But if you do learn to discriminate and understand how to figure out what is real and not, and how Google prioritizes and manipulates what you see first, it can be a very powerful tool. I know I, for one, want to be able to effectively sift through all the Britney stories to find the truth. And pr0n.

White bread for young minds, says university professor
Google is “white bread for the mind”, and the internet is producing a generation of students who survive on a diet of unreliable information, a professor of media studies will claim this week.

In her inaugural lecture at the University of Brighton, Tara Brabazon will urge teachers at all levels of the education system to equip students with the skills they need to interpret and sift through information gleaned from the internet.

She believes that easy access to information has dulled students’ sense of curiosity and is stifling debate. She claims that many undergraduates arrive at university unable to discriminate between anecdotal and unsubstantiated material posted on the internet.

“I call this type of education ‘the University of Google’.




  1. g0ne says:

    Pr0n.

    [a little reverence for the Almighty, Uncle Dave]

  2. Mister Catshit says:

    I disagree with the professor. One of the best things I ever learned in school was the importance of sifting information into relevancy and validity. That is something that needs to be taught as I don’t believe many people come by it naturally. The same bad information that is available today was available when I went to university.

    Google is a great tool. It can deliver a lot more information in a sort period of time than can browsing through a library. Maybe post grad students have the time to search information, but juggling several classes does reduce the amount of time undergrads can spend on each subject. Maybe the good professor forgets that aspect.

  3. Uncle Dave says:

    The issue underlying this isn’t Google, per se, it’s that critical thinking isn’t taught in the classroom. The reason, of course, is that if you know how to think critically, political rhetoric and advertising bs doesn’t affect you the way it should because you see it for what it is.

  4. Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

    Always include “truth” as one of your keywords on Google and you’ll be fine 😉

  5. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #2 and #3 – You guys are right on…

    She believes that easy access to information has dulled students’ sense of curiosity and is stifling debate.

    I believe that easy access to gossip about Paris Hilton and a steady diet of dumb-ass YouTube videos have distracted students’ from having a better sense of curiosity, and I think debate has always been stifled.

    We aren’t becoming dumb. We are dumb already. But tools like Google (and many more) can help those who are smarter, who are curious, to get to information faster and more efficiently.

  6. jamesmrea says:

    What is wrong with white bread?

  7. eyeofthetiger says:

    Google can’t translate Charlie Brown’s teacher.

  8. Canucklehead says:

    #3 U.Dave,

    the Church isn’t too crazy about teaching critical thinking either. I mean, virgin birth? come on.

  9. Improbus says:

    What is wrong with white bread?

    It is cheap, has no taste, has no nutritional value and no fiber. Is that enough for you? Whole grain breads always. Word!

  10. the answer says:

    It’s not the search engine that’s to blame, it’s rather authors who publish wrong information. There is too much on “One man speaks” on the internet. Some people need to shut up and let the smart kids raise their arms and speak. To call it “University of Google” is wrong. “University of Wikipedia” sounds more along the lines of what she is saying.

    Now I just noticed that she is someone ill informed opening up HER mouth. At least this is what I am pulling out of this article.

  11. bobbo says:

    Its only WITH a multitude of voices/opinion that one can develop critical thinking.

    Single source subjects?–Like Religion or earlier years with few books in print, or later years with little distribution of books that were available foster group think as no one hears a dissenting idea.

    Google is good for those who wish to learn, and for those who don’t.

  12. Mister Catshit says:

    #5, OFTLO,

    Easy access to frivolous information has been around for a long time. Supermarket Tabloids and genre magazines (US, People, Teen Beat, etc) filled the publics “need” to know for years.

    Although I’m too young to remember, there used to be a newspaper columnist, later radio show host named Hedda Hopper that played upon the exact same plebeian demand for base entertainment and gossip.

    #11, bobbo,

    Good point.

  13. brian t says:

    Yet another “either-or” rant. Why do people with concerns like these always assume everything goes to extremes?

    I’m at university at the moment (one of those “mature students”), and I find the Internet complements lectures and well-written texts, but could never take the place of them. From the Internet I can get plenty of Information, but I can’t get much Knowledge – that requires work – and I sure as hell don’t find any Wisdom online. 8)

  14. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #12 – Of course you are right… Where I see a difference is that you have to choose People Magazine over Newsweek (or whatever) to kill brain cells, but the Internet readily pushes frivolous crap along with more important info.

    Of course our mainstream media has moved over the past three decades from information to infotainment, and that’s done us no favors. Even my example of Newsweek above is often pretty guilty of mixing news with junk.

    But ultimately, no one puts guns to our heads. We are free to ignore the junk, making it mostly our own choices to be dumb or not. (at least, in this case)

  15. DBR says:

    Sounds like a strawman, meant to attract attention, and it worked. Students used to arrive believing anecdotal and unsubstantiated info from parents, local biases, churches, etc., long before the internet.

    (Am I the only one that finds the locution, “… unable to discriminate between anecdotal and unsubstantiated material posted on the internet” kind of clumsy? I mean, I bet they can too discriminate between the anecdotal and the unsubstantiated! I think whoever wrote it meant “unable to distinguish between factual, verified material and anecdotal, unsubstantiated blah blah blah ..”

  16. Angel H. Wong says:

    The reasong why this professor is whinning is because teachers like to challenge students but don’t want to be on the other end.

  17. Mister Catshit says:

    #14, OFTLO,

    OK, I see your point a little better now.

    #16, Angel,

    Damn man, you have a wit !!!

  18. old waterman says:

    “I call this type of education ‘the University of Dvorak’

  19. Milo says:

    I wonder if this guy is shorting Google?

  20. angelxic says:

    oh snap! hahaha… this is a funny article but the comments are the intelligent part. everything i was thinking all came out in the comments


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5047 access attempts in the last 7 days.