Comparing Millennials to Pre-1987 Students and with One Another

Much has been written in recent years about cross-generational changes in the psychological characteristics of university students. Examples include: (a) meta-analyses comparing generations (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008; Twenge, 2006; Twenge & Foster, 2008; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008; Twenge & Foster, 2010), (b) descriptions and explanations of problematic trends in U.S. culture (Benoit, 2004; Eckersley, 2010; Jackson, 2008; Jacoby, 2008; Levine, 2006; Rosen, 2005; Twenge & Campbell, 2009; Twenge & Campbell, 2010), and (c) case studies and observations of university student attitudes and behaviors (Benton, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2008; Stewart, 2009; Stewart & Schlegel, 2009). In a strong challenge to those who assert that there are substantial cross-generational differences, several authors (e.g., Terracciano, 2010; Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010) have argued that the case for large birth cohort differences has not been made. Based on carefully controlled comparisons of high school birth cohorts, Trzesniewski and Donnellan described their position this way: "In sum, we believe that the existing evidence for cohort-related differences along the lines of the so-called Generation Me profile is limited because of sampling concerns. Specifically, we are referring to the conclusion that individuals born in the 1970s or later have higher scores than members of earlier birth cohorts on measures of self-esteem, external locus of control, and indices of selfishness and also have lower scores on measures of social concern and indices of well-being and happiness (i.e., misery, according to Twenge, 2006). We also believe that there are lingering questions about the exact size and scope of generational differences and how these differences should be interpreted by the scientific community (p. 62)." We agree that those questions linger and that cautious interpretations are in order, but Trzesniewski and Donnellan's conclusions contradict Twenge's meta-analytic studies of university students and do not match the behavior of the public university students with whom we interact. The disconnect between their conclusions and our perceptions may be explained by Twenge and Campbell's (2008) observation, "It is possible that college students have shown generational change, but the less selective population of high school students has not" (p. 1082). Trzesniewski and Donnellan's birth cohorts of high school seniors were carefully controlled samples designed to represent total populations of U. S. youth. Twenge's (2006) and Twenge and Campbell's (2009) college-attendee cohorts were samples that may differ because the degree of selectivity in college admissions has varied across the generations being compared. The critical point is that comparisons of the traits of high school birth cohorts may neither apply to college student cohorts nor address the issues with which many university teachers currently cope. Many of our public university colleagues believe there has been a downturn in the academic performance of their current students. Some are convinced that this generation is less knowledgeable and academically skilled than previous generations. Moreover, such data as Bauerlein's (2008, pp.11-38) cross-decades review of measures of literacy and educational skills supports assessments that current students do not perform as well as those with whom faculty worked in the past. In addition, the mid-1990s decision to re-center the norms of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was a result of the decline in academic aptitude scores of average college attendees. The significance of the change in SAT norms was made explicit by Bridgeman's (2005, p.745) calculation of an equivalent old-norms score for any given current-norms score. For instance, today's combined verbal and quantitative SAT score of 1020 is equivalent to a score of 910 in the decades preceding the 1995 recentering. …