On 2002-05-20 21:51, Ty Webb wrote:
Mill,
Thats right. Christ, everytime somebody says something you do an Internet search. One thing I learned in college and especially in DC is that information can be manufactured, twisted, and used at every occasion to support any hypothesis you wish. Take it from someone who lived two blocks from K Street. I have a great picture of my cousins born 1974 to 81 sitting with cabbage Patch kids in hands at Xmas 1983/4. :smile:
So now my question is, milliam, whats your point???
Maybe you can do an Internet search and tel us what you find.

Ty,

My point was that cute toys were made for late Xers too and your observations (with the Cabbage Patch Kids) seem to SUPPORT this!
And it's not like you're not guilty of using net info yourself (remember the "born in the eighties" article? what about the "best friend born in 1977"?)
_________________
William '84

Not only was I born in 1984, but I even live in Room 101!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mmailliw on 2002-05-20 21:54 ]</font>

So then what makes me, or you, different from children indulging in cute toys, like Teddy Ruxpin, or Harry Potter?
I mean, im a little sad that the kids aren't getting the daily regimine of Caddyshack and Cheech and Chong I got as a youngster, but are those kids (and theres a ton of your kids your age with wack names like Tyler, Taylor, Reed and any other Yuppie name you can think of) really so different other than that they are 13 and you are 18?

On 2002-05-20 21:56, Ty Webb wrote:
So then what makes me, or you, different from children indulging in cute toys, like Teddy Ruxpin, or Harry Potter?
I mean, im a little sad that the kids aren't getting the daily regimine of Caddyshack and Cheech and Chong I got as a youngster, but are those kids (and theres a ton of your kids your age with wack names like Tyler, Taylor, Reed and any other Yuppie name you can think of) really so different other than that they are 13 and you are 18?

We'll have to wait until they hit 18 to find out for sure... I can think of taste in music (peak listening year 1997), conformity and lack thereof, liking the vulgar movie genre (people around my age apparently seem to be the last to actually like curse words - as a more recent example, I saw Freddy got Fingered for my 17th birthday and enjoyed it but apparently Millies "shun the 'gross-out' movie genre"), etc but then again they ARE just 13 - I'm giving them time and hoping that they become more like us but judging from the 15-year-old 87 cohorts in HS (my 86 brother and an 84 ex gf from NH report a difference) I doubt that will happen

And I didn't indulge in "cute toys" the same way at AGE THIRTEEN; I doubt you did either - the toys themselves are also different
(my favorite as a kid, for example, Curious George, was obviously created by and acted like a Nomad, whereas Harry Potter and the gang may be cuspers but are liked for their Heroic aspects)

_________________
William '84

Not only was I born in 1984, but I even live in Room 101!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mmailliw on 2002-05-20 22:03 ]</font>

I guess thats what might make me a little different. Alot of the "children's" flicks I watched as a kid werent intended for children at all.
Can somebody also answer my question why the early 80s felt so much different than the mid 80s. Enough for people my age to acknowledge this, and enough for historians like Strauss and Howe to acknowledge this as well.
I know Milliam wasn't around then, but for those of us like Justin'77, or JayN, or Mark Y, can you comment to how 1983 and 1986 seemed so different to a young kid on rollerskates at a birthday party wearing deely boppers and gobbling Reese's Pieces?

Back to the 60s children argument, it is possible that the 60s had a similar effect on this late Boomer group that were too young to protest.
Ive read articles about The Clash (b 1952-55) and with Bono and Chuck D (both born in 1960) where they both point to the 60s as a big inspiration in their life. They talk about how 1968 changed their whole lives and the way they felt about the world.
In fact the Clash documentary starts in 1968 as they all recount how they were inspired by the times as they were young teens.

hmmm... let's try a nice comparison of the Nomad vs. Hero archetypes using S&H categorization info

NOMADS:
We remember Nomads best for their rising-adult years of hell-raising (Paxton Boys, Missouri Raiders, rumrunners) and for their midlife years of hands-on, get-it-done leadership (Francis Marion, Stonewall Jackson, George Patton). Underprotected as children, they become overprotective parents. Their principal endowments are in the domain of liberty, survival, and honor. Their best-known leaders include: Nathaniel Bacon and William Stoughton; George Washington and John Adams; Ulysses Grant and Grover Cleveland; Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. These have been cunning, hard-to-fool realists?taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one. They include the only two Presidents who had earlier hanged a man (Washington and Cleveland), one governor who hanged witches (Stoughton), and several leaders who had earlier led troops into battle (Bacon, Washington, Grant, Truman, and Eisenhower).

HEROES:
We remember Heroes best for their collective coming-of-age triumphs (Glorious Revolution, Yorktown, D-Day) and for their hubristic elder achievements (the Peace of Utrecht and slave codes, the Louisiana Purchase and steamboats, the Apollo moon launches and interstate highways). Increasingly protected as children, they become increasingly indulgent as parents. Their principal endowment activities are in the domain of community, affluence, and technology. Their best-known leaders include: Gurdon Saltonstall and ?King? Carter; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. They have been vigorous and rational institution builders. All have been aggressive advocates of economic prosperity and public optimism in midlife; and all have maintained a reputation for civic energy and competence even deep into old age

Not counting the names (I disagree with at least ONE of them), I think we can make good comparisons as a basis to place those who were born in the 80s and teens of the 90s

1) Rising-adult years of hell-raising vs. collective coming-of-age triumphs

Not much of either for us (I'd say maybe a little hell-raising)

2) Midlife years of hands-on, get-it-done leadership vs hubristic elder achievements

The oldest among this group are just 21 so we can't say anything; it IS worth noting that on the "which military leader are you?" test I tested as Grant, but what can any 4-question test tell anyway?

3) Underprotected as children vs increasingly protected as children

Again, widely variable...

4) Liberty, survival, and honor vs community, affluence, and technology

Could go either way for many members of this group too - but I personally hold liberty as the highest of these concerns (I'd MUCH rather be free than rich)

5) cunning, hard-to-fool realists?taciturn warriors vs vigorous and rational institution builders

Now's the time to say "A little bit of column A; a little bit of column B" (tho I'm MUCH less of an institution builder now than I was a few years ago)

6) prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one (Nomad)

Many do... I have little respect for those who don't but my year seems to be a mixed bag here

7) aggressive advocates of economic prosperity and public optimism in midlife; and all have maintained a reputation for civic energy and competence even deep into old age (Hero)

Can't tell as the oldest members of this group are still 21... for some reason, I just can't see the first part as me (too cynical to be an aggressive advocate of optimisim) - it seems like each part of this will likely go both ways (there will likely be lots of civic-minded people and lots of people who are lazy enough that they'll let the civics do the work; I expect to fall into the 2nd category)

Looking at those 7 comparisons, I'd say that I myself am definitely more Nomadic than Heroic (but no one person can accurately represent a cohort of 5 million) and that my "wave" seems to be split between Nomad and Hero traits

Actually thats not all too different from the way Millies are being characterized now.
An article entitled "The New Smarts" in Forbes Magazine last month described a new generation of 18 year olds that were different than those before them. They describe how Gen X took the internet ball and dropped it, and how the new generation that is rising is not alienated and doesn't want to destroy, but rather wants to fix technological problems and progress.
They also say that this change in High school seniors has happened considerably over the past 6 years that those interviewed had been working.

On 2002-05-21 16:03, Ty Webb wrote:
Actually thats not all too different from the way Millies are being characterized now.
An article entitled "The New Smarts" in Forbes Magazine last month described a new generation of 18 year olds that were different than those before them. They describe how Gen X took the internet ball and dropped it, and how the new generation that is rising is not alienated and doesn't want to destroy, but rather wants to fix technological problems and progress.
They also say that this change in High school seniors has happened considerably over the past 6 years that those interviewed had been working.

Are they being characterized as HEROES or as the mix? A mix could still provide a good number of heroes...

THEY are BEING characterized AS a NEW generation that is TECH savvy and is using their OPTIMISM and KNOW HOW to try and FIX the system RATHER than feel ALIENATED by it or WANT to destroy it like an "EARLIER generation" would HAVE responded.

Ty.

On 2002-05-21 18:47, Ty Webb wrote:
THEY are BEING characterized AS a NEW generation that is TECH savvy and is using their OPTIMISM and KNOW HOW to try and FIX the system RATHER than feel ALIENATED by it or WANT to destroy it like an "EARLIER generation" would HAVE responded.

Ty.

This characterization of some 18-year-olds is not inconsistent with mine... in a group which is mixed between Nomads and Heroes, some (such as that Post article with test scores) emphasize the negative (in a potentially Nomadic sense) and others emphasize the Heroic potential of quite a few of them (like this Forbes article)

On 2002-05-19 05:44, Justin wrote:

I don't know where you are basing your 1976/1977 split nor your 1985/86 split.
Sounds about as good as a 1981/82 split to me

Well, I don't spend quite as much contact with 1976 or 1986 cohorts as with 1980 or 1982 cohorts, but they feel similar also. On the other hand, I feel like a 1971 cohort or a 1991 cohort are "not my experience" whenever I'm near one. If I had to pick which one feels closer to me generationally though, I guess I'd pick the 1971 cohort. We share the acknowledgment that the world sucks. Hurt, cynical, jaded because of the world...plus street-smart. You just don't get that in 1991 cohorts anymore.

The 1980s are still so fresh in my mind that its hard for me to imagine being in the same generation as someone born in 1985 because, really, 1985 or 1986 wasn't that different from 2000, at least mood wise.

Would a 1944 cohort feel like a different generation from someone born 1953? After all, someone born in 1944 would clearly remember the year 1953, remembering the same mood all along...in fact, a 1944 cohort could say he remembered when these 1953 brats were BABIES!

I think it is kind of funny how you try to destroy the assertion of my feelings with random facts culled from Internet searches.

I was certainly impressed by William's ability to find that A-team site that happened to ask for the birthyear for all the posters! I'm amazed their was even a site where everyone specified their birthyear. What would one suppose the range of birthdates would mean? And as for the percentage of registered voters going down among 18-to-24-year-olds, that wasn't random and it was mentioned straight in the article Robert Reed posted not too long ago on youth's reactions to 911.

By the way, you still haven't told me...what month and year were those two frosh who voted born in? Can you get their birthdates if you don't have them already?

I tried to explain the whole Star Wars-era childhood experience of being a child of a different time (I am really fumbling for words here) but it just doesn't seem to come across. I point to films about children from the 70s and early 80s as kind of a reference point, but I guess they just look like normal kids to you.

You mean like the children in E.T.? I can't really tell a big difference just from the film.

>>Would a 1944 cohort feel like a different generation from someone born 1953? After all, someone born in 1944 would clearly remember the year 1953, remembering the same mood all along...in fact, a 1944 cohort could say he remembered when these 1953 brats were BABIES! >>

I see it more like the 1939 cohort that remembers the war and the 1944 cohort that doesn't.

On 2002-05-22 10:54, Ty Webb wrote:
>>Would a 1944 cohort feel like a different generation from someone born 1953? After all, someone born in 1944 would clearly remember the year 1953, remembering the same mood all along...in fact, a 1944 cohort could say he remembered when these 1953 brats were BABIES! >>

I see it more like the 1939 cohort that remembers the war and the 1944 cohort that doesn't.

Well at least you're consistent...

On 2002-05-19 06:11, Justin wrote:

I have several friends born in 1982 that say they have very little memory of the 80s. If they do its of the shitty late 80s

I thought you didn't HAVE any friends born in 1982.

is tempered by loving adults who are looking out for them.

Where? There's no one to "look out for" them to make them happy. Teachers and principals today don't care about these kids. Media doesn't look out for high school students or like them--it writes article after article about demon spawn and only has positive things to say about the highest achievers. But the generation as a WHOLE is going straight to hell. That's the message. There certainly aren't any "loving adults" for them on the high school campus. High school students have only Nazis who want to expel them, possibly all of them one by one, on false charges if that's what it takes. Where is there a caring to stop the rebellion? There just aren't adults who care.

On 2002-05-19 06:11, Justin wrote:

I know this because I have Boomer parents like that. However, I see my age group as more willing to call them on their shit.

As for 1983, 1984, yeah I see them as part of the same generation. Soft kids doing as they are told. Their "fuck the system" attitude or rather "fuck you" attitude that Nomads have or had

So the articles about teens stressing over getting into college are why you say they "ultimately will do what they are told"? So THAT'S what it is that's bothering you? Well.

The teens who are saying "fuck the system" on the outside are not the same group of teens who are letting their parents force them into a competitive college. You may see a lot of high-schoolers say "fuck the system" and act like your 1984 cousin and listen to That Music, but that's what they really mean inside. They're different people. The group who are fretting over getting into the best college possible actually LOOK like it. These ones DON'T say "fuck the system" (after all, it's not like 100% of the generation does). I knew all these kids from high school and they were the ones who said adults knew better than them and genuinely liked the Boomers better than the Xers. While the more rebellious ones who were slightly more like Boomers were as teens liked the X age bracket better than the Boomer bracket. These were also the ones who were and still are patriotic and had a strong sense of civic duty.

And from what they said to me during high school, these ones speak like they really want to get into it and they're convinced that they won't be able to get any job if they don't get into the Ivy League or as close to Ivy League as possible if they fail. Those who thought about nothing but whether they wouldn't get into college were a tight and select group. They took up activities just because they knew Princeton or Yale would like them. These ones generally picked as their first choice an Ivy League or top religious school or one of the U's within their own state (UCLA was considered their first choice because it was hardest to get into and wasn't Berkeley or Santa Cruz, but L.A. was still a little too wild for a lot of them...another idea of a top college? Claremont or Pepperdine.), while the hipper, more anarchistic students preferred Chico State or USC or Oberlin, or a lower-name college that would at least give them a degree even if it didn't have instant name recognition. No one was racing to get into THOSE schools, and hey, they do cover the bulk of the college-attending population, don't they? Then there's the third that don't go to college at all.

Those that didn't want to work their ass off just to get accepted to a college and liked the cool music and clothes weren't all that way because of their parents; some of them really had parents that wanted them to focus on nothing but college. These are the ones who didn't obey so they didn't end up featured in a newsmagazine article written about superkids basing their high school years on college. Not even the local newspaper articles are written about them. Many of the bulk of youth, who DON'T end up in an Ivy League name, who end up in the majority with lesser-known or weaker colleges or the third that didn't go at all, come from this group that said no to the pushing. I was one of them. In sophomore year (just as they had in freshman year) my parents would look over my course selection sheet before signing it, and they looked over hard and kept wanting me to revise it. They looked through the course catalogue and added courses until it was filled with the most challenging line-up possible. They refused to just sign it and go until they had had a hard look and replace everything with subjects that would look good in the UC system. Even then they still worried if I could get into a good college because I didn't have a heap of extracurriculars. Never mind that most of the other students weren't extracurricular-laden and nothing awful happened to them, they was convinced I might end up without any acceptance slips except from "bad" colleges and always told me to be sure to work that B up to an A. When I chose a course line-up without any math courses chosen for my junior year, I boldly informed them that the high school only required two years of math to graduate. They insisted I go the whole four years so I could conform to "UC standards". (Even though UC San Bernardino for instance wasn't that hard to get into.) Nothing was good enough for them. I broke. I stopped taking certain classes. I didn't care when I got a bad grade in something. I told them I didn't WANT to get into UC LA/Berkeley or the Ivy League or CalTech or any of their favorite colleges! After all, it will just be four MORE years of drudging, no-fun hard work. They told me the top jobs would be taken if I didn't get into one of the best colleges. I told them I didn't care. They seemed to think the economy was so bad I would have to go work at Taco Bell if I didn't make it into one of the Top 25. They said the lower-tier schools wouldn't challenge me and it would be such a waste. Because, they told me, I had so much "mental talent". What a bunch of bullshit. We also had our huge differences over social issues and dress as well. That didn't help how well we got along over my goals. I was clearly unhappy at the time too. As you could expect, they didn't participate in the college application process except for the required signatures. I didn't have a fourth year of math and I didn't have the grades to get into Prepsboro, East Coast, USA anyway. So I had snapped. I didn't have the stamina to go that far for nothing. I'm sure my parents were thinking "What a waste...with those stellar freshman grades". They still don't approve that I go here instead of the Ivies or at least UCLA or CalTech. They doubt my future every step of the way. So, Justin, the next time you come across a 1985 cohort who's reported as stressing over college, just think about the millions who are going to go somewhere they don't need a 1590 on their SAT's and a load of extracurriculars to get into and aren't having articles written about them and rest assured that these ones aren't PRETENDING to say "Fuck the system" and wearing a RATM T-shirt--after all, they do show pictures of at least some of these students in some of the articles, don't they? As for your 1984-born cousin, I doubt it.

Now you made me cry.

On 2002-05-21 16:03, Justin wrote:
Actually thats not all too different from the way Millies are being characterized now.
An article entitled "The New Smarts" in Forbes Magazine last month described a new generation of 18 year olds that were different than those before them. They describe how Gen X took the internet ball and dropped it, and how the new generation that is rising is not alienated and doesn't want to destroy, but rather wants to fix technological problems and progress.

I notice that it doesn't even get into the non-technological world and attitudes towards "the System" in those arenas. I don't really see much to dread about the technological system; the moral/judgmental/legal system is a much greater part of life, and a much greater obstacle.

On 2002-05-23 00:16, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
They still don't approve that I go here instead of the Ivies or at least UCLA or CalTech.

Just curious, Jesse. Where DO you go?

FYI, my educational background is a potshot. I had a year at a small, somewhat competitive liberal arts college (Beloit College in Wisconsin) and then dropped out to move into my ashram. A number of years later, I started taking evening courses at my local community college and obtained an Associates Degree. I then transfered to a big State university and finished up with a BS in Economics. From then, I tasted the Ivies, by getting a Master of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Lessons from this saga?

• There was no difference in the quality of teaching between junior college, Big Ten school, small liberal arts college, and Ivy. You get roughly one-third great; one-third decent; and one-third mediocre, regardless of where you go.
• School is more meaningful if you have some kind of clue what you want to do. What is your vocational calling? I realized mine was to be a policy wonk.
• If you start lowly, you can always transfer "up". People who stress that their 18-year-old isn't going to a name-brand university can take comfort that employers don't look at the college you start at, but the one you get your last degree in. Even then, where you get your degree only matters for entry-level. After that, its your ability on the job (including skills at office politics :grin.

Hope this screed is useful to someone. :smile:

Jesse,
My cousin has been under house arrest since he was born. The crime? Being the spawn of overprotective parents. When he is listening to Korn or whatever...good for him. We moved out of the teen stage many years ago so it is difficult to relate. Looking up to Boomers vs. Xers? You mean looking up to the assistant principal vs. the substitute.
When I was in school a very, very small amount of our teachers were "Xers". Those that were had only been there a year or two and had much in common with the students, who were often only 3-5 years younger than them. We could bring things up like Bruce Springsteen (I remember singing Hot for Teacher by Van Halen to my teacher to make her mad) and not miss anything. When the younger kids came up she said "Do you know that these kids have never owned a record player?" She was aware of the new gap.
It must have been weird to be in school with the 1982-85 crowd. Hell, it must have been strange to see someone born in 1982 as older. Thats just friggin weird.
That being said I am not saying that people born between 1982 and 1984 or whatever are all civic, that they worship authority. I mean just as 13th Gen was aimed at people born in the 60s, and their Boomer definitions are pretty much of the Woodstock wave, the Millennials Rising are pretty much those of the post 1990 crowd. With chapetsr like "Planet Pokemon" they no doubt alienated anyone born in the early to mid 80s.
My perception comes from experience, from related experiences, and from gut intuition.
I remember 1982....barely. I remember how it felt, and when gauging that feeling I had as a little kid, I find it not too different from my friends brothers who were born in 1976, or even 1973. They just had a more extended time in that period, or turning, or whatever you call it.
Ive only been through a turning once. And it only started to make sense much later. People I knew my age (mostly 1979 cohorts) would agree that in our early childhood we were part of some "cooler" time that just evaporated by 1984 or 1985.
Therefore to me, to remember 1986 as clear as it was yesterday and know that yes, we have an internet, and yes we've gone from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush, but somehow that vibe is still existing.
Things have changed though. Xers are no longer in youth. That just fizzled in the mid 90s. There are no more packs of kids riding their bikes without helmets and generally raising a ruckus. There is no more Dead Milkmen or Debbie Gibson. Roger Moore is no longer James Bond, and Timothy Dalton isnt James Bond either. In 1989 when 1994 (the year the next Batman was supposed to come out) seemed so far in the future (thinking..wow..thats right..after 1990 comes 1991 and then eventually 1994..how odd?)...those times have been long run over by humans in search of resources.
I wonder if we have entered 4T, because those memories are starting to seem pretty old and different in themselves, as opposed to the early 80s memories.

Ty.



Ty.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ty Webb on 2002-05-23 11:48 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ty Webb on 2002-05-23 11:50 ]</font>

On 2002-05-19 06:11, Justin wrote:

I know this because I have Boomer parents like that. However, I see my age group as more willing to call them on their shit.

As for 1983, 1984, yeah I see them as part of the same generation. Soft kids doing as they are told. Their "fuck the system" attitude or rather "fuck you" attitude that Nomads have or had

So the articles about teens stressing over getting into college are why you say they "ultimately will do what they are told"? So THAT'S what it is that's bothering you? Well.

The teens who are saying "fuck the system" on the outside are not the same group of teens who are letting their parents force them into a competitive college. You may see a lot of high-schoolers say "fuck the system" and act like your 1984 cousin and listen to That Music, but that's what they really mean inside. They're different people. The group who are fretting over getting into the best college possible actually LOOK like it. These ones DON'T say "fuck the system" (after all, it's not like 100% of the generation does). I knew all these kids from high school and they were the ones who said adults knew better than them and genuinely liked the Boomers better than the Xers. While the more rebellious ones who were slightly more like Boomers were as teens liked the X age bracket better than the Boomer bracket. These were also the ones who were and still are patriotic and had a strong sense of civic duty.
[/quote]
And then you have people like me... who make up such a small minority (fretting to get in but totally despising the system) that they shouldn't even truly be considered in generational analysis!

And from what they said to me during high school, these ones speak like they really want to get into it and they're convinced that they won't be able to get any job if they don't get into the Ivy League or as close to Ivy League as possible if they fail. Those who thought about nothing but whether they wouldn't get into college were a tight and select group. They took up activities just because they knew Princeton or Yale would like them. These ones generally picked as their first choice an Ivy League or top religious school or one of the U's within their own state (UCLA was considered their first choice because it was hardest to get into and wasn't Berkeley or Santa Cruz, but L.A. was still a little too wild for a lot of them...another idea of a top college? Claremont or Pepperdine.), while the hipper, more anarchistic students preferred Chico State or USC or Oberlin, or a lower-name college that would at least give them a degree even if it didn't have instant name recognition. No one was racing to get into THOSE schools, and hey, they do cover the bulk of the college-attending population, don't they? Then there's the third that don't go to college at all.

Berkeley was my first choice because the location was GREAT and it had the #1 math department in the country (and of course, the unofficial survey I saw that said Berkeley had the hottest girls in the country) :smile:... that would probably place me along the lines of the "hipper" students

Those that didn't want to work their ass off just to get accepted to a college and liked the cool music and clothes weren't all that way because of their parents; some of them really had parents that wanted them to focus on nothing but college. These are the ones who didn't obey so they didn't end up featured in a newsmagazine article written about superkids basing their high school years on college. Not even the local newspaper articles are written about them. Many of the bulk of youth, who DON'T end up in an Ivy League name, who end up in the majority with lesser-known or weaker colleges or the third that didn't go at all, come from this group that said no to the pushing. I was one of them. In sophomore year (just as they had in freshman year) my parents would look over my course selection sheet before signing it, and they looked over hard and kept wanting me to revise it. They looked through the course catalogue and added courses until it was filled with the most challenging line-up possible. They refused to just sign it and go until they had had a hard look and replace everything with subjects that would look good in the UC system. Even then they still worried if I could get into a good college because I didn't have a heap of extracurriculars. Never mind that most of the other students weren't extracurricular-laden and nothing awful happened to them, they was convinced I might end up without any acceptance slips except from "bad" colleges and always told me to be sure to work that B up to an A. When I chose a course line-up without any math courses chosen for my junior year, I boldly informed them that the high school only required two years of math to graduate. They insisted I go the whole four years so I could conform to "UC standards". (Even though UC San Bernardino for instance wasn't that hard to get into.) Nothing was good enough for them. I broke. I stopped taking certain classes. I didn't care when I got a bad grade in something. I told them I didn't WANT to get into UC LA/Berkeley or the Ivy League or CalTech or any of their favorite colleges! After all, it will just be four MORE years of drudging, no-fun hard work. They told me the top jobs would be taken if I didn't get into one of the best colleges. I told them I didn't care. They seemed to think the economy was so bad I would have to go work at Taco Bell if I didn't make it into one of the Top 25. They said the lower-tier schools wouldn't challenge me and it would be such a waste. Because, they told me, I had so much "mental talent". What a bunch of bullshit. We also had our huge differences over social issues and dress as well. That didn't help how well we got along over my goals. I was clearly unhappy at the time too.

I designed my senior year schedule so that I would take 8 slacker classes and a ridiculously easy college math class so that it looked hard but actually would allow me to goof off (as I said: "Every class but 1 is either a slacker class or a sophomore class") - of course, the plan backfired; although linear algebra was RIDICULOUSLY easy (I was expecting easy; I was NOT expecting the first half of the year to be algebra II review), many classes took MUCH more time than expected and I ended up staying up till 3 or so most nites

As you could expect, they didn't participate in the college application process except for the required signatures. I didn't have a fourth year of math and I didn't have the grades to get into Prepsboro, East Coast, USA anyway. So I had snapped. I didn't have the stamina to go that far for nothing. I'm sure my parents were thinking "What a waste...with those stellar freshman grades". They still don't approve that I go here instead of the Ivies or at least UCLA or CalTech. They doubt my future every step of the way. So, Justin, the next time you come across a 1985 cohort who's reported as stressing over college, just think about the millions who are going to go somewhere they don't need a 1590 on their SAT's and a load of extracurriculars to get into and aren't having articles written about them and rest assured that these ones aren't PRETENDING to say "Fuck the system" and wearing a RATM T-shirt--after all, they do show pictures of at least some of these students in some of the articles, don't they? As for your 1984-born cousin, I doubt it.

Now you made me cry.

It seems that in Southern California at least (not sure about the rest of the country), there exists a "Generation Y" from about the mid 70s to the mid 80s which is primarily Nomadic with a few Civic traits but seems united by temporal location - MUCH better than the East Coast!!!

Jesse, William...you are right. I am wrong. You are good, I am bad. You are smart, I am dumb. You are good looking, I am not attractive.
You have absolute power :lol:
Just check my survey once and awhile to see what people my age really think about their "generation"
Maybe they can answer some of your questions better, and I hope William Strauss picks up the bevy of information we have provided him with.
Christ we even singled out Sept-Oct 1983 as the start of the Unraveling. Not bad, not bad.

On 2002-05-23 14:30, Ty Webb wrote:
Jesse, William...you are right. I am wrong. You are good, I am bad. You are smart, I am dumb. You are good looking, I am not attractive.
You have absolute power :lol:
Just check my survey once and awhile to see what people my age really think about their "generation"
Maybe they can answer some of your questions better, and I hope William Strauss picks up the bevy of information we have provided him with.
Christ we even singled out Sept-Oct 1983 as the start of the Unraveling. Not bad, not bad.

I saw your survey... I think that the 83 cohort's response was worth noting tho (or was the three a typo?)

No she was born in 1983. I dont know her, I put the question out on some listservs. Im open to however people want to define themselves. I'd like to see more surveys.
I don't want to interpret the info. Its pretty self explanatory.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ty Webb on 2002-05-23 15:23 ]</font>

The difference of if the Millis like Boomers or Xers better as a generation depends on a couple of things. The 'sameness' you guys mentioned is part of it, but also - The older Millis probably will like the xers better because they are siblings with them, and the later millis the Boomers because they look at Xers as "mom and dad" and the boomers as "grandma and grandpa". We all know that grandparents get the good rap, and mom and dad get the bad one :grin:
Also, the older millis saw at least a *little* of the dope smoking and free sex attitude from the boomers and so they don't buy into the sanctimonious BS that some of the Boomers spew. Kind of interesting that the general boomer bent includes the idealism and the 'let the good times roll' attitude both.
But what do I know, I'm a stupid Xer, right? *smirk* LOL!

Oddly enough a girl born in 1980 said she felt like the "lost generation" more than anything else.

On 2002-05-24 18:47, Ty Webb wrote:
Oddly enough a girl born in 1980 said she felt like the "lost generation" more than anything else.

yeah, well, the lost rocked. A lot more fun than the GIs if nothing else.
Besides, we all felt kinda lost back then I think.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-05-24 21:43 ]</font>