Growing up Digital, Wired for Success.

The troglodytes that currently occupy seats of control over the education system seem to be intent in stemming the growth of proficiency with technology, judging from the recent New York Times article "Growing up Digital, Wired for Distraction". The article is heavily focused on people such as 17 year old Vishal, who admittedly has problems studying because of technology. Or 14 year old Allison Miller who credits technology with giving her three B's on her report card. With these oh-so-terrible cases you'd wonder why anyone in their right mind would condone the use of this satanic art called "Technology".

Wait a minute, are you old enough to remember the times when computers didn't exist? If you are, think back to how many students from your generation passed High School. For those who aren't, a quick little display of "witchcraft" has revealed the dropout rate in Canada in 1990 compared to 2004 was 16% in 1990 and a little under 10% in 2004. This shows us two things; Students of the 90s were just as distracted in terms of school work as we are right now, and that dropout rates have declined at around the same time as the concept of the computer exploded. The fact of the matter is that students, nay humans, have a natural instinct to avoid turmoil and work. We simply deal with it and in some cases delude ourselves into thinking otherwise because it is essential to our survival. Students will always find ways to avoid doing work whether it be the Dazed and Confused style graduation parties or the 24/7 social network. That said, if you want my opinion on why Vishal and Allison are currently doing poorly in school, it'd be because they are just lazy or simply do not have an aptitude for Maths and Sciences. Can you really say that if technology did not exist they would be guaranteed to be studying? Or that if these students did not spend their time using technology, they are guaranteed to be acing their more academic classes?

Speaking from experience, I had trouble with time management in my freshman and sophomore years. I'd come home, turn on the computer and do my homework on my lap in between typing rapidly to my friends. I definitely suffered in my studies but always brushed it off. Come my junior year, I continued these habits into a course load of Grade 12 AP Chemistry, 11 MaCS advanced Functions, 11 Accounting and 11 MaCS Physics. Needless to say, halfway through, I realized I needed to change something. My new routine is to immediately start doing homework until 7-8 PM on average. I do this at a quiet table away from my computer. I also restrict myself from playing Video Games at all on Monday to Thursday evenings. The change is difficult, but nothing worth getting ever came easy.

On a more personal note, I feel the need to pose the question, "So what if they're getting bad marks in academic courses?" Despite being knees deep into the academic rat-race (albeit unenthusiastically), I feel that doing poorly in academia is far from the end of the world. Vishal for example has managed to find a career where he must fully utilize technology in order to be successful. Pure academia is becoming less and less important because of the plethora of jobs being introduced because of technology. If students like Vishal have to foresight to jump on these new, blossoming jobs, all the better for them I say.

Technology is an amalgamation of the combined scientific efforts of great minds before us. It is malleable in utility and flexible in form. We are currently in a state of limbo between full integration and the old ways. As such there is bound to be people who wont comprehend for themselves how to effectively balance technology in their everyday lives. However, in the future, education and the working world is bound to use more technology. Proficiency with technology is a skill people will need to have in their daily lives. We are already seeing this with the example of our own IDC class, computerized testing, computerized business protocol and virtual conferences. Therefore the only reasonable thing to do would be to teach these skills as early as possible instead of rejecting it.

The New York Times article is the narrow-minded opinion of an obstinately archaic school of teaching that refuses to accept alternative ways of education. To suggest that your education system is failing because of technology is a poisonous sentiment that impedes the development of students in the working world. To teachers like Mr Eaton, I say this, "If 30 students would rather stare at an LCD screen than listen to you, it's probably your fault."