I just caught up with your #64, where you refute everything I asserted in #66.
You evidently have the benefit of an involved segment who are truly interested in history and...things.
My experience as an adjunct at a state univerity was a little different. I had a class of obviously bright upper division students, eager to learn, anxious to pursue a career in advertising, public relations or the media. I didn't see a problem with native intelligence or motivation.
Problem was, only four out of forty could do long division. And only four out of forty could compose a coherent paragraph.
I'm not blaming the kids themselves. I'm blaming the way they were taught (or weren't taught). I'll stand on "uneducated"...
Well, I disagree. I’ve taught every grade from 7th up; Pima Indians and migrant farm workers; top of the line elite kids, and most recently at an upper middle class private Catholic school, certainly not in the top 50 American colleges overall. I don’t think they’re as dense as you think; and they know a helluva lot more than you think-—just not in the ways you think they “should” know it. They don’t read books. They absorb TONS online, and through linkage. So it’s an unwinnable debate on either side, but I’m telling you, it’s a mistake to underestimate them. And if we don’t reach them, we’re finished anyway. The future is NOT 60 year old geezers.