The Worth of Words

In it, he conjures up an alarming possible future zeitgeist, when he writes about the socially acceptable idea (through the hilariously ironic use of written media) that it will be OK when 5% of future generations of college graduates will not be able to read and extrapolate from a complex book, simply because in most cases, they won't ever need to; Magna Cum Laude indeed.

Setting aside for the moment that it's a fabricated editorial, Mr. Rogers skewers with rapier sarcasm an extremely important subject, and shows precisely the flaws and dangers of having a vast majority of the country existing in a state of illiteracy (or at least lower-than-average reading comprehension): the potential to lead to an expansive schism between those who can, and those who cannot, read and understand well.

His article begins with the fact that presently, less than 31% of adults in this country can read a complex book and extrapolate the ideas from it. If this trend is to continue, his faux editorial postulates we as a nation could reach a level of less than 5% of adults could extrapolate the raison d'etre of a written work by 2025, a significantly severe drop.

If one were so inclined, how could one defend such a drop in literacy as socially acceptable for the nation? Mr. Rogers suggests, rather ruefully, that in our inevitably literate-degrading future, such a nation wouldn't need to be very literate, because of our growing focus on multi-media. This, along with the ubiquitous array of symbols, signs, and audio assistance, would necessitate a world where one simply wouldn't need to read very much, or have a large vocabulary - possibly getting by with only 100 words or less. After all, with the continuing evolution of "text-messaging" and email short-hand, not to mention having high-speed, Wi-Fi accessible Internet nearly everywhere for every imaginable form of media entertainment, why would a person need to be overly literate anyway?

Why, indeed. Without spelling it out for us, his implications are almost as plain as the words used in his article - well, at least for anyone who can extrapolate the implication, that is. This future- nation would result in, almost overnight, a schism so large between those who could read well and those who could not, the rift would be almost insurmountable. What would follow would be a massive shift of those who "had" and those who "had not" in the form of accessible knowledge through print. What's more, the ones who could not read and surmise from print important meanings, instructions, or directions, would be left in the metaphorical "dirt", to do the upper-reading-class' dirty laundry - literally. Filthy cleaning, dangerous manufacturing, menial hard-labor, direct supporting of "The Literate" - anything that didn't require extensive reading, writing, or extrapolative thought would be cast down to the vast majority of the illiterate, whether they wanted these roles or not. The simplified job requirements of learning how to punch a few buttons, or turn a few dials - anything that could easily and symbolically be portrayed, or intrinsically understood - would be all the opportunity this "lesser" class of readers would ever be able to receive. Nobility of work and the job itself aside, how hard is it to understand how to push a button - or a broom?

Don't misunderstand - I'm not implying that anyone who currently (or will in the future) pushes a broom, cleans, or simply works physically hard is less of a person. On the contrary, I have personally washed, cleaned, and mopped my way through thousands of hours of physical cleaning and labor, and will continue to do so in the future of my household out of necessity of hygiene, cleanliness, etc. However, if workers of the future cannot, and do not, learn to read and understand complex compositions, they will be limited to only the most menial of tasks. The literate, by comparison, will rise to the upper echelon of "literate jobs", and earn the big bucks doing it. Furthermore, who do you think it will it be who begins to dictate the rules and regulations of all jobs, including the "illiterate" ones? Who will enforce those rules, as well as the interpretations of them? Who will become, in a way, the governing regime in power, when it comes time to decide upon, and vote on, important issues? You guessed it - The Literate.

Reading, and understanding what is read, is the great equalizer. Anyone who can read well has an equal chance to learn and apply new skills and crafts in a trade. Will such a concept as "learning on the job" then disappear? Of course not - it is an invaluable form of education and learning, and one that is a necessity in every single job. There's no school or coursework anywhere that can teach a person how to work successfully in any given job - that comes from empirical practice. However, the very same coursework can provide suggestions, training, and guidelines that can be utilized early on, and perhaps shorten the learning-curve timeline immensely, for successful workers. Additionally, workers can continue to improve their value to organizations and their respective roles by reading manuals, instructions, and new company directives. If one is unable to do this, he or she will always be an Apprentice, while a "Literate" shall become move on to Journeyman, Master, Foreman, Manager, President, ad nauseum.

Reading is glorious - it's a gateway to an infinite amount of ideas and storytelling that can keep us riveted and entertained throughout our lives. But what's equally important is this: with a high skill-level of reading and comprehension, it can keep us abreast of our rights, provide us our requirements, and allow for our promotions. Literacy can act as keys to doorways we never knew existed before. And all we need to do to enjoy these universally equal benefits is continue to support the written word. Extrapolate that.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823087/GT1/8717/