So does it work? Are the newer generations more computer savvy than the rest of us?
- Do they read at an earlier age and write with a more expansive vocabulary at their demand? Not in the slightest - at least as far as I can observe. As a matter of fact, it appears that the traditional vocabulary (i.e. based on words you'll find in a dictionary) is increasingly eschewed in favor of abbreviated, MSN-optimized language. Cool if you're on MSN, not so useful if you're writing a term paper, report, exam, application or other real-life applications.
- Language skills? For sure, the command of the English language has improved over the generations, but how much of this is caused by internet and how much is caused by general influence of foreign (particularly American) culture is hard to know.
- Logic and problem solving? Not at the university level - courses based around formulating a problem into sets of equations are perceived as harder by the newer generations of students.
- Programming? So not true at the university level - because of the increasingly user-friendly interfaces, programming skills are down.
- Hand-eye coordination? Probably, but only with respect to application in computer games - this is a very specialized skill after all....
- General computer skills (i.e. Office): Can't really say I've noticed a difference. The standard settings in Excel and PowerPoint generally prevail......
..I'm sure they rule at owning people on the internet, though
Posts
12 comments:
You're right Grandpa it was better when we sent letters
MAAAAAAAAAAAAAATLOOOOOOCKKK...
Are you saying that playing computer games has helped you develop in any way, shape or form which is beneficial for your professional status?
No but you can't say that word or powerpoint are not useful tools that you use everyday
What I said was that despite the fact that computers are used early on, including Office, we do not see any marked improvements in the use of for example Excel, Word or PowerPoint. For example, surprisingly few can make a macro in Excel, despite having used the program for quite a long time.
Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Well I won't join in the battle of Matlock vs Cyberpunk, but I have a comment to the original post.
This is a typical example of the modern misconception of learning. Yes, it is true that we have special abilities to learn things at a very young age, and that this ability gets weaker as we get old. But this has lead to the illusion that if you place a device in front of a kid, be it a computer, football or musical instrument, they well learn it in no time and become masters of it when they are adult. Of course, if you see world class virtuous violinist, they all started playing music very early. But the point that many (parents?) misses, is that those people also had a huge interest in music. And that is the key here. Putting a computer in front of a kid that only wants to go out and play football, does not make him a four-eyed nerd in two months.
So it is rather stupid to think that people will master word and excel, just because the love chatting with their friends on MSN or playing PC games. But, for kids that have an interest in computers and how they work, they can learn a lot from having the right equipment.
Precisely. The kids who become better at it are the kids who probably would've been interested in computers and such in the first place. Entry-level "user" courses in standard software such as Word, etc. are offered at the universities, which is quite telling, methinks.
The kids who grow up to be virtuosos have been through a very rigorous practicing routine in addition to having talent and interest.
MAAAAAAAAAATLOOOOOCCCCCCKKKK!!!
"No but you can't say that word or powerpoint are not useful tools that you use everyday"
http://www.idblog.org/images/dilbert8-9.gif
Damn
Scott Adams rules!
"Economy of Content" is something you see all too often at conferences. While I absolutely agree that posters clogged with text and equations suck, posters comprised of a title, a hyooge school logo, one figure, acknowledgements and a background made up from a composite AFM/Hello Kitty image aren't exactly the epitome of style either.
Good design should remove the clutter (e.g. from a poster) and focus on the important aspect. This includes all logos and figures etc, but also the summary. A good poster should be so focused that you don't really need any other summary then the title.
And of course, Hello Kitty images should be used spares and only at highly relevant places (i.e. on “The use of Hello Kitty icons in the fashion industry as social status indicator in the post-industrialized society”-posters and such)...
...a good poster needs to convey the following message: Old/Other technologies = BAD. Whatever I present = GOOD. Follow up with supporting smileys, and point to the mouth region for the graphical display of other vs. your stuff. Bonus points if you show a figure of an exponential increase in revenue as a function of time upon implementing your technology.
It's been quiet here lately. Where are the highly controversial new posts, like "Evaluating Art. Part Quattro - Actors gone politicans", "Eurovision Song Contest: Hidden Musical Gem or Undercover Gay Festival?" or "Old School - Hopelessly Outdated or the new retro?"
Post a Comment