debt, and there's needless debt. You have a job that  pays reasonably well and you want to settle down and have kids, taking out a loan to pay for a house is necessary.

Most people will argue that college loans fall in the category of necessary debt, because investing in one's future is important. I agree, but that doesn't mean college loans aren't needless debt. My friends were taking on debt while theatre majors. This is needless debt, to me. The thing about Theatre, or any Fine Arts or Humanities or Liberal Arts (etc) degree, is that you CAN get jobs in them. They require, however, a great deal after college, and that means working a piss poor entry level job, sometimes earning $150 a week, that means a great deal of time trying to navigate the job market, that means dealing the uncertainties as to what you want to do. Taking out a great deal of loans for that type of degree is high risk and in some cases toxic. Because I went to a small liberal arts degree for my Bachelor's (1 year though) I saw several people coming out with $40,000 or more in loans...for a theatre degree. This is ridiculous. If you major in the liberal arts you should not be able to afford a brand new Ford Mustang with your debt. That means that after college you are going to pay a great deal out of pocket or defer it or whatever depending on your success. Plus, said liberal arts degree isn't the only place to get a theatre degree. There are public universities that will teach just as much for extremely less. That's the rub for needless debt, to me, when you choose the most expensive option over the just as good, if not better, less expensive option. Choosing a college because of prestige and not factoring in cost is asinine if not downright stupid, and taking in debt to fund this investment is needless, if you ask me.

Options is an ideal word for debt. What are the options before taking on debt? Do I need this house or should I take on an apartment for less the cost? It seems simple, but apparently it doesn't stop people from choosing really expensive options and needless options. That's what I am thinking about my MAT program. The people like my colleagues would say just do it, get certified. I'm not on their terms, though, so I feel like I need to explore my options before jumping in the MAT ship. I mean, ultimately, I may have to bite the bullet to it, but even MAT students are struggling (as I saw them in my sub teaching courses). I mean is $20,000 debt worth a $40,000 job? I mean, I could go back to North Georgia Tech and get a two year degree in IT and make that, with less cost. Plus, I feel like the twenties are made for exploring: the world, yourself, and others. This MAT program will not only put me in more debt with the possibility of uncertain options, but also take away two years that I could spend seeing Peru or Egypt, and developing my self awareness.

I may have to start looking at MAT programs, but I'm not doing it without a fight first. Rambling over.

On Tests in Public Schools

Today I subbed for British Literature, which is my territory and consequently I guess I'm a little more observant of how English is taught. English Literature, Rhetoric, and Composition is exceptionally important, not only in the development of basic skills of reading and communication, but also in developing creative critical thinking skills. This means giving a person the skills to form arguments, to develop research strategies, and ultimately be able to critically think in unique situations because of the lack of order of operation in literary analysis. Bottom line: you will not always face a troubleshooting issue that can be fixed by operations. You need a creative element to one's troubleshooting capabilities. This is the ultimate objective in English pedagogy, in my opinion, and it is one of my guiding principles as a future English educator (hopefully).

While substituting I noticed a test on Medieval and Renaissance literature; perusing the questions I found this test to be totally worthless to the aforementioned objective and, really, to the students' future. In perspective, I am reminded of a time when I mentioned the contributions of a chemist in Chemistry 1212 and a guy behind me said "You don't need to know that," because knowing who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry isn't going to help one develop the skills that come with Chemistry. He's right, and I was totally buffoonish. Likewise, this test was basically like me in that chemistry situation, and I regarded it in the same way as my classmate. The questions were basic, trivia questions. "What happened to Lady MacBeth before she died?" "The defeat _____ changed English history." "Elizabeth murdered whom in 1587?"  Do the students need to know this?

To an extent it is imperative to understand context, and in the case of the MacBeth, to understand what happened in what was read. This isn't helping students though. While students need to boost their memory, memory is aided through practical uses. Just remembering a math equation will not help you; your memory of that math equation increases through practice and through application. Likewise, that test should do more to test the students' capability to apply the information to analytical short answer questions. "Explain, briefly, how Shakespeare uses MacBeth to critique Elizabethan politics." "In what way was blood used as a leitmotif?" These kind of questions both enable the student to apply classwork and information but also create critical arguments, and presents circumstances in which analytical tools are pressed into action.

We need to veer away from multiple choice tests. They are asinine, and exist due to student numbers primarily. They do very little in improving the student's applicable capabilities in the real world. At Gainesville State I actually felt I received some wonderful examples of how this can work. My Chemistry professor offered a short answer test, and would grade based on correct answer, but give credit for correct work done on equations in solving incorrect problems. Why? To help facilitate growth. Another wonderful example was Larry Cook, my Stagecraft and History of Costume Design and Decor professor. He only gave out two tests, all of the test was short answer and he'd take off if you didn't put enough on the test; typically he'd expect at least 3 pieces of information per question. A lot of people wouldn't do well, but he always held a policy of allowing the tests to be corrected but with a caveat: if you brought in a test with a question that required a sentence, he'd expect a paragraph. A more applicable example in the English pedagogy context was Chris Barnes, my English 1102 professor. He was pretty laid back, and usually split the class in groups and have them work together. One of the great ideas was that he expected the essay to be worked on, but he'd accept better drafts. Why? Because he, like most people, understand that education is about growth. Not everyone is going to understand an essay at first go, but through analysis of mistakes made on said first go the second draft or even the third draft could show excellence.

Now to get to my (other) bottom line: As an aspiring English educator I tend to be aware of how my teachers and how other teachers teach so that I can build my curriculum accordingly. Any teacher you meet is the sum of the best parts of their favorite teachers. What I believe pedagogy should be based around is enhancing critical thinking and practical skills, as well as spurring growth. That's why I look at the Medieval and Renaissance test, as well as any multiple choice test and standardized test with a decidedly negative view. It does not help students grow, nor does it test critical thinking skills. We cannot do this to our students. We must work towards a more engaging, and a more practical curriculum.