I didn’t look into the details of the survey described in this article. A large international survey that covers literacy is PIAAC[1]. You can read about their ‘levels’ of literacy in one of their reader’s guides[2]. The survey suggested that 17.6% of adults in the US score at level 1 or below (basic vocabulary, ability to extract a single piece of information in a short text) and 12.8% of US adults score at level 4 or 5. People with low literacy tend to struggle with vocabulary, or large blocks of text, and will be slow readers who can’t skim text.
I am bewildered by the low literacy ability of a significant amount of the people I hired. People with advanced degrees; can't take notes, can't really read either. Not idiots, but illiterate. How did they end-up there ? Do we now need to test for literacy in interviews ?
Probably not what the GP meant, but an interesting data point:
CGP Grey is a Youtuber who became well known for deeply-researched videos on subjects of nerdy interest.
Many years after going full-time doing this, he encountered Zettelkasten and realized that "taking notes" is supposed to including paraphrasing, write things in your own words, and making connections to other facts you've found. (Cortex podcast #105)
He thought notes were just the transcription version of using a highlighter in a book: exclusively verbatim quotes, just to save you from rereading the whole book. Synthesizing knowledge was a separate process. He'd carried this belief his whole life — educational Youtuber, high school physics teacher, two college degrees.
He attributes this in part to being raised on standardized testing, where memorizing the teacher's sound bites was how you succeeded.
Taking notes feels so basic that we just assume everyone knows how, and that we ourselves are doing it effectively. I mean, it's just taking notes, how hard is it? But really it's a growable skill where technique matters, and you can plateau very low if no one tells you you're doing it badly.
Zettelkasten changed everything for me, I didn't hear about it until my early 40's myself. I also had no idea you weren't just supposed to be summarizing verbatim.
It did take a huge amount of effort to go through the conversion process of my notes, but now it makes things much easier and works how my mind works to link concepts and ideas.
One sample here, but I hate taking notes and I am not good at it. I have very poor handwriting. I do scribble stuff but it's mostly useful for local, short time sketching of problems and when the issue is so complex I can't keep it all in my head.
Anyway, I am also quite literate(I think) so I am confused by the bundling of note-taking with literacy.
When I asked local tech CEOs in my town what skills they wanted entry-level programmers to have, they said they wanted them to be able to read and write.
No, you can have very low skills in English and still be able to code, like many coders in Asia. Hence, it definitely can be the same for native English speakers.
I assume those coders are literate in their native language, why do you say that is evidence you can code without being literate if you learned to code in English?
I assumed you thought you had to be literate to write code because it’s in English.
I think I disagree twice then. You do not need to be literate (as per the definition of the post), neither in English nor in another language to be able to code, I have seen with my own eyes people who struggle to write a simple email being able to produce code. (Please keep in mind the definition of literacy as per the post)
I always wonder what it means to have low literacy. I seem to be able to read, but my spelling has always been bad. Am I low, or just below average?
I know I am not stupid, and at least when it comes to software and computers are probably far above average. I always find my self in weird situations working with people who can spell and spot spelling errors so easy, but I am the one explaining how to do something technical or resolve a complex bug in software or how computers / compilers, or computer languages actually work under the hood.
So all that to say, what is literacy? And what part of it do you need to be successful?
In the context of this particular finding, the source [0] defines literacy as
> [..] as a lack of proficiency on the PIAAC, an internationally validated literacy exam. Adults who score below Level 3 for literacy are not considered proficient and are defined as at least partially illiterate in this study. Adults below or at Level-1 literacy may struggle to understand texts beyond filling out basic forms. Drawing inferences or combining multiple sources of texts is likely too difficult. Adults at Level 2 can read well enough to evaluate product reviews and perform other tasks that require comparisons and simple inferences, but they are unlikely to correctly evaluate the reliability of texts or draw sophisticated inferences. Adults at Level 3 and above are considered fully literate in this study. They can reliably evaluate sources, as well as infer sophisticated meaning and complex ideas from written sources.
In other words, it seems like the headline has been sensationalised; if half of the US has a level 3 literacy, I'd say they're not doing too bad at all.
I'm astonished at this POV. When I read that more than half of the country is "unlikely to correctly evaluate the reliability of texts," I see this as evidence that we are indeed doing "too bad."
I suppose this is a textbook glass half full vs glass half empty situation.
> Literacy is broadly defined as the ability to read and write, but it more accurately encompasses the comprehension, evaluation and utilization of information
So I wouldn't stress about your spelling in this context
Ehm, I'm from the EU, being a former globetrotter, living in the EU and... Situation here and in other places of the world it not much different. Yes most adults do know where Tokyo is and where is Central Asia or Perù, but... In substantial literacy terms most have issues reading non-super-dumb articles understanding them, elaborate a not so super-dumb concept in their mind, ...
Most adults do not know the bare minimum about the society they live in, oh sure, they tend to know the last gossip, but nothing about politics, bureaucracy, global changes and so on. They have a poor vocabulary, they can't write decent documents and so on.
how does this actually happen, at the classroom level? Are the kids actually going to school or is it a case they show up and basically teacher can't control what's going in the room?
Classroom level is only one aspect of it though; literacy is learned through exposure and various levels. Another commenter mentioned social media, which is probably a factor too. Low effort high volume comments, indifference to proper spelling ("bcuz u can understand me"), more video / image based than text based, different reading habits. Education is part of it too, in theory we were supposed to read X books per year and write a report on them (in practice, even back then we downloaded and slightly edited the reports from the internets).
> even back then we downloaded and slightly edited the reports from the internets
When was this? It being easy to find completed homework on the internet wasn't a thing 25 years ago, so "even back then" seems to not be that long ago, considering this would have been when you were in middle school. Majority of adults today didn't go to school under those conditions, they had to write those reports or copy from a friend, which of course is easy to notice for teachers.
What's the use of "reading" anymore? It's not like it's hard for us outsiders to spot why your general political and social environment in the US is going haywire.
You’re not wrong. But have you considered the difference between mainstream social media (video postings of 15-30 seconds) with HN (share a complex or long article, then have a text debate about it, using sophisticated English)
That map of "low literacy" looks like a map of where large volumes of blue collar immigrants live. At a minimum, the presentation seems misleading. It is like noting that a disturbing number of people who own cowboy boots live in Texas. Probably true, but it doesn't imply anything important.
Isn't the obvious solution to require prospective immigrants to demonstrate sufficient English skills prior to immigration? Specific niches like agriculture that do not require advanced language skills can use temporary work visas.
In the article they talk so much about funding schools which will improve immigrant literacy. But I think, that funding is not the problem. When you migrate to a new country you just naturally get into a bubble of your nationals. Its much easier to make a connection with other people from your country because of your common experience and culture. Then you just live in this bubble. You are in US, but all your free time you are still talking in your native language with your friends and family. Probably, read news and books in your native language too. So English language just needs to be on the bare minimum to give you a job. Hence low English literacy results.
While it's going to apply to some specific communities:
> When you migrate to a new country you just naturally get into a bubble of your nationals.
Just keep in mind that's a really bad generalisation. There's different groups migrating for different reasons with/without a family. You don't "naturally" get into any bubble unless you seek one, or have an existing connection to.
When I say "naturally" I imagine the situation, when you stand in a "social desert" and there are two people in front of you. They are the same age, the same profession etc. But the first one is from your native country and the second one is local. In order to communicate with the second person you need to use language you are not native in. There is also some cultural/mentality difference, naively you are not sure which topics you should avoid in discussions. Obviously you will feel a lot of pressure, at least in the beginning, speaking with the second person. When there are no such hurdles between you and your person. You can use your language, you know where the social borders are etc.
In order to make a connection and support it with the second person you need to overcome those hurdles. They may be not big for you. But my point is that they are there. And if human has a choice they naturally chose the easy past.
My point is that if you migrate you rather need to seek (work on) making friends with locals.
When, surrounding yourself with people from your country will happen by itself.
Of course I do not know what is the situation for everybody.
But this is what I see around me.
It sure happens, especially for the secondary people (family migrated because one person got a job). But I disagree with this as a generalisation. There's people who move explicitly to get to the new culture, those not connected to their home country, those just curious for something new, etc. I migrated multiple times now and I've seen lots of variety. You'll run into people from X who move specifically to the Xs neighbourhood, and people who resent X-specific meetings. It's really preferences and situations and many are shared/common but not something "natural".
Keep in mind that it's easier to see the number is Xs hanging out together in an Xs neighbourhood than how many random Xs are there individually in the city. (That you may not even realise where they come from)
> Some of these high county-level percentages stem from high populations of immigrants, whose first language is not English. The PIAAC only assesses English literacy, though its background questionnaire is given in English and Spanish.
If you look at the map (and read the article), it's fairly obvious that they are NOT adjusting for non-English first language speakers. This is partly on purpose since it's those demographics that need the most assistance and funding to learn English. However, it's really disappointing that this data is used to make statements and titles regarding people's "literacy" or reading comprehension when it's specifically testing a single language.
It’s a study done by the US Dept of Education. I don’t think it’s bad or even unusual that it tests English (and some Spanish) only. The implication is it is testing useful literacy in the US. After all, being literate in Tagalog isn’t a useful thing in the US, so why call someone who is literate in Tagalog only literate for the US?
I’m not certain this is as big an effect as you might imagine.
I’m an immigrant in Portugal, I have been here five years - and I am far more literate in Portuguese than a good many of the people I encounter here, who are born and bred Portuguese. Sure, they speak better than me, of course, and it took me a while to realise that many of them could barely read or write - but the educational system in rural Portugal did not, and seemingly still does not, produce people with anything above bare-bones literacy.
This isn’t a judgment - purely an observation that literacy is something that translates across language barriers for the literate quite readily, and poor education results in poor literacy - not being foreign.
"Literacy" is a ridiculously low metric as per the UN, I've read that a grade 6 reading level easily qualifies.
So it's not really a case of "low literacy skills" in terms of offical stats, but that the stats are lowish.
But what does one expect? For 100 IQ to be an average, there will be many below that number. The goal is to train all citizens as mich as possible, and literacy stats are to reflect that attempt.
IQ has to be 55 or below in order for literacy to be unattainable, which is less than 1% of the population. Between 56 and 85 adds difficulties and requires extra education but is not insurmountable. That's about 15% of the population.
130M in the US is over 50% of the adult population. That is not a matter of statistical distribution, that is a matter of policy failure.
I mean, at least a little bit more humility and respect for knowledge and expertise. One of the prevailing sentiments these days seems to be "do your own research!" which seems to me pretty difficult to square with the fact that the national recommendation for medical guidelines is to write at a 6-7th grade reading level to make sure most people understand the instructions.
> It seems that the article is trying to intentionally mislead its readers to think that those 130M adults don't possess literacy skill in any language that they use, while the underlying study only looks at literacy skill in English.
Yet the article says:
> It's not just people who are racial minorities. It's not just people who speak funny because they're from the South. It literally can be anybody
So maybe it's a matter of some readers trying to intentionally mislead themselves and others about what the article says.
> more than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
This is framed as a bad thing, as if it is somehow self-evident that sixth-graders are intellectually deficient and illiterate. But if you turn it around as "sixth graders read about as well as the median adult," it doesn't sound so bad anymore, does it?
In any case, criticism of recent education policies based on the observation that the standards in school are higher than they are for adults is missing the point, unless you want to argue that the standards are too high.
It says that 54% read below a sixth-grade level, not at a sixth-grade level. So even if you were to genuinely think that sixth graders are impressive readers, that would matter little, because most of the country is worse. Presumably you need to be comparing them to 5th graders, maybe even 3rd or 4th graders.
When you learn a new domain, you obviously need to learn the specialized vocabulary for that domain, whether you're 12 or 21. But I'd expect 12-year-olds to have the general vocabulary and comprehension skills to learn this specialized vocabulary from an introductory text explaining it to them.
> But I'd expect 12-year-olds to have the general vocabulary and comprehension skills to learn this specialized vocabulary from an introductory text explaining it to them.
In the US how many sixth graders read at a sixth grade level though?
How does this compare to Finland which has essentially the same humans but a significantly higher literacy level all round (in multiple languages)?
As a world traveller my past impressions of the US was that mean education levels, the man on the Clapham omnibus conversations, weren't as high as other G20 countries.
That was a suprising observation an it's something that could be improved if people cared enough to change policies .. something that seems difficult in the US that appears to view social policy (health, education, work safety, etc.) as akin to satanic communism in some quarters.
Many school districts now have policy against praising achievement for fear of being accused of marginalizing underachieving students, so underachievement becomes a safe norm.
TBF people who get praised for their achievements too much become insufferable. Or they end up running into a wall later in their education because it's not as easy for them anymore.
In a society that is increasingly less centered around reading, unused skills will atrophy and replaced with other things. It's not like the underlying genomics to execute the entire human spiel are getting better in step with societal change. Something's gotta give.
Furthermore, and despite my own inclinations, I have a hard time looking at literacy as an efficient delivery mechanism. In fact, I suspect the amount of time we spent reading for anything other than strictly pleasure will look fairly silly before long (at societal level and a humanity timescale).
In part that seems almost deliberate: Most of the "important" writing, to this day (and even though there has been some push back), prides itself in being fairly exclusive. Well, there you go.
What do you view as more efficient than reading? In my experience, reading information is easily 3-5x faster than audio or video, even when using 1.25x or 1.5x playback.
On a purely technical level: Nothing so far, but given how obviously slow and important it is, I think interest to find something better is high enough for that to happen soon-ish.
On a systemic level, the answer so far is "less reading". Our general tolerance for convoluted writing is waning. Most things we read are not books anymore (even if they are about books) and lately, ChatGPT has been slashing the reading time of a lot of papers for me.
Personally I find myself consuming large amounts of audio text, which by itself is not faster, but can be done during walks and runs.
You can find some practical descriptions of low literacy in UX articles like https://uxpamagazine.org/people_who_do_not_read_easily/ or https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2016/02/23/writing-content-for-every...
[1] https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/survey-of-adult-ski... [2] See pages 115-116 of https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-survey-of-adult-...