Religions > Atheism > What is the worth of words? Will it matter if people can’t read in the future?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2006 07:50:44 PM |
| Object: |
What is the worth of words? Will it matter if people can’t read in the future? |
I thoroughly disagree with the gentleman!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823087/
What is the worth of words?
Will it matter if people can’t read in the future?
The Practical Futurist
By Michael Rogers
Columnist
Special to MSNBC
Updated: 12:45 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2006
Michael Rogers
Columnist
“Literacy experts and educators say they are stunned by the results of a
recent adult literacy assessment, which shows that the reading
proficiency of college graduates has declined in the past decade, with
no obvious explanation.
“’It's appalling -- it's really astounding,’ said Michael Gorman,
president of the American Library Association and a librarian at
California State University at Fresno. ‘Only 31 percent of college
graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not
saying much for the remainder.’”
--The Washington Post, December 25, 2005
December 25, 2025 — Educational doomsayers are again up in arms at a new
adult literacy study showing that less than 5 percent of college
graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it.
The obsessive measurement of long-form literacy is once more being used
to flail an education trend that is in fact going in just the right
direction. Today’s young people are not able to read and understand long
stretches of text simply because in most cases they won’t ever need to
do so.
It’s time to acknowledge that in a truly multimedia environment of 2025,
most Americans don’t need to understand more than a hundred or so words
at a time, and certainly will never read anything approaching the length
of an old-fashioned book. We need a frank reassessment of where
long-form literacy itself lies in the spectrum of skills that a modern
nation requires of its workers.
We’re not talking about complete illiteracy, which is most certainly not
a good thing. Young people today, however, have plenty of literacy for
everyday activities such as reading signs and package labels, and
writing brief e-mails and text messages that don’t require accurate
spelling or grammar.
Text labels also remain a useful way to navigate Web sites, although
increasingly site design has evolved toward icons and audio prompts.
Managers, in turn, have learned to use audio or video messaging as much
as possible with workers, and to make sure that no text message ever
contains more than one idea.
In 2025, when a worker actually needs to work with text, easy-to-use
dictation, autoparsing and text-to-speech software allows him or her to
create, edit and listen to documents without relying on extensive
written skills. And any media analyst on Wall Street will confirm that
the vast majority of Americans now consume virtually all of their
entertainment and information through multimedia channels in which text
is either optional or unnecessary.
In both the 19th and 20th centuries, the ability to read long texts was
seen as an unquestioned social good. And back then, the prescription
made sense: media technology was limited and in order to take part in
both society and workplace, the ability to read books and long articles
seemed essential. In 2025, higher-level literacy is probably necessary
for only 10 percent of the American population.
It’s worth keeping in mind that reading itself is an inherently
artificial human activity, an invention that in evolutionary terms has
existed only for a blink of an eye. School districts have wasted
billions of dollars in recent decades to correct “reading disabilities”
when in fact there is no such thing as “reading ability” to start with.
Reading is an artificial construct that is of high value for a very
limited set human activities — but by no means all activities.
There is no question that reading is a desirable and often enjoyable
skill to possess. In 2025, tens of millions of Americans continue to
enjoy books and magazines as recreational pursuits, and this happy habit
will undoubtedly remain part of the landscape for generations to come.
But just as every citizen is not forcibly trained to enjoy classical
music, neither should they be coerced into believing that reading is
necessarily pleasurable. For the majority of students, reading and
writing are difficult enterprises with limited payoffs in the modern
world.
Some positions in society do require significant literacy skills: senior
managers, screenwriters, scientists and others need a highly efficient
way to absorb and communicate abstract thought. A broad written
vocabulary and strong compositional skills are also powerful ways to
organize and plan large enterprises, whether that means launching a new
product, making a movie or creating legislation. But for the vast number
of the workers who actually carry out those plans, the same skills are
far less crucial. The nation’s leaders must be able to read; for those
who follow, the ability should be strictly optional.
We have made at least two generations of American children miserable
trying to teach them a skill that only a small percentage of them really
need. And we have wasted billions of dollars that might well have gone
for more practical education and training.
In 2025 it’s time to put reading into perspective for the remainder of
the 21st century: it is a luxury, not a necessity!
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the worth of words? Will it matter if people can?t read in the future? |
14 Sep 2006 11:37:19 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
I thoroughly disagree with the gentleman!
It's satire, written from the perspective of 2025. The columnist is
giving examples of how people will have to be coddled and treated like
idiots if they're unable to read. I extrapolate that you and he actually
feel the same way.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
