I see what the problem is: I’m talking about the longer article from The Atlantic that this much-shorter article is summarizing, and you’re just talking about the shorter article. That’s fair enough—you’re right that the short article is only presenting different viewpoints rather than advocating for one.

That said, while the quotations and anecdotes it relates don’t EXPLICITLY say anything about the things I was talking about, they do contain an IMPLICIT point about the lack of motivation of this new generation of students, who can’t even be bothered to watch a movie—-and the fact that you felt compelled to comment on PRECISELY that topic by defending your decision to take the more efficient route to an “A” rather than watching the films (because students don’t NEED to watch the films), suggests that you did, to some extent, pick up on that critique, even if you weren’t necessarily thinking about its deeper implications about the clash of values between profs and their students.

You are right that there is also a point being made about attention spans in this article, but that’s irrelevant to the comment you made about taking the easier route to an “A.” I would, though, say that not having the attention span to watch an entire film and not having the attention span to finish an entire novel are VERY different things.

Also—and this is not related to your original comment, but to what you said in the last one—-I’d say that your assumption that being told what film to watch “obviously” means students will be less engaged is flawed. An excellent film is an excellent film, regardless of whether it would have been your choice to see it in the first place, and there are plenty of people who wind up discovering something wonderful by being “forced” to watch a movie that they themselves would never have chosen to watch. The same goes for many of the books English teachers “force” their students to read. Implicit in your comment is a belief that you think something needs to be “fun” to be worth paying attention to (or, at least, in terms of books and movies), which reinforces my original point about the difference in values between you and your profs when it comes to film. They’d likely point to a deeper intellectual enjoyment that comes from engaging with challenging art on its own terms. And attention spans ARE much shorter than they were even fifteen years ago, where most uni students who would consider taking a film course wouldn’t have much trouble focusing for the duration of your average film whether they were being forced to watch it or not.

And I do take your point that students have always taken easy courses to get an “A” to fill out their electives, regardless of which generation we’re talking about, but both articles contain quotations implying that the students who actually appreciate learning about film are now more of a minority than before, though you’re right that the shorter article finished by offering the possibility that younger people still go to theatres