I'd agree. I was in the first group (I think) to benefit from the voting age of 18. As I recall, the newly-minted voters between 18 and 21, voted more based on photogenic-ness than substance. Perhaps the history & govt majors at our small college were more astute, but the general student body had no clue. Most voted for Kennedy over Nixon. Maybe the choice at the time was the better one, but I really don't think it had much to do with those young voters being so astute in history and govt. It was all about personality and Kennedy having personal presence.At that age, I had political bumper stickers on my car... couldn't have explained the stance of one single politician, however.
Do we really believe that we were smarter about life at 21 than at 41? We could certainly spot inequities and be iconclastics, but we really didn't know how to fix the things we felt were wrong. Bill Ayres et al figured they could just blow it up. He may not have changed his basic underlying goal much, but he did mature into knowing how to do it: not with a chemically engineered bomb, but with the time-bomb of manipulating the educational process.
So, Franco, maybe there is hope for the youngest generations. They see what is wrong with politics. Maybe as they mature, they will find ways to effectively change the course. Just as there should be a middle road between isolationism and nation-building, there may be a middle road between Libertarianism and Republicanism. Maybe the young generations will realize intelligent compromise can be achieved to reach the common goal of more individual freedom and less intrusive govt regulation?
SAT scores were never (nor are other school tests) an indication of native intelligence! They are simply ways of measuring whether students have a familiarity with basic principles of math, reading (and now) writing. Whatever one's native intelligence, they can benefit from being proficient in those basic principles!Correct and if SAT scores were an indication of Intelligence, then we would have to look at who the east and west coast votes for.
Even back in the 60s college admissions offices looked for satisfactory SATs, but ALSO gave considerable weight to HS grades. Success in college, they had found, was a combination of satisfactory mastery of the basic tools, and also the individual's willingness to work at their education on a daily basis. Our small college also gave weight to extra-curricular involvements. While good hockey players has some advantage , so did Student Council participants and art & theatre involvement, Science Fair activity, etc.
Generally speaking, from what I can tell, things like reading comprehension and facility with math, were better generally in my generation in college than what I've seen of today's product. That is not good if we depend on those basic skills to analyze and solve today's problems. Fully understanding a problem is essential to finding solutions.