All the talk in this thread casting the blame on "standards" being lowered is bizarre. I'm not sure how pushing more poor kids to drop out is going to make people more literate.
edit: the real shame comparatively should be how high Chinese literacy is when faced with an equally difficult writing system. China isn't at all confused about whether public education is a good thing, though, so you'd expect superior outcomes there.
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
As a result, we got a tedious, dumbed-down, inflammatory and supercilious discussion. Just what we don't want here.
Another approach is to post a first comment to the thread, explaining what you think is significant in the article. That can help.
People are hostile when I say there isn't such a thing as a learning disability but rather only teaching disabilities. Sure teachers especially in public schools are over worked, however, what happened to me is abuse. It was always I who failed and never the teachers or my parents who strangely both have PhDs. The onus to understand how to learn was the responsibility of a child and not the adults. We expect children who fail to understand pedagogy? They told me to think harder, to work harder. What does it mean to think harder? I suffered anxiety attacks and mental breakdowns trying to keep up. They ushered me along through graduation because I never had antisocial behavioral problems.
I taught myself a trade so I could survive. Then taught myself how to write. Then taught myself a second trade for fun and a third. At some point, I'll change my focus to educational software. There have been several individuals, groups, and initiatives over the past few decades since I graduated who have developed amazing tools I wish existed when I was in school with the Khan Academy at the top of that list. Nonetheless, the people at the Khan Academy who designed their course on grammar also happen to be people who are naturally talented at grammar, the fundamental crux teaching. I have one paradoxical advantage: my disadvantage which plagues every working moment gives me a perspective nobody has, er, correction, 46% of people who also happen to be the people doing the teaching with higher education degrees don't have.
One thing is for sure, I would be an idiot to expect a child to solve pedagogy for her or his self. When children fall behind they give up, they don't contemplate the philosophy of how they learn.
People are probably hostile because you're going against scientific consensus and saying a range of disabilities that affects millions of people doesn't exist.
That is absolutely a massively distributed pedagogical failure of outstanding degree. Unless the average adult is so mentally disabled that acceptable-or-above teaching should result in this outcome.
The lack of ability to benefit from this farce in millions of students isn't surprising; and it can be absolutely address with better instruction and individual approach.
I say this as a former instructor, math PhD[1], and also a person with ADHD[2] who persevered through a fair amount of failing grades on the way there.
The #1 reason[3] I ran away from academia was that the system simply doesn't allow one to teach the right way. It's a conveyor-belt manufacturing process with the model 9-5 worker as the intended results, and if you don't fit the mold — tough luck.
One has more leeway in teaching topics courses, but even world-class professors don't get away with not teaching intro/foundation courses, which are as rigid as they're atrocious.
And K12 is where souls go to die. An enthusiastic teacher will burn out in just a few years, and come back with PTSD and a 1000-yard stare.
Anyway. The OP's statement should be seen as "learning durabilities are not an obstacle to a good instructor" — which, in the vast majority of cases, is true.
[1] https://romankogan.net/math
[2] https://romankogan.net/adhd
[3] The #2 reason is that the industry pays 4x as much; #3 is the 2-body problem; #4 is ..., oh wait, I'll be here for a long time if I keep going.
"Look, even though someone was at fault through all of my early years i still managed to learn these rudimentary tasks on my own as an adult, not everyone is as good as i am".
We should be very careful with scientific consensus of a social science. Maybe we should say if you lead a horse to water, it doesn't drink, and you need that horse to work on the farm to grow food to feed your family, you are going to have a very bad time instead of what teachers told me time and time again, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." What type of person gives up on a horse that doesn't drink instead of figuring out what is wrong with the horse or understanding animal behavior to train the horse to drink and pull plows and stuff?
There is such a thing as dyslexia, and that cannot be fixed by teaching better. You can still form sentences, apply grammar and tell stories without writing, but the reading+writing part is a major problem for some people. Your story of beating the challenges of your bad early education can't and won't apply to all others who struggle.
Having said that, I do believe that some lazy teachers like to mark failing students as disabled more often than necessary because that way the student's failings aren't a result of the teachers' lacking abilities, but rather an inherent flaw in the students themselves that they have no control over. The general knowledge of the existence of learning disabilities has helped many kids get the resources they need, but has also to them being used by the lazy or incompetent to completely write off children that couldn't keep up.
This, combined with the utter disconnect between the way many words are spelled and pronounced in English, is a recipe for disaster that will likely continue to ripple through the education system for years.
Can you support this assertion? My understanding of the topic, having a person close to me with a dyslexia dx, is that the appropriate educational intervention is training the brain to use alternate pathways for different parts of the reading process. This isn’t “teaching better” but is “teaching.”
http://dyslexia.yale.edu/research-science/ycdc-research/payi...
Well, because it is wrong. Nonetheless, those are not mutually exclusive. The fact that there are bad teachers that do not know how to teach, does not mean that there are no people that legitimately do have learning disabilities.
It still blows my mind that a person whose job was to teach did his best to praise those who came already prepared and vigorously kick everyone else.
Only my calculus teacher in college’s methods really clicked with me and then I magically got it.
The gist is that it probably doesn't matter. Culture does a lot of work in letting us communicate in fragments.
Good choice of reading there.
Also, in the future maybe submit the primary data source, rather than a Wikipedia link that cites a Forbes article?
And this was a member of the staff. In a school district! Blew my mind.
[0] Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; although in this case “educated” may be sufficient: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias
(To poke at this more substantively: Hanson's evidence tests L1-English reading comprehension, not how "stupid" someone is. Somewhere around 70 million Americans don't even speak English at home.)
The second Wikipedia citation is to a Forbes article.
Many schools in Califonia use an unproven/inferior method/curriculum for teaching literacy, based on the work of F&P.[1]
[0] https://caaspp-elpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/DashViewReport?ps=tru...
[1] https://www.apmreports.org/story/2021/11/19/fountas-pinnell-...
In an earlier age, it was common for newspapers to target a 7th grade reading level.
It's almost like saying "90% of Americans have below median literacy skills." In that one it is obviously false, since we define median as being at 50-percentile.
But this is not a lot different. To me "6th grade reading level" should mean "the reading skills of a 50-percentile 6th grader." But then the statement can't be true, unless you accept that the typical 6th grader is just as good at reading as a typical adult.
So.... how do you define "6th-grade reading level"? It seems that you are left with defining it as what you might wish it were. Which is going to vary widely.
The standard required to pass the 6th grade, I guess? Possibly people are reading at that level but then forget how to do it later in life? That's definitely the case with for example knowledge of maths.
I mean, where does the standard come from? Does it have nothing to do with what the typical student in a typical school is able to accomplish? If not, it is just arbitrary and meaningless.
2021 and 2020? Maybe 10 total.
Part of it is I just don't know what to read lately! I look at lists of books and cannot decide! I wish there was a place I could go and find recommendations by authors I admire.
The other part? No bars or coffee shops! I love the bustle of a crowded room full of people. If I get bored with the book, I can order another beer, or eavesdrop on a nearby conversation. Covid has taken that away, and I am trapped in my distraction filled room!
I guess there is a THIRD reason: I've been learning guitar for the past year, and that has eaten up a lot of my time.
My impression from reading the Wikipedia article is that the U.S.’s literacy standards are higher than most other countries. I also wonder how much the immigration rate affects this stat.
Probably not much? Looking at reading achievement by race, we see that whites do worse than asians, and blacks doing worse than hispanics. In both those pairs we see the group with more immigrants do better than the group with less immigrants.
The base level of literacy in the US is similar to that of other advanced nations. Particularly accounting for its large immigrant population who don't speak English as their first or primary language.
Adult Literacy in the United States
"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
HN? Attack the article. And that’s the nicest comments, the ones that don’t attack the people with reading issues.
As a French guy, if you tell me that my English is 5th-grade level, I take it as a compliment.
While HN submissions are generally held to a higher standard, the general comments/discussions are equally toxic. Apparently FB is such a cancer and everyone else is such a problem - but we’re actually part of the problem.
The US is certainly behind much of the world in education, but these metrics are really hard gauge accurately. Diving in to where these numbers come from and how they compare to the rest of the world, I'm finding that no one tracks this in any way that we can really draw a conclusion across countries.
I also see other commentors jumping to trashing schools or the education system for this. Does a flat number really point to education? What about poverty levels, general cultural attitudes towards literacy, accounting and definition of proficiency, etc.
I have no numbers to back this, but I felt growing up that the biggest problem with education was not the schools or education system, but the students and the general culture around education. Students and their parents just did not care at all about education, most (adult and kid) were actively hostile towards it. There is only so much an education system can do if 1/3 to 1/2 of the students will do absolutely everything they can to not learn, and their parents encourage them not to learn.
Some completely anecdotal examples from my childhood: - In high school I had a friend who's dad flew into a rage when he suggested he wanted to try going to college, because college was the devil (it'll turn you into a liberal sissy, they just steel your money, James down the street fixes motorcycles and don't need no degree, you think you're soooo much better than us, etc.). This attitude was only slightly more extreme than most in the town. And it didn't just apply to college, it applied to anyone who wanted to do any kind of academic learning.
- I have distinct memories of being ridiculed by multiple full-grown adults (!!) when my parents took me to math competitions, for being a loser nerd. Some were serious and meant it, others maybe weren't serious but thought it was funny to ridicule.
- I remember bringing a book to read while my mom worked, when I was 8 years old, and having someone (again, a full grown adult) who told me to stop reading in public because it might get me beat up.
- At school in general, many students never got punished by their parents for skipping school or failing. The school would bend over backward trying to help them in every way reasonable, but what do you do if half your students do everything they can to not learn? Threaten to punish with suspension? Many parents treated it as "who cares, school is dumb anyways".
No amount of effort into the education system could solve what I grew up around, it's a lot more insidious. Maybe I'm from a uniquely shitty part of the country tho, maybe most of the US would benefit from more focus on the education system itself, I wouldn't know. But I feel like I hear similar stories from others who grew up around the decaying rust belt, the collapsing small towns that scattered around the midwest, and inner city schools in places like Kansas City and OKC.
If I remember correctly, the NYTimes is written for the 8th-grade level. Similarly, many hospitals/healthcare facilities don't allow writing above the 8th-grade level. So, expressive, detailed, and stylized writing are all easily possible at the 8th-grade level. In fact, I probably write at the 8th-grade level, albeit less clearly.
What's the gap between an 8th grade reader and a 6th grade reader?
A more accurate metric would be "prose literacy in the individual's at-home spoken language," which would probably yield a significantly less drastic picture. Perhaps not the best one, but nowhere near as eye grabbing as "54% of Americans can't read beyond a middle school level."
My dad taught English at a community college a decade ago, mostly to soldiers returning from the war. They were mostly smart, motivated people determined to succeed and facing many obstacles. It was shocking to him that they were writing 5 page essays for the first time as 20-something college students.
Socioeconomic status probably best explains that one, and is probably at least a component everywhere else.
In any case, the geographic visualization on that page suffers from the same problem as electoral maps, where areas with very low populations (e.g the Texas border) occupy lots of visual space. The problem is really much worse in the South due to higher populations.
The HN submission queue is an arbitrary place. And clickbait is popular beause it works. (I strive strongly against it myself.)
The schools are nearly identical everywhere. Even crap schools, if you put those teachers in an upper middle class setting, they would shine.
And the most talented teachers in the nation, put into one of those violent inner city schools - would not magically make the the kids pass math.
The kids grow up with single/no parents or one/both parents in jail, no stable job or income, total lack of support at home - or worse, parents that actively call them 'stupid' or tell them they're worthless, zero educated role models, by age 8 idolizing street tough guys, by age 11 wanting to join them, by grade 10 hardly ever showing up, 5 years behind, could care less, getting into fights, peers mocking them if they do well, haven't been out of the neighbourhood in a decade, no serious extra curricular activities etc..
The 2018 OECD/PISA scoring really highlights a lot of these issues.
I was driving through Detroit one night 'for fun' with my work mates to give them a taste of 'some parts of America' - it was 12:45am and on the street corner at the gas station was a child, on his bike, just sitting there waiting for something.
Think of much you can surmise from just that one little thing: a 7 year old, up at 1 am, out in the neighbourhood, hanging out on a Tuesday night. There is no way that story is good, and there are probably 100 things that are bad. Just from that one glimpse you can probably estimate that kid might not be likely to finish school.
Most schools and teachers are good, esp. the one's that have the tenacity to teach in the inner city.
We need decent jobs, stable families, boring nonviolent neighbourhoods, kids who can be free to be 'into' school stuff and the chess club, basic healthcare - i.e. your normal, middle-class semi-aspirational upbringing. If we can do that, grades will go way up to the normal middle class level.
So the % of kids that schools are successfully teaching to read is maybe 30% or 40%.
Spanish has almost perfectly logical spelling. I mean: given a sound, there's one way to write it. And, given an unknown written word, there's one way to pronounce it.
Even if English were to have these two properties:
- we would still need a method for teaching reading
- it would be possible for more than one method to exist
- it would be likely that one method would be generally better than all other methods
Figuring out the sounds is a small part and we definitely shouldn't assume it's the bottleneck.
Olso, zis kaind of speling luks strainj to old pipl.
I have no idea how California does it, but it's not uncommon to define the grade levels as the median score kids in that grade get on the test. And 50% of kids scoring below the median would only be a worrisome result in the Lake Wobegon school system.
The % of kids who are expected to (at least) 'meet expectations' is, by definition, 100%. But the actual rate is less than half that.
These tests aren't difficult by design. They're not graded on a curve, forcing the pass rate to be ~50%.
Please take a look at sample tests and judge for yourself: https://www.compton.k12.ca.us/media/5234/elpac_grades-6-8_pr...
Spain is right there in the table you linked, with their 98%. And what's common in countries you listed is not untrustworthy regime, but writing system that allows to easily achieve those numbers of literacy in their respective native languages.
Sure, poverty and attitudes matter, but achieving literacy in some languages just doesn't need that much of effort and privilege.
A somewhat similar study is the 2016 OECD report (based on a survey conducted in 2011--12), "Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills "
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/skills-matter_978926...
Jacob Nielsen addressed that in the context of computer UI/UX requirements for general-use application and website design, "The Distribution of Users’ Computer Skills: Worse Than You Think":
Across 33 rich countries, only 5% of the population has high computer-related abilities, and only a third of people can complete medium-complexity tasks.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/
I've referenced both in my own essay, "The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User", which acknowledges both that general-use systems must be generally-usable, and that this requirement reduces functionality for advanced users by numerous mechanisms.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...
They can easily get 100% literacy rate by the end of kindergarten.
That’s the benefit of a logical writing system that has few exceptions.
"Spelling bees" are largely an English language phenomenon. If you can pronounce a Spanish word, you can likely spell it. You might miss an occasional "h", but that's about it.
Adults not trusting schools is probably related to the belief that the school system is incompetent anyway. Having the "wrong" politics definitely makes it easy to consider an administration incompetent.
"I also see other commentors jumping to trashing schools or the education system for this. Does a flat number really point to education? What about poverty levels, general cultural attitudes towards literacy, accounting and definition of proficiency, etc."
If you only look at a specific segment of students (e.g. Socio-economically disadvantaged Hispanic 3rd graders), you can compare school districts and individual schools, without having your data polluted by different poverty levels etc.
If you look at the careads web site, you'll see they compared districts in California, and found (i) significant variation between districts, and (ii) worse-performing districts had a higher prevalance of using F&P/Calkin type reading curricula.
The folks who run that site didn't compare individual schools (so as not to over-interpret random variation). I was curious so I looked at the data for the schools in San Francisco.
For my local school (Glen Park Elementary), the % of that segment reading at grade level or above was 4%.
For Hillcrest Elementary, for the same segment of students, it was 65%.
In each case, the sample included at least 15 students.
What explains the large difference in results between schools, even after we control for poverty and home language?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readabi...
If so, then the difference between 8th and 6th grade level works out to about 0.17 syllables per word, or about 5 words per sentence, or some blend of the two. So the gist would seem to be, don't be like me; use periods instead of commas and semicolons, and don't use a word like "orthography" when a word like "spelling" will do.
I doubt that that this is what the department of education was looking at when they assessed adult prose literacy, though. But I'm having a bugger of a time tracking that down, too. I'm not sure that I agree with Wikipedia that a Forbes article that doesn't properly cite its own source is an acceptable citation for that figure.
The goals they list on e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy match exactly what I was told I was being tested on when I was taking the standardized tests in school.
Roughly, there are these breaks in understanding: 1. Understanding the literal words on the page, 2. understanding the implied context of the words, and 3. understanding the motivations of the author. Progressing in order of difficulty. As well there are ways to gauge how well you can read and how fast you can read, such as are you able to sound out and break down complicated words based on their roots or do you remember whole words.
Not so. Rather, demonstrably not possible, at least not by some writers currently assigned to the task of rewriting instructions for prescription medicines. Subtleties of dose timing, interactions with other medicines and such I have seen mangled into ambiguity, or dropped altogether. So I was able to medicate myself with a reasonable degree of confidence.
Fortunately, in my case, the manufacturer's original advice as written for physicians was preserved, bottommost of three, behind maddening "plain English" rewrites from both insurer and local medical group.
They can both interpret the instructions on the side of an AT4 but the 8th grader will be able to tell you that it did not have any alliterations, foreshadowing, or personification.
People always forget that at some point in middle school "getting better at reading" stops being about interpreting the literal meanings of sentences and paragraphs and starts being about spotting and understanding the more advanced structures that makes for good creative writing and (outside some wordplay the advertising department engages in) is completely superfluous to what it takes to transact business.
Except that it makes you aware of the techniques used on you, and able to use them yourself.
I bet English teachers in the UK loved (the 90s Prime Minister) Blair's 'education, education, education' (as a teaching point, aside from how their colleagues might have)!
I don't know what alliteration and personification means and I miss foreshadowing all the time. TIL I'm a 6th grade reader with a master's degree in a computer field. (Basically I'm reading text off screens for ~14 hours per day, doesn't mean I'm necessarily good at it but it's also not as if I'm likely to be barely average at it.)
[1] https://www.amazon.com/California-Sixth-Grade-Reader-Pournel...
Then I went to say that in my spare time I like to listen to music and reading. You'd think I'd have said that I'm into being a serial killer. Just weird puzzled and uncomfortable looks.
It then struck me that many people, if not most, cannot comprehend spending their leisure time in any way other than passively watching movies, TV or videos on their smartphone or playing video games.
And believe me, I'm not saying it just to be pretentious, but a lot of the time, reading is way more exciting than whatever's happening on the small screen. There's nothing wrong with TVs and movies but they're certainly not the only way to spend your leisure time.
And then you go on to describe your own leisure time as two other passive forms of entertainment. There’s really nothing magic about the written word that makes a medium more challenging, because by historical standards people are literally reading more words than ever. And probably listening to more music than ever too. There’s just as much to dissect and analyze in artsy movies and TV as books and music.
Normally when you want to be snobby about leisure time you’re supposed to talk about creating over consuming.
I've found it best to avoid saying "I don't watch much TV" though, precisely because of the reaction you mentioned. People will either think I am a freak or just trying to sound smart (or both) - it is a lose-lose situation.
I’m now a two bullet point max kind of emailer.
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/01/book-reading...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/15/us/university-of-california-s...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/us/harvard-admissions-act...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/move-end-standardized-t...
Without going too political, yes, I think that an unacceptably large amount of Americans are undereducated for the task of choosing between two candidates. Recently, many candidates have been appealing to the worst instincts and using things like conspiracy theories to gain an advantage. And bad things have been happening as a result.
It's really a matter of critical thinking, not reading per se, but presumably reading can contribute to an overall better ability to use logic and reason.
Also, it isn't just down to two candidates. In the last presidential election, there were many more candidates, and they were weeded out by both primaries and just polling. Both of which rely on the voters being able to wisely choose.
In my city, there were 12 mayoral candidates, all on the ballot. The ranked choice system made it workable. (not that instant-runoff ranked choice is the best system, but it is better than the plain-old plurality used in most elections) If more people were well-read (and had the mental capabilities that tend to come with that) we'd probably have better voting systems in a lot more places.
A functioning political system shouldn't only have ever have 2 viable candidates. Much less have the only viable candidates belong to one of two viable political parties, both of which have cartoonishly stable views over time.
Maybe the broken, overly simplistic US political system is a _symptom_ of shockingly terrible education outcomes. Not vice-versa. Like many of the other social ills currently ravaging American society.
2) If amount of money spent were actually a factor then why do we show no plausible link between literacy rate [1] and per pupil spending [2] by the government in public schools. This also doesn't account for how homeschoolers and private schoolers tend to do better in standardized testing (and other areas of academics) and yet homeschoolers spend vastly less in comparison to public and private schools (Finding a public source for spending that I am comfortable with is a little hard, so I am basing this on what I know of spending in my local homeschool groups. The test score comparisons are fairly easy to find.).
3) I think to try and simplify it down to simply the amount of money spent is disingenuous to an issue that, honestly, has very little to do with the amount of money spent and more to do with factors like like of parental involvement, politicization of schools by parents, teachers, and administrators, lack of motivation and work ethic in students, and a whole host of other issues.
4) Ultimately, and this is likely a simplification in and of itself, I think the largest factor is more about the willingness of a student to apply themselves and put in the work. A school is one of the few places where the playing field is as equal as it can be and a child/teenager does not need to be the smartest individual in the room in order to do well in school. They really just need to apply themselves. I remember reading some parenting advice many years ago about how it is better to encourage your children to work hard than it is to tell them they are smart as this helps put the value where it belongs, on hard work rather than one's natural abilities of which they have little control over.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy...
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-s...
This short sighted attitude is the peoblem.
Do you know your representative? Have you ever spoken to them? How do the two presidential candidates come about? Have you ever been in a political party? There is a lot more to democracy than choosing a front clown
A corollary to this observation (adults, or a least young adults, can learn really fast, and even faster than adolescents) is that we need more formation options for adults. You should be able to leave school at 14, work a trade, then stop in your 20s to integrate college and learn something new. And college could be a more open place with ex-plumber, ex-cooks and ex-electricians in it. The best software engineer my age i worked with worked on HT lines for 3 years.
Ones who aren't good at what they're doing. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with school.
I think some of the aversion to the "doesn't exist" claim is it seems to leave a hole. There are two ways of saying something doesn't exist / isn't real. You can say the cause isn't there or the effect isn't there. Take malaria. As you might know, the name means "bad air". People used to think bad air from swamps and jungles made you sick. If I didn't believe this I could say "swamp air can't make you sick, malaria doesn't exist". Which, sure, the disease doesn't come from the gas. But people do seem to get sick in a similar way at swamps that they don't get sick in dry areas. Isn't that real?
Another reason people will react to you with hostility is you're pattern matching people who have been hostile to them. People with depression get told "it's all in your head". Sure, that's where the brain is. "No, it's just the way you look at things". Sure, yeah, bad at looking at things. Still depressed. I don't think that "gently scolding" people has show up as effective treatment. But the point isn't to help. It's to dismiss and degrade.
You're also still only half way to looking at things holistically. You want to zoom out (based on what you've said about yourself and the horse example). But instead of looking at the system all together, you're pulling the blame from 100% on the student (something you got as a painful message) and putting it 100% on the teachers. Neither is representative of reality.
Is someone disabled if they can't see well enough to drive? What if they don't want to drive? What if they can drive with glasses? What if there aren't glasses good enough for them, is it that optometrists are disabled? What if they can't afford them? These are all really interesting social questions and there are no perfect answers. But if I get the sense that someone is trying to ignore the reality that some people can see fine and some people see poorly and suffer for it, and that any of this suffering is at all localized on the person who can't see, I'm going to think they're trying to pull one over on me.
https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/rqulik/til_t...
Alliteration especially when paired with "The rule of 3" is an easy example of a technique you can use to disseminate a memorable message to most people.
Is it useful when writing code? Probably not, but it can help your company when you do your fundraising or pitch to investors.
Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book illustrates this in the multiple levels of reading it describes. Critical and synoptic reading of complex works is a developed skill.
To some extent, but even a really good reading level is only going to give you a shallow understanding of that area. There's probably other aspects you'd want to focus on first.
Now if I need to ask someone about something over email I only include a single question per email
Because you can be sure that only one will get answered and the rest are just ignored.
There are lots of things you can say about the major American political parties, but that they have stable political views over time is not even close to one of them. (This is, in fact, a direct consequence of duopoly, since coalition building occurs within big-tent parties rather than between parties as it does in multiparty democracies.)
Edit: health care, of course, health care.
I am sorry to hear that, a few of my friends met their MP's and discussed their concerns, for however little that counts. This was in UK.
When I was teaching programming I realised that by best students were going to become excellent programmers regardless of what I did. Like, if I literally didn’t teach them anything and left them to just goof around quietly on their computer on their own, they’ll still end up great. Teaching still matters. (Maybe more). But the difference is 10/10 meets expectations and 20/10 exceeds them.
Weaker students essentially could not learn the material without both of us working really hard to get them over the line. For the weaker students, the default is failure unless a lot of things go right.
And so as a classroom teacher you have the devil’s choice - who do you pay attention to? In a large classroom some people inevitably get ignored or fall through the cracks. And in school the problem compounds year on year. Learning issues tend to take a lot longer to fix than they do to create. Didn’t learn calculus last year with everyone else because your home life is a mess? Now the only way you’ll learn it is with 1-on-1 time with an overworked teacher. That didn’t happen? Now you have panic attacks when you think about it. And home life is probably still a mess.
I’m not apologising or excusing anything. But it is a hard problem. I don’t believe the same philosophy of teaching which created this problem is equal to the task of solving it.
Except now we don't even have the latter. We've just accepted that the least qualified individuals in our society are charged with doing what is arguably the most important work outside of governing, and with a laughable wrong headed course of training.
I probably worded it very vaguely.
Tell that to my Dyslexia, I had many mentors growing up, and was taught by many people using many different approaches. I still can’t spell for shit, and my phonic processing is still garbage.
No about of different teaching methods is going to change the fundamentals fact that my brain struggles to turn sounds into words, resulting in me hearing noise rather than speech, and turning ideas into written words.
I’m perfectly articulate, indeed I’ve been accused of being “too articulate”, whatever that means, by my written prose is poor because I struggle translating phonic sounds into letters and words. Even simple words like “because”, “through”, “thought” etc which I’ve written and read correctly millions of times, I still struggle with, and need help from a spellchecker to get correct.
If that isn’t a learning disability, then I have no idea what it is. But it sure as shit isn’t a teaching failure.
To give an analogy: someone who can't walk has a disability, but it would be a failure of the instructor to make 5K running the only way to get a passing grade in physical education, while simultaneously not making barbells available.
And looking at your very well-written and perfectly structured comment, I struggle to accept its conclusion. If all you need to write this well is spell-checker — a tool more common than a ballpoint pen at this point, and one that's been around for decades — then the instructors that didn't teach you to use it were failing at teaching.
If you can speak well, and they never even suggested dictation software (again, something that's been around for a long time), it's a teaching failure.
Writing is not about spelling words the same way dictionary spells them. Writing is about communicating ideas clearly, and your written prose is great.
You can't write without a spell-checker; your tutors can't write with a quill, most likely. There's no difference.
That you think that your prose is poor — there's the teaching failure.
Do you see what I mean now?
And that individualized education would have no effect whatsoever on their place in the eventual statistic that x% of Americans cannot run 5k.
The biggest problem for me has been noticing spelling mistakes in variable names. I can't find the bug yet it's just two letters swapped.
Oh and the frustration some people have when they spot an error.
As in, ditching names like loc/iloc and adopting getValueByKey/getValueByIndex (hello, Pandas API!).
The bugs of that sort bite even the most experienced programmers. And by using verbose names, the typo would be much more likely caught by the compiler. (And you can wrap ungodly APIs with less typo-friendly names too).
That's one of the reasons verbose names are a coding standard e.g. in Google.
The people who get frustrated by either verbose names or small spelling errors are welcome to go and frustrate themselves, preferably in solitude and far from either of us. I'm sorry that you run into them.
That seems...off. I would actually appreciate a source there because I just did some back of the napkin math.
If you are homeschooling a kid, how much time are you spending with them doing that? If you pull that together in terms of opportunity cost, I would think it would amount to more than $12,500, which seems from your source to be the average spend per pupil.
Let's say you home school 4 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 9 months a year. That's 20 hours a week, around 720 hours total. The average American makes around $18 an hour, so that's around $13,000 a year.
I can educate both my children to a higher standard in a far more personalized education form for less than $5,000 per child per year in actual financial cost. This includes progressive curriculum materials, paid external learning opportunities (things like park/nature center passes, museums, group activities, etc.), travel costs (yes, we actually do a far amount of local and some longer travel in the course of their school year for education purposes), and school supplies.
Opportunity cost tends to be more subjective and harder to realize because the success of opportunity is hard to predict. Does that mean I live in a single-income household? Yes, but my spouse and I chose this because we wanted to give our children as good an opportunity to succeed as we can and this was the way we were determined to do it. My spouse is actually has a higher education level than I do but chose to stay home and do this for our children. My spouse doesn't see this as the loss of opportunity but the gain of ability to spend more time with our children helping them learn and grow into compassionate, driven, and hard-working individuals. The fact that we can do so for less actual cost than the public or private school systems is just a bonus.
(I do realize this is anecdotal, but it is the best source I have right now and other homeschool parents in my area say much the same regardless of ethnic or economic background.)
Sure - in an effort to limit that I chose $18 per hour as a wage, which is lower than the median individual wage in the US ($22). It's a pretty conservative estimate of lost income.
If you didn't want to add that in I would say remove all salaries from the cost of education, generally, and then compare the cost per pupil. So you're comparing like to like - mostly just the cost of supplies, facilities and educational trips.
Your pluses are great, I'm not taking away from that, but they are at least somewhat represented in the increase in overall score, no?
I was first introduced to verbose syntax when I first used objective c. I loved it.
[1] - https://www.precisionmarketinggroup.com/blog/a-quick-glossar...
"the Hispanic market."
"brand conscious"
"brand loyal"
""It’s all contacts . . . contacts . . . contacts!""
"media play"
"sponsor visibility"
> Just because you are not exposed to a topic does not make any conversation about the topic contain jargon
That is true. It is also true that people who are familiar with a particular subject and vernacular tend to not recognize when they aren't explaining something clearly. (For the record, I've worked in sales, alongside marketing colleagues, for almost 20 years.)
> If I say "baseball is a sport where you use a bat to hit a ball to score points", the word "bat" is not jargon because we only use that definition in the context of sports.
At no point does the article contain anything like a clear description analogous to your example.
> Acceptable answers include statement such as:
> To enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community; to improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community; and to enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community.
Which is not only grammatically incorrect, but grammatically incorrect to the point of message-shattering ambiguity. Is the triplet of statements required for an acceptable answer, or would any individual statement from that list suffice? If all three would be required I doubt I'd have been marked correct - I would have just listed the most important one then moved on to the next question.
[1] https://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/stupider-than-you-rea... (first search result for "Se Habla Español Hits Chicago" besides the link you gave)
> Correct Answer:
> Any statement such as the following: to enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community; to improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community; and to enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community
It is technically true that "Acceptable answers include statement such as:" is grammatically incorrect, but the error is so obvious that it would normally be called a "typo" and not a "grammatical error".
> Any statement such as the following:
> To enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community
> To improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community
> To enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community
I truly disbelieve you can claim in good faith that that is "equally clear" as:
> Acceptable answers include statement such as:
> To enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community; to improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community; and to enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community.
I think interpreting the semi-colon'd sentence as a single "statement", especially given the ambiguity introduced by their grammatical error, is entirely reasonable. I was genuinely unsure as to the correct interpretation. Who's to say that the correct edit is adding an `s` to the end of `statement` versus adding an `a ` to its beginning?
Also, imagine running 5K being a requirement for admission to college.
Because by that metric, the commenter I was responding to would be deemed "illiterate" and not worthy of being admitted to college (in spite of being able to express their thoughts more clearly than most).
Again, I have a PhD in mathematics, and have taught college-level math 2010-2017.
I have taught hundreds of students (if not thousands), and have seen many of them hindered by bullshit stats like that in mathematics.
Mathematics in particular is an incredibly diverse field; yet people with dyscalculia feel that they "can't do math" — even though so much math has nothing to do with numbers or calculation, and would be accessible to them (had we only been allowed to teach it).
As it stands, we are judging fish by their ability to climb trees.
Now, you are free to have your own opinion (knock yourself out), but please have some respect for my experience in the field, if nothing else. I'm speaking as an educator.
And the above is something that many, many educators are well aware of, but feel powerless to change.
If you have qualified objections (i.e. based on something more than you just thinking that way), I'm all ears.
Personal restraint has vanished more and more in the last few years. Many here would argue it is a result of social media platforms.
I consider HN somewhere between 4chan and reddit. People here are actually smart (unlike reddit, which appears to attract angsty teenagers more than anything) and willing to engage in discussions outside of the status quo. It's not the chaotic jungle of 4chan, but if you're talking out of your ass people here are too clever to fall for it and you will be called out. On reddit if something sounds right to enough people who know nothing at all about said topic, it will get upvoted to the top where more people will absorb blatantly false information or self-fellating, pandering opinion.
I could be wrong but I think the purpose of being civil is so that people will actually want to talk to you.
> When I’m on Twitter, how rude should I be?
> I tend to admire thinkers who are civil and think less of those who are rude. Usually, I try to emulate those I admire and not those I don’t, but I actually think there’s an intellectual case to be made for rudeness and snark as long as it’s used in defense of worthy ideas instead of tribalism or self-aggrandizement (maybe a topic for a future Substack). One thing that used to bother me about academia was how someone would have a critique of a research project that completely discredited it, but nobody would actually follow the argument to its logical conclusion and say the research was therefore worthless and the author should go do something else. We as a society would be better off valuing being correct more and being civil less. Maybe you would ideally want both, but I suspect that there’s actually a tradeoff, as people who tend to be right about a lot are often jerks, and academics who are wrong about everything always seem to be complimenting each other for being stunning and brave (see #HighlightingWomen and #WomenAlsoKnowStuff). Economics is less crazy than other disciplines, and now there are female academics complaining that the field is too mean, which to me seems necessary to trim bad ideas. So I’m sort of a fan of incivility and rudeness, but also thinking carefully about how to make snark constructive (I’m aware this could all be motivated reasoning and I just enjoy insulting people). Another consideration is that people usually say that movements do better when they’re polite, so I may be harming the prospects of the views I advocate for. This always struck me as a belief rooted in social desirability bias, a kind of “nice guys finish first” philosophy. The woke are the most aggressive and least civil and tolerant political faction in the country, and they seem to have had the biggest political impact in the last few years. Trump supporters are the rudest people on the right, and they’re wining on their side. So why do we think civility is good for a movement? Like using Twitter though, this is one of those things where it’s easy to see the benefits while the costs are hidden.
I can agree that for them I think "jerk-ness" is really connected to dive and passion to be deeply informed and meaningfully correct. Everything else can feel like a distraction, or extra, or dancing around the point. And they can typically take being proven wrong gracefully because they respect correctness.
But I also find it (playfully) funny when they jump through logical contortions, ad-hoc speculation, just-so thinking when it comes to defending these things. If anyone had come to them with arguments structured so arbitrarily they would have ripped them to shreds for being unfounded and self-serving.
My take: Being a jerk is just as much a personal/emotional quirk. The challenges they have with managing the different odd logics of "emotion-y" things make valuing civility for others BUT ALSO to logically frame a convincing path for why they should be bothered to do anything different.
It's easy for him to be rude. He has a big twitter and substack platform/following, but being a dick will promptly get you banned from many communities if you have not paid your dues.
> I was genuinely unsure as to the correct interpretation. Who's to say
You're arguing at the level of this handless guy now. https://xkcd.com/169/
> I'm the one claiming that the text is ambiguous
Between the handless guy and the top-hat dude, which one is claiming the text is ambiguous? How well-grounded is that claim?
Your focus on your own 'experience' appears to be blinding you to the topic at hand, which does not involve spell checkers. Perhaps does not cover the area of literacy and how it is assessed?
You joined the thread well after its topic was set in place, and, frankly, I don't know what you think the topic is.
The comment I was responding to did specifically involve spell checkers; did you miss it?
Your last sentence seems to be missing a subject.
And if you thoroughly read the originally submitted Wikipedia article, you'll find out that:
* The notion of literacy (in the language sense) includes reading as well as writing (particularly, as assessed by NAEP). In fact, any notion of literacy mentions the ability to read and write.
* The notion of literacy, as assesed by NAAL, also includes quantitative literacy (something I have expertise in)
* The issue of (lack of) equity in literacy assessment has been particularly highlighted in the Wiki article
* Spell-checker is a way to achieve equity in writing assessments for people suffering from dyslexia
The commentor I was responding to would be deemed "illiterate" by these assessments for not remembering how to spell words like "through". Yet that person has very clearly demonstrated that they don't struggle with either understanding other people's points, nor clearly expressing their own.
Something that can't be said of most (ostensibly literate) people even on this forum, sadly.
>Perhaps does not cover the area of literacy and how it is assessed?
Would you mind rephrasing?
Solid reading comprehension should allow you to make a reasonable guess at the intended value of the missing noun; it was "experience". I am not enjoying the experience of discussing literacy assessment with someone who has vastly overestimated their knowledge of the topic, so I will not continue.
I didn't say I didn't understand your point; just that clarity wasn't there (due to the sentence being ungrammatical). Quite ironic in a thread discussing literacy.
>No, he would not be called illiterate by these assessments.
This is a claim. For the benefit of the people reading this thread, would you please provide the basis for such a claim?
To be more specific, the claim implies that ability to spell is not measured by "these assessments" (which ones, specifically?).
The Wikipedia article indicates otherwise (as described in my previous comment), so everyone would benefit from learning about what your words are based on.
>I am not enjoying the experience [...], so I will not continue.
On the note of clarity in writing, that point could have been expressed in 0 words, by way of not leaving a comment.
In any case, if you're an educator, this is a chance for you to educate people who overestimate their knowledge of the subject.
And if not — well, I'm very sorry.
