Americans' Lack of Education in History Is a Worry .

[Karina1974]

Actually I'm not. But I really don't appreciate being told I'm a contemporary of people born in the 30's.

(Seeing as how it was our exchange that seems to have prompted this) - My parents are only about 10 years older than you are, 74 and 72 (as of 11/2). That's not so much of a stretch. 1930's to 1950's - that I could understand, but 10 years? I agree with Ag, you're being touchy.

[taf2002]

(Seeing as how it was our exchange that seems to have prompted this) - My parents are only about 10 years older than you are, 74 and 72 (as of 11/2). That's not so much of a stretch.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...itchplease.jpg

[Karina1974]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...itchplease.jpg

Sad to see that, at least in one case, that there is age discrimination even amongst the 60-and-over segment of the population. Equally sad that your juvenile photo link is the "best" response you could come up with.

Whatever. I'm sticking a fork in this exchange, because it's done.

[taf2002]

Good. Most women would know instinctively that other women don't like to be thought of as older than they actually are. And I doubt anyone wants to be told they are old enough to be your mother even if it could be true.

I'm not surprised at your lack of sensitivity...after all, you mocked a woman with cancer.

[Karina1974]

Good. Most women would know instinctively that other women don't like to be thought of as older than they actually are.

Maybe because I'm one of those women who says "who the feck cares?" I turn 40 in 3 years and 19 days. I'm not worried. I look a heel of a lot better approaching 40 than I did when I turned 30, that's for sure. I also don't waste my life keeping track of the inane things perfect strangers say online.

[taf2002]

Clueless, like talking to a stone wall. Oh well, ignore is there for a reason.

[genevieve]

I agree with Ag, you're being touchy.

I think you're BOTH dragging this thread to hell in a handbasket, so take your issues with each other to PM.

[MacMadame]

I am going to take a different stance and call bullsh1t on the entire survey. I have seen these sorts of surveys before and I think they are purposely designed to confuse people.

The thing is, we remember facts in context. As soon as you take away the context, most people have trouble remembering. Throw in a confusing or misleading question and you end up with some pretty wild responses.

In this case, there is no such country as "America" so that means the question was invalid to being with. In fact, given that there is no such country, I think the people who pointed to the word "America" were the only people who answered the question correctly as that is the only "America" on that map.

Well dayum, we think we are wild and crazy.

It's all that knitting. Craaaazzzyyy!

As for knowing Canadian cities, my first response to the statement that most of us don't know the "three big" Canadian cities was: there are only 3? Because I can name more than 3 big cities in Canada. My second response was "Big in terms of what? Population, importance to history, revenues? geography?

I am well aware of your nations lack of ability to speak any other languages in general. I had heard before that it was because Americans start so late but I see now that that is not the only problem. Greatest reason seems to be the lack of will to put effort on that department

I don't think it's mostly lack of effort. I think it's that we don't have many opportunities to practice so what we do learn falls out of our brain. Many of us were exposed to other languages in school at young ages. Some of us pursued learning a particular language and may even at one time been proficient in it. But most of us have no reason to use another language on a daily basis and, if you don't use another language regular, you forget it.

For example, I started learning Spanish in Junior High. (Grade 7, age 12 for those not familiar with that term.) I lived on the East Coast and that was the most common of the foreign languages being spoken in my area so it seemed the most practical language to learn. Therefore, when I got a choice in HS, I continued in Spanish. I got to be fluent enough that I had a summer job where speaking Spanish was a plus (but not required) and I tested out of my college's foreign language requirement. But I still took a semester in college.

But I was in the Midwest then so my opportunities to use Spanish in a natural way were severely limited. By the time I ended up in California -- a place where Spanish is spoken more than in other parts of the country, I had forgotten most of what I knew.

I have since audited a Spanish class when my son was doing it as part of his Home Schooling experience and I have many more opportunities to see and speak Spanish now but I don't NEED to understand Spanish to get by and so it really hasn't come back. Plus, I learned Spanish from a Puerto Rican and it's enough different from Mexican Spanish that even what I do know isn't necessarily going to work for me.

It's possible if I was born and raised in California that I would have retained more but it's also quite likely that the pressure of having to learn other things for my job would have made remembering Spanish a small enough priority and I still would be where I am now.

1) I am always puzzled when people say that they never use what they learned in high school because I use what I learned in high school ALL THE TIME.
<snip>Sorry but I have to think people who say they don’t use their K-12 education were either not good students or didn’t have good teachers (or they lead an incredibly narrow lifestyle).

I think it's more likely that when people say they don't use what they learn they are thinking of "what they learned" in a much more restricted way than you are. IOW, they are thinking of the many facts they learned that they no longer remember because they don't use them and not the general skills which many attribute to "everyone knows that" just like we all know how to walk.

After all, most of us know how to add and subtract and use those skills often. So we can't honestly say we don't use anything from our K-12 education. But I don't argue the true meaning of a certain passage in Hamlet or calculate derivatives or name different kinds of mold spores in either my everyday life or my job. In fact, my job is in computers and I never took a formal class in that area until college and, even if I had, the languages and tools and even concepts are all different now (we didn't have object-oriented languages when I was in school).

Yes, our fourth graders do well on international tests in pretty much every subject and very well in reading, and our eighth graders aren't too bad at reading, either. This has been the case for several years now It's our high schoolers who don't do particularly well and fall into the average range on every tested subject, including reading

And a lot of that is that the pool of people taking these tests splits at about that age. As you mentioned, lots of other countries split out the college bound by now so those kids who aren't college bound aren't even taking the test.

I thought the generations were loosely defined as, Greatest Generation: served in WWII. Silent Generation: born before WWII but too young to serve in it. Baby Boomers: Children of WWII vets. Between Boomer and GenX: Children of Silent Generation. Generation X: Children of Silent Generation and Boomers. Generation Y/Millennials: Children of Generation X.

This is pretty helpful but the "children of" designations are not going to be accurate. For example, my kids are Millennials but I am a Baby Boomer not Gen X. Also, according to that wiki article, some people would consider at least one of my kids to be Gen Z.

[GarrAarghHrumph]

Taking subjects like chemistry, physics, and high level English and math is much more worthwhile than a foreign language because these subjects are used in such a wide variety of careers. The only things you can primarily use foreign language for in a career is teaching or translating.

Or, in the case of Spanish, jobs in many fields within medicine, or marketing in the US (bilingual labels and other materials), or government (talking to constituents), or art history/archaeology/museum work (when the focus is on Latin America, etc.), or customer service, or retail, or any of a ton of other fields. I think that most people don't realize how useful a knowledge of Spanish can be in many fields in the US, in many regions of the US. In many cases, it can either enhance your ability to get hired, or else if not required, it can help you in your job.

[MacMadame]

Or, in the case of Spanish, jobs in many fields within medicine, or marketing in the US (bilingual labels and other materials), or government (talking to constituents), or art history/archaeology/museum work (when the focus is on Latin America, etc.), or customer service, or retail, or any of a ton of other fields.

In the case of a few other languages depending on where you live too. Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese) are also useful here in Northern California.

[jlai]

Not directly related but somewhat relevant, English tests and lessons are becoming so popular in China the Chinese decided to compete against English popularity with yet, another test.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...test-vs-test/?

I think they don't get it. It's the prestige factor that students covet.
Which brings us to another facet of foreign language education--you can't just bring the language; the culture has to come with it, so in some way popularity of English and the Anglophile culture is at the expense of local cultures. What to do? That's the million dollar question.

[vesperholly]

But the problem with defining generations that way, is that there is a lot of cross-over. My father, for instance, was born in 1939. His other siblings were born in 1934, 1936, 1941, 1943 and 1948. Their father (my paternal grandfather, born 1908) served in the Pacific in WWII. To use the definitions above, aside from the 2 youngest, are they Silent Generation or Baby Boomers? And, technically, Dad (and his sister born August 1941) was born during WWII, not before it (there lies another history question: how many people out there think that WWII started with Pearl Harbor?).

Yeah, generations aren't super clear cut, that's why I said "loosely defined". I'm a child of definite baby boomers (1949) who had children in their 30s. I'm the oldest (1980) and would be Gen X/MTV, but my sister (1982) and especially my brother (1986) would be considered Gen Y. We'd all be Gen X if my parents had us in their 20s/1970s.

This is pretty helpful but the "children of" designations are not going to be accurate. For example, my kids are Millennials but I am a Baby Boomer not Gen X. Also, according to that wiki article, some people would consider at least one of my kids to be Gen Z.

Yup, especially since people are having children later in life than in previous times. If you're a late boomer (1960s births), your kids are going to skip into the next generation. It's impossible to define these things clearly, which is why we get the disagreements

[Prancer]

If you're a late boomer (1960s births

It also depends on who is defining the generation. Some would include me as a boomer (born in 1961) and some wouldn't. And some would class me as Generation Jones (which amuses me, as that's my maiden name), which is something of a bridge between the boomers and Gen-X.

In those "what generation are you" tests, I come out on the high end of Gen X and borderline Gen Y because of my technology use.

I think classifying generations is useful in terms of discussing generalities, but, as with other statistical classifications, they aren't at all helpful when applied to individuals.

[MacMadame]

It also depends on who is defining the generation. Some would include me as a boomer (born in 1961) and some wouldn't. And some would class me as Generation Jones (which amuses me, as that's my maiden name), which is something of a bridge between the boomers and Gen-X.

In those "what generation are you" tests, I come out on the high end of Gen X and borderline Gen Y because of my technology use.

I think classifying generations is useful in terms of discussing generalities, but, as with other statistical classifications, they aren't at all helpful when applied to individuals.

I am a baby boomer by everyone's accounting but I don't feel like I am. It feels like the kids 4-10 years ahead of me were the real boomers. My husband is too by some reckonings but he completely doesn't feel like one at all. (He was born in 64 and I think that's way too late to be considered a true boomer. He wasn't even born when Kennedy was shot! And has no clear memories of MLK being assassinated either!)

But I also come out Gen X/Y on those tests (depending on the test) which leads me to my complaint... people really love those classifications and the accompanying stereotypes.

My former company was making a video about how great it was to work there and they wanted video testimonials to support the theme of "4 generations all working together". I volunteered because I wanted to spread the message of "I'm glad to be in the workforce now because accommodations being made for Gen X and Millennials help me as not everyone is 'true' to their generational stereotype" but it became very clear they didn't want to hear that. They wanted people my age to talk about going to Woodstock (I was too young) and listening to classic rock (not my thing). So I bailed on the project...

[vesperholly]

It also depends on who is defining the generation. Some would include me as a boomer (born in 1961) and some wouldn't. And some would class me as Generation Jones (which amuses me, as that's my maiden name), which is something of a bridge between the boomers and Gen-X.

Interesting! I'd never heard of Generation Jones.

[gkelly]

It also depends on who is defining the generation. Some would include me as a boomer (born in 1961) and some wouldn't. And some would class me as Generation Jones (which amuses me, as that's my maiden name), which is something of a bridge between the boomers and Gen-X.

In those "what generation are you" tests, I come out on the high end of Gen X and borderline Gen Y because of my technology use.

I think classifying generations is useful in terms of discussing generalities, but, as with other statistical classifications, they aren't at all helpful when applied to individuals.

And aren't these "generations" culture specific? E.g., the events that serve as landmarks (time marks?) dividing the end of one generation and the beginning of the next would vary depending on what part of the world one was born in. "MTV Generation" certainly makes no sense for people who were born and grew up in a part of the world that didn't receive MTV.

Aside from anything that obvious, there are going to be so many exceptions that at best they can only be used as rough generalizations. I don't see the point in trying to define them too specifically.

[MacMadame]

And aren't these "generations" culture specific? E.g., the events that serve as landmarks (time marks?) dividing the end of one generation and the beginning of the next would vary depending on what part of the world one was born in. "MTV Generation" certainly makes no sense for people who were born and grew up in a part of the world that didn't receive MTV.

These are descriptions of generations in the US. They were never meant to describe global generations.

[Karina1974]

And aren't these "generations" culture specific? E.g., the events that serve as landmarks (time marks?) dividing the end of one generation and the beginning of the next would vary depending on what part of the world one was born in. "MTV Generation" certainly makes no sense for people who were born and grew up in a part of the world that didn't receive MTV.

Which would make me, personally, even more of an oddball as compared to the kids I went to school with. I wonder how many of those kids were raised listening to Harry Belafonte, Theodore Bikel, Pete Seeger, Miriam & Steven (Israeli music), Mike & Elsa (Norwegian music), Miriam Makeba, Judy Collins, Peter, Paul and Mary and the Kingston Trio, as well as the soundtracks to various movies like Zorba the Greek and the original Broadway casts of West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof. I knew more about my parents' culture than I did my own as a kid and, as an adult, I dived headlong into that while keeping my eye on what's going on in the real world. What I like is that I can listen to folk music and not worry about being considered "uncool" like I would have been 20-some years ago.

Oh, and somewhere in my youth I also figured out that classic and silent movies were my cup of tea as well. Am I the only one who remembers watching Matinee at the Bijou?

[numbers123]

In those "what generation are you" tests, I come out on the high end of Gen X and borderline Gen Y because of my technology use.

I think classifying generations is useful in terms of discussing generalities, but, as with other statistical classifications, they aren't at all helpful when applied to individuals.

All those generation tests are someone's idea of where a person fits. When I take them I have some silent generation, the greatest generation, baby boomers, gen x and gen y. My physical age puts me in the definite baby boomers era.

And Karina - I think that most of us grew up with different music genre than what was considered the typical music for our generation. I grew up with classical, country - as much country as one could be, Patsy Cline, Johnny Cash, show tunes, Dean Martin, Perry Como, and my own generation of Elvis, Beatles, etc. I listened the 1980/s, 1990's and 2000's. Each era I have favorites songs. I don[t think one has to be snooty about what they grew up with and how lacking everyone else's growing years is. And watching silent movies and appreciating them doesn't mean that you are superior to anyone else's preferences.

[Japanfan]

But the problem with defining generations that way, is that there is a lot of cross-over. My father, for instance, was born in 1939. His other siblings were born in 1934, 1936, 1941, 1943 and 1948. Their father (my paternal grandfather, born 1908) served in the Pacific in WWII. To use the definitions above, aside from the 2 youngest, are they Silent Generation or Baby Boomers? And, technically, Dad (and his sister born August 1941) was born during WWII, not before it (there lies another history question: how many people out there think that WWII started with Pearl Harbor?).

Boomers are babies born in the post-WWII baby boom. The fathers fought in the war. As the war ended in 1945 and men who fought in it were between 20 and 30, more or less, their children could have been born up until 1965.

However, not all children born in that time period had fathers who fought in the war. Mr. Japanfan was born in 1963 to a mom and dad who were both 20. His dad was too young to have gone to war, so technically he's not a baby boomer.

Part of the distinction is the post-war mentality. My parents both lived through the war and this gave them a particular perspective that people who didn't live through the war lacked. The men who survived the war are a distinct group and much has been written about their silence about what they went through as they celebrated what they believed would be a more peaceful and prosperous time. Many were damaged as soldiers and became what has been called the silent generation (Hemingway wrote about that). That generation is also marked by memories of the Great Depression. However, young people who lived through the war were also impacted by it - for example, rationing in Great Britain during the war made some people hoarders, just as my mom who lived through both the Great Depression and the war was a hoarder (her pantry with all its canned and processed goods was amazing).

So I define a boomer as one whose parents lived through the war and one whose dad fought in the war - though I must acknowledge the involvement of women in the war as Wrens or in other roles.