Literacy

I’ve written here of my horror at discovering that a large minority
of students graduating my university were functionally illiterate.

Check this, which in a kinder and gentler way, says the same thing:

‘Against this backdrop, a finding of a 2007 survey by the American Institutes of Research is particularly chilling: “[M]ore than 50 percent of students at 4-year colleges do not score at the proficient level of literacy. This means that they lack the skills to perform complex literacy tasks, such as comparing credit card offers with different interest rates or summarizing the arguments of newspaper editorials.” Such results don’t bode well for Americans’ performance in the global economy – which is increasingly knowledge-based – nor for their performance as citizens of a democracy or their ability to remain at the cutting edge of technology and innovation.’

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100602/ts_csm/304688

Something has gone terribly wrong, yes?

WHat?

I’ve got an MBA and I have trouble with that.

I never get too upset about the results of any test if I can’t read the questions to see not only what was asked, but how it was asked.

At least part of the trouble with what we’re doing in the USA is this focus on testing. When my wife was teaching middle school I asked her how come none of the kids wrote in cursive, and she said, “Well, it’s not on the state proficiency test, so the elementary school teachers don’t teach it.”

So what are these kids going to do when they come to work in the real world and their boss hands them a hand-written note?

To answer Simon’s question,
the problem is that lots of people are entering university/college illiterate from high school
and staying illiterate, and sometimes becoming less literate, through university.
One reason they are graduating high school illiterate is that they are taught
by university graduates, who are illiterate.

There is a desperate desire to keep students, due to tuition needs, hence a general dumbing
down of universities (with exceptions being well-endowed places like Harvard).
Meanwhile teachers faced with illiterate students incapable of doing college level
work stop teaching, more or less. Multiple choice exams replace written exams
or essays, which students can’t do. In some large courses students are informed
that attendance is optional. Freshmen comp requirements are curtailed, so that
students get less training in writing, and so are foreign language requirements
(both happened at my university). The result is a large number of
illiterate graduating seniors who can’t write a grammatical sentence,
not to mention an intelligible paragraph.

I’ve mentioned how a teacher competency test was given the graduating
seniors in education at a local university, all of whom failed it.
The test was published in the Times-Picayune. It consisted chiefly
of paragraphs (about the French Revolution), followed by multiple
choice questions about what it had said. Anybody who could
read at a high school level could pass the test.

Once this level of ‘education’ is in place, students howl bloody murder
when a prof tries to seriously teach; they feel they are being wronged.
Their other teachers don’t treat them this way! This makes teaching
unpleasant and tenure hard to get and of course grading written stuff
is a lot harder than grading multiple choice…

So at the end of the day universities pass along illiterates.
This is an extraordinary act of economic predation,
cause the students think they are getting educated.
Many work full-time to fund the education of which
they have been cheated.

No, the problem isn’t testing, nor is it obscure. People simply
cannot read and write because they are products of
an educational system that didn’t teach them how
and nobody requires them to do it. The system perpetuates
itself. The universities keep them because they need
the tuition and faculty shift to easy stuff because
it’s easier for them and they tend to have a lot
of trouble if they really teach.

Science, math, technical stuff is perhaps different.

I wrote a letter to our student newspaper describing what I was seeing
and calling for literacy testing of all graduating students.
The paper didn’t publish it, nor did they tell me why.
They just went silent. I contacted the faculty adviser
who, after reading the letter, did the same thing.

Maybe you were making an assumption there.

Maybe they couldn’t read it. Just sayin’.

I taught at the university level in Innsbruck, in English.
There was some worry that it wouldn’t work.
It turned out that Austrian high school grads
write English much better than American
university grads.

Oh well…

After WWII lots of people, mature people, went to university under the GI Bill.
Then sputnik went up and we pumped money into education, to catch up with
the Soviets. When the money dried up in the early 70s, the universities
had overbuilt and overstaffed and student tuition was now the only
hope of continuing at present levels. There were two options:

cut back or dumb down. The latter = illiteracy.

Hole worlds going to Helena ham basket, innit.

I want my EmpTV.

Its cause more womans then mans are graduating from collage. If moore mens graduated the literal rate would go bach up,

On the positive side, I am looking more brilliant by the day.

A thinning scalp will do that.

I’m a genius!!!

Ken yew say…“albedo”?

Ah knew yew could.

Several months ago, I watched a seminar on a writing course we’ve been using, and the presenter said something that struck me as very true (for me, at least). It was something to the effect that coherent writing is the foundation for coherent thought. No question: communicating in writing organizes and streamlines my otherwise scattered thought process and shows pretty quickly & objectively any problems with reasoning, gaps in knowledge, and so forth.

I like the writing and grammar programs we’ve used and wish more schools would adopt something similar, but I’m convinced that many schools aren’t really after producing independent thinkers. They’d rather supply the thoughts pre-digested and move 'em on through, conveyor-belt style. I’m sure testing pressures have a lot to do with that, or that’s the impression I get from teacher-friends. My observation is that the move from knowledge/character-based education to behaviorist/psychology-based has much to do with it as well. That’s why we have moved, as a family, into a more classically oriented approach.

I think it has a lot to do with teachers not wanting to teach something that they don’t understand themselves.

Hand out from my courses:

You will probably notice that I wrote all over your papers-lots of red ink, even where you got full credit. I don’t do this to persecute you or to criticize you; I simply want to share with you some of what I know about writing well. These particular exams present you with a golden opportunity to improve your writing a great deal- to take a giant step forward in writing well. Let me encourage you to do that, to learn to express difficult ideas with simplicity and clarity. It’s easy to do, if you are willing to work at it like a demon, to write and then rewrite, and then rewrite. Clarity and simplicity is something for which you can develop a passion, it can become an obsession, a healthy addiction. Let me encourage you to develop a passion for clarity.

All of you are a lot brighter than your writing makes you look. You understand things better than you write them down. But the motto we all need to adopt is a statement from John Searle: If you can’t express it clearly, you don’t understand it yourself. The way you learn to express something clearly is to reread critically what you write, looking for unclarity, then rewrite, then rewrite, and so on. Make it a matter of personal pride that your writing will do your intelligence justice. When you can express yourselves clearly you will find that you have become a great deal more intelligent. One of the jobs of a university is to make sure its graduates write like educated men and women.

Writing that is simple and lucid is beautiful. One of the great and lasting pleasures in human life is writing well. This is one way we can all be artists. The special aesthetic virtue of writing down difficult ideas well is elegance. Elegance is economy and simplicity and directness; the opposite of elegance is busyness. When you write with elegance your writing looks easy-- the reader thinks you sat down and tossed the thing off.

Good philosophical writing is kindly. Everything is done to help the reader. What question are you answering? At what stage are you in your exposition? Are you giving an argument? Is this sentence a premiss or a conclusion? How is the reader to know? It is helpful to signpost what you are doing, to explicitly ask the question you are about to answer, and to use “conclusion indicators” like “therefore” “consequently” “it follows that” 'this entails that" and so on. Logical terminology is a big help. The reader should know, sentence by sentence, what you are doing, where you are in your exposition. If you look for the arguments, express them using premiss and conclusion indicators, and keep your reader in mind, your job will become much easier.

Beware the word “it.” Nine out of ten times when undergraduates use pronouns like “it” the reader has no idea what they are referring to. Usually when you use the word ‘they’, the reader will have no idea what it is you are referring to. The paragraph is a thing of beauty. When you get to the end of something, start a new paragraph. The last thing you want is to present your reader with a monolithic solid block of text. Proof read what you write-- so that you correct big errors, for example, you can put in missing words. Just write them in in pen over the type written copy.

Google pen if u knead to c a pitcher.

I remember reading an article 20-some years ago in the university student newspaper that reported average grade point averages for students in various majors. The writer (presumably a journalism major) seemed to believe that the high GPA of education majors in comparison to engineering majors meant that the education majors were smarter. My friends and I (math graduate students at the time) thought that was pretty funny. To me, the obvious explanation is higher standards and more intellectually demanding material in the engineering curriculum. (In the years since then, I got an M.S. degree in civil engineering and secondary teacher certification, so I can say from experience that I was right about engineering classes vs. education classes.)

I think it’s somewhat easier to hold to a fixed standard of competence in something like precalculus (which I teach frequently) than in freshman composition. Math classes and many science classes build on previous classes; you really do need to take them in order and to master certain skills before moving on. Knowing that any student who gets a “C” or higher in my precalculus class is considered qualified to enroll in calculus I the next semester constitutes a good deterrent to mercy grading or dumbing-down the curriculum. On the down side, the failure rate (including withdrawal midsemester) is high. Also, I have to admit that I am sometimes astounded at the answers I get when I use an exam question that asks students to “Explain in one or two complete sentences.” Many students can write a complete sentence (especially after having points deducted on a previous quiz or exam for not using a complete sentence) but their answer is incorrect. Others write incomplete sentences, or gibberish. For the pay I get as an adjunct instructor, I would NOT grade essays! I grumble about grading math tests, but grading papers would be much worse. (But I do really grade the math tests, including reading their work and making sure they use notation correctly. I do not approve of multiple-choice exams.)

There are a lot of opposites of elegance.