The Cause For Laziness In Younger People Today

[non-contradictor]

[cut]

When I asked my University why they had left me with no certifications and no job skills, they said "Well, we're a university, not a trade school." (they said those last words with such contempt!) I answered, "Indeed, nobody's going mistake you for a place that teaches useful things! Forbid that you acted as an institution that prepared its students to have jobs," and slammed down the receiver.

[cut]

"This is school, Mr. Potter, not the real world."

Very well put, inspector.

I'm a junior in high school and getting ready to apply to colleges. I'm slightly worried about this kind of problem. My current high school requires English and History, even though it's a school for math and science, but after sophomore year, students are allowed to select their own science courses and may take math electives if they wish. Senior year, we're allowed to choose our English and History classes as well. I don't particularly want to go back to the days of "Oh, you're a Freshman? Well then you have to take English Literature, even if you're going to be a Biochemist and have probably taken English Literature a few times already." That's what my old high school was like. You know what the most ridiculous requirement is though? Physical Education. If I want to say fit, I can do it on my own thanks. My parents are not paying money so that I can play dodgeball for the hundredth time.

I can easily see why the "well-rounded" education garbage would leave a lot of people burnt-out and bitter. In my experience, you get a lot of schools that will both expect to prioritize your classes and simultaneously make it impossible for you to do so and still maintain the GPA you need to get into round two of the well-rounded education. They don't seem to understand that one person can't do everything at once, and what's more, they shouldn't want to. I know plenty of kids that are "lazy" simply because they've been forced into classes that don't interest them or are too easy. I used to be one of them. So they do something they enjoy instead of doing their homework. I'm of the opinion that if I hadn't had A's at my old school, I probably would have gotten in a lot of trouble. I slept in geometry and read novels in World History.

I don't think I actually know anyone who is truly "lazy," as in, has an aversion to work. I'd like to think that most people would do the work if they saw what was in it for them. The others I'm not very concerened with anyway.

[JMeganSnow]

It sounds like what we have, (at least among respondants) is the laziness of asking "what's in it for me?" and not getting a reasonable answer.

I never wanted to go to college, in fact, coming out of high school I had no plans for the future of any kind whatsoever. In retrospect I think a lot of things caused this situation, but the one I always remember most clearly was daring to assert that I might have a preference (for fiction writing) and being told that the field was almost impossible to break into and I'd better have a fallback position, so what was I really going to do with myself?

How on earth do you answer a question like that? I found it difficult enough to decide on one thing that I preferred, much less sort through all the things that I didn't really want to find the one that I didn't want the least. End result: I went to college because I was told to go to college and I did about as well as I ever do at anything I've been told to do.

One thing I've definitely learned is that you don't need a college education if you plan to work for yourself. If you're planning on going into a professional field like law or medicine or academia, college is the only route. If you plan on getting a job working for someone else (not with them, for them) then the piece of paper can help. Otherwise, it's a waste.

[Hal]

One thing I've definitely learned is that you don't need a college education if you plan to work for yourself. If you're planning on going into a professional field like law or medicine or academia, college is the only route. If you plan on getting a job working for someone else (not with them, for them) then the piece of paper can help. Otherwise, it's a waste.

I'm not sure whether youre saying that the piece of paper is a waste, or that college is a waste. If the latter, then I would strongly disagree. The purpose of education doesnt have to be 'getting a job' - learning interesting new things can be an end in itself.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Hal

[ColdWontRise]

Part of the problem is that kids learn from an early age that reason and logic are not effective means to deal with most people. This is especially true of parents who selectively listen to reason. The extent of the parents' philosophical bankrupcy is the exent to which the children can be crippled. When children are forced to opperate irrationally, their mind becomes polluted, incapable of doing or even desiring productive work. Or even productive play.

As a youngster, my parents were fairly reasonable, so I turned out all right. I spent the vast majority of my childhood doing creative things. Mainly playing with legos/knex, painting, drawing, playing piano. I was taught that using your mind is good and effective and right, not even directly, but by watching reason in action.

[JMeganSnow]

The purpose of education doesnt have to be 'getting a job' - learning interesting new things can be an end in itself.

The purpose of investing money into anything, in this case an education, is to get more out of it than you put in. Personally, I'll keep the tens of thousands of dollars and the hundreds of hours I would have otherwise spent on boring classes and inane homework assignments and direct it towards doing something that's actually going to have a decent return on investment, like polishing my writing.

[Sherry]

The purpose of investing money into anything, in this case an education, is to get more out of it than you put in. Personally, I'll keep the tens of thousands of dollars and the hundreds of hours I would have otherwise spent on boring classes and inane homework assignments and direct it towards doing something that's actually going to have a decent return on investment, like polishing my writing.

Well, for you, it may not be worth it to spend all that money to get a degree in English. You can probably find a lot of free resources online in fact. Like you said, if you plan to work for yourself, as in sell only your finished product, you may not run into any issues.

Now, if you want to be a copy writer, a tech writer, a journalist, you probably would need some formal, verifiable training. (I said probably because there are always exceptions to these rules.) I am a Recruiter by trade, and no, I didn't finish college. BUT, when I fell into my field, it was at a time before the internet bubble burst and anyone with a pulse was allowed to become a Recruiter. (Lucky for me). When that bubble burst, unproductice companies started laying off...I was able to hold on to my job, but I would have never been able to find another one at the time because I had no degree and that was one of the standard requirements. Most of what I learned in college has helped me. I say most, because I was all over the map and couldn't decide what I wanted to have for a major so took some course that were not relevent. I was self employed for 2 years too...and those courses did help me in that endeavor as well.

I don't think we should be discounting someone wanting to complete college just for the sake of learning either, if that is something they value.

Anyway...back on the subject of lazy kids: It doesn't matter what time period we are in. Are kids lazier than they were when I was a teenager? I think the difference is perhaps a lot of the activities they do for leisure are less physical. Most of my friends and I were outside playing baseball, football, basketball, running through the woods, causes mischief, and being general juvenile deliquents. A lot of the same kids today are home, not getting in trouble, but sitting in front of the computer playing World of Warcraft or yaking on MySpace. So it it is just different leisure activities. If the parents tell the kids when they are young..."hey little fat Tommy, you have to run around outside for 30 minutes before you spend 6 hours on Mario Kart" then it probably wouldn't seem so bad.

I think most teenagers would rise to a challenge if given one. I think the years between 13 and 25 are wierd. You have such varying degrees of maturity in people. Some people have amazing abilitiest to start understanding concepts and taking responsbility at a young age, other people are still living based on their hormones when they are 30. It varies from person to person.

I don't know most of the young'ns here, but I am very impressed with most of you. I don't agree with everyone, but I think it is great how well most of you express yourself.

K...enough sucking up to you all ...I need to go feed my own kids.

[tobyk100]

I'm a Sophmore in High School and I'm not lazy at all. As I sit through my english class and hear my teacher say, "Seeing is not knowing, sometimes you just look at something or read something and you know what it means without putting it into words," I think about how I could out in the real world managing my families apartment buildings. But I get straight A's. Why? Because my parents tell me to. Once I'm 18 my formal DEeducation is over and I begin to learn.

I'll be the first one in my college prep school to NOT go to college, oh I can't wait to see their faces.

[JMeganSnow]

I don't think we should be discounting someone wanting to complete college just for the sake of learning either, if that is something they value.

First I ask them why they value learning, how college helps them attain that goal, how it's better than the alternatives (borrowing books from the library and reading them, for one), and what they plan to do with their learning once they've got it. There's no such thing as a value that exists in a vacuum. If you've got good reasons, that's wonderful. College it is. If you don't, I'm discounting your opinions.

P.S. the place I work currently has some fabulous on-the-job training, because you have to have a massive amount of extremely specialized knowledge to do the job, but the nature of the work is such that it'd be absurd to hire degreed professionals to do it.

That applies to a lot of jobs, now that I think of it: construction, carpentry, machining, plumbing, HVAC, sales, truck driving . . .

My desk job gave me swivel-chair spread and massive amounts of stress. I like my new physical job much better; at the end of the day I can see what I've made to earn my money, and I'm not exhausted with looking at a computer, so I can go home and read or write for fun. To each their own.

[Sherry]

First I ask them why they value learning, how college helps them attain that goal, how it's better than the alternatives (borrowing books from the library and reading them, for one), and what they plan to do with their learning once they've got it. There's no such thing as a value that exists in a vacuum. If you've got good reasons, that's wonderful. College it is. If you don't, I'm discounting your opinions.

Okay, I see what you are saying..just boiling it down to the root of why are you going to college. Don't go if you don't know what your reason or purpose is to go.

[EC]

Okay, I see what you are saying..just boiling it down to the root of why are you going to college. Don't go if you don't know what your reason or purpose is to go.

This was my point in the other thread about college, that eveyone kept missing or twisting around. Or more likely I didn't communicate very well.

[Illuminaughty]

The reason more younger people are lazy today is a combination of technology and a societal standard of not standing up to your children.

[Inspector]

I think for further exploration of this topic, a good avenue of inquiry would be: to what extent is our society as a whole becoming "lazy?" As our society becomes more complex and our division of labor more extensive, are people losing touch with the cold, harsh facts of survival? Is the reality of the alternative to our wealthy and prosperous society becoming so inconcievable and unimaginable that we no longer fear it as we should? Does our civilization risk losing the values by which our forefathers acted to gain and keep this wealth?

I've heard comparisons to the Athenians made in a few blogs that this site links, and they have fascinated me. It's a key to understanding how such patently absurd ideologies as nature-worship and pacifism can be passed off without a second glance today. To someone who actually has to live facing bare survival, such ideas are unthinkable. It's kind of like the incidence of obesity: a society has to attain a certain level of prosperity to even begin suffering from it.

[tommyedison]

I think for further exploration of this topic, a good avenue of inquiry would be: to what extent is our society as a whole becoming "lazy?" As our society becomes more complex and our division of labor more extensive, are people losing touch with the cold, harsh facts of survival? Is the reality of the alternative to our wealthy and prosperous society becoming so inconcievable and unimaginable that we no longer fear it as we should?

It is the lack of a proper philosophy that is causing the disintegration. I don't think that the complexity of the society or the division of labor has anything to do with it.

[JASKN]

It is the lack of a proper philosophy that is causing the disintegration. I don't think that the complexity of the society or the division of labor has anything to do with it.

I disagree, although obviously philosophy has something to do with everything. Inspector, I think you're right, and your obesity observation is on point. I was recently arguing with one of my university classes against government intervention in oil prices. My efforts were stunted by their complete refusal to imagine a life void of some basic luxuries, like a grocery store, or a car. Edited April 29, 2006 by JASKN

[Inspector]

I think it is this fellow to whom I was referring earlier. Especially this article.

[Inspector]

My efforts were stunted by their complete refusal to imagine a life void of some basic luxuries, like a grocery store, or a car.

Yes, that's precisely what I mean. In my example of Pacifists, they are to used to their freedom and law (which they spit on, BTW) that they are incapable of imagining true barbarians: those who are willing to murder, rape, and enslave them. The same can be said of the multiculturalists, who are especially rampant in Europe. The result is maddening, infuriating injustice.

The same phenomenon enables the nature-worshippers, who simply can't imagine the sheer misery of the society they advocate. (well, most of them can't imagine it... some actually want it)

Yes, the cause is philosophical: a proper philosophy would bolster us against such "diseases." But I think it operates on a particularly deep level of philosophy. That is, very very deep within one's psychology or philosophy. I don't know if it is best called, "lazyness," or "softness," or perhaps something else.

Edited April 29, 2006 by Inspector