Ron Charles has a delightful article in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post entitled 'On campus, vampires are besting the beats' - no spoilers, however, I would strongly recommend that you put down your coffee before you start reading    Or have a towel handy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030501541.html

Today's graduate students were born when Ronald Reagan was elected, and their literary values, [Professor Eric Williamson] claims, reflect our market economy. "There is nary a student in the classroom -- and this goes for English majors, too -- who wouldn't pronounce Stephen King a better author than Donald Barthelme or William Vollmann. The students do not have any shame about reading inferior texts."

Maybe this would sound less elitist if Stephen King weren't, in fact, a great writer.  But it so happens that he is. 

-=Steve=-

I can't believe I just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading that guys diatribe on how much more progressive the youth of the 60’s were compared to than today.  Really? 

In short, if a text isn’t politically motivated (leftist) its crap.  Suffice to say this very same man would probably eschew anything written by Samuel Clemens because of the colorful language in his character’s speech being so politically incorrect by today’s standards despite being downright radically progressive in his own time.  When all the hippie kids were staying into the wee hours of the morning having such useful conversations on the writings of Timothy Leary I’m sure there were no drugs involved at all.  Before there was a “war on drugs” or the nanny state making good and sure you didn’t hurt yourself.  I’m also quite sure that this man would find students reading Mein Kampf to be staggeringly horrifying, despite the impact upon history this book had.  However I’m equally sure that anyone carrying about the works of Marx would be considered astute, perhaps even gifted in his eyes.

But to his point I think much of it has to do with the change of how society perceives the purpose of and utility of education.  Post secondary education nowadays is more about increasing your earning potential and less about simply discovering a higher state of consciousness.  The liberal arts are sadly dying within the U.S. education system in the areas of literature, religion and philosophy.  Instead high school students can expect 4 progressive years of math, 4 progressive years of English (on top of the 8 they already have).  At least 1 year studying a foreign language that they’ll never learn to speak anyways, then you have vocational classes like shop, media-tech, etc.  There are now computer science classes and don’t forget biology and physical science.  To cram in the stuff that didn’t exist in basic education in the 60’s and 50’s they had to cut from somewhere and I can honestly say that my high school experience did not consist of any amount of literature.  I did however get to take 2 history classes, which has since been condensed to 1.  We’re cranking out little professionals who don’t know where they came from or exactly why they’re here which isn’t the student’s fault.  Ironically it’s those same enlightened 1960’s youth who were “agents of change” who are now running the majority of public education. 

Dang… Now where did I put my bong?  I’ve got some Melville to read.

ROFL!

Coming of age in the '60s, I honestly cannot recall the left-wing androids actually reading anything. That's undoubtedly still the case - God forbid they every be allowed to have an original thought of their own that has been homogenized and pastuerized by the radical extremists at the top of that dung hemp.  then as now - very tellingly - those who had a brain and weren't afraid to use it were and are reading Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' and Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer.'   When I see a Che T-shirt, I'm half expecting to also see a copy of Saul Alinsky's 'Rule for Radicals' - but I also see libertarians, centrists, and conservatives also reading it.  The distinction that makes all the difference is that only the left is about banning books, thought police, and sending disserters to an early grave, prison, or "re-education" camps. That alone tells you everything you need to know about them and their opinion of everyone and everything else    "Just drink the *$&%^ kool-aid and shut up!"

islesv:

Perhaps each generation always find the succeeding ones degenerating. Graduating from college four years ago, I can say that the college students of today are not reading the same things we were reading... The tuition had increased 200% in their time, and they never raise their protest.

That's because financial aid is available.  Why pay for what you can simply finance?

I think Cajun's dead right.  When you're conditioned to think about the present and not worry about the future, then it doesn't matter how much debt you rack up because none of it's due today.  Americans have spent the last fifteen years living unsustainably on consumer debt.  Student loans are a part of that -- they're a little better in that they're an investment that has a return (unlike whipping out the credit card to buy a big TV), but that doesn't mean that comparison shopping isn't a good idea.

-=Steve=-

I'm sorry but as one of the "apathetic" youths easily persuaded by Stephen King instead of some (admittedly) obscure author, I am really just sick and tired of this petulant middle-aged, middle-class whining. It seems to always come from "a card-carrying liberal in full tweed glory". Let it be said that I am a die-hard, left-wing, quasi-radical, Obama-loving, Canada-running youth. And that there are many more like me. I don't think that "the blame for students' dim reading squarely on the unfettered expansion of capitalism" is the entire explenation. Have any of these "card-carrying liberals" thought to look to their own generation of blam? They enjoyed about 15 years of middle-class rebellion, and then got nice jobs (at universities, at banks, as real estate agents, ahem ahem). Their so called "political activism" died when the majority got nice salaried jobs and paid their taxes. We've just learnt from history--that idealism of the 60s can never be replicated, because we've seen how in many ways it was a false hope. Keruoac's blissfully irresponsible road trip is ruined by his appropriation of minority culture (as if a hipster from NYC actually knows what its like to be a migrant Mexicain farmworker, come on, you have to admit that that concept is naive, pretentious, and a bit infuraiting).

Also, I thought this whole quibble about the difference between "high culture" and "popular culture" was resolved in the 90s...I am not going to defend Twilight (for being badly written) but as much as just because something is unknown does not make it worthless, something that is popular should not be deemed trash either.

 Anyway, I suggest reading  Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class by Barbara Ehrenreich for anyone interested in a good history of middle-class college rebellion in the 60's and what it lead to with post-Regan era.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who.

Personally I think they idealize the 60's far, far too much.  It was a time of social change to be sure, so were the 90's in fact I think it'll happen again soon with the way our country is being railroaded into the ground.  The great thing and bad thing about America is that it is always changing, few generations however wrap themselves in self righteousness like the baby boomers have though.  As a Gen-X'er (a term I hate) I personally do not feel the boomers were all that successful and as a generation have not only spent the inheretence from their parents and grandparents, but have also managed to spend that of their children's, children's, children.  Long term thinking indeed.

Oh and for the record I'm a capitalist free market (not modified), flag waving, red state conservative, non-redneck, southerner living in Texas but I still don't think the failure of the boomers is exclusively from ideals from the 60's.  Instead I see that idealism has given way to unprecedented greed.  No wonder their kids want to eschew the books and literature so lauded by their parents generation, obviously in deed it did their parents no good.