No, Japanese people do not seem pretty firmly convinced "that many native Japanese (especially the younger generations) cannot write by hand any more b/c they forget how".
This problem is often reported on the news in Japan, and the problem is that people are forgetting things such as: 1) the correct stroke order for difficult kanji 2) the exact radicals in rarely used complex kanji. For example, 薄 and 簿 look similar, but the top radical is different. Confusing these rarely results in someone being unable to understand the desired meaning, but will elicit eye-rolling and chuckles.
It's absolutely not the case that Japanese people can't write by hand anymore.
A better analogy would be cursive writing. Most young Americans can no longer write in cursive. Their handwriting has become simple, inelegant, and they probably don't follow the "correct" way of writing their letters. But they can still write. Just as Japanese can still write.
I believe that a serious study of kanji (such as Heisig) is best left for a more advanced level of Japanese. Beginners often overload themselves trying to learn thousands of kanji when they don't even know the meanings of the compounds that the kanji are used in. I believe that Heisig even mentions in his introduction something to the effect that using his book won't really improve your Japanese, it will just improve your ability to learn Japanese. Rather than spend hours per day studying Heisig for months, I would recommend a more traditional approach to beginners of learning the most common kanji as they learn the vocabulary.
For the advanced student looking to master kanji, then a method like Heisig's seems best. However, for those interested in the Heisig method, I recommend this book: Kanji ABC [1]. It is similar to Heisig's but organizes the kanji so that you learn similar kanji together. Also, while Heisig spends much time trying to get you to memorize convoluted association sentences, Kanji ABC simply gives you the radicals (similar to Heisig's 'primitives') and you build your own association sentences.
It's an exaggeration (a huge one) to say that many native Japanese cannot write by hand anymore due to technology. Rather, they have forgotten the stroke order on certain characters, or often confuse two similar characters. It's very debatable as to whether this has been caused by more widespread use of computers, or if such "character amnesia" has always been present. The same can be said for spelling: Do you think English speakers never made spelling mistakes before spellcheck?
Students of language are always looking for the best way to learn, but there isn't any "best way" in my experience. Each person learns differently.
Personal motivation is without a doubt the largest factor in whether a person successfully learns a language. To that end, I think the goal of any classroom or learning system should be to maintain a high level of learner motivation. There is a strong correlation for students of foreign languages (i.e. a language that is not spoken in the country where it is being learned) who are strongly interested in the culture of the language they are learning and their success at learning that language. This is because their motivation to learn, driven by their desire to experience the culture more completely, remains high throughout the learning process. Students who take language courses as part of a compulsory education curriculum, or who are studying out of casual interest, lose motivation quickly regardless of the learning system.
As a language teacher, I try to expose my students to as many learning techniques as possible. Some students successfully increase their vocabulary using word lists and flashcards, others require the pressure of real communication to acquire new words.
There will never be one "best way" to learn, so my advice to any learner is to try as many learning systems as possible, expose yourself to as much media in that language as possible, and constantly change it up so that you don't lose motivation.
I wouldn't say that language learning is broken, but rather that students who begin learning a language have misguided expectations about how difficult and time consuming it actually is. If you, as an adult learner, can learn just one foreign language fluently in your lifetime, you are doing well.
I agree that software will soon be able to efficiently interpret between two languages. I take issue with the article stating that "people will be fluent in every language". Having access to an interpreter (software or human) does not make one fluent in a language. Actually being fluent provides a much greater depth of understanding than an interpreter can ever approach. An English-speaking businessman who lives in Japan and relies on an interpreter will not be as efficient at his job as one who becomes fluent in Japanese, due to the enormous subtleties and cultural complexities of language.
Given the current state of language translating software, I think this is highly unlikely in the next 10 years. Anyone who is bilingual and has used a translation app knows how woefully inadequate it is for actual communication. The nuances of language are far too complex, not to mention the importance of non-verbal communication. How can software correctly translate the answer "Well, I'm not sure..." (which could signify hesitation to accept, passive disagreement, a pause for time to think, etc.) without understanding the context of the answer, and the tone of voice and facial expression of the speaker? Not in 10 years...
I agree. Any adviser that judges your capabilities based on how long you spend in the lab is a fool.
But I think that in cases similar to the original author's, the student incorrectly perceives the pressure on him to be to spend more time in the lab and less on other things, whereas it is actually to be more productive and focused. Being dedicated and having outside interests are not mutually exclusive.
The highly competitive academic research environment selects for faculty who are 100% dedicated to their research and thus able to publish the most and bring in the most grant money. Such faculty, of course, expect the same dedication from their graduate students. The worst nightmare for a researcher is to have a graduate student that makes slow progress, constantly depends on the researcher for oversight, and produces few results of value. This graduate student is wasting time and resources and has little hope of successful completion.
The more assured a researcher can be that a student is completely dedicated to research, the more likely he or she will be to accept the student. For this reason, it makes sense to only list your experience in the field on your CV. But if, once you enter, you are able to work efficiently and produce good results, it should not matter what extracurricular activities you participate in. If your adviser told you to quit your part-time job, I think that it is more likely that he's frustrated by your lack of progress than that he is embarrassed that you have outside interests.
This problem is often reported on the news in Japan, and the problem is that people are forgetting things such as: 1) the correct stroke order for difficult kanji 2) the exact radicals in rarely used complex kanji. For example, 薄 and 簿 look similar, but the top radical is different. Confusing these rarely results in someone being unable to understand the desired meaning, but will elicit eye-rolling and chuckles.
It's absolutely not the case that Japanese people can't write by hand anymore.
A better analogy would be cursive writing. Most young Americans can no longer write in cursive. Their handwriting has become simple, inelegant, and they probably don't follow the "correct" way of writing their letters. But they can still write. Just as Japanese can still write.