Young people reading a lot less

The Boston Globe ^ | Nov 19, 2007 | David Mehegan

[upchuck]

We know what young people are doing more of: watching television, surfing the Web, listening to their iPods, talking on cellphones, and instant-messaging their friends. But a new report released today by the National Endowment for the Arts makes clear what they're doing a lot less of: reading.

The report - a 99-page compendium of more than 40 studies by universities, foundations, business groups, and government agencies since 2004 - paints a dire picture of plummeting levels of reading among young people over the past two decades. Among the findings:

Only 30 percent of 13-year-olds read almost every day.

The number of 17-year-olds who never read for pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004.

Almost half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure.

The average person between ages 15 and 24 spends 2 to 2 1/2 hours a day watching TV and 7 minutes reading.

"This is a massive social problem," NEA chairman Dana Gioia, said by phone from Washington. "We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading."

It is not just the amount of reading. According to the report, reading ability has fallen as well. While scores have improved for 9-year-olds, they dropped sharply for 17-year-olds. Only about a third of high school seniors read at a proficient level, a 13 percent decline since 1992. "And proficiency is not a high standard," Gioia said. "We're not asking them to be able to read Proust in the original. We're talking about reading the daily newspaper."

[upchuck]

"This is a massive social problem," NEA chairman Dana Gioia, said by phone from Washington. "We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading."

Me thinks the days of Idiocracy are closer than we realize.

[2ndDivisionVet]

In other news, scientists have declared that water is wet.

[Diogenesis]

To the MSM, NEA, NOW, and the Jurists who wiped out America:

Your mission has been accommplished.

[cinives]

I bet they do their reading on the Internet.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I have known old people that had bookshelves all along their walls. Those days are long gone.

[Alter Kaker]

Next up: Scientists to examine whether bears defecate in woodland habitats.

[Alter Kaker]

I have known old people that had bookshelves all along their walls. Those days are long gone.

My kids and grandkids do.

[Man50D]

Reedin iz over ratid. I never red that much butt it hazn’t efected my abilitee to rite or funcshun in sosietee. I git along just fyne.

[chrisser]

I bet they do their reading on the Internet.

Bingo.

I'm not exactly young (just turned 40) and I apologize if, although I do enjoy it, reading isn't at the top of my list of things I would do if I had spare time. I have other interests.

But I do read, a lot, to gather information, both for my personal life and for business.

From an information-gathering perspective, books are out-of-date the moment they're printed. They're heavy, comparatively difficult to obtain, lose value over time in terms of the quality of their information, and are not as easy to search.

If you need information, and you need it quickly (that day or sooner), you don't go to a library, a book store, or Amazon.com - you go online.

[7thson]

"We're not asking them to be able to read Proust in the original. We're talking about reading the daily newspaper."

I think they are wrong, due to personal observations. I ride the Metro in DC nearly everyday and I see people reading all the time. Young and old. Maybe the people they see as not reading are not reading the books and materials these idiots want them to read. And about not reading the newspapers, I see this as a good thing. My brother always chided me for not reading the newspaper. I still don't, for the most part, and I am - and always have been - more informed than he.

[tioga]

-we produce disgusting hollywood movies designed to lower standards of hehaviour cheaper than we produce books. Would you read or entertain yourself with a movie?

[ClearCase_guy]

I have always read for pleasure, and I own over 5000 books. I worked at libraries for over 15 years. I care about getting people to read.

However, I would also point out that the phenomenon of "reading for pleasure" is remarkably new (and now apparently fading). Once upon a time, people used their scarce leisure time for Self Improvement. As an example, Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman, read constantly and became a notable American philosopher. Yes, he enjoyed his reading -- but he wasn't "reading for pleasure". He was trying to improve his mind. This was what people did for many, many years. I believe Bloom touched on this point in "Closing of the American Mind".

The rise of the novel got people reading fictional stories about the sort of people they might never meet. Pride and Prejudice is a fine book -- and I would say that one can learn quite a bit from it. I would never say that reading Pride and Prejudice was a waste of time! However, from there we slowly devolve into reading "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, and "Farewell to Arms" by Hemingway, and eventually "Armies of the Night" by Norman Mailer.

How much "Self Improvement" do you get from reading Norman Mailer, or Toni Morrison?? I would say close to none. Now, we are truly in the realm of "reading for pleasure". And this begs the question: How pleasurable is it?

Clearly, in the modern world, there are many activities which people find more pleasurable than reading the literature which is being published today. And what does that tell us? Well, it tells me that "reading for pleasure" is fading away -- but if we are lucky, the urge for Self Improvement can be retained (if we are wise enough to encourage it).

My fear is that schools will still push "reading for pleasure" by pushing trashier and trashier books. What the schools ought to do is push the concept of Self Improvement by encouraging intellectual inquiry -- but that would put their Leftist agenda at risk, so I don't expect to see that.

Nope. I expect to see more "Captain Underpants" in the lower grades, and more "Beloved" in college. And I expect reading to continue to decline.

[Solitar]

Bingo...
They don’t know how to read anything more challenging that picture icons — like menus, newspapers, magazines or really hard stuff such as books on history, science or the bible.

[TMSuchman]

Not in OUR household, my daughter reads for fun at least 1 hour or more everyday, and that is after her homework is done! She has read just about every “Harry Potter” book from the school libary, and a lot of different types of books. Now only if I could just get her interested in history books.......

[onedoug]

Non-fiction bump...about 20 books/year.

[Swordfished]

Me thinks the days of Idiocracy are closer than we realize.

It's not just young people, it's also middle-aged people. They're hooked to these mind-numbingly stupid TV shows like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Kid Nation and Survivor XXVII. The show with the idiots singing along to the lyrics makes me want to blow my brains out.

[IonInsights]

surfing the web = reading

[Blue Highway]

You make several good points, and onto what crap they will be pushing on kids, it may be that bad already. With Planned Parenthood promoting sex education to kindergarden kids, books like “Tommy the Talking Condomn” are not too far away.

[Red_Devil 232]

You don’t go on line to read for enjoyment (although some subjects and posts on FR are enjoyable). Holding a book and turning the pages is satisfying ... and you can read one anywhere. Stop at any time, mark the page, and pick up where you left off hours, days or weeks later faster than you can finding a book-marked site on the net ... no WiFi connections, no phone or satellite or cable connection needed. The only thing needed is a little light, a candle will do, and for those who read Braille you don’t even need that.

[truemiester]

you ain’t lying