Short stories. At my high school (from which I graduated a few years ago) practically no one read anything assigned. Yet I observed in a short story class I took that at least the majority of students consistently read the stories, and this led to insightful discussions. High value ideas that are quick to absorb but slow to understand are a better avenue to appreciating long-form literature.
This is reductive. It's true that interest conquers inattention, but the attention span crisis really represents a prioritization of exploitation over exploration. That is to say that many people are far less able to seek value in things which require more effort in the finding (e.g., long-form media such as books and movies). You could reasonably argue that this is not a real problem, but it is undeniably happening.
This is just not true. My daughter, who finds school boring to the point of depression, has no problem spending hours reading the complete Akira manga in a foreign language. The crisis you are talking about is not in the people, but in the system.
It can be both. I went through a very similar experience with school -- it was miserably boring to me, and I found solace in valuable and educational experiences I sought out myself at home. In this way I empathize strongly and I agree that the schooling system is massively flawed in this regard.
Still, from my just-as-anecdotal observations, it seems to me that social media addiction exacerbates the issues. I and many peers of mine fell out of reading for fun around the beginning of high school, and this was due in part to both technology and burnout from school. Screen addiction can be an obstruction to activities that one actually loves doing, just as school can.
If you really care about something, screen addiction does not interfere. A friend of mine has a terrible Instagram addiction, yet has developed for himself a certain degree of cinephilia lately -- we've watched long movies together in theaters and not once has he been on his phone during the screenings. When one has faith that sustained attention might hold more value than that gained by interruption, they tend to prioritize the former.
But the article points out that the students here don't even watch movies themselves -- "students have struggled to name any film" they recently watched. Why are these people even studying film? The inattention is clearly caused by disinterest.
The phenomenon observed here must be caused by a combination of the general loss of discipline (which is the fallback attentive mechanism when interest is absent) and students' disinterest in the field they chose to study. The former has been well known; the latter is worth considering more.
> But the article points out that the students here don't even watch movies themselves -- "students have struggled to name any film" they recently watched. Why are these people even studying film? The inattention is clearly caused by disinterest.
There's a saying around here that roughly goes: few things are as successful in killing one's interest in something as pursuing a formal education about it.
Being innately interested in something is one thing, but then being in an environment when that is now a hard expectation is another.
It's like the difference between wanting to draw something and being forced to draw something. Entirely different playing fields.
Anyone that wants their own private "film school", can invest 10 years or so and work through the "1001 Movies to See Before You Die" [1]. It's a book compiled by several film critics as I understand it. For each of the films there's a page or two explaining the significance of the film (according to the critic that chose it for the list).
My wife and I have been at it for perhaps 6 years now. We probably have 3 years or so to go to finish it.
You do learn, I think, patience. I found long slow films tedious initially but have come to know why some film are that way and I am more willing now to just go with the flow.
To be sure though, any film over two or so hours we might split across two days to watch.
That's a good list, but it's quite a western list. It's missing some great films from Socialist era Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, etc. If you'd like to know some of my favourites, just let me know.
FWIW, the "1001" has introduced me to a number of Czech (Obchod na korze, Sedmikrásky, Ostře sledované vlaky, Hoří, má panenko, Marketa Lazarová, Ucho) and Polish (Popiól I Diament, The Saragossa Manuscript, Człowiek z marmuru, Człowiek z żelaza) films.
I'm only up to the 1980's though, there may be a few more.
I'm not aware of having seen any Hungarian films (yet).
>(Obchod na korze, Sedmikrásky, Ostře sledované vlaky, Hoří, má panenko, Marketa Lazarová, Ucho) and Polish (Popiól I Diament, The Saragossa Manuscript, Człowiek z marmuru, Człowiek z żelaza)
Excellent! You've watched some brilliant Slavic films already then, especially Marketa Lazarova and The Saragossa Manuscript. I have these two in my favourite films of all time list. I hope you enjoyed them as much as I did.
Here are some of my favs: Ziemia obiecana (1975), Sanatorium pod klepsydrą (1973), Pociąg (1959), Kanal (1957), Holubice (1960), Slnko v sieti (1962), Zlaté kapradí (1963), Údolí včel (1968), Csillagosok, katonák (1967), A Pál utcai fiúk (1968), A tanú (1969), Kárhozat (1988), Két félidő a pokolban (1961), Szindbád (1971), Szürkület (1990), Dacii (1967), Danton (1983), O slavnosti a hostech (1966), Pădurea spînzuraților (1965), Reconstituirea (1968), and Добро пожаловать, или Посторонним вход воспрещён (1964).
Please see my reply to JKCalhoun. As for lists, I used other people's lists on Mubi a lot back when I used to watch/torrent 1 film per day (from 2008 to 2015), and for good forums there's Karagarga, rateyourmusic, letterboxd is OK, rutorrent is OK if you can read Russian, and there used to be an arthouse IRC channel on rizon back in the days but it's dead now. I stopped watching films religiously around 2015-2016, so I don't know where the cool kids hang anymore. Maybe Discord?
> A friend of mine has a terrible Instagram addiction, yet has developed for himself a certain degree of cinephilia lately -- we've watched long movies together in theaters and not once has he been on his phone during the screenings. When one has faith that sustained attention might hold more value than that gained by interruption, they tend to prioritize the former.
I'm not convinced that you've fingered the reason. Pulling out your phone at the theater is considered anti-social behavior, comparable to conversing with your seatmate, and that sort of normative pressure can overcome a compulsion. It's like claiming that someone couldn't possibly be an alcoholic because they don't drink on the job.
A better test would be: What does your friend do when you watch a movie at one of your homes, where there's a lesser expectation to tuck away one's phone? Does he still watch the movie attentively, or does he check his phone every so often?
That was my thinking too. Not everyone has been or will be interested in (slow) movies, but historically those people wouldn't be studying film. It's not exactly a lucrative field.
These “film students” are like the people who take computer science just because they like playing video games.
Most of their idea of film is putting together little reels and TikToks. “Absolute Cinema” type stuff. They don’t actually care about movies and the art.
You might be extremely interested in a field and yet not find every part of it to be so interesting. Certainly not everything I studied in my computer science degrees was something I cared about deeply. I've never studied film, but I'd wager there are a number of films that are educationally significant to watch but that aren't very entertaining.
I don't know your friend's situation, but students who've been raised on screens may struggle a lot more to concentrate even on things they like than people who came across screens in adult life.
> Why are these people even studying film? The inattention is clearly caused by disinterest.
Because they want to, or are forced by their social circle, have a college degree credential, and this is the one that matched closest to their interests (they like watching stuff).
To be fair, the alt-input is a generalized system for inputting Unicode characters outside the set keyboard layout. So it's not like they added this input specifically. Still, the em dash really should have an easier input method given how crucial a symbol it is.
It's a generalized system for entering code page glyphs that was extended to support Unicode. 0150 and 0151 only work if you are on CP1252 as those aren't the Unicode code points.
I think it's mainly a matter of clarity as long embedded clauses without obvious visual delimiting can be hard to read and thus are discouraged in professional writing aiming for ease of reading from a wide audience. LLMs are trained on such a style.
As it stands I don't know what this poll means. Does "No AI" mean that generative AI should never be used or offered? Does "Yes AI" mean that generative AI should be used for everything all the time?
One might accuse me of being intentionally daft, asserting this to be a simple sentiment poll, but I genuinely can't tell. If it were the case, this should ask "do you overall like or dislike generative AI?" Either way this encourages a lack of nuanced thinking on the subject which both tech bro shills and instinctual AI-luddites oft suffer from. The results of this poll are uninterpretable and the effects on the quality of discourse can only be negative.
Too bad. The premise should be that the instructor, by nature of having the position, already has understanding of the subject. As a student, you do not, and your goal is to gain it. Prompting an LLM to write a response for you does not build understanding. Therefore you should write unhindered by sophistry machines.
But the instructor is not applying their understanding in any way. By delegating the evaluation to AI, there is zero value add vs just asking ChatGPT to evaluate your knowledge and not paying $1000s or $10000s in tuition.
And universities wonder why enrollment is dropping.
I'm not intending to say it's acceptable for professors to use AI entirely in their grading. They obviously ought to contribute. I realize I actually misread your original comment, thinking of "instructor can have AI do his job" as "instructor can have AI to help do his job." Sorry about that. Point being, I think the expectation for real human thought ought to hold for both teacher and student.
I think this points to the only real sustainable solution: make it so that students would prefer to do real work. We have seen for ages the distinction between seeming and being in regards to verbal understanding blurred. LLMs are only an acceleration of the blurring. Therefore it will at some point become essentially impossible to determine whether one really understands something.
The two solutions to this are (1) as some commenters here are suggesting, give up entirely and focus only on quality of output, or (2) teach students to care about being more than appearance. Make students want to write essays. It is for their personal edification and intellectual flourishing. The benefits of this far surpass output.
Obviously this is an enormously difficult task, but let us not suppose it an unworthy one.
Or you just make in person exams the majority of the work and make the exams brutal. If you can't pass the exams you don't pass the class, so you need to learn enough to pass the exams.
What's the end vision here? A society of useless, catatonic humans taken care of by a superintelligence? Even if that's possible, I wouldn't call that desirable. Education is fundamental for raising competent adults.
Great question about what adults can be more competent about than an artificial superintelligence. ‘How to be a human’ comes to mind and not much more.
