Anonymous wrote:There has been a catastrophic collapse in reading for pleasure. Real reading, not tik tok reading or whatever that is. And it's across the board, young and old. Just look at the new books published today, they're much shorter than the books of the 1980s and 1990s when a 100k word count was normal for even first time authors.
It's a combination of factors. The major one is certainly technology. When you spend all day on computers and phones, it's hard to pick up a book. Attention spans are warped by social media so the ability to sit down and get engaged in a book for a hour and really read it, not just the words but the meaning of what is being said, is dying out.
And it's also changes in publishing itself. There really hasn't been great books published for a while. The quality of the literary output, commercial fiction in general, has collapsed. I have friends who spent decades in and adjacent to the publishing world and they're frank about it, publishers are dominated by specific progressive viewpoints and won't publish anything different or critical. That's why there's no modern Dickens, even if our times cries for one. Tom Wolfe would never be published today. Donna Tartt probably wouldn't be published if she was a first time writer. The biggest reading audience are progressive women, but when you don't publish for other groups, they don't bother reading. So I can't blame people for losing interest in reading. And as they stop reading, the harder it is to develop the habits.
Anonymous wrote:Well I will be honest part of the issue is the crap the colleges expect from extracurricular. Nobody has time to read for pleasure when they are working 24/7
Anonymous wrote:There has been a catastrophic collapse in reading for pleasure. Real reading, not tik tok reading or whatever that is. And it's across the board, young and old. Just look at the new books published today, they're much shorter than the books of the 1980s and 1990s when a 100k word count was normal for even first time authors.
It's a combination of factors. The major one is certainly technology. When you spend all day on computers and phones, it's hard to pick up a book. Attention spans are warped by social media so the ability to sit down and get engaged in a book for a hour and really read it, not just the words but the meaning of what is being said, is dying out.
And it's also changes in publishing itself. There really hasn't been great books published for a while. The quality of the literary output, commercial fiction in general, has collapsed. I have friends who spent decades in and adjacent to the publishing world and they're frank about it, publishers are dominated by specific progressive viewpoints and won't publish anything different or critical. That's why there's no modern Dickens, even if our times cries for one. Tom Wolfe would never be published today. Donna Tartt probably wouldn't be published if she was a first time writer. The biggest reading audience are progressive women, but when you don't publish for other groups, they don't bother reading. So I can't blame people for losing interest in reading. And as they stop reading, the harder it is to develop the habits.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can we switch the blame from students to educators who defended Lucy Calkins and crappy curriculums - everyone from teachers who bought into it to administrators who selected and enforced the programs.
Shame on all K-8 educators who rolled their eyes when parents complained.
I'm a teacher, and I NEVER defended Lucky Calkins. However, it isn't teachers who make decisions about curriculum, and I/we had no choice if we wanted to remain employed. There is a vast, bloated, many-tiered administrative team, many of whom have limited time/interest in actual classrooms, who are making these calls and ramming this nonsense through from the top down.
Anonymous wrote:Can we switch the blame from students to educators who defended Lucy Calkins and crappy curriculums - everyone from teachers who bought into it to administrators who selected and enforced the programs.
Shame on all K-8 educators who rolled their eyes when parents complained.
Anonymous wrote:Can we switch the blame from students to educators who defended Lucy Calkins and crappy curriculums - everyone from teachers who bought into it to administrators who selected and enforced the programs.
Shame on all K-8 educators who rolled their eyes when parents complained.
Anonymous wrote:Can we switch the blame from students to educators who defended Lucy Calkins and crappy curriculums - everyone from teachers who bought into it to administrators who selected and enforced the programs.
Shame on all K-8 educators who rolled their eyes when parents complained.
Anonymous wrote:First, colleges don’t actually show any respect for the kids who read a lot and write a lot.
My kid went into the college application process with great stats, a passionate love of reading, a lot of stories posted on web-based writing platforms, and two novel-length manuscripts on the writing platforms, and the two highly selective U.S. schools he applied to didn’t even waitlist him.
Second, one thing missing from these articles is that most kids in college now have probably had COVID two or three times, whether or not they were vaxxed. Most professors have also had two or more bouts of COVID.
Researchers seem to have too much brain fog to study whether mild or moderate COVID has any ladders impact on students’ ability to learn or instructors’ ability to teach.
Anonymous wrote:Starts at home, well before school. Parents either invest the time or they don't.