The Strauss-Howe generational theory, created by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe, identifies a recurring generational cycle in American history. Strauss and Howe lay the groundwork for the theory in their 1991 book Generations, which retells the history of America as a series of generational biographies going back to 1584.[1] In their 1997 book The Fourth Turning, the authors expand the theory to focus on a fourfold cycle of generational types and recurring mood eras in American history.[2] The theory was developed to describe the history of the United States, including the 13 colonies and their Anglo antecedents, and this is where the most detailed research has been done. However, the authors have also examined generational trends elsewhere in the world and identified similar cycles in most of today’s developed countries.[3]
Contents |
Strauss and Howe’s partnership began in the late 1980s, when they began writing the book Generations, which tells the history of America as a succession of generational biographies from 1584 to the present. Each had previously written on generational topics: Strauss on Baby Boomers and the Vietnam War draft, and Howe on the G.I. Generation and federal entitlement programs.[4] The authors’ interest in generations as a broader topic emerged after they met in Washington, DC, and began discussing the connections between each of their previous work.[5] They wondered why Boomers and G.I.s had developed such different ways of looking at the world, and what it was about these generations’ growing up experiences that prompted their different outlooks. Strauss and Howe also wondered whether any previous generations had acted along similar lines, and their research showed that there were indeed historical analogues to the current generations. The two ultimately identified a recurring pattern in Anglo-American history of four generational types, each with a distinct collective persona, and a corresponding cycle of four different types of era, each with a distinct mood. The groundwork for this theory was laid out in Generations in 1991. Strauss and Howe expanded on the theory and updated the terminology in The Fourth Turning in 1997.[4][6]
Generations helped popularize the idea that people in a particular age group tend to share a distinct set of attitudes and behaviors because they all grow up and come of age during a particular period in history.[7] In the mid-1990s, the authors began receiving inquiries about how their generational insights could help solve strategic problems in organizations.[8] Strauss and Howe were quickly established as pioneers in a growing field, and started speaking frequently about their work at events and conferences.[7]
In 1999, Strauss and Howe founded LifeCourse Associates, a publishing, speaking, and consulting company built on their generational theory. As LifeCourse partners, they have offered keynote speeches, consulting services, and customized communications to corporate, nonprofit, government, and education clients. They have also written six books on how the Millennial Generation is transforming various sectors, including schools, colleges, entertainment, and the workplace.
On 18 December 2007, William Strauss died at the age of 60 from pancreatic cancer.[9] Howe has continued to expand LifeCourse Associates and to write books and articles on a variety of generational topics. Each year Mr. Howe gives about 60 speeches, often followed by customized workshops, at colleges, elementary schools, and corporations.[10]
Strauss and Howe's first book, Generations (1991), tells the history of America as a succession of generational biographies from 1584 to present, and identifies a recurring generational cycle in American history. The authors posit a pattern of four repeating phases, generational types and a recurring cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises, from the founding colonials through the present day.[11] Generations gave rise to a number of terms that are now widely used, including Millennial Generation and G.I. Generation.
Strauss and Howe followed in 1993 with their second book, 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, which examines the generation born between 1961 and 1981, "Gen-Xers" (alias "13ers", since they are literally the thirteenth generation since America became a nation, although the X in 'Gen X' originally stood for the Roman number ten, meaning the 10th Generation since America became a nation about 200 years prior, a common misconception leading to 'Gen Y', etc., instead of 'Gen XI'). The book shows how 13ers' location in history—they were children during the Consciousness Revolution—explains their pragmatic attitude and lack of generational cohesion.[12]
In 1997, the authors published The Fourth Turning, which expanded on the ideas presented in Generations. Examining 500 years of Anglo-American history, The Fourth Turning reveals a distinct historical pattern: Modern history moves in cycles, each one lasting approximately the length of a long human life (about 80–90 years), and each composed of four different types of mood eras, or "turnings". Offering a detailed analysis of the period from the Great Depression through today, the authors describe the collective persona of each living generation. These include the upbeat, team-playing G.I.s, the indecisive Silent, the values-obsessed Boomers, the pragmatic 13ers, and the new coming-of-age generation of upbeat, team-playing, Millennials. By situating each living generation in the context of a historical generational cycle and archetype, the authors claim to clarify the personality and role of each—and the inevitability of a coming crisis in America.[13] In 2000 the two authors published Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation (2000). This work investigated the personality of the generation currently coming of age, whose first cohorts were the high school graduating class of 2000. Strauss and Howe show how today's teens are recasting the image of youth from downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged. They also say Millennials are held to higher standards than adults apply to themselves; they are a lot less violent, vulgar, and sexually charged than the teen culture older people are producing for them, and, over the next decade, they will transform what it means to be young. According to the authors, Millennials could emerge as the next great generation.[14]
LifeCourse Associates has since released several application books on Millennials—including Recruiting Millennials Handbook for the United States Army (2001), Millennials go to College (2003) and Millennials and the Pop Culture (2005). Millennials go to College: 2nd Edition came out in 2007, along with Millennials Go to College: Surveys and Analysis, the first significant study of college students and their parents by generation. Millennials and K-12 Schools and Millennials in the Workplace are soon to be released.
Before the duo met in the 1980s, William Strauss began studying generations in the 1970s, when he wrote a book about the Baby Boomers on how the Vietnam War affected them called Chance and Circumstance: The Draft the War and The Vietnam Generation (1978) with Lawrence Baskir, while serving under President Ford, dealing with the draft and amnesty issue which also included the book Reconciliation after Vietnam (1977) that determined the future of U.S. military enlistment after the war. Neil Howe studied America's entitlement attitude of the 1980s with the Concord Coalition and wrote On Borrowed Time: How America's entitlement ego puts America's future at risk of Bankruptcy (1988).
Strauss and Howe define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years, or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and old age. Particular generations are identified (from first birthyear to last) by looking for cohort groups of this length that share three criteria. First, members of a generation share what the authors call an age location in history: they encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life. Because members of a generation are shaped in lasting ways by the eras they encounter as children and young adults, they also tend to share certain common beliefs and behaviors. Aware of the experiences and traits that they share with their peers, members of a generation also tend to share a sense of common perceived membership in that generation.[15] For example, in a 2007 Harvard Institute of Politics survey, Americans born 1982 to 1989 (whom Strauss and Howe define as the first-wave cohorts of the Millennial Generation) identified themselves as belonging to a “unique and distinct” generation, with an outlook different from people in their 30s or older.[16] Surveys show that Boomers also strongly identify with their own age cohort.[17]
| Prophet | Nomad | Hero | Artist | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Childhood | Elderhood | Midlife | Young Adult |
| Awakening | Young Adult | Childhood | Elderhood | Midlife |
| Unraveling | Midlife | Young Adult | Childhood | Elderhood |
| Crisis | Elderhood | Midlife | Young Adult | Childhood |
Strauss and Howe base their definition of a generation on the work of diverse writers and social thinkers, from ancient writers such as Polybius and Ibn Khaldun to modern social theorists like José Ortega y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, John Stuart Mill, Émile Littré, Auguste Comte, and François Mentré.[18]
| Generations |
|---|
|
While writing Generations, Strauss and Howe discovered a pattern in the historical generations they examined. Generations that come of age as young adults during a Crisis or an Awakening directly absorb the lessons of that defining era, and carry these lessons forward in their attitudes and behaviors later in life. Strauss and Howe label these dominant generations. Generations that grow up as children during a Crisis or Awakening take a dependent role during that defining era, which shapes their later attitudes and behaviors very differently. Strauss and Howe label these recessive generations.[19]
The two different types of eras and two formative age locations associated with them (childhood and young adulthood) produce four generational archetypes that repeat sequentially, in rhythm with the cycle of Crises and Awakenings. In Generations, Strauss and Howe refer to these four archetypes as Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive.[20] In The Fourth Turning (1997) they update this terminology to Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.[21] The generations in each archetype not only share a similar age-location in history, they also share some basic attitudes towards family, risk, culture and values, and civic engagement. In essence, generations shaped by similar early-life experiences develop similar collective personas and follow similar life-trajectories.[22]
To date, Strauss and Howe have identified 25 generations in Anglo-American history, each with a corresponding archetype.[23] The authors describe the archetypes as follows:
Prophet generations (dominant) are born after a Crisis, during a time of rejuvenated community life and consensus around a new societal order. Prophets grow up as the increasingly indulged children of this post-Crisis era, come of age as self-absorbed young crusaders of an Awakening, focus on morals and principles in midlife, and emerge as elders guiding another Crisis.[24] Due to this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their coming-of-age fervor and their values-oriented elder leadership. Their main societal contributions are in the area of vision, values, and religion. Their best-known historical leaders include John Winthrop, William Berkeley, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin Roosevelt. These were principled moralists who waged idealistic wars and incited others to sacrifice. Few of them fought themselves in decisive wars, and they are remembered more for their inspiring words than for great actions. (Example among today’s living generations: Boomers.)[25]
Nomad generations (recessive) are born during an Awakening, a time of social ideals and spiritual agendas, when young adults are passionately attacking the established institutional order. Nomads grow up as under-protected children during this Awakening, come of age as alienated, post-Awakening adults, become pragmatic midlife leaders during a Crisis, and age into resilient post-Crisis elders.[24] Due to this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their adrift, alienated rising-adult years and their midlife years of pragmatic leadership. Their main societal contributions are in the area of liberty, survival and honor. Their best-known historical leaders include Nathaniel Bacon, William Stoughton, George Washington, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barack Obama. These were shrewd realists who preferred individualistic, pragmatic solutions to problems. (Example among today’s living generations: Generation X.)[25]
Hero generations (dominant) are born after an Awakening, during a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and laissez faire. Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis, emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers, and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening.[24] Due to this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their collective military triumphs in young adulthood and their political achievements as elders. Their main societal contributions are in the area of community, affluence, and technology. Their best-known historical leaders include Cotton Mather, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. These have been vigorous and rational institution builders. In midlife, all have been aggressive advocates of economic prosperity and public optimism, and all have maintained a reputation for civic energy and competence in old age. (Examples among today’s living generations: G.I.s and Millennials.)[25]
Artist generations (recessive) are born during a Crisis, a time when great dangers cut down social and political complexity in favor of public consensus, aggressive institutions, and an ethic of personal sacrifice. Artists grow up overprotected by adults preoccupied with the Crisis, come of age as the socialized and conformist young adults of a post-Crisis world, break out as process-oriented midlife leaders during an Awakening, and age into thoughtful post-Awakening elders.[24] Due to this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their quiet years of rising adulthood and their midlife years of flexible, consensus-building leadership. Their main societal contributions are in the area of expertise and due process. Their best-known historical leaders include William Shirley, Cadwallader Colden, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. These have been complex social technicians and advocates for fairness and inclusion. (Examples among today’s living generations: Silent and Homelanders.)[25]
One reason why the cycle of archetypes recurs is that each youth generation tries to correct or compensate for what it perceives as the excesses of the midlife generation in power. For example, Boomers (a Prophet generation, whose strength is individualism, culture and values) raised Millennial children (a Hero generation, whose strength is in collective civic action). Archetypes do not create archetypes like themselves, they create opposing archetypes. As Strauss and Howe explain, “your generation isn’t like the generation that shaped you, but it has much in common with the generation that shaped the generation that shaped you.”[26] This also occurs because the societal role that feels freshest to each generation of youth is the role being vacated by a generation of elders that is passing away. In other words, a youth generation comes of age and defines its collective persona just as an opposing generational archetype is in its midlife peak of power, and the previous generation of their archetype is passing away.[27]
In Generations, and in greater detail in The Fourth Turning, Strauss and Howe identify a four-stage cycle of social or mood eras, which they call turnings. These include the Crisis and Awakening eras already described, as well as a post-Crisis and post-Awakening era. Each turning lasts about twenty years. Four turnings comprise a full cycle of about 80 to 90 years,[28] which the authors term a saeculum, after the Latin word meaning both “a long human life” and “a natural century.”[29]
Generational change drives the cycle of turnings and determines its periodicity. As each generation ages into the next life phase (and a new social role) society’s mood and behavior fundamentally changes, giving rise to a new turning. Therefore, a symbiotic relationship exists between historical events and generational personas. Historical events shape generations in childhood and young adulthood; then, as parents and leaders in midlife and old age, generations in turn shape history.[30]
Each of the four turnings has a distinct mood that recurs every saeculum. Strauss and Howe describe these turnings as the “seasons of history.”[31] At one extreme is the Awakening, which is analogous to summer, and at the other extreme is the Crisis, which is analogous to winter. The turnings in between are transitional seasons, similar to fall and spring.[32] Strauss and Howe have identified 26 turnings over 7 saecula in Anglo-American history, from the year 1435 through today.[33]
At the heart of the Strauss-Howe theory is a basic alteration between two different types of eras, Crises and Awakenings. Both of these are defining eras in which people observe that historic events are radically altering their social environment.[34] Crises are periods marked by major secular upheaval, when society focuses on reorganizing the outer world of institutions and public behavior (the last American Crisis was the period spanning the Great Depression and World War II). Awakenings are periods marked by cultural or religious renewal, when society focuses on changing the inner world of values and private behavior (the last American Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s).[35] During Crises, great peril provokes a societal consensus, an ethic of personal sacrifice, and strong institutional order. During Awakenings, an ethic of individualism emerges, and the institutional order is attacked by new social ideals and spiritual agendas.[36] According to the authors, about every eighty to ninety years—the length of a long human life—a national Crisis occurs in American society. Roughly halfway to the next Crisis, a cultural Awakening occurs (historically, these have often been called Great Awakenings).[35]
In describing this cycle of Crises and Awakenings, Strauss and Howe draw from the work of other historians and social scientists who have identified long cycles in American and European history. The Strauss-Howe cycle of Crises corresponds with long cycles of war identified by such scholars as Arnold J. Toynbee, Quincy Wright, and L.L. Ferrar Jr., and with geopolitical cycles identified by William R. Thompson and George Modelski.[37] The Strauss-Howe cycle of Awakenings corresponds with Anthony Wallace’s definitive work on revitalization movements,[38] which scholars such as William Mcloughlin and Robert Fogel have suggested are cyclical.[39] Strauss and Howe also examine how recurring Crises and Awakenings correspond with two-stroke cycles in politics (Walter Dean Burnham, Arthur Schlesinger Sr. and Jr.), foreign affairs (Frank L. Klingberg), and the economy (Nikolai Kondratieff) as well as with long-term oscillations in crime and substance abuse.[40]
The First Turning is a High. This is a post-Crisis era when institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by the conformity.[41] America’s most recent First Turning was the post-World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The Silent Generation (Artist archetype, born 1925 to 1942) came of age during this era. Known for their caution, conformity, and institutional trust, Silent young adults epitomized the mood of the High. Most married early, sought stable corporate jobs, and moved into new suburbs.[42]
The Second Turning is an Awakening. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of personal authenticity. Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty.[43] America’s most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution,” which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid 1960s to the tax revolts of the mid 1980s. The Boom Generation (Prophet archetype, born 1943 to 1960) came of age during this era. Their idealism and search for authentic self-expression epitomized the mood of the Awakening.[44]
The Third Turning is an Unraveling. The mood of this era is in many ways the opposite of a High: Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. Highs come after Crises, when society wants to coalesce and build. Unravelings come after Awakenings, when society wants to atomize and enjoy.[45] America’s most recent Unraveling was the Long Boom and Culture Wars, beginning in the mid 1980s and ending in the late 2000s. The era began during the second term of (Reagan’s “Morning in America”), which has developed into an edgy popular culture, a pervasive distrust of institutions and leaders, and the splitting of national consensus into competing “values” camps. Generation X (Nomad archetype, born 1961-1981) came of age during this era. Their non-committal lack of attachment, free agency and media perceived directionlessness epitomized the mood of the Unraveling.[46]
The Fourth Turning is a Crisis. This is an era in which America’s institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s survival. Civic authority revives, cultural expression redirects towards community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group. Fourth Turnings have all been new “founding moments” in America’s history, moments that redefined the national identity.[47] America’s most recent Fourth Turning began with the stock market crash of 1929 and climaxed with the end of World War II. The G.I. Generation (Hero archetype, born 1901 to 1924) came of age during this era. Their confidence, optimism, and collective outlook epitomized the mood of the era.[48] Today’s youth, the Millennial Generation (Hero archetype, born 1982 to 2000), show many traits similar to those of the G.I. youth, including rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.[49]
| Generation | Type | Birth years | Formative era |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late Medieval Saeculum | |||
| Arthurian Generation | Hero (Civic) | 1433–1460 (27) | Unraveling: Retreat from France |
| Humanist Generation | Artist (Adaptive) | 1461–1482 (21) | Crisis: War of the Roses |
| Reformation Saeculum (104) | |||
| Reformation Generation | Prophet (Idealist) | 1483–1511 (28) | High: Tudor Renaissance |
| Reprisal Generation | Nomad (Reactive) | 1512–1540 (28) | Awakening: Protestant Reformation |
| Elizabethan Generation | Hero (Civic) | 1541–1565 (24) | Unraveling: Intolerance and Martyrdom |
| Parliamentarian Generation | Artist (Adaptive) | 1566–1587 (21) | Crisis: Armada Crisis |
| New World Saeculum (112) | |||
| Puritan Generation | Prophet (Idealist) | 1588–1617 (29) | High: Merrie England |
| Cavalier Generation | Nomad (Reactive) | 1618–1647 (29) | Awakening: Puritan Awakening |
| Glorious Generation | Hero (Civic) | 1648–1673 (25) | Unraveling: Religious Intolerance |
| Enlightenment Generation | Artist (Adaptive) | 1674–1700 (26) | Crisis: King Philip's War/ Glorious Revolution |
| Revolutionary Saeculum (90) | |||
| Awakening Generation | Prophet (Idealist) | 1701–1723 (22) | High: Augustan Age of Empire |
| Liberty Generation | Nomad (Reactive) | 1724–1741 (17) | Awakening: Great Awakening |
| Republican Generation | Hero (Civic) | 1742–1766 (24) | Unraveling: French and Indian War |
| Compromise Generation | Artist (Adaptive) | 1767–1791 (24) | Crisis: American Revolution |
| Civil War Saeculum (67) | |||
| Transcendental Generation | Prophet (Idealist) | 1792–1821 (29) | High: Era of Good Feeling |
| Gilded Generation | Nomad (Reactive) | 1822–1842 (20) | Awakening: Transcendental Awakening |
| Hero (Civic)0 | |||
| Progressive Generation | Artist (Adaptive) | 1843–1859 (16) | Crisis: American Civil War |
| Great Power Saeculum (85) | |||
| Missionary Generation | Prophet (Idealist) | 1860–1882 (22) | High: Reconstruction/Gilded Age |
| Lost Generation | Nomad (Reactive) | 1883–1900 (17) | Awakening: Missionary Awakening |
| G.I. Generation | Hero (Civic) | 1901–1924 (23) | Unraveling: World War I/Prohibition |
| Silent Generation | Artist (Adaptive) | 1925–1942 (20) | Crisis: Great Depression/World War II |
| Millennial Saeculum (65+) | |||
| (Baby) Boom Generation | Prophet (Idealist) | 1943–1960 (17) [50] | High: Superpower America |
| 13th Generation (a.k.a Generation X)1 |
Nomad (Reactive) | 1961–1981 (20) | Awakening: Consciousness Revolution |
| Millennial Generation(Generation Y)2 | Hero (Civic) | 1982–2000 (18) | Unraveling: Culture Wars, Postmodernism, Internet Revolution |
| New Silent Generation (Generation Z)34 | Artist (Adaptive) | 2001–present (10+) | Crisis: Global Financial Crisis, War on Terror, and Globalization |
The basic length of both generations and turnings—about twenty years—derives from longstanding socially and biologically determined phases of life. This is the reason it has remained relatively constant over centuries.[51] Some have argued that rapid increases in technology in recent decades are shortening the length of a generation.[52] According to Strauss and Howe, however, this is not the case. As long as the transition to adulthood occurs around age 20, the transition to midlife around age 40, and the transition to old age around age 60, the basic length of both generations and turnings will remain the same.[51]
In their book, The Fourth Turning, however, Strauss and Howe emphasize that the precise boundaries of generations and turnings are erratic. The generational rhythm is not like certain simple, inorganic cycles in physics or astronomy, where time and periodicity can be predicted to the second. Instead, it resembles the complex, organic cycles of biology, where basic intervals endure but precise timing is difficult to predict. Strauss and Howe compare the saecular rhythm to the seasons of the year, which inevitably occur in the same order, but with slightly varying timing. Just as winter may come sooner or later, and be more or less severe in any given year, the same is true of a Fourth Turning in any given saeculum.[53]
Howe posits that America is currently in or about to enter a Fourth Turning.[54][55] The individualism, risk-taking, and conspicuous consumption of the recent Third Turning are winding down, and today’s social mood is marked by new sobriety about unpaid debts at home and unmet challenges abroad. Society is beginning to view the recent Third Turning as a period of drift when public problems were allowed to accumulate—problems that are now reaching a level of urgency where the nation must tackle them head-on.[56]
Like all turnings, Fourth Turnings are pushed by the aging of each generation into a new phase of life. Yet unlike other turnings, the emerging lineup of generational archetypes is likely to push history forward in a sudden, concerted, and decisive direction.[57] According to Howe, this is true today as well. As Boomers replace the Silent as elder leaders, they will reject caution and compromise and act on moral absolutes. As Gen Xers replace Boomers in midlife, they will apply a new pragmatic survivalism to management decisions. As Millennials replace Gen Xers in young adulthood, they will revitalize community, social discipline, and public purpose.[58]
According to Strauss and Howe, there are many potential threats that could feed a growing sense of public urgency as the Fourth Turning progresses, including financial collapse, a protracted war on terror, a crisis of weapons proliferation, an environmental crisis, an energy shortage, or new civil wars abroad. The generational cycle cannot explain the role or timing of these individual threats. Nor can it account for the great events of history, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Kennedy’s assassination, or 9/11. What the generational cycle can do, however, is explain how society is likely to respond to these events in different eras. It is the response, not the initial event, which defines an era.[59]
With the generations aligned as they are now, the risk of a major continuing Crisis remains high for the next twenty years.[58] Yet Howe emphasizes that the Fourth Turning will also offer crucial opportunities to fix national or even global problems that seem unsolvable today.[60]
Many reviews of their theory have been favourable. Former U.S Vice President Al Gore called Generations the most stimulating book on American history he'd ever read. He even sent a copy to each member of Congress.[10]
Some reviewers of the duo's books, such as the New York Times' Michael Lind have criticized their theories for being too vague, and for verging into the realm of pseudoscience.[61] Lind claims that the theory is essentially "non-falsifiable" and "mystifying," although they do have some insights into modern American history.
Publishers Weekly called the book "as woolly as a newspaper horoscope" and many academics have been dismissive.[10] Arthur E. Levine, a former president of the Teachers College of Columbia University said "Generational images are stereotypes. There are some differences that stand out, but there are more similarities between students of the past and the present. But if you wrote a book saying that, how interesting would that book be?"[10]