Bauerlein's The Dumbest Generation is at once an attack on the Millennial generation (those born roughly between 1980 and 2000) and on the effects of digital technologies. Some of his main arguments include that the Millennials have unprecedented access to information, but know very little about civics, art, and science, and that absorption in the new technologies, particularly computer technologies, have shortened attention spans, degraded literacy, and created a more insular youth culture. None of these assertions are particularly novel. Critics of the digital age have been voicing these predictions for years. Bauerlein does attempt to back up his argument by citing a wealth of statistics that show reduced scores on various knowledge tests and literacy measures over time. Of course, causality in the social sciences is extremely difficult to prove, and the meaning of Bauerlein's statistics is certainly open for debate.



I can tolerate the ambiguity of correlation versus causality, but even leaving aside the statistics, I couldn't help feeling that The Dumbest Generation still seemed to paint a rather skewed portrait of the Millennial generation. Finally I realized that when he stopped citing studies, Bauerlein often launches into a variation on a single rant over and over again throughout the book: kids do not follow the news and are not politically active; they fill their time with mindless entertainment and socializing; they only value education if it is immediately practical; they fail to read classic novels, visit museums, and listen to serious music. When I think of most of the people under 30 I know, I cannot argue that this is largely true. But then I think of the people I know in their 40's, 50's, and 60's. And guess what? I will admit that they do watch the news faithfully, certainly much more than most teenagers. But it doesn't necessarily translate into complex political discussions, and many do not vote. Most of them value education for vocational purposes, but distrust intellectuals. Most of them are more interested in "The Biggest Loser" and "American Idol" than in high culture.



Is my characterization of the over 30 crowd unrepresentative and unfair? Most likely, yes. Is Bauerlein's implied contrast to the "dumbest generation" any more representative? I highly doubt it. The average probably lies somewhere in between ignorant couch potatoes and cultured sages. Bauerlein however does not attempt to prove that the older generations are on average smarter than the Millennials. He lets the implied contrast stand, a contrast that seems to pit an average, stereotyped teenager against a minority of well-educated adults. The inconsistency of such an argument stands out all the more when Bauerlein frequently decries citing exceptional young people - technical prodigies, for example - as proof that the world is not going to hell in a hand basket.



Bauerlein brings up a few interesting points throughout the text. Had he chosen to discuss anti-intellectualism in general, or even the effects of exposure to digital technologies on learning without all of the emotional scapegoating, the book might have been worthwhile. As it is he took the cheap and sensational route, packaging his argument to appeal to the reflexive and age-old prejudice of elders against youth.