A song about Millennials...

[mjr]

Acapella...sung to the tune of "O Bla Di, O Bla Da" by The Beatles...

"Gotta Love Millennials".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpE...ature=youtu.be

There's a lesson in there somewhere...

[Kheldarson]

There's a lesson in there somewhere...

You mean beyond the fact that the singer's a jerk? There really isn't. Nothing he sang about is really a problem, so all he sounds like is the age old "get off my lawn" elder who doesn't see himself in the younger generation anymore.

[mjr]

You mean beyond the fact that the singer's a jerk? There really isn't. Nothing he sang about is really a problem, so all he sounds like is the age old "get off my lawn" elder who doesn't see himself in the younger generation anymore.

Read the description of the video. It was actually a video that led to a discussion about stereotyping millennials.

[Rageaholic]

Eh he's a good singer (for a one man accapella), but hating on millennials is a tired cliche.

[mjr]

hating on millennials is a tired cliche.

Stereotypes are sometimes based in truth.

In my opinion, "Everyone gets a trophy!" is NOT a good thing. It sends a bad message and teaches a bad lesson.

It's like the parent of a football player here in Texas a couple of years back who actually filed a bullying complaint against an opposing team's coach, because his team lost 91-0. He felt the coach was BULLYING his overmatched team.

Or perhaps the stories I've read about how the parents of some millennials are calling workplaces to see why Junior didn't get a job there, or why the manager is being mean to them.

Or the schools who grade in purple because red makes kids "feel bad".

Or maybe schools who set a "floor" for grades for kids. Barring something unforeseen, why should you get a 50 or 60 for NOT turning in an assignment?

You're gonna have a hard time convincing me those things are GOOD.

There's a Latin phrase that reads: "Non scholæ sed vitæ discimus", which basically translates to: "We do not learn for school, but for life".

We are, literally, teaching our kids the wrong lessons.

[s_stabeler]

-everyone gets a trophy IS irritating, I agree. However, it's hardy new.
- the 91-0 game might actually have elements of bullying in it, to be blunt. (if they are THAT different in skill, there should probably either be a mercy rule- where the game gets called early if the score is getting ridiculously lopsided- or the more skilled team should play games against teams of their own skill level. Games are supposed to be fun, and one side getting steamrollered is no fun for either side.)
-parents of millenials aren't exatly the fault of those millennials- and often, said millennial is heartil; sick of their dumbass parent causing them problems.
-schools banning red ink is, admittedly, stupid.
- grade floors... to be honest, provided it's possible to fail an assignment, I don't nessecarily see it as a bad thing,

Also, none of those things are either exclusive to millennials, or even more common among milennials than other generations. It's just the millennials are the latest generation. Much the same complaints occurred previously. (indeed, pretty much the exact list of complaints was recorded by (I think it was) Plato or Socrates.)

[mjr]

- the 91-0 game might actually have elements of bullying in it, to be blunt. (if they are THAT different in skill, there should probably either be a mercy rule- where the game gets called early if the score is getting ridiculously lopsided- or the more skilled team should play games against teams of their own skill level. Games are supposed to be fun, and one side getting steamrollered is no fun for either side.)

In this instance, the coach of the winning team took his starters out halfway through the second quarter. I think at that point they were already leading 35-0. And they'd only run 5 or 6 plays at that time. I think he was down to his third stringers (or maybe fourth stringers) after halftime. He'd essentially run out of "extra" players to play. And aside from punting on 1st down, there wasn't really much he could do about it.

There is a "Mercy Rule" in Texas High School football. But only at the 6-man level. These two teams played at the second-highest level (5A), where there is no "mercy" rule, though coaches can agree to a "running clock" (i.e. the clock keeps running when it would normally stop).

The governing body was the one who set that particular part of the schedule. This team, however, was steamrolling EVERYONE they played. They were averaging 60+ points per game.

I know other governing bodies have "mercy rules" that if you violate them (or if you win by too much) the coach can actually be suspended and/or fined for the next game.

The team that got beat was just severely mismatched.

[Daskinor]

Stereotypes are sometimes based in truth.

In my opinion, "Everyone gets a trophy!" is NOT a good thing. It sends a bad message and teaches a bad lesson.

It's like the parent of a football player here in Texas a couple of years back who actually filed a bullying complaint against an opposing team's coach, because his team lost 91-0. He felt the coach was BULLYING his overmatched team.

Or perhaps the stories I've read about how the parents of some millennials are calling workplaces to see why Junior didn't get a job there, or why the manager is being mean to them.

Or the schools who grade in purple because red makes kids "feel bad".

Or maybe schools who set a "floor" for grades for kids. Barring something unforeseen, why should you get a 50 or 60 for NOT turning in an assignment?

You're gonna have a hard time convincing me those things are GOOD.

There's a Latin phrase that reads: "Non scholæ sed vitæ discimus", which basically translates to: "We do not learn for school, but for life".

We are, literally, teaching our kids the wrong lessons.

1. Been going on way longer then just with millennials, participation 'trophies' just became more common when they got cheaper to make as opposed to ribbons or certificates.

And while everyone has a theory how this somehow is almost child abuse. Almost every study on the subject is that kids knows they got the consolation prize worth nothing. To them its a memento at best.

In some ways the opposite is worse, making a child believe that winning is the most important aspect of playing a game. The real world is harsh enough, but to teach a child that the only way to enjoy something is by winning at it should not be one of these things.

2. Crap like this has been going on in Texas since the 1930s. In fact it seems reciprocal because in the 1960s the self esteem movement was in full swing. And of course the same complaints broke out.

3. Again nothing new, I would wager this crap started up in the 1920s when kids suddenly had free time. And parents arranged jobs for their children.

4. Who cares, should they all be red, black, blue, green, purple. Does it really matter in the end. The child can still see they got something right or wrong. The whole thing stems from a study done in 2006, school started adopting it in 2008 and most continue with the practice because it seems to work.

The reality is we want kids to do better in school, not to fear the evil of a red pen.

5. Popular at lower school levels, you want kids to be able to rebound from a situation and see they can still succeed at their studies. This again is allot of really smart people who spend years trying to figure out how to make a more educated populous in a country where information is starting to be the chief export.

6. No we are teaching our kids different life lessons for a world that is substantially different then it was when we were kids. We know things now that our parents did not.

This is not some past idealized, do you think kids in the 60s taught their children the same things after the cultural revolution or the civil rights movement.

In the end all the hate on millennials is the same complaints the previous generation had when you entered the work force, but there was no internet for bitching about you. Values change so quickly that the older fall out of touch with the younger, creating this gulf.

[Estil]

In my opinion, "Everyone gets a trophy!" is NOT a good thing. It sends a bad message and teaches a bad lesson.

It's like the parent of a football player here in Texas a couple of years back who actually filed a bullying complaint against an opposing team's coach, because his team lost 91-0. He felt the coach was BULLYING his overmatched team.

Or the schools who grade in purple because red makes kids "feel bad".

Or maybe schools who set a "floor" for grades for kids. Barring something unforeseen, why should you get a 50 or 60 for NOT turning in an assignment?

1. Kids are not stupid. They know the difference between a trophy/ribbon/etc that's truly worth earning and the "everyone gets the same size/color no matter what", which of course often get put in what they are, garbage :P

2. Let me guess, the coach put in all the second stringers, "Rudys", etc (always a smart move in a blowout so they get valuable playing time/experience) as soon as the game was indeed becoming a blowout, but still did the complaint anyway :P And if the opposing coach doesn't like it, it's called try harder next time! :P

3. You can make an F whatever color you want, but it's still an F. :P

4. I don't even know what to say on that one.

[mjr]

1. Kids are not stupid. They know the difference between a trophy/ribbon/etc that's truly worth earning and the "everyone gets the same size/color no matter what", which of course often get put in what they are, garbage :P

Then why hand out the "everyone gets a trophy" trophies?

2. Let me guess, the coach put in all the second stringers, "Rudys", etc (always a smart move in a blowout so they get valuable playing time/experience) as soon as the game was indeed becoming a blowout, but still did the complaint anyway :P And if the opposing coach doesn't like it, it's called try harder next time! :P

Well, kind of. In this case, Team A was already winning something like 35-0 in the first quarter. So the coach put his #2 players in. By the 3rd quarter, he put in the remainder of his guys (third stringers or more).

It was a parent of a kid on the losing team that filed the complaint -- not a coach. Unfortunately, the school district had to waste time and money "investigating" the complaint.

[Kheldarson]

4. I don't even know what to say on that one.

I'm an education major so let me explain.

School is a training ground for the real world. We teach our students a number of things through formal and practical means, ranging from time management skills to history to researching. The school is a place where we show kids what society expects of them and, ostensibly, how they can succeed.

Schools are also a place where you can learn to fail without major consequences. The longer you fail, the harder it is to succeed, but there are a lot of stop gaps at the primary and secondary levels to try to help catch you. Because we want to teach students how to come back from failure. Which means we want to show them success at the end.

So if I don't have a grade cap and a kid decides not to turn in assignments, he starts getting 0s. Just one 0 means that the next two 100s are going to be spent bringing that 0 to barely passing (avg of 200 between 3 grades is 67). After so many 0s, the child sees there's no point in recovering: they won't even get back to barely passing. So why try?

Lesson learned: eventually all you can do is fail. Not the lesson we want to teach, as set forth above.

So we set a grade cap. A 60. It's still a failing grade, but now we've provided a chance for success. One 60 can be brought to a C by a 100. It takes 5 to 6 60s to weigh a single 100 down to a failing average.

Lesson learned: even if you screw up, if you work hard enough, you can recover.

That's consistent with the lessons we want school to teach and gives students a greater incentive to try.

[mjr]

So if I don't have a grade cap and a kid decides not to turn in assignments, he starts getting 0s.

Key word there: decides. Perhaps you mean "forgets".

Lesson learned: eventually all you can do is fail. Not the lesson we want to teach, as set forth above.

Other lesson: Maybe I should turn in my assignments. Put a little effort into them. I've never known someone who put any type of effort into their work who got a 0.

That's consistent with the lessons we want school to teach and gives students a greater incentive to try.

Non scholae sed vitae.

[Daskinor]

Then why hand out the "everyone gets a trophy" trophies?

Fine,

This is a multifaceted idea that normally gets broken down into a sound bite. The opinions on this generally range from; "a way to make your child soft and unambitious for the rest of their lives." To "a way to reinforce the lessons of the sport and encourage the child to continue playing."

Generally the practice is done at the 'junior' levels, in this case sports done by 11 years old and younger. After that the practice tends to decline sharply as the children get older. This is a generality, as the practice varies widely by sport and region. This practice has been going for over 50 years at this point with only what is given out changing over the years. Some sports (like running) it’s part of the culture, others awards are rarely given out.

As stated above the arguments generally fall into these camps;

-It does not prepare children for the real world

-It helps children succeed in the real world

And lastly and the most popular argument

-It does not matter


The first argument generally relies on a fallacy that organized sports are somehow are a good approximation of the real world. The main lesson that is supposedly taught; "You can try your hardest, and still lose." However when this ideology with parents was researched from interviews another common thread emerged. That there children would not try hard enough 'to win' if they knew they were getting a prize anyway. To these parents ‘Winning’ was the most important thing about sports.

However when children were interviewed the thought of getting a trophy was barley even a thought. Winning was almost important as 'their parents approval and praise'. Children who were in leagues that did not give out participation trophies gave almost the same answers.

Second the lesson “You can try your hardest, and still lose” is not guaranteed to be taught and in itself is a fallacy in the context of child sports. What if the team wins every game, but is simply carried by other children better at the game then they are. What lesion is being learned there? To simply walk in the shadows of better people.

Why do we give out trophies then? Because it makes children happy. It helps them feel appreciated and that they accomplished something. Makes children more excited about playing the sport and gives them a memento of their time playing they can focus memories on. If done right when given it can be used to highlight the child’s individual growth and accomplishments.
We give children too little credit sometimes when we make assumptions on how they see trophies like this. Is it an award or a memento to them? Depending on the child it’s a little of both, they know it’s a consolation prize. That the team that won is going to get bigger trophies and the children who did the best are going to get special awards. But how can one say they did not accomplish anything.
The accomplishment is that they played all the games they were able to, practiced with and supported their teams. Things we want kids to do when they grow up; work hard; get along with and help others. Why shouldn’t we award that, it’s what we expect of them in real life.

In roughly 4 months I am going to run 26 miles around the city of Baltimore. I have been training for this for 2 years. I am not going to win, in fact if I can do it in 4 hours I will be very happy with myself. At the end I am going to get the same participation prize that everyone else is going to get. I know that I accomplished something, but I did not win at it. The running metal is going to go in a frame to remind me that this was the first time I was able to do this thing, run a marathon. And it is no different than a participation trophy is to a child. The difference between my running medal and the child’s small trophy is in our minds. We know how much effort we put into something and that allows us to assign it a value to ourselves. I have lots of 5k, 10k and half-marathon metals. They go on pegs in my office, the marathon one is going to get special treatment if I get it only because I assign it more worth to myself.

And lastly is the vast majority of people looking into this arguments is the, who cares group. That this whole argument is much ado about nothing because life is the combination of allot of little lessons over many years. These people operate under the belief that one action is not going to adversely change their child good or bad. There are many ways to encourage children to try hard, and a piece of cheap marble with plastic on top, no matter how big it is, is only one of them.

[Kheldarson]

Key word there: decides. Perhaps you mean "forgets".

Same difference. Some legitimately forget. Some don't care. Some would've done the work, but had things come up in their family life. Some just decide it's not a class they care about.

Other lesson: Maybe I should turn in my assignments. Put a little effort into them. I've never known someone who put any type of effort into their work who got a 0.

I have! I'm one of them. Straight A student. Except one nine weeks I couldn't be damned to care about the only assignment my teacher gave us. Only D/F slip I ever brought hime. Mom made me work my butt off to actually do it and turn it in with no guarantee that I'd get a better grade. Teacher was nice and averaged the two grades. But the F had been below a 60. So even with the high A the second paper pulled, it was still putting me in danger of failing that nine weeks.

I busted ass and pulled in every A and bonus point I could to get back to that A.

I've known other students to do the same.

You never know what's going to serve as the wake up call. So, yes, you can still fail, but the purpose is to always have the door open to success if you even try.

Non scholae sed vitae.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that the lessons we teach in school, like how to be successful or not, are reflections of the real world. Scale model. So, yes, we make things a bit easier because they're kids and kids are dumbasses. But if you have a kid who consistently fails and sees no way of ever getting out of failure (since too many 0s mean that you eventually can never get above a failing) then we teach them nothing but failure. And that's unacceptable.

[s_stabeler]

The idea of a grade cap is to make it so that a single assignment can't functionally cap the grade you can get for the course. (what i mean is that the average course has a certain number of assessments that affect the final grade. If there is a big spread of available marks, and a low number of assessments, a single 0 could make it functionally impossible to pass the course. (most universities require at least a 2.0 GPA to graduate, which translates into a 70% mark. If you have 5 graded assessments per course, that means that if you get a 0 on ONE assignment, you need to get the rest near-perfect to avoid failing the course entirely. (you would need a score of 97.5% on the remaining assignments to pass the course. If there was a cap of 60%- so a missing assignment would be marked as having got 60%- then the remaining assignments would need to be 72.5% for the student to pass the course- which is a far more realistic proposition, and is more in line with it being slightly harder to get a good grade if you skip an assignment.)

Not to mention that that ONE missed assignment would cap your grade at C. I have mad teachers before that would give you 0 if an assignment wasn't in on time regardless of reason.

In short, a sensible grade cap means that a single 0 can't force you to work absolutely perfectly in order to graduate. If you KEEP skipping assignments, you will get closer and closer to failing regardless, while an otherwise good student isn't relegated to a poor score for a single screwup.

or, to make the point clearer: college is meant to be challenging, but it shouldn't require absolute perfection, especially when kids do, in fact, do stupid crap. While you shouldn't be able to coast through college, you should also not be penalized for a single mistake, especially when a failed class can mean either needing a heavier course load when you can retake- increasing the chance of another failure- or taking an extra year to complete your degree, costing you more money.