Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >


Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of high schoolers coming of age while driving around in cars, hanging out with their friends, and generally navigating that particularly angsty time of life.

The important topics of discussion, like the upcoming Aerosmith concert and Kevin’s party getting crashed before it even begins, aren’t that different from what high school kids talk about today. But, how they communicate about it all is very different. It’s all in person, face-to-face.

Contrast that with newer films like He’s All That and Not Okay. They reflect how socializing works now – via social media and apps.

So, what’s the big deal with teenagers using cell phones and apps to hang out instead of doing so on the hood of a muscle car (or more likely their mom’s station wagon)? Turns out something seriously concerning may be going on as a result.

No one wants to hang out anymore and our “social batteries” are running down.

Research indicates most people are actively making the effort to avoid social interactions on a daily basis and there is evidence that is even more true among Millennials and Gen Z who prefer to be alone and communicate online.

In her book, iGen, Jean Twenge argues that Gen Z, the generation born between the mid-1990s and the early 2010s, is spending less of their free time with peers in person than generations before. She cites a study that found college-bound high school seniors in the mid-2010s spent an hour less per day on in-person social interactions than kids from the late 1980s.

In Dazed and Confused, the kids’ social batteries never seemed to run out. The friends stuck together until daybreak forced them to part. But that endless energy to spend time with others in-person doesn’t seem to exist much any more.

With people spending less time together, it appears we’ve also forgotten how to act when we do socialize. A study published in the Journal of Personality found that EI, emotional intelligence, has dropped since 2019. EI refers to one’s ability to comprehend emotions in others and yourself. EI fosters empathy and our ability to connect with others. Without it, it’s difficult to understand one another.

And, who wants to hang out with people that don’t understand you?

With our social batteries running low, general social anxiety has shot up since 2020, according to a Penn State Center for Collegiate Mental Health study. People feel less self-assured in their ability to have positive interactions with others in person. Researchers say, because people don’t want to spend time together, there is an overarching struggle to form meaningful relationships. 

And it’s not new.

All the way back in 2000, political scientist Robert D. Putnam explored America’s movement towards an individualistic society in his book Bowling Alone (which was based on an essay he published in 1995).

This suggests that our escalating social disconnect predated both the pandemic and social media. The groundbreaking solution he came up with was… to be more social. Face-to-face interactions gained from being a part of a social network are priceless. Participating in a club or a sports league can stimulate emotional intelligence and enhance social skills.

Which is not to say online communication is always a bad thing. The internet has given people a chance to connect with others in a way they never could before. Relationships formed online should be encouraged as long as in-person interactions aren’t avoided.

So, all hope isn’t lost!

Social belonging and meaningful relationships are still possible along with friendships that will keep us out past curfew. So, don’t be afraid to get in trouble with your friends every once in a while!

This post was written by Marist Poll Media Team member Eve Fisher.

Photo credit: “Dazed and Confused”, Gramercy Pictures, 1993

graduation cap next to rolled diploma on stone table

The Future of Higher Education

While the world of higher education faces challenges, there is a great deal of potential success for institutions of higher education.  

In this national Marist Poll, conducted as part of a presentation for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) 2023 Annual Meeting & Advocacy Day, nearly two in three Americans (65%) consider college to be an important way to get a job and improve one’s position in life. A majority (55%) think people with a four-year college education are better off, financially, and 58% have a favorable impression of four-year colleges and universities in the United States.  

While public polling has shown that a growing number of Americans are questioning the financial benefit of a four-year college education, there is more to the story. In this post-COVID era, people are questioning their life choices and priorities. They are increasingly turning an eye toward self-fulfillment, work-life balance, and self-care, not just the bottom line.    

When asked about the main benefit of a college education, “expanded career options” is the most cited, followed closely by “personal growth and development.” Vying for the number three spot are “increased earning potential” and “critical thinking skills.”  

Regarding the Pell Grant program, Americans overwhelmingly support (74%) a proposal to double the annual grant. This support cuts across most groups including political party and level of education. For instance, 57% of Republicans back doubling Pell Grants.

two female presenting young people heads together posing for selfie outside in parking lot

Is “Latinx” Here to Stay?

The movement to introduce “Latinx” into mainstream vocabulary has been a fervent one, but just how many people support, or even know, what “Latinx” is?

“Latinx” is a term for those of Latin American descent that replaces “Latino” or “Latina” — words that are gendered, because the Spanish language is gendered. Masculine nouns end with an “o” (like “Latino”) and feminine nouns end in an “a” (like “Latina”).

“Latinx” is used by those who don’t identify as being male or female, who don’t want to be identified by gender, or who want to use a non-gendered term.

The term was coined by American-born Hispanics specifically within the LGBTQ+ community and is popularly used by members for what it represents. A 2019 report conducted by the UCLA Williams Institute reported that 20% of people of color in the LBGTQ+ community identify as Latinx. But most other Hispanic Americans do not.

Despite its use by some prominent politicians and pop figures, most Latinx people don’t know what the term is, and those who do aren’t fans of it enough to use it themselves. A Pew Research study conducted in 2019 of 3,030 Hispanic adults living in the U.S. found only 23% had even heard the term “Latinx” and just 3% ever used it. But there’s a big generational gap.

Among those between 18-29, 42% knew of the term and 7% used it.

In addition, American-born Hispanics are more likely than those born elsewhere to have heard the term (32% vs. 16%) and use it (4% vs. 2%).

It seems “Latinx” is a term in conflict with its own demographic. The term is seen as a form of cultural appropriation by those who dislike it, viewing it as disrespecting Hispanic culture and language. In an Axios report on the word, Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said, “When Latino politicos use the term it is largely to appease white rich progressives who think that is the term we use. It is a vicious circle of confirmation bias.” 

In contrast, many people who identify as Latinx view the term as more accurately representing them. Fordham Professor Arnaldo Cruz-Malave told NBC News that the use of Latinx “has only picked up momentum with the struggles for queer and trans rights in the past decade both in Latin America and the U.S.” 

“Latinx” as a term is new, but the conversation among Americans of Latin American descent about names is not. “Hispanic,” “Chicano,” and “Latino/Latina” have been used by various Spanish-speaking Americans over the decades. In the mid-1950s, Puerto Rican activists in New York and Mexican-American organizers in the west created a united political movement in order to gain more political recognition and power. By the 1970s, as the result of their work, a new Census category was established for people of Latin American descent in the U.S., coined as “Hispanic” after the Spanish word “hispanos,” meaning Spanish descendants.

After a couple decades, “Hispanic” began to lose ground as activists objected to the word’s reference to colonialist Spain. As an alternative, “Latino/Latina” became more common and has been used interchangeably with “Hispanic.”

Despite “Latinx” being known by a small minority of people, with an even smaller percentage using it, some media companies, academics, and politicians have adopted the term. For example, President Biden used the term while explaining the difficulties of Latin Americans getting vaccinated and Disney recently promoted its content during “Latinx Heritage Month.” At California State University, Fullerton the pioneering Chicana and Chicano Studies Department is launching something it’s calling the Latinx Lab focused on storytelling and social justice across all the Spanish-speaking communities of Southern California.

This difference between how the vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos/Latinx use the term versus how some major organizations and people of influence use it, raises an interesting question: Is language defined by how many people use it, or by how influential its users are? Or maybe both?

This post was written by Marist Poll Media Team student William Promisel.

hand holding pencil filling in bubble test partially completed

The Future of Standardized Testing

The pandemic has forced people to accept a lot of changes, but Americans aren’t too sure doing a makeover of standardized testing is one of them. In fact, Americans are divided on the effectiveness of the exams themselves.

Standardized tests in the United States date back to the 19th century and were used as a metric to gauge school outputs and teaching quality. Since then, testing has evolved to better understand students’ comprehension in subjects such as math, reading, writing, science, and history. 

After the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law in 2002, standardized testing became more prominent. In order for public schools to receive federal funding, they had to administer standardized tests. According to the Pew Center for the States, annual state spending on standardized tests nearly tripled, climbing to almost $1.1 billion in 2008 from $423 million before NCLB was enacted.

Now, two decades later, what do Americans think of standardized testing? And, are test scores as important as they once were?

Let’s start with the most famous tests — college admission products like the SAT and ACT. In a March 2022 Pew Research poll, conducted by Ipsos, 39% of Americans said scores on standardized tests should be a “major factor” in college admissions, while 46% said they should be a “minor factor.” Just 14% believed they should not be a factor at all. 

More colleges and universities have gone test-optional since the pandemic, but Americans aren’t sold on getting rid of tests entirely. Without standardized tests, colleges rely on transcripts, class rank, and admission letters to accept students.

And, the debate on standardized testing also involves younger school-aged children. 

Across the country, K-12 students participate in testing called the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The Common Core standards are similar across all states and allow different schools, states, and districts to compare their students’ proficiency in different subjects. 

In 2015, Braun Research asked Americans whether they favored or opposed the Common Core state tests for K-12 students. Americans were divided with 50% saying they favored the tests, 41% said they didn’t, and 9% indicating they were unsure. 

During the last two decades, public schools have been given financial incentives to perform well on these tests. In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Race to the Top program into law. The legislation allowed states to compete for $4.35 billion in extra funding based on statewide test score averages.

How did that play with Americans? Divided again.

According to a 2013 National Opinion Research Center and Associated Press poll, Americans were split over monetary incentives in standardized testing. Half said they favored paying teachers more money if students performed better on standardized tests.

While nearly all schools have been fully in-person since the start of 2022, meaning testing can be resumed, the pandemic gave Americans a reason to take a new look at standardized tests.

Some public school districts have responded by offering alternative methods to fulfilling graduation requirements beyond standardized testing and, as we’ve seen, more colleges and universities have reconsidered mandatory SAT or ACT scores.

Still, the future of standardized testing is complicated as Americans disagree over both the requirements to take tests and the value of the tests themselves. What does seem certain is educators, legislators, and parents will continue to tinker with standardized testing until a solid majority of Americans choose a side.

This post was written by Marist Poll Media Team student Greta Stuckey.

protester in horned hat with American flag yelling in Capitol building chambers

It’s Built In: American Polarization, Part 2

This is part two of a two-part series on polarization in America. This post focuses on the systemic causes of polarization that result from our country’s political structure.

Over the past few years, we have witnessed profound political polarization, the emergence of what many see as a radical right and left, and an insurrection that jeopardized the peaceful transition of power.

In the midst of this, Americans are losing pride and faith in the nation and are exceedingly dissatisfied with the performance of their government.

A Gallup poll, conducted in June 2022, showed strong national pride has hit a record low (38%). According to a February Fox News Poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans are “dissatisfied” or “angered” with the way the government is functioning (67%).

What is driving this polarization, loss of pride, and general sense of dissatisfaction with our government?

Many would cite divisive topics like abortion, vaccine and mask mandates, police brutality, and gun control; however, these may only be symptoms of a system that structurally encourages polarization.

Certain structural elements of our system, such as the Electoral College, the rigid two party system, and even the way in which the Senate is composed, serve to amplify or even encourage this political polarization. The common thread tying these structures together is the failure to fully represent the interests of the majority of Americans.

Electoral College

The Electoral College is an integral part of the U.S. Constitution and has been used to select the president since the country’s founding.

Why not just use the popular vote count? The Electoral College system was the result of an elaborate compromise between those who wanted Congress to choose the president and those who preferred using the popular vote.

As a result, when you vote in a general election you are really voting for electors and these electors are the ones who actually cast the votes that elect a president.

Each state has the same number of electors as it does congressional representatives (members of the House and Senate). Therefore, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors and a candidate must receive 270 votes in order to win the election.

Here’s where it gets tricky. Most states are winner-take-all – whichever candidate wins the most votes at the polls gets all of that states’ electoral votes. Except in Maine and Nebraska, where proportional representation means the vote total in each Congressional district dictates how each electoral vote is assigned.

The problem is, candidates can run up the score in some states with huge majorities, but just barely lose in others with literal handfuls of votes deciding the race. The result?

Over the course of our nation’s history, five presidents have been elected while losing the popular vote. In every case except the first, these victors have been Republican candidates who beat out their Democratic adversaries in the Electoral College (or House of Representatives) and not in the popular vote.

In these four elections, any direct political power that voters had in the presidential election process was essentially overruled.

In a 2020 survey conducted by PRRI, 66% of respondents believed that the president should be elected by the popular vote rather than the Electoral College. That same question was asked in a 1993 UWSA Poll, and 73% of those surveyed were in favor of eliminating the Electoral College.

For multiple decades, the overwhelming majority of Americans have shown their disapproval for the Electoral College system, yet it persists.

Why? If such a big majority of Americans believe the system is fundamentally flawed, where is the change?

The simple answer is, it’s really hard.

In order to eliminate the Electoral College, the Constitution would have to be amended. This means it would have to be approved by a ⅔ majority in both the House and Senate, and then ratified by ¾ of the states.

Although this would be a difficult feat, there have been several proposed Electoral College reform bills which are gaining traction. While these may not fix all the issues with the Electoral College, they indicate a growing receptiveness among politicians to change.

Even if the Electoral College is never eliminated, there are other alternatives to giving the (direct) power back to the people.

For instance, the National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement between all signatory states and their electors to pledge all of their electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, representing 36% of the 538 Electoral College votes. If more states join and bring the total to 270 of the 538, it would effectively end the potentially disparate effect of the Electoral College and make U.S. Presidential elections decided by the popular vote.

The Senate

Then, there’s the U.S. Senate.

When Congress was created it was divided into two houses. The House of Representatives and the Senate.

The House of Representatives was created to serve as a representation of the people. Due to this, members of the House of Representatives are elected directly and each state’s number of representatives is determined based on the size of its population.

The Senate was created to give every state equal representation within the legislative process. This means that each state has two senators regardless of their population. And, until 1913, people didn’t even get to vote for their Senators. State legislatures decided who to send to Washington.

The Senate was created as a check on the feared “mob rule” mentality of the House, ensuring that the interests of states with smaller populations would not be steamrolled by those with larger populations.

Although this is what our Founders desired, the structure of the Senate has been the focal point of a lot of criticism recently.

For instance, that Wyoming and California have two senators each, despite their vast population differences, means Wyoming voters have far more power in the Senate on a per capita basis than California voters – which is what the Founders intended – but rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

The House better reflects a state’s population but the two major parties have often used their power over drawing district lines to create seats that are “safe” for their party. With enough clever mapmaking, a state like Georgia, which voted for Biden and two Democratic U.S. Senators in 2020, has nine Republican House seats, four Democratic seats, and 1 competitive district.

And, it gets crazier in the way state legislative districts are drawn. Michiganders have voted for the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 save one, have had two Democratic Senators since 1978 with one exception, yet have a state senate controlled by Republicans since 1984.

Is there a fix?

A constitutional amendment would be needed to change the number of senators each state has and, as noted above, that’s incredibly unlikely. Fixing the House is somewhat easier.

Arizona and six other states have implemented independent redistricting commissions in an attempt to limit gerrymandering. Other states have made more limited moves and courts have become active in trying to create more fairness in the system. It’s a start, but political power is a powerful motivator!

Two-Party System 

Another area of concern for Americans is the lack of viable alternatives to our two extremely polarized political parties.

A July 2022 Suffolk University Political Research Center/USA Today Poll asked Americans if the current two parties were adequately representing their needs or if more parties were necessary. The majority (60%) agreed that a third, or multiple other parties, is needed.

So, why aren’t third party candidates more successful?

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose line and received 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 Electoral College votes. Although this wasn’t enough to win, it set the bar for third party candidate success. Decades later, Ross Perot won nearly 19% of the vote in 1992 but failed to win any states.

Third party candidates have won some big federal and state races like Bernie Sanders and Jesse Ventura.

In 1981, Sanders won the mayoral race for the city of Burlington and, in 1990, was elected to the House of Representatives, running as an independent in both cases. To this day, he remains an independent in his third term in the U.S. Senate. Ventura, on the other hand, ran on a third party line as the Reform Party nominee when he won the Minnesota gubernatorial race in 1998.

While these third party success stories may appear relatively few and far between, they do show that, with enough time, effort, and support, it can happen.

In recent years, Americans have become increasingly frustrated with the two party system and some are calling for additional parties to better represent their interests.

For instance, a new party called Forward is being spearheaded by Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman. The party is composed of former Democrats and Republicans and seeks to establish an option for moderate voters. And, that makes sense according to most polling.

In the 2022 Suffolk University Political Research Center/USA Today poll, Americans were asked about their political identification. Of those surveyed, 9% considered themselves “very liberal” and the same number considered themselves “very conservative.” The largest chunk of the population (36%) considered themselves moderates.

With so many middle-of-the-road voters and such a significant chunk of Americans calling for a third party, the timing may be perfect for the emergence of a strong and stable third party within the United States.

The new Forward Party has the potential to reinvigorate voters and give them a viable alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties.

Even if the Forward Party is not an immediate success, there are other actions being taken to reduce the power of the two-party system.

Many states and municipalities throughout the United States have successfully implemented non-partisan elections. Non-partisan elections allow independent candidates to gain more attention and permit candidates affiliated with a major party to run on more moderate agendas.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is another potential disruptor. It remakes multi-candidate elections by allowing voters to rank all potential candidates in order of preference. This eliminates the need for run-off elections, gives voters a chance to have more say, and gives candidates opportunities to build coalitions as each round of counting eliminates the lowest performing competitor.

Although RCV has been used for a while, it faced one of its biggest tests in the 2021 New York City citywide elections. In the Democratic primary, 13 candidates qualified for the mayoral ballot, and RCV smoothly produced a consensus winner, Eric Adams. Despite criticism that RCV was confusing for voters, it proved to increase voter turnout.

Through the widespread use of things like RCV and non-partisan elections, we may be able to turn the tide on polarization.


What is clear is that Americans say they are unhappy about how things are going in our politics and polarization is a big cause of that. Structures built into our political system are at least part of the reason we have become so polarized.

So why is nothing changing?

Maybe, for all our talk, most Americans aren’t really pushing very hard to make it so. If we really want to be less polarized and have a political system that more Americans are proud to support, we can’t leave it to the politicians and the political system to make the changes necessary to get there.

This post was written by Marist Poll Media Team student Michael Bowler. Photo credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images