{"id":581,"date":"2014-12-01T21:56:09","date_gmt":"2014-12-01T21:56:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/?page_id=581"},"modified":"2015-08-12T15:56:22","modified_gmt":"2015-08-12T15:56:22","slug":"generation-me-book-review","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/?page_id=581","title":{"rendered":"Generation Me – Book Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled–and More Miserable than Ever Before<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Jean Twenge, 2006<\/p>\n

San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge won vast media accolades in 2007 for fulminations that \u201cmore kids these days are behaving badly,\u201d with a \u201cdecline in manners and politeness,\u201d \u201crise in narcissism,\u201d and \u201cdisrespect for teachers\u201d (pages 26, 71). By the time this is published, will have been replaced like an overplayed Top 40 hit by the latest cloned youth-basher who manages to disgorge exactly the same thing.<\/p>\n

Unlike other youth-bashers, Twenge at least mentions some real problems: \u201cGeneration Me\u201d (teens and young adults of the 1990s and 2000s) bears crushing education debt, health costs, and housing costs, will (with few exceptions) never own homes, and will (she might have added) be the first Americans to be poorer (much poorer) than their parents. But never mind these genuine economic and social crises afflicting millions of young. Twenge insists the worst \u201cmonster\u201d is… young people enjoy \u201ctoo much self esteem.\u201d Since (obviously!) modern youth could have no legitimate reason<\/em><\/strong> to feel good about themselves, Twenge claims \u201cthey were taught it\u201d by indulgent school programs and consumerist media (page 53). This school-injected, unearned youthful self-love is driving \u201cnew\u201d epidemics of social disorder, disconnection, \u201chooking up,\u201d upstart students, cheating, depression, and \u201cdangers that were once unknown\u201d (page 134).<\/p>\n

About three-fourths of Generation Me<\/em> represents this kind of breathless sensationalism: selected asides from news clippings, quips from television shows, anecdotes, and unsupported assertions Twenge\u2019s introduction admits she clipped news and popular press stories because they supported her views. Imagine if an author used this same pick-and-choose tactic of media citation to assemble evidence for a book on how criminal and violent (say) Latinos are; living in San Diego, she most assuredly could fill a dossier of news stories and broadcast quotes on crimes by the Spanish-surnamed while ignoring crimes by other ethnicities. Twenge, like others, takes full advantage of tactics that would be condemned as crude bigotry if applied to other groups.<\/p>\n

Twenge rightly admits that the popular media hype \u201cflimsy statistics and nonexistent trends,\u201d \u201cmythology,\u201d and \u201cunmitigated crap\u201d (pages 199-200). She then turns around and uncritically cites press luridness about youth as proof of the \u201cdecline in manners and politeness,\u201d the decline in \u201cparental authority,\u201d \u201ceroding respect for authority\u201d (pages 26-28) and hackneyed complaints by teachers and employers that every new generation has heard. She supplements news clippings with anecdotes of self-important, anti-social, media-corrupted youth supplanting yesterday\u2019s young, who are imagined to have been polite, honest, dutiful, \u201cinternally controlled\u201d romantics. All of these complaints, phrased in the terms of their time, are thousands of years old.<\/p>\n

In the sacred 1950s, I heard of the most vicious, racist public speech, grownups shrieking obscenities and black children going into newly integrated white schools, lynchings, epidemics of drunken driving and forced breathing of others\u2019 tobacco smoke in public, the acceptability of men beating wives and children, gangfights after every high school football game, gang rapes that victims were afraid to report, adding up to a primitive lack of \u201csocial rules\u201d that have become stricter in subsequent decades\u2014let\u2019s face it, if Twenge and modern youth-bashers can tell stories, Fifties-bashers can tell stories as well.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 1994 movie Clerks<\/em> is a pretty accurate illustration of how young people talk, with about two swear words in every line\u201d is a standard example of Twenge\u2019s disdain for scholarship and eagerness to stereotype a highly diverse younger generation (page 40). In a stunning triple obtusity, she quotes fictional television and movie dialogue scripted by Boomers (which she dubs \u201cGeneration Prude\u201d) as the real way today\u2019s \u201cyoung people [\u2018Generation Crude\u2019] talk.\u201d She recommends more discipline, counseling, and modest liberal reforms that, in psychology\u2019s worst tradition of blame-fixing and promoting passive adaptation to social injustice, amount to urging young people to accept the severe economic oppression imposed on them. Twenge\u2019s promotion of younger-generation passivity towards intergenerational economic attritions even she agrees are real is deeply destructive.<\/p>\n

Unlike others, however, Twenge does offer some original research asserting that \u201cGeneration Me\u201d represents a \u201cprofound shift in American character.\u201d Unfortunately, it consists largely of inconsistent meta-comparisons of dubiously comparable surveys of self-reported behaviors by youth today with surveys (or, worse, memories) of the youth of yore. The problem with Twenge\u2019s approach becomes evident in her introduction and final methods chapter. Her method is to compare surveys of different populations done under different conditions over time, few of which are consistent even in the questions asked. On top of that, Twenge lends her own, always-negative interpretations.<\/p>\n

For one example of many, note how Twenge justifies her claim that \u201ccheating in school has\u2026increased. In 2002, 74% of high school students admitted cheating, up from 61% in 1992,\u201d she reports. \u201cIn 1969, only 34% of high school students admitted cheating, less than half of the 2002 number\u201d (page 27). Not only do these numbers come from very different sources that defy comparability, they can be interpreted in two radically different ways. One could argue they represent a real increase in cheating over time, or that they represent a real increase in honesty about defining and acknowledging dishonest behaviors\u2014that is, an increase in honesty about one\u2019s dishonesty. That students of 1969 may have refused to define their cheating as rigorously as we define it, or refused to admit their cheating as candidly, as students do today, is an alternative conclusion amply supported by Twenge\u2019s own characterizations of other differences between 1960s and today\u2019s youth.<\/p>\n

That is, Twenge\u2019s conclusion that past generations valued community, conformity to others\u2019 opinions, and \u201cstrict social rules\u201d while today\u2019s young revere individuality and directness dodges the complication that cultural teachings go both ways. Extending Twenge\u2019s logic, the frankly admitted sins of today\u2019s young could result from their being \u201ctaught\u201d self-gratifying introspection while past generations\u2019 lower rates of self-reported sex, school cheating, and depression likewise might reflect their being \u201ctaught\u201d \u201cthe \u201cneed for social approval\u201d rather than honestly confessing disapproved behaviors. Today\u2019s healthier tolerances for candor, racial diversity, women\u2019s rights, and human flaws, and rejection of the past\u2019s sexual hypocrisies and harsh stigmas against mental illness, hardly evidence a \u201cdecline of social rules.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Twenge argues that today\u2019s youth represent an \u201cage of anxiety (and depression and loneliness),\u201d the title of chapter 4. To these charges, she adds the charges of materialism, obsession with appearance, stress, externality, cynicism, and narcissism. What\u2019s her evidence?<\/p>\n

One the anxiety and loneliness questions: zero. Twenge tosses in some quotes from television shows and books, news anecdotes, and citations from impeccable sources like People<\/em> magazine and 7th<\/sup> Heaven<\/em>. She could have cited the report of the American Youth Commission, which found 75% of the 100,000 young men studied \u201cwere suffering from some health defect induced mainly by mental anxiety.\u201d No, wait; that was said in 1935\u2026 about the youth we now call the \u201cGreatest Generation.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the issue of obsession with appearance, Twenge is quick to indict younger people no matter what they say. \u201cIn 2004, 8% of twelfth-grade boys admitted to using steroids,\u201d she says (page 94), without explaining how the 8% represent an entire generation. (Twenge\u2019s \u201csource\u201d for this statement is People<\/em> magazine. However, our most reliable survey, Monitoring the Future, shows 5% of high school senior boys had ever<\/em> used steroids in their lives.) Likewise, the fact that MTV has a show on plastic surgery for young people is held up as evidence of \u201cGeneration Me\u201d obsession with looks. Strangely, Twenge fails to mention that fewer than 2% of the 11.5 million medically unnecessary cosmetic surgeries in 2005 were on teenagers (175,000, a large decline); some 75% were on persons 35 and older (some 8 million, a number that is skyrocketing; see Table –).<\/p>\n

Are teens today more materialistic? Twenge correctly cites the American Freshman and Monitoring the Future surveys (see Table 1) showing that more college and high school students value making money today than in the past. She admits that this could be due to the fact that \u201cnecessities like housing being more expensive\u2014it takes more money to get by now\u2026 Housing, health care, day care, and education costs have all far outstripped inflation\u201d (pages 99, 120). Specifically, today\u2019s college students carry debts averaging $19,000, versus virtually zero 40 years ago. Housing costs consume nearly half of media incomes today, versus less than a third before 1970.<\/p>\n

Thus, students could want to make more money for very practical reasons\u2014to pay their much higher bills\u2014rather than being greedy fashion hounds. Legitimate concerns such as more difficult finances could also account for increases in anxiety. In fact, all of Twenge\u2019s evidence that \u201cmaterialism has increased\u201d consists of entertaining but meaningless quips and anecdotes (\u201cthe coffee choices at Starbucks amount 19,000 combinations\u201d).<\/p>\n

There are two more fascinating nuances. First, while considerably more 12th<\/sup> graders today (62%) say having lots of money is important than in 1975 (46%), all of this increase took place from 1975 to 1985 (61%), with a subsequent decline from 1990 (70%) through 2005. Thus, it could not have been the product of self-esteem education or any recent influence on materialism. Second, the percentage of high school seniors who say they want \u201ca job which provides you with a chance to earn a good deal of money\u201d has not changed in 30 years (86% in 1975, 87% in 2005). Apparently, students in 2005 were not greedier than students in 1975 so much as they were more attuned to the fact that to have money, they were going to have to earn it themselves. Further, 2005 students value \u201cmaking a contribution to society\u201d (65%) much more than their 1975 counterparts (53%) and have backed up that sentiment with record-high levels of volunteering. Students today are not disengaged and self-fixated, as Twenge charges.<\/p>\n

But is she right that more young people are depressed? \u201cOnly 1% to 2% of Americans born before 1915 experienced a major depressive episode during their lifetimes,\u201d she writes, compared to \u201cbetween 15% and 20%\u201d today. But, Twenge then reveals the definition used by studies: \u201cdepression severe enough to warrant medication or long-term therapy\u201d (page 106). How many psychiatrists were around in 1915\u2014an era in which any kind of mental illness was considered a sign of weakness, even sinful? The few who were certainly branded the young were more depressed. In 1913, psychologist Lewis Terman announced an \u201cepidemic of child suicide,\u201d driven by school and social stresses on the young. An exhaustive national report on the adolescent generation described teens as \u201clistless\u2026 melancholic\u2026 confused, disillusioned, and disenchanted\u201d and \u201crapidly approaching psychosis\u201d\u2014in 1936. In 1945, a psychologists\u2019 text warned of \u201cthe seriousness and extent of adolescent problems of adjustment\u2026 at this time, as probably never before.\u201d On and on.<\/p>\n

The more psychologists, the more depression they find. Mental health diagnoses didn\u2019t become popularized until the 1950s, and medications for mental disturbances until the 1960s. Even then, the stigma of mental illness was so great that politicians such as Richard Nixon tried to hide psychiatric treatment or were punished (such as Thomas Eagleton in 1972) by disqualification for office. Comparing the percentages of people on medication or in therapy today, when diagnoses and treatments are pushed by large, aggressive industries, with older people\u2019s vague memories about whether they recollect<\/em> being depressed decades ago is ludicrous.<\/p>\n

Twenge nowhere tells us how the researchers she cites could possibly have controlled for such serious confounds. Instead, she buys self-serving psychiatric\/pharmaceutical industry propaganda that the 600% leap in anti-depressant medication prescriptions from 1987 to 2002 really means Americans of all ages (though she focuses only on young over-esteemers) suddenly got vastly more depressed.<\/p>\n

Well, are young people today lonelier and more isolated, then? Twenge presents no evidence whatsoever for her claim that \u201cthis situation is so dire,\u201d unless you consider random quips from Sex and the City<\/em> or Avenue Q<\/em> (note: these are fictional<\/em> shows). Are modern youth more cynical, alienated, and externalizing (the latter meaning the belief that outside forces control one\u2019s fate)? No evidence there either\u2014just more tales and generally snotty commentary.<\/p>\n

On the question of narcissism, Twenge\u2019s evidence of \u201cself-focus\u201d among \u201cGeneration Me\u201d reveals serious\u2014and unpretty\u2014biases. Once again, skip her silly pages citing Britney Spears, Prudential Insurance ads, and someone\u2019s autobiography and go straight to her research evidence. One might think that a generation that says it \u201cfocused on internal cues,\u201d believed \u201ccreativity comes from within,\u201d and concentrated on \u201cdeveloping a meaningful philosophy of life\u201d would be considered narcissistic. What could be more me-me-me than idealizing one\u2019s own notions over all others\u2019, insisting creativity is internal, and navel-gazing about one\u2019s life? Yet, when it turns out that \u201cGen Me\u201d endorses these notions far less than Boomer youth did, Twenge describes Boomers not as narcissistic, but as \u201cabstract and spiritual\u201d (pages 47-48). As a Boomer, let me add: outasight.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, though, Twenge bestows no such beneficial interpretations to surveys of \u201cGeneration Me.\u201d Where, in earlier pages, she most decidedly did not attribute today\u2019s students\u2019 honesty in acknowledging lying or cheating to refreshing, self-effacing candor, Twenge takes the opposite tack when it comes to self-esteem. In a mean-spirited discussion, she argues that the fact that more students today say they feel good about themselves, responsible, and (mostly) attractive and intelligent are really bad things. Why? Because young people today haven\u2019t done anything to give them the right to feel good about themselves. \u201cBoomer children in the late 1950s and 1960s gained self-esteem naturally from a stable, child-friendly society; Gen Me\u2019s self-esteem has been actively cultivated for its own sake,\u201d she writes (page 55). (Perhaps, if you ignore the doubling in divorce, rampant child poverty, and nightstick-enforced racial segregation, among many child-unfriendly features of the 1955-65 period.)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the problem that self-esteem measures are cyclical. Twenge notes from attitude test scores that \u201cthe average child (ages 9 to 13) in 1979 scored lower than 81% of kids in the mid-1960s\u201d and \u201cthe average kid in the mid-1990s\u2026had higher self-esteem than 73% of the kids in 1979\u201d (pages 52, 53). Perhaps, then, the real self-esteem problem lay with 1979 kids, who felt unusually bad<\/em> about themselves compared to earlier and later generations. And who gets to decree how much self-esteem is too much?<\/p>\n

Skipping several more pages of meaningless anecdotes and assertions from the likes of MTV\u2019s Daria<\/em> and Ladies\u2019 Home Journal<\/em>, we arrive at some actual research on narcissism. \u201cNarcissists are overly focused on themselves and lack empathy for others, which means they cannot see another person\u2019s perspective,\u201d Twenge writes. \u201c(Sound like the last clerk who served you?)\u201d (No, Jean, it does not. The service people I encounter, young and old, typically are wonderful. Maybe your<\/em> perpetually bad attitude toward everyone in the modern age is the common denominator in your bad experiences. Ever factor in that variable?)<\/p>\n

\u201cAll evidence suggests that narcissism is more common in recent generations,\u201d Twenge continues. \u201cIn the early 1950s. only 12% of teens ages 14 to 16 agreed with the statement, \u2018I am an important person.\u2019 By the 1980s, an incredible 80%\u201d (pages 68, 69). If these two surveys three decades apart really polled comparable populations under equivalent conditions (key factors that Twenge doesn\u2019t show), my interpretation was that kids of the 1950s suffered dangerously low levels of self worth. Perhaps their feelings of worthlessness contributed to the massive rise in juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, violent deaths, and sexually transmitted disease featured in the news media, congressional reports, government documentaries, books, and movies of the early 1950s (plenty of anecdotes and quips for Breathless Sensationalism then). In any case, when I asked this question of students I tutor, their first question was, \u201cimportant to who?\u201d It would be heartening that 80% of students today feel important to someone.<\/p>\n

Other questions supposedly establishing narcissism are dubious. For example, Twenge berates GenMe for being more likely to agree (she doesn\u2019t say how many actually do) that, \u201cI have often met people who were supposed to be experts who were no better than I.\u201d She interprets this youthful response to mean: \u201cthose other people don\u2019t know what they\u2019re talking about, so everyone should listen to me\u201d (page 69). I suggest an alternative interpretation: students were better at reading this poorly-worded question than Twenge was. It doesn\u2019t ask whether supposed experts know more<\/em>, but whether they\u2019re \u201cbetter<\/em>.\u201d Better how? Likewise, it\u2019s hard to see how affirmative answers to questions like, \u201cI would be willing to describe myself as a pretty \u2018strong\u2019 personality,\u201d \u201cIf I ruled the world, it would be a better place,\u201d or \u201cI am a special person\u201d demonstrate self-infatuation. I suspect Twenge would have been equally derogatory if students today said they were weak, incompetent, cookie-cutter clones.<\/p>\n

The really big problem Twenge fails to explain is why the best survey diametrically disagrees with her claims. Instead, she ignores disagreeable evidence that today\u2019s teens are happier both with themselves and with things they couldn\u2019t possibly have been just \u201ctaught\u201d to like\u2014and they are much more likely to value contributing to society.<\/p>\n

Once again, we turn to a key source Twenge ignores (Table 1 shows why she ignores it): America\u2019s best and only consistent survey of youth, Monitoring the Future. Whatever the drawbacks of surveys, Monitoring minimizes them by asking the same questions of a consistent sample administered in the same fashion over three decades. Further, Monitoring asks dozens of questions on a wide variety of topics, preventing the biases that can arise when subjects perceive a single purpose to the survey (i.e., identifying depression).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 1. But don\u2019t teens themselves say they\u2019re unhappier, more depressed, and overly full of self-esteem today? NO!<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Percentages of high school seniors telling Monitoring the Future:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Question:<\/td>\n1975\/76<\/td>\n1980<\/td>\n1990<\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n2005<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Happiness<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019m \u201cvery happy\u201d<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n17%<\/td>\n19%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Satisfied with life as a whole<\/td>\n63%<\/td>\n66%<\/td>\n68%<\/td>\n69%<\/td>\n69%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Having fun<\/td>\n66%<\/td>\n68%<\/td>\n69%<\/td>\n68%<\/td>\n69%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Enjoys fast pace and changes of today\u2019s world<\/td>\n44%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n58%<\/td>\n57%<\/td>\n51%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Daily participation in active sports\/exercising<\/td>\n44%<\/td>\n47%<\/td>\n46%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n43%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Self-satisfaction\/narcissism\/caring for others<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Satisfied with self<\/td>\n79%<\/td>\n73%<\/td>\n78%<\/td>\n80%<\/td>\n78%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Takes positive attitude toward self<\/td>\n82%<\/td>\n85%<\/td>\n76%<\/td>\n82%<\/td>\n73%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels \u201cI am a person of worth\u201d<\/td>\n86%<\/td>\n87%<\/td>\n81%<\/td>\n81%<\/td>\n77%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels \u201cI can do things as well as most people\u201d<\/td>\n90%<\/td>\n92%<\/td>\n90%<\/td>\n89%<\/td>\n86%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels person \u201cis master of own fate\u201d<\/td>\n71%<\/td>\n71%<\/td>\n73%<\/td>\n70%<\/td>\n67%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels I can do little to change the world<\/td>\n45%<\/td>\n51%<\/td>\n33%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n37%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Important to be a leader in my community<\/td>\n21%<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n36%<\/td>\n40%<\/td>\n44%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Important to make a contribution to society<\/td>\n53%<\/td>\n53%<\/td>\n60%<\/td>\n59%<\/td>\n65%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Participates in community\/volunteer work 1+\/month<\/td>\n20%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n21%<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Contributes money to community charities<\/td>\n10%<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Wants job with status and prestige<\/td>\n56%<\/td>\n64%<\/td>\n70%<\/td>\n68%<\/td>\n66%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Wants job with provides a lot of money<\/td>\n86%<\/td>\n90%<\/td>\n88%<\/td>\n88%<\/td>\n87%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Wants job with opportunity to help others<\/td>\n85%<\/td>\n84%<\/td>\n83%<\/td>\n80%<\/td>\n81%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Women should have equal job opportunity (males)<\/td>\n71%<\/td>\n70%<\/td>\n76%<\/td>\n81%<\/td>\n87%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Wants to correct social\/economic inequality (whites)<\/td>\n29%<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n36%<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Happier to accept things than create change<\/td>\n36%<\/td>\n36%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n39%<\/td>\n36%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Depression\/pessimism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Dissatisfied with self<\/td>\n12%<\/td>\n10%<\/td>\n13%<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Sometimes thinks \u201cI am no good at all\u201d<\/td>\n26%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n21%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019m \u201cnot too happy\u201d<\/td>\n14%<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n13%<\/td>\n14%<\/td>\n13%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels I am \u201cnot a person of worth\u201d<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n4%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels lonely a lot of the time<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Often feels \u201cleft out of things\u201d<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels there\u2019s usually no one I can talk to<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels \u201cI can\u2019t do anything right\u201d<\/td>\n10%<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n15%<\/td>\n13%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Wishes \u201cI had more good friends\u201d<\/td>\n51%<\/td>\n49%<\/td>\n48%<\/td>\n48%<\/td>\n40%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Not having fun<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n12%<\/td>\n15%<\/td>\n17%<\/td>\n16%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Can\u2019t get ahead because others stop me<\/td>\n22%<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n26%<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Thinks \u201cthings change too quickly\u201d today<\/td>\n53%<\/td>\n54%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n43%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Thinks \u201ctimes ahead of me will be tougher\u201d<\/td>\n50%<\/td>\n55%<\/td>\n48%<\/td>\n41%<\/td>\n41%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Don\u2019t participate in sports\/exercise (<1\/month)<\/td>\n19%<\/td>\n15%<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n19%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 Feels \u201cpeople like me don\u2019t have a chance\u201d<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
*Source: Monitoring the Future, 1975-2005.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

It would be hard to imagine a pattern that more stunningly refutes Twenge\u2019s claims of more misery, depression, anti-sociality, and unwarranted self-esteem and narcissism among modern teenagers.<\/p>\n

First, contrary to her central point that youths today show vastly elevated self-esteem and -satisfaction, high school seniors report no change<\/em> in self-satisfaction over the last 30 years. Further, the biggest drops occur on exactly the questions we would most expect to balloon if Twenge is correct: students\u2019 feeling that \u201cI am a person of worth\u201d (a notion she claims self-esteem programs injected into 1980s students en masse). Yet, self-attributed youthful worth fell<\/em> more rapidly than any other measure! Nor did teens show increases in other areas of self-satisfaction, such as increased assumptions of personal competence. They report a less positive attitude toward themselves (82% in 1976, 73% in 2005). The difference was made up in neutral responses; there is no change in either personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction.<\/p>\n

Second, far from being more miserable, teens seem happier<\/em> today than in the past in most dimensions. Asked directly if they\u2019re happy, many more teens today (24%) than in past decades (18%) say \u201cvery happy.\u201d Considerably fewer say they sometimes feel \u201cno good at all.\u201d A few more say they can\u2019t do anything right; slightly fewer say they\u2019re not having fun. Teens today are considerably less likely to fear tougher times ahead; more seem to welcome the rapid social changes they\u2019re experiencing. The results on the unhappiness question are mixed and not large, but there\u2019s no reason to label youth today any more \u201cmiserable\u201d than those of the past.<\/p>\n

Third, are youths more lonely, alienated, cynical, and externalizing (believing their fate is controlled by outside forces)? Not at all. Fewer kids today feel left out, fewer yearn for more friends, fewer say they are lonely, and there is no significant change in the percentage that feels they have no one to talk to.<\/p>\n

On the alienation and externality (\u201clocus of control\u201d) question, there is no change in the percentage of teens who say it makes people happier to accept things as they are than to work for change or the percentage who feel their success is sabotaged by others. There is a small decline in the proportion who agree that people are masters of their own fate, a larger decline in the percent thinking they can\u2019t change the world, a small decrease in the proportion thinking people like them have no chance\u2014and a huge increase in the proportion of youths who say they want to be community leaders. One could as easily argue that today\u2019s young are less alienated, more idealistic, less externalizing, and more civically engaged.<\/p>\n

Finally, are teens more anti-social and uncaring? Again, there is little support for Twenge\u2019s view. There is a slight increase in the importance white students attach to working to correct social and economic inequalities, and a slight decline in the percentage of those who feel it\u2019s important to have a job that helps others. Youth today are less likely to donate money to community charities, but\u2014strikingly\u2014they are much more likely to donate their time to actively participate in volunteer work and community affairs (and only a small percentage of this is to fulfill school requirements). Male teens today are substantially more supportive of equal job opportunities for women.<\/p>\n

The only question Monitoring asks that in any way upholds Twenge\u2019s views involves student cheating on tests. In 1976, high school seniors reported they believed 79% of their peers either would \u201cwould not care\u201d (including a few who would even \u201clike it\u201d) if they cheated on a test. In 1985, that figure was 85%, a level that stayed constant through 2005. Thus, there was a 6% increase from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, a trend that predates the self-esteem movement Twenge decries, in the percentage of students reporting peer tolerance for cheating on tests. This is hardly a sea change, and it hasn\u2019t risen in the last 20 years.<\/p>\n

By our most consistent, long-term measures, this is not a younger generation wallowing in misery, materialism, anxiety, selfishness, fear, and social disconnection. By large majorities, they seem pretty sane, not full of themselves, and generally optimistic. The real sanity question is why youth-bashing authors so relentlessly attempt to depict the young as crazier and miserable.<\/p>\n

Young people today \u201cthinks there\u2019s little point in voting,\u201d Twenge adds (page 143). You\u2019d think an author who prides herself in science and who claims the fact that young people\u2019s voting had declined from 1972 through 2000 evidences a decline in civic participation would feel obligated to take note of the recent, record increase in voting among young people (Table 2).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 2. Younger voter turnout increased massively in 2004<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nNumber voting<\/td>\n<\/td>\nPercent voting<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2004 percent voting:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Age<\/td>\n2004<\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2004<\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n<\/td>\nDemocrat<\/td>\nRepublican<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18-29<\/td>\n24,460,000<\/td>\n15,710,000<\/td>\n<\/td>\n50.6%<\/td>\n33.7%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n55%<\/td>\n45%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30-44<\/td>\n39,130,000<\/td>\n35,610,000<\/td>\n<\/td>\n61.0%<\/td>\n54.2%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n48%<\/td>\n52%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45-64<\/td>\n44,025,000<\/td>\n38,750,000<\/td>\n<\/td>\n62.3%<\/td>\n62.1%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n46%<\/td>\n54%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
65+<\/td>\n14,675,000<\/td>\n14,660,000<\/td>\n<\/td>\n40.5%<\/td>\n41.8%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n45%<\/td>\n55%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n122,290,000<\/td>\n104,740,000<\/td>\n<\/td>\n55.7%<\/td>\n49.9%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n49%<\/td>\n51%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Source: Edison\/Mitovsky exit poll, 2004, CNN, 2005.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

But you\u2019d be mistaken if you think Twenge would acknowledge anything that contradicts her ideology, beyond noting that \u201cyouth turnout was rumored to have increased in 2004\u201d (page 144). Her book (published in 2006 and containing 2005 citations) also<\/em><\/strong> skips over 2004 election exit polls revealing a massive, 50% leap, in voting by the young and their strong communitarian values. Her recent press comments continue to pretend the young-voter increase didn\u2019t happen, just as she continues to downplay or ignore emerging studies showing community volunteering and civic engagement increasing among the young but falling among the old (see www.civicyouth.org<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Twenge even manages to make the increase in youth volunteering for community services (which she spends a whopping one paragraph mentioning) sound selfish, something that occurs only \u201cas long as time spent volunteering does not conflict with other goals\u201d and, somehow, part of a larger generational pattern of putting \u201cthe individual first\u201d (page 5). Unlike. presumably, the Baby Boomers she admires, who volunteer less, slashed their own taxes, and made themselves the richest generation in the history of the world.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s put aside mere reality and assume, for a moment, that Twenge is right that other surveys indicate youths are more narcissistic. Why (aside from the fact that young people feeling good about themselves seems to annoy Twenge and others on principle) is it such a terrible thing that more kids check paper-and-pencil surveys affirming they\u2019re good, intelligent, strong, and\/or special people? Because, Twenge tells us, \u201cnarcissists are more likely to be hostile, feel anxious, compromise their health, and fight with friends and family\u2026 they don\u2019t feel close to other people\u2026 narcissists lash out aggressively when they are insulted or rejected\u201d (pages 68-69, 70). \u201cExternality,\u201d Twenge argues, is \u201ccorrelated with the impulsive actions that tend to get young people in trouble, like shoplifting, fighting, or having unprotected sex\u201d as well as \u201cpowerlessness\u201d and \u201ca society of dropouts\u201d (pages 156, 157, 158).<\/p>\n

Well, are any of those bad results Twenge predicts from paper-and-pencil surveys actually happening in real life? This is a crucial point, and the answer is unequivocal: NO. Even she admits this when she decides to rise above the self-indulgent quips and anecdotes and face some facts.<\/p>\n

Twenge\u2019s tactic of ignoring the best survey findings if they contradict her views is epidemic among youth-bashers, as is her complete disdain for reality. If youth today truly are more materialistic, anti-social, dishonest, impulsive, aggressive, risk-taking, having unprotected sex, and other ill behaviors her findings predict, we should see skyrocketing, record-high levels of crime, violent crime, drug abuse, drunkenness, pregnancy, and\u2014especially\u2014youthful property crime such as theft and burglary (sneakily taking others\u2019 property) and robbery (taking it by force). More property crime would be expected because it satisfies a big range of the supposed youthful disorders arising from narcissism, materialism, and anti-sociality.<\/p>\n

So, let\u2019s talk reality. Virtually every solid social measure shows young Americans today act better than their elders did or do.<\/em> As we\u2019ve seen, serious and petty crime, homicide, rape, robbery, property offenses, violent fatalities, drink driving, drug deaths, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, school dropout, school violence, and other ills among the young have reached their lowest levels in 30 to 40 years (and, in many cases, ever). In fact, these crimes show identical trends\u2014a rise from 1960 to a 1974 peak, then downward to a 2005 low<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In particular, the kind of offense we would expect to rise the most of Twenge is correct\u2014property crime\u2014actually shows the biggest drop to its lowest level ever recorded (Table 3). Given that a massive decrease in property offenses also shows up on the National Crime Victimization Survey over the last 30 years, it\u2019s safe to say that today\u2019s young people are probably the least likely of any generation for which records exist to steal, and the least likely in at least four decades to rob.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 3. Felony arrests per 100,000 population ages 10-17<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Year<\/td>\nProperty crime<\/td>\nRobbery<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1960 (first year available*)<\/td>\n1,457<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n1,514<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1974 (peak year)<\/td>\n2,854<\/td>\n167<\/td>\n3,021<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990<\/td>\n2,667<\/td>\n156<\/td>\n2,823<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2000<\/td>\n1,640<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n1,727<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2005 (latest year available)<\/td>\n1,257<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n1,344<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Change, 2005 vs. 1974<\/td>\n-56%<\/td>\n-48%<\/td>\n-56%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
*The FBI warns that arrests for 1960 may be underestimated because they are based on fingerprint records, and juveniles often were not fingerprinted before 1970.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Let\u2019s move to another area: Are today\u2019s students, who Twenge berates herself and by quoting teachers who cite one or two examples of bad behavior <\/em>as evidence of how all<\/em> students have changed for the worse (this kind of mass indictment by anecdote is rampant in youth bashing books), doing worse, scoring lower, or dropping out more? NO. Twenge\u2019s repeated statements that today\u2019s purportedly more narcissistic, overly-esteemed, entitled youth would be slacking by the legion, evading hard work, and dropping out when they don\u2019t get their way is solidly refuted by every educational index we have<\/em>.<\/p>\n

First, are more alienated egomaniacs saying \u201cscrew you\u201d to education at the slightest whiff of victimization? Just the opposite. The dropout rate (flexibly measured by the U.S. Department of Education as the percentage of 16-24 year-olds who have not completed high school and are not enrolled in school) has plummeted steadily over the last 40 years. This is even more remarkable, given that demographies with higher dropout rates (blacks and Hispanics) comprise a much larger share of high schoolers today than in past decades.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 4. Percentage of school dropouts* by race and sex, 1965-2004<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annual average:<\/td>\nAll<\/td>\nMale<\/td>\nFemale<\/td>\nWhite<\/td>\nBlack<\/td>\nHispanic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1960<\/td>\n27.2%<\/td>\n27.8%<\/td>\n26.7%<\/td>\nn.a.<\/td>\nn.a.<\/td>\nn.a.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1965-69<\/td>\n16.1%<\/td>\n15.5%<\/td>\n16.6%<\/td>\n14.6%<\/td>\n27.6%<\/td>\nn.a.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1970-74<\/td>\n14.5%<\/td>\n14.1%<\/td>\n15.0%<\/td>\n12.5%<\/td>\n23.3%<\/td>\n20.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1975-79<\/td>\n14.2%<\/td>\n14.3%<\/td>\n14.1%<\/td>\n11.8%<\/td>\n20.9%<\/td>\n32.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1980-84<\/td>\n13.7%<\/td>\n14.7%<\/td>\n12.8%<\/td>\n11.3%<\/td>\n17.9%<\/td>\n32.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1985-89<\/td>\n12.6%<\/td>\n13.4%<\/td>\n11.8%<\/td>\n9.9%<\/td>\n14.4%<\/td>\n31.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990-94<\/td>\n11.6%<\/td>\n12.0%<\/td>\n11.2%<\/td>\n8.3%<\/td>\n13.4%<\/td>\n30.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1995-99<\/td>\n11.4%<\/td>\n12.1%<\/td>\n10.7%<\/td>\n7.7%<\/td>\n13.0%<\/td>\n28.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2000-04<\/td>\n10.5%<\/td>\n11.8%<\/td>\n9.1%<\/td>\n6.8%<\/td>\n11.6%<\/td>\n25.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2004<\/td>\n10.3%<\/td>\n11.6%<\/td>\n9.0%<\/td>\n6.8%<\/td>\n11.8%<\/td>\n23.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
*Dropouts are 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and who have not completed a high school program regardless of when they left school.Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 105.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

So the little thin-skinned GenMe\u2019rs aren\u2019t jumping ship at the slightest obstacle. Are they slacking in areas that can be measured\u2014not grades, which we know are inflated\u2014but by standard indexes of competence? Tables 5 and 6 show reading and math scores along a constant measure of competence. Here we see a bit of backsliding by 17 year-olds after 1990 in reading and math, but the kids supposedly most drenched in self-esteem (9- and 13-year-olds) show impressive improvements in both skills. Note that by 2004, the average math skills of 9-year-olds were approaching those of 13-year-olds of 1975.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 5. Average reading scale scores*, 1971-2004<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Year<\/td>\n9 year-olds<\/td>\n13-year-olds<\/td>\n17-year-olds<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1971<\/td>\n208<\/td>\n255<\/td>\n285<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1975<\/td>\n210<\/td>\n256<\/td>\n286<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1980<\/td>\n215<\/td>\n258<\/td>\n285<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1984<\/td>\n211<\/td>\n257<\/td>\n289<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990<\/td>\n209<\/td>\n257<\/td>\n290<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1994<\/td>\n211<\/td>\n258<\/td>\n288<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1999<\/td>\n212<\/td>\n259<\/td>\n288<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2004<\/td>\n219<\/td>\n259<\/td>\n285<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
*Students at reading score level 200 are able to understand, combine ideas, and make inferences based on short uncomplicated passages about specific or sequentially related information. Students at reading score level 250 are able to search for specific information, interrelate ideas, and make generalizations about literature, science, and social studies materials. Students at reading score level 300 are able to find, understand, summarize, and explain relatively complicated literary and informational material.Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 108. Years are chosen by the Department of Education.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 6. Average mathematics scale scores*, 1973-2004<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Year<\/td>\n9 year-olds<\/td>\n13-year-olds<\/td>\n17-year-olds<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1973<\/td>\n219<\/td>\n266<\/td>\n304<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1978<\/td>\n219<\/td>\n264<\/td>\n300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1982<\/td>\n219<\/td>\n269<\/td>\n298<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990<\/td>\n230<\/td>\n270<\/td>\n305<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1994<\/td>\n231<\/td>\n274<\/td>\n306<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1999<\/td>\n232<\/td>\n276<\/td>\n308<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2004<\/td>\n241<\/td>\n281<\/td>\n307<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
*A score of 200 implies considerable understanding of 2-digit numbers and knowledge of some basic multiplication and division facts. A score of 250 implies an initial understanding of the four basic operations. They can also compare information from graphs and charts, and are developing an ability to analyze simple logical relations. A score of 300 implies an ability to compute decimals, simple fractions and percents. \u00a0 They can identify geometric figures, measure lengths and angles, and calculate areas of rectangles. They are developing the skills to operate with signed numbers, exponents, and square roots.Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 118.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Well, surely the entitled, handed-everything-on-a-platter brats of today are dodging the tough classes for \u201cSparkle Mind,\u201d \u201cMe Poem,\u201d and other New Age frills Twenge seems to think are taking over modern schools? Table 7 shows, yet again, exactly the opposite is the case. Note massive leaps in the percentages of high schoolers taking Algebra II and all three major science courses; only trigonometry has slipped, in favor of more Calculus. While the increasing percentage of Asian students (100% of whom take math and science coursework) influences these trends, they occurred for all races.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 7. Percent of high school students taking math and science, 1982-2000<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Percent taking<\/td>\n1982<\/td>\n1990<\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Any math<\/td>\n98.5%<\/td>\n99.9%<\/td>\n99.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Algebra I<\/td>\n55.2%<\/td>\n63.7%<\/td>\n61.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Algebra II<\/td>\n39.9%<\/td>\n52.8%<\/td>\n67.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Trigonometry<\/td>\n8.1%<\/td>\n9.6%<\/td>\n7.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Calculus<\/td>\n5.0%<\/td>\n6.5%<\/td>\n11.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Any science<\/td>\n96.4%<\/td>\n99.3%<\/td>\n99.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Biology<\/td>\n77.4%<\/td>\n91.0%<\/td>\n91.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chemistry<\/td>\n32.1%<\/td>\n48.9%<\/td>\n62.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Physics<\/td>\n15.0%<\/td>\n21.6%<\/td>\n31.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
All three<\/td>\n11.2%<\/td>\n18.8%<\/td>\n25.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Honors physics<\/td>\n1.2%<\/td>\n2.0%<\/td>\n3.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 134. Years are chosen by the Department of Education.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Are the uninflated Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores plunging as GenMe replaces the tougher Boomers among high school grads? Yet again, exactly the opposite transpired. The low points in SAT scores occurred in 1979 and 1980, long before the self-esteem movements took hold. Since 1980, SAT scores have generally improved, which is very impressive for two reasons. First, the percentage of high school seniors taking the test has risen rapidly, meaning that test-takers are no longer the elite students as was the case in the 1960s and 1970s (the high test scores of 1966-74 reflect very few test takers). Second, black and Hispanic students, who have lower scores than whites, increasingly dominate public schools, and they show rising scores as well.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 8. Average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores*, 1966-2005<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Average annual score, all students<\/td>\nTotal scores<\/td>\nPercent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Years<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\nVerbal<\/td>\nMath<\/td>\nMale<\/td>\nFemale<\/td>\ntaking test*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1966-69<\/td>\n1056<\/td>\n541<\/td>\n515<\/td>\n1072<\/td>\n1038<\/td>\n?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1970-74<\/td>\n1030<\/td>\n524<\/td>\n506<\/td>\n1049<\/td>\n1010<\/td>\n?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1975-79<\/td>\n1000<\/td>\n506<\/td>\n494<\/td>\n1027<\/td>\n977<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1980-84<\/td>\n1000<\/td>\n504<\/td>\n495<\/td>\n1028<\/td>\n974<\/td>\n25%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1985-89<\/td>\n1006<\/td>\n505<\/td>\n501<\/td>\n1033<\/td>\n981<\/td>\n26%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990-94<\/td>\n1003<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n503<\/td>\n1026<\/td>\n983<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1995-99<\/td>\n1016<\/td>\n505<\/td>\n511<\/td>\n1038<\/td>\n998<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2000-04<\/td>\n1024<\/td>\n507<\/td>\n517<\/td>\n1046<\/td>\n1004<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2005-06<\/td>\n1021<\/td>\n503<\/td>\n518<\/td>\n1041<\/td>\n1004<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
*Past scores are recentered to be consistent with past scores. Percent taking test is test takers divided by total population age 18.Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 127.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Finally, are younger people going to college more, given all their supposed personal and financial obstacles? More than ever, especially women, whose rates of college attendance nearly doubled while men\u2019s rates rose only slightly. Due to costs, full-time enrollment has risen less than part-time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 9. Percentage of age 18-24 enrolled in college<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nAll age 18-24<\/td>\n<\/td>\nMale age 18-24<\/td>\n<\/td>\nFemale age 18-24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Year<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\nFull<\/td>\nPart<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\nFull<\/td>\nPart<\/td>\n<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\nFull<\/td>\nPart<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1970<\/td>\n26.1%<\/td>\n21.8%<\/td>\n4.3%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n30.5%<\/td>\n26.2%<\/td>\n4.4%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n21.9%<\/td>\n17.7%<\/td>\n4.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1980<\/td>\n25.2%<\/td>\n20.3%<\/td>\n5.8%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n25.2%<\/td>\n20.8%<\/td>\n5.4%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n25.1%<\/td>\n19.8%<\/td>\n6.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990<\/td>\n29.8%<\/td>\n23.0%<\/td>\n6.8%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n29.0%<\/td>\n22.6%<\/td>\n6.4%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n30.6%<\/td>\n23.4%<\/td>\n6.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2000<\/td>\n34.2%<\/td>\n26.1%<\/td>\n8.2%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n31.0%<\/td>\n23.3%<\/td>\n7.7%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n37.6%<\/td>\n29.0%<\/td>\n8.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2005<\/td>\n36.0%<\/td>\n27.8%<\/td>\n8.2%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n31.5%<\/td>\n24.5%<\/td>\n7.0%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n40.8%<\/td>\n31.3%<\/td>\n9.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 172.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

And even if high school students\u2019 attitudes and behaviors have generally improved, can the same be said of college students? The four million first-year college students (\u201cfreshmen\u201d) ages 17-19 comprise around half of that age group and thus may differ from surveys of high school students or all youth. The American Freshman survey of hundreds of thousands of first-year students nationwide since 1966 charts many of their attitudes relevant to Twenge\u2019s claims. A summary follows:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 10. Percentages of college first-years students who<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
say they (are)\u2026<\/strong><\/td>\n1970<\/td>\n1990<\/td>\n2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aiming to obtain high degree (PhD, EdD, MD, JD, etc)<\/strong><\/td>\n23%<\/strong><\/td>\n31%<\/strong><\/td>\n31%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n12%<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n29%<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Financing education through loans <\/strong>(first asked 1978)<\/td>\n26%<\/strong><\/td>\n42%<\/strong><\/td>\n62%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n64%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n57%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Planning to work off campus to pay for education<\/strong><\/td>\n24%<\/strong><\/td>\n21%<\/strong><\/td>\n29%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n23%<\/td>\n21%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n26%<\/td>\n22%<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Drank beer in the last year<\/strong><\/td>\n56%<\/strong><\/td>\n57%<\/strong><\/td>\n42%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n43%<\/td>\n51%<\/td>\n37%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n67%<\/td>\n63%<\/td>\n49%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Smoked cigarettes in the last year<\/strong><\/td>\n12%<\/strong><\/td>\n8%<\/strong><\/td>\n5%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n14%<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Came late to class<\/strong><\/td>\n60%<\/strong><\/td>\n60%<\/strong><\/td>\n61%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n59%<\/td>\n60%<\/td>\n59%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n61%<\/td>\n61%<\/td>\n62%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agree an individual can\u2019t change society<\/strong><\/td>\n35%<\/strong><\/td>\n28%<\/strong><\/td>\n27%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n41%<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Think married women should stay home<\/strong><\/td>\n45%<\/strong><\/td>\n23%<\/strong><\/td>\n20%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n33%<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n16%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n54%<\/td>\n29%<\/td>\n26%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agree it\u2019s important to be community leader<\/strong><\/td>\n16%<\/strong><\/td>\n35%<\/strong><\/td>\n35%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n12%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n19%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agree its important to be well off financially<\/strong><\/td>\n36%<\/strong><\/td>\n72%<\/strong><\/td>\n73%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n25%<\/td>\n68%<\/td>\n72%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n46%<\/td>\n77%<\/td>\n75%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agree it\u2019s important to help others in difficulty<\/strong><\/td>\n72%<\/strong><\/td>\n63%<\/strong><\/td>\n67%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n75%<\/td>\n72%<\/td>\n73%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n59%<\/td>\n53%<\/td>\n59%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Source: The American Freshman, Forty Year Trends, 2006.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Again, the results do not support Twenge\u2019s complaints of radical changes for the worse among young people. College students are much less likely drink or smoke, to think married women should be confined to family duties, and to believe individuals can\u2019t change society (a direct measure of self-efficacy). The number who come to class late has not changed, and the number who agree it\u2019s important to help others in difficulty dropped marginally. The percentage who say it\u2019s important to be well-off financially rose rapidly into the 1980s (and then leveled off), which may reflect the realistic need to pay off skyrocketing student education debt (averaging $19,000 per year in 2005, versus virtually none in 1970) rather than greed. Note that compared to the 1970s, more than twice as many students today are financing their education through loans, many more plan to work off campus, and more than twice as many women plan to obtain Ph.Ds. or similar professional degrees\u2014all reasons to need more money for education.<\/p>\n

Having compared Twenge\u2019s disparaging claims about \u201cGeneration Me\u201d with several reality measures reveals a simple fact: Twenge has created a fiction. She and fellow youth-bashers recycle pop-media tripe precisely because a scholarly, contextual review of trends would demolish their thesis that \u201cmore kids these days are behaving badly.\u201d If anyone sounds hostile, it\u2019s Twenge, who sees only a world of \u201cnegative trends,\u201d including \u201caggressive drivers, sullen clerks, and screaming children\u2026 breakdown in consideration and loyalty\u2026 decline in manners and politeness\u2026 the fall in social rules,\u201d etc. (pages 22, 27, 103, the whole book).<\/p>\n

At its best, Generation Me<\/em> documents some real economic stresses and encouraging racial and gender equalizations among America\u2019s young. But ultimately, Twenge\u2019s baseless, People<\/em>-magazine pop-silliness and potshot moralisms trivialize the daunting challenges the young face and add to the heap of bad books about youth.<\/p>\n

Mike Males, YouthFacts.org<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled–and More Miserable than Ever Before Jean Twenge, 2006 San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge won vast media accolades in 2007 for fulminations that \u201cmore kids these days are behaving badly,\u201d with a \u201cdecline in manners and politeness,\u201d \u201crise in narcissism,\u201d and \u201cdisrespect […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-581","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=581"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/581\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":586,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/581\/revisions\/586"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}