I had a lot of problems with this presentation on the millenial learner. I found the presentation assumptive of both the class and the characteristics of the learner being presented. As an older student in the class, it seemed that the questions and generalizations made to the class were based on the characteristics of the class being of a certain age group, of which I felt excluded. I finally withdrew from participating in the question/answer portion of the presentation because I realized my age and experience were not being taken into account.

I also had problems with authoritative, essentialist tone of the presentation. I didn’t sense acknowledgement of the diversity of any given age group, that these generalizations might apply to some aspect of the learner profile, but one cannot assume that all students that fall withinn the millenial age group are going to have all the characteristics presented. In addition, I found the characteristics specific to a socio-economic group, those privileged to have helicoptering parents and opportunities to participate in extra curriculular activities.

I sensed a judgemental tone, a bootcamp attitude toward these students, that they are somehow lacking and it is up to the instructors to show the students where they are deficient and then pull them up by failing them. I have huge problems with this approach. When we talk about the barriers for diversity, inclusivity and academic success, a strategy that fails students to somehow build character traits seems cruel and unjust. Not only does it ignore the context of individual learner locations and what they need to engage in post secondary education, it also applies a one size fits all solution, a standardized instrument, to bring a complex student body to a new level of functionality. One of the assumptions that I found particularly troublesome on this point was the complete lack of instructional practices reflection. Given the nature of the millenial student characteristics, what is the best way to ensure engagement and academic succes? Are our methods and approaches useful to both the students and the institution?

Another point that bothered me was the notion that only the best will be hired. The best at what? Being able to provide the right answer, the answer an instructor expects, on an assessment instrument? This has been disproven many times. Where is the appreciation of emotional intelligence? Creativity? Leadership? Teambuilding? Critical thinking? Why assume that assessment methods and procedures of the past continue to be appropriate today? I found this part of the presentation deeply disturbing, when we take into account all the students that are either visibly or hidden disabled, ESL or socio-economicall disenfranchised. In this aspect, I found the presentation one sided, hegemonic and institutionally centered.

Finally, if we are going to learn anything from where we have been, I think it is to understand that there is no one truth, no one answer, that we are learning to live within a complex, integrated world, where individualistic notions of dominance must be questioned. I did not sense any of this self reflective analysis in the presentation. I found it judgemental, condescending and positing a privileged perspective out of touch with the wide range of contexts, juxtapositions and constructions of meaning that we all negotiate on a daily basis.