3 ms·
Surely you’re joking that you don’t think there’s much of a practical difference between an era where 90% of the population had less than eight years of schooli
by stouset 3y ago
Surely you’re joking that you don’t think there’s much of a practical difference between an era where 90% of the population had less than eight years of schooling, and one where the overwhelming majority have twelve to sixteen.
I mean, you can literally just look up the statistics on literacy rates.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lmm 3y ago> I mean, you can literally just look up the statistics on literacy rates. From what I remember they're shockingly low for a world where everyone finishes high school. IIRC only about 2/3 have even basic functional literacy?
- stouset 3y agoYou remember incorrectly. https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_State...
- cudgy 3y agoJust because someone went to school longer, doesn’t mean that they learned more or learned skills they need to function in society. Also, schools today are full of distractions, class changes, unnecessary technology, and much larger class sizes than was present in the 1930’s. It's just not the same environment and simply comparing years of attendance is a naive approach.