There is little doubt that the next generation is different. I have frequently lamented that, but it is a reality for which I have strenuously advocated acceptance. They have chosen their course, and the world is their oyster. We cannot change people, but must find a methodology for supporting their ascendancy and success somehow.
They are the TickTock generation, and they love screen time. Videos rule the information space, and they are exceedingly brief and abrupt, often utterly pointless, and sometimes dangerous. Gen Z is different. No doubt, others have been too; see These Kids Today (July 2023); Let's Make a Change (April 2023), and Making Legacy (January 2026).
I have advocated for accepting the differences. I have been tolerant. I have railed against my inner balcony-man. I have even persistently let them play on my lawn.
GMA reported last month that "screen time alone doesn't tell the whole story." The challenge is the "immersive ecosystem designed to keep kids engaged." This is "social media, games, apps, and algorithm-driven feeds built around autoplay, notifications, and targeted content." Our young people are under targeted and near incessant attack.
So what? A recent Fortune article threw me. The author contends that students are now utterly unprepared for college work. For years, I have heard professorial types pontificate about the demise of critical thinking. In this, there is likely merit in reinforcing that college does matter, despite its naysaying critics.
As an aside, college itself may be a fluid construct. Some of them are beginning to accept and embrace artificial intelligence. See Competency for Incompetents (January 2026). They are rethinking their value exchange, or at least their side of the exchange.
Economist Thomas Sowell addressed the critical thinking criticisms in his 1992 book Inside American Education:
"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
He was springboarding off of another author; more on that in a moment. But he was beating the drum on thinking over 30 years ago.
Physicist Carl Sagan had similar thoughts in his 1995 book, Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:
"The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."
Though these gentlemen and other luminaries have passed, I suspect their views on social media and Tick Tock would be entertaining and insightful. I hear Monty Python in my head: "and now for something completely different ..." (1971)(video and short attention span is not new).
I have railed against the demise of critical thinking in my several semesters of teaching. I have taught many semesters of college. I am wondering if I have the stamina to make it to 100 classes. It is one of my life goals, but it would require several years, and I am old. Nonetheless, I have seen many young people as students (well over 1,000). I see the challenges with thinking, engagement, and criticality.
To summarize: critical thinking is a problem. Artificial intelligence is not helping; social media is not helping. They are, at best, impeding and more likely deteriorating our minds and souls. But I digress.
The Fortune article asserts that far worse than being unable to think, "students are arriving to classrooms unable to complete assigned reading." In fairness, Rudolph Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can't Read in 1955 (yes, likely the same "Johnny" that Sowell was referencing). It has sold millions of copies, in multiple editions, and is sound in title and content.
I must admit, I never read it, but the Cliff Notes are classic (get it?). If you prefer, Don Henley can sing it to you. Shortcuts are not new, folks. We weren't all Rhodes Scholars, and to be fair, neither were they.
Reading has been a challenge since I can remember, with spots on Saturday morning cartoons, sound-biting math, history, policy, and even reading (we used papyrus tablets back then, but hey, they were tablets).
Speaking of reading, or the lack of reading ....
Back in the day, I was a fan of the Washington R*%&$(#s. It was a football team that offended many. One of the most colorful players in that era was Dexter Manley, a defensive end with a flair for post-game sound bites. I will never forget the day in 1989 when he:
"revealed that his entire experience as a full scholarship college student-athlete (at Oklahoma State) was fraudulent, as he could neither read nor write."
He finished his coursework at Oklahoma State and could not read or write. I suspect he was not alone. That was in 1980, almost 50 years ago. No, this is not a new issue.
But Dexter was insightful. He was entertaining. He was fun to watch demolish offenses. He was no Yogi Berra, but I will never forget his statement that he was going to "ring (Joe Montana's) clock." He was belittled for it, but it was funny, pithy, and pure Dexter. A million pundits have threatened to ring a bell, but Dexter's version will resonate forever.
Maybe not being able to read is not new? Maybe being able to read is not critical to success? Maybe there are various paths to career, productivity, and contribution to society?
Nonetheless, I cannot fathom or condone college students who cannot read. If they don't love it, I get it. If they hate it, I still get it. There is no reason that one must be enthralled with or enjoy a chore to be proficient. But, you have to be ABLE to do it.
All the AI in the world will only mislead and distract in the hands of people who have no actual intellect, education, or experience. AI in the hands of an expert is exceptionally useful, and in the hands of a fool, it is the most dangerous tool ever invented.
The Fortune article notes that reading is generally decreasing. The American public is not reading as they once did. This may be preference or product; cause and effect are debatable. In short, I wonder if we are not reading because we don't like it or if we don't like it because there is nothing worth reading (Ah, the old chicken or the egg debate).
As an aside, Poynter.org says that 3,500 American newspapers have closed since 2005 (that is 175 per year), and two are currently closing every week. Even the flagships are struggling; the Washington Post will soon layoff a third of its employees. Why? Well, it is certainly not because readership is booming and costs are decreasing. Does this support a generalized deterioration of reading? Is it only Gen Z? I think not.
Back to Fortune. It notes that "nearly half of all Americans did not read a single book in 2025." As much as we might commiserate with Mr. Flesch, Dr. Sowell, or Dr. Sagan on critical thinking, the problem may be with the foundational reading. Why are young people not interested in reading? The facts support that "Gen Z’s reading habits still lag behind all other generations."
One professor quoted by Fortune says instructors are now "tap dancing," reading aloud to students in class, and conceding that students simply "can’t process about the very words that are on the page.” The reaction is labeled with the pejorative "coddling." The professors are being accused of lowering standards, accepting mediocrity, and tailoring curriculum to the lowest common denominator.
Some lament that a typical preparation was once "25 to 40 pages of reading per class," and students did it. I can recall personally much higher volumes in my law school experience. And, to make it worse, I had to read some (pronounced "many") of those pages more than once. Kudos to those of you who get it all on the first pass. See comments on the Rhodes Scholars, above.
The quoted professors say that level of preparation is not accepted by students today. They will not read such a volume, and "many students instead just lean on AI summaries and miss the point of assigned reading." Holy misdirection Bat Man! AI is not always right? This is a Hall and Oates moment: "Say it isn't so" (RCA 1983). I will never forget when Mr. Maxwell warned my 11th Grade English class that the Hamlet Cliff Notes were inaccurate and incomplete - Blasphemy!
It may be important now to consider tomorrow. The lamentable challenge with reading is troublesome, but the next generation faces allegations that are perhaps worse. Decluttering Mom reports that primary school kids today "can code on a tablet but cannot tie their shoes, write a legible sentence, or remember their own phone number." What are the basics for this century? In fairness, my own phone number is the only one that I do remember anymore (sometimes I have to check the phone while reciting it, though).
The fact is, regardless of recriminations, the American education system built the roads that lead here ("all roads lead to Rome," Liber Parabolarum, 1175). There have been many detours and fallacies over the years, but, nonetheless, here we are. The state of education is what we built or allowed.
Well, all roads don't lead to Rome today (literally), and all education does not have to lead to illiteracy tomorrow. That we now have a generation that either never fell in love with the written word or was spurned by it matters. We can be analytical and retrospective. But what matters more is what we do next.
In our modern world, where will the roads lead? What will we value? How will generations judge content, volume, and delivery? Can we move beyond, retreat from, the 15-second stupidity?
