College kids don't read books?

[SimonDoom]

GWB didn't make college on his own work. He was a legacy student. If anything this is the problem with "elite" students. You have a section (how many I could only guess) of them that get into elite colleges not because they are smart, or have worked hard, but because their daddy knows people. I'm sure that some of those "elite" students have difficulty with most of the subjects taught and to put it bluntly, are dumb as a box of rocks. But they gots money and daddy knows everybody on the board.
And if you don't know anyone on the board? Well if you have drawers full of money you just buy your kid a place.

Those kids don't have to know how to read or do math or any of that icky study stuff. Daddy's got money! And I'm inclined to believe that's where the "can't read a book" as an elite college student comes in.

"There are only haves and have not. And there are only so many places at the table." Ned Beatty as Senator Charles F. Meachum



Comshaw

The problem with this theory is that the elite schools used to cater MORE to legacies than they do now. The Ivy League schools are far more meritocratic than they used to be. But it's likely that the more mediocre students of 1924 were getting a more "classical education," with more exposure to "Great Books" than the much more talented students of 2024 are getting.

It DOES appear that there has been a decline over time (in the USA anyway) in the Liberal Arts. I was a Liberal Arts major and loved reading and writing about books. There seems to be more focus today on STEM fields and finance. History used to be one of the most popular majors, and that isn't true anymore. The number of English majors at Harvard has declined dramatically.

When I was in college, the English Department issued a pamphlet that listed all the works that a conscientious and dedicated English concentrator "should" read. I think that idea of there being a classic core education --the "Great Books" concept--has greatly declined.

I get the feeling, based on my personal and completely nonscientific observation, that "kids these days" are smarter than ever before, if by smart one means raw processing speed. But they may be processing different things, on average, and may have less exposure to some things than earlier generations did.

 

[StillStunned]

Didn't all those kids grow up reading Harry Potter and Twilight? Or Ranger's Apprentice, if they're a bit younger?

 

[InterestedBlonde]

Nobody is making broad statements that future leaders will be morons.

It's called hyperbole.
They teach us that at universities.

 

[StillStunned]

It's called hyperbole.
They teach us that at universities.

Hyper-Bole? I thought that was an annual American Football thing.

 

[SimonDoom]

Hyper-Bole? I thought that was an annual American Football thing.

Or it's a reference to Robert E. Lee's forgotten son, Perbo, who passed much of the 19th century stoned out of his mind from the product of America's first pot farm.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Or it's a reference to Robert E. Lee's forgotten son, Perbo, who passed much of the 19th century stoned out of his mind from the product of America's first pot farm.

-.-

 

[Comshaw]

The problem with this theory is that the elite schools used to cater MORE to legacies than they do now. The Ivy League schools are far more meritocratic than they used to be. But it's likely that the more mediocre students of 1924 were getting a more "classical education," with more exposure to "Great Books" than the much more talented students of 2024 are getting.

It DOES appear that there has been a decline over time (in the USA anyway) in the Liberal Arts. I was a Liberal Arts major and loved reading and writing about books. There seems to be more focus today on STEM fields and finance. History used to be one of the most popular majors, and that isn't true anymore. The number of English majors at Harvard has declined dramatically.

When I was in college, the English Department issued a pamphlet that listed all the works that a conscientious and dedicated English concentrator "should" read. I think that idea of there being a classic core education --the "Great Books" concept--has greatly declined.

I get the feeling, based on my personal and completely nonscientific observation, that "kids these days" are smarter than ever before, if by smart one means raw processing speed. But they may be processing different things, on average, and may have less exposure to some things than earlier generations did.

I agree they used to cater to more legacy students than they do now, but I'm sure it still happens quite often. And some of our leaders are the ones that benefited from that type of privileged admission. Additionally, you have the pay-to-play option and that still happens quite often (a lot more than people want to admit or recognize), as witnessed by the not-so-long-ago pay-to-play college admission scandal in California.

Not having any information on what majors are or are not being chosen today by students I can only address the anecdotal evidence I have on the point. Which is, we have hundreds of kids coming out of college with a degree who can't get a decent job. Why? I believe it's because of the wrong major in studies. It begins with insisting that ALL kids need to go to college. There is a whole section of our youth who aren't suited to college and their skills lay in other areas. But with the death of unions, the apprenticeship programs they ran are also dead. Additionally, it also has to do with heading in the wrong direction with a degree. A Liberal Arts degree is good, but how many jobs call for one? It's limited so if you have a glut of Liberal Arts degrees and all the jobs that call for one are already filled, you might as well use that piece of paper to cover a hole in the wall.

At least some of the kids these days are "smarter" than past generations. Not because they are any more intelligent than past generations, but because they have access to more information and are being exposed to that information at a much younger age. I came from a generation where everything was in books. If you wanted to know something you had to go look for it. A sometimes extended and painfully exacting process. Now? Hell, all ya' gotta do is whip out your phone. There is a huge amount of information right at a person's fingertips 24 hours a day.

Comshaw

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree they used to cater to more legacy students than they do now, but I'm sure it still happens quite often. And some of our leaders are the ones that benefited from that type of privileged admission. Additionally, you have the pay-to-play option and that still happens quite often (a lot more than people want to admit or recognize), as witnessed by the not-so-long-ago pay-to-play college admission scandal in California.

Not having any information on what majors are or are not being chosen today by students I can only address the anecdotal evidence I have on the point. Which is, we have hundreds of kids coming out of college with a degree who can't get a decent job. Why? I believe it's because of the wrong major in studies. It begins with insisting that ALL kids need to go to college. There is a whole section of our youth who aren't suited to college and their skills lay in other areas. But with the death of unions, the apprenticeship programs they ran are also dead. Additionally, it also has to do with heading in the wrong direction with a degree. A Liberal Arts degree is good, but how many jobs call for one? It's limited so if you have a glut of Liberal Arts degrees and all the jobs that call for one are already filled, you might as well use that piece of paper to cover a hole in the wall.

At least some of the kids these days are "smarter" than past generations. Not because they are any more intelligent than past generations, but because they have access to more information and are being exposed to that information at a much younger age. I came from a generation where everything was in books. If you wanted to know something you had to go look for it. A sometimes extended and painfully exacting process. Now? Hell, all ya' gotta do is whip out your phone. There is a huge amount of information right at a person's fingertips 24 hours a day.

Comshaw

I agree with much of this. I have my doubts about the value of the average liberal arts degree in the US these days. I know of some former English major baristas. They can't get jobs.

Many people would be better off, in terms of skills added, spending 4 years learning a trade than getting a bachelor's degree. But our society is very, perhaps unduly, credential-oriented.

 

[Bramblethorn]

A Liberal Arts degree is good, but how many jobs call for one? It's limited so if you have a glut of Liberal Arts degrees and all the jobs that call for one are already filled, you might as well use that piece of paper to cover a hole in the wall.

IMHO, the issue is not that the humanities are irrelevant in the workplace but that they're undervalued.

Anybody who pays attention to tech can tell tales of boneheaded decisions made by tech companies because they focussed solely on the tech side of the business and forgot that ultimately their products are intended to be used by humans, including humans who don't have the same requirements as a Silicon Valley software engineer.

(I'm not speaking from vested interests here; all my credentials are in STEMM fields.)

 

[Comshaw]

IMHO, the issue is not that the humanities are irrelevant in the workplace but that they're undervalued.

Anybody who pays attention to tech can tell tales of boneheaded decisions made by tech companies because they focussed solely on the tech side of the business and forgot that ultimately their products are intended to be used by humans, including humans who don't have the same requirements as a Silicon Valley software engineer.

(I'm not speaking from vested interests here; all my credentials are in STEMM fields.)

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but are you insisting that an individual with a Liberal Arts degree should be hired for a tech position in a tech company? If so that doesn't make much sense to me. I can see a person with an engineering major also needing a Liberal Arts minor to understand how things should connect with people. But a Liberal Arts degree on its own is kind of useless in a tech environment.

I never said nor implied that Humanities studies are irrelevant. I said when you have a glut of them, when the job fields that require that kind of learning background are full, they are not in demand and therefore the degree in that particular discipline becomes a deficit rather than a plus.

Comshaw

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's called hyperbole.
They teach us that at universities.

Actually, it's called a strawman argument.
They teach us that in high school.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but are you insisting that an individual with a Liberal Arts degree should be hired for a tech position in a tech company?

Consider yourself corrected; that's not what I said, and I can't see how you'd read that into what I did say.

If so that doesn't make much sense to me. I can see a person with an engineering major also needing a Liberal Arts minor to understand how things should connect with people. But a Liberal Arts degree on its own is kind of useless in a tech environment.

That can be said about any degree on its own. Large businesses work by taking people with complementary skillsets and putting them together to do stuff, not by relying on any single person to be able to do everything the business does.

I have a tech-related doctorate. It doesn't qualify me to run payroll, or IT security, or negotiate business deals, or talk to disgruntled customers. But that's fine. We have other people who specialise in those areas, and none of them can do what I do. Put us in a team together and we can do something useful.

I never said nor implied that Humanities studies are irrelevant. I said when you have a glut of them, when the job fields that require that kind of learning background are full, they are not in demand and therefore the degree in that particular discipline becomes a deficit rather than a plus.

Yup. And I'm pointing out that the reason those skills aren't in demand is not because they're worthless but because businesses undervalue them.

One of the prime examples currently is social media. The main business of a social media company is to get human beings interacting with one another (and then leverage that to sell ads or whatever). But when people who have no real interest or expertise in human interaction decide to treat that as wholly a software engineering problem, and save money by firing anybody who doesn't look like an engineer, the user experience goes to shit and the engineers are left lamenting how they made a great product and the (ex-) users just aren't smart enough to appreciate it.

You can see this in socmed systems built by people who thought the entire brief was "let people send messages to one another, while showing them ads" without adequately considering how people and governments might want to interact with that system, let alone how they might try to abuse it.

So many platforms have been built by people who never thought about what might happen when somebody tried to use their product for (say) stalking, or child porn, or inciting genocide, or when a national government starts to have opinions about how the platform should be run. When those issues come up, if they don't already have somebody in the room who knows how that stuff works and knows the lessons of history, they're inevitably going to find themselves making up bad responses on the fly. This has happened, often, recently.

I could name names but that'd inevitably get into tedious political wankery that I'd rather avoid; it's not hard to find examples for anybody who knows how to work a search engine.

 

[Comshaw]

Consider yourself corrected; that's not what I said, and I can't see how you'd read that into what I did say.

Hmmmm...well you started out by stating that Humanities degrees are undervalued by companies, then went straight into talking about how tech companies don't think about how their products will be used by humans. The unspoken connection (which seems pretty plain to me) is that tech companies need more employees with Humanities degrees. Perhaps a little clarification between those two points is needed? I think it is.

That can be said about any degree on its own.

Of course it can. My statement was directed at your prior statements about Humanities Degrees and does not stand by itself.

Large businesses work by taking people with complementary skillsets and putting them together to do stuff, not by relying on any single person to be able to do everything the business does.

I have a tech-related doctorate. It doesn't qualify me to run payroll, or IT security, or negotiate business deals, or talk to disgruntled customers. But that's fine. We have other people who specialise in those areas, and none of them can do what I do. Put us in a team together and we can do something useful.

Precisely the gist of what I said. "But a Liberal Arts degree on its own is kind of useless in a tech environment." A simple sentence specifying the operative phrase "on its own" and the area I was referencing "a tech environment".

"It doesn't qualify me..." Sure it does. Anyone can do anything if they want to learn it. I was a Shop Lead Mechanic for 12 years. I ran the day to day operation of the shop. That not only entailed repair work I did but also scheduling the work of the crew, dealing with incoming customers and for half a dozen years before the city I worked for instituted an IT division, I ran the computer network for the shop, including net security. When I was promoted to Fleet Manager I also negotiated the contracts for fuel purchases, equipment purchases and any other hardware we needed. I handled the $10 million dollar replacement fund for our multi-million dollar fleet and I didn't have a degree of any kind. All the skills I learned, I learned on my own. So yeah, a degree in one thing does not mean you can't be "qualified" in another, or multiple, areas.

Yup. And I'm pointing out that the reason those skills aren't in demand is not because they're worthless but because businesses undervalue them.

I don't think I ever said they were worthless nor did I imply that. And your opinion that the only reason they aren't in demand is they are undervalued is in my opinion only fractionally correct. The other and much larger part was the point I made earlier, that there are a lot more people out there with a Humanities Degree than there are jobs/careers that need or demand such.


Comshaw

 

[Bramblethorn]

Hmmmm...well you started out by stating that Humanities degrees are undervalued by companies, then went straight into talking about how tech companies don't think about how their products will be used by humans. The unspoken connection (which seems pretty plain to me) is that tech companies need more employees with Humanities degrees. Perhaps a little clarification between those two points is needed? I think it is.

"Tech companies need more employees with humanities degrees" would be a reasonable interpretation of what I said. But that's not the same as your characterisation as "an individual with a Liberal Arts degree should be hired for a tech position in a tech company".

Of course it can. My statement was directed at your prior statements about Humanities Degrees and does not stand by itself.

Precisely the gist of what I said. "But a Liberal Arts degree on its own is kind of useless in a tech environment." A simple sentence specifying the operative phrase "on its own" and the area I was referencing "a tech environment".

Do you not see the distinction between "useless in a tech environment" and "useless in a tech position"? Those are two very different statements. This is where an English major can come in handy.

"It doesn't qualify me..." Sure it does. Anyone can do anything if they want to learn it.

And here, a Philosophy major could explain that "my degree in X doesn't qualify me for Y" (what I said) is not the same as "my degree in X makes it impossible for me to do Y" (what you apparently heard).

I was a Shop Lead Mechanic for 12 years. I ran the day to day operation of the shop. That not only entailed repair work I did but also scheduling the work of the crew, dealing with incoming customers and for half a dozen years before the city I worked for instituted an IT division, I ran the computer network for the shop, including net security. When I was promoted to Fleet Manager I also negotiated the contracts for fuel purchases, equipment purchases and any other hardware we needed. I handled the $10 million dollar replacement fund for our multi-million dollar fleet and I didn't have a degree of any kind. All the skills I learned, I learned on my own. So yeah, a degree in one thing does not mean you can't be "qualified" in another, or multiple, areas.

That's great, I'm happy for you, but it's irrelevant because "X doesn't qualify me for Y" and "X means I can't be qualified for Y" are two very different statements.

Could I learn IT security, if I put my mind to it? Possibly.

Does my doctorate in [thing that isn't IT security] give me IT security skills, or a way to show others that I have those skills? Nope. So I'm not qualified to run our IT security.

I don't think I ever said they were worthless nor did I imply that. And your opinion that the only reason they aren't in demand is they are undervalued is in my opinion only fractionally correct. The other and much larger part was the point I made earlier, that there are a lot more people out there with a Humanities Degree than there are jobs/careers that need or demand such.

Yes, and I'm discussing why that demand situation is how it is.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Actually, it's called a strawman argument.
They teach us that in high school.

Actually it's called picking a fight for no reason other than to have one. Just drop your empty fronts already.

 

[Comshaw]

"Tech companies need more employees with humanities degrees" would be a reasonable interpretation of what I said. But that's not the same as your characterisation as "an individual with a Liberal Arts degree should be hired for a tech position in a tech company".

Okay. I'll admit to using the wrong characterization. however, I still think your train of logic from Humanities degrees to how they connect with the tech industry was murky at best.

Do you not see the distinction between "useless in a tech environment" and "useless in a tech position"? Those are two very different statements. This is where an English major can come in handy.

you do understand there are multiple definitions of most words, right?

In that vein, No I don't see the distinction. Where would a person with a humanities degree fit in? HR? That's an entirely different environment from the tech part of an operation. Management? Again, totally different environment. Sales? The same. So where and how would they fit into the tech environment? The only way they would or could fit into the tech "environment" of a company is to be in a tech position. Any other choice would put them in the tech company yes, but outside that environment.

And here, a Philosophy major could explain that "my degree in X doesn't qualify me for Y" (what I said) is not the same as "my degree in X makes it impossible for me to do Y" (what you apparently heard).

And what is a degree in anything for? to learn a certain thing, or to learn how to learn? A very myopic view of it would be to say that it only qualifies you for whatever it was you studied. A larger and more in depth examination of it might show that a degree teaches and equips you in how to learn. You're welcome to stay mired in that tiny little space you've allowed yourself. For my part I never thought that way. I never said nor implied that because one has a degree in X it makes it impossible for them to do Y. I'm sure your hypothetical philosophy major would characterize that as a Strawman Informal fallacy.

That's great, I'm happy for you, but it's irrelevant because "X doesn't qualify me for Y" and "X means I can't be qualified for Y" are two very different statements.

"X doesn't qualify me for y" is true. It, as you, say does not equate to "x does not mean I can't be qualified for Y". But the former can also be an excuse not to tackle Y for any number of reasons. You've been bemoaning the fact that tech companies "...can tell tales of boneheaded decisions made by tech companies because they focussed solely on the tech side of the business" Can you not see that the excuse of "well it doesn't qualify me for that" is the problem? It gives those using that an excuse not to step out of their comfort zone and tackle something else. Do you want to solve the problem you're talking about? A person with a humanities degree isn't going to solve it for you. The best way to solve it is for those doing the work to develop new skills. And to do that X does need to get qualified to do Y.

What I tried to illustrate with my own career is that a person can do multiple things. They do not have to stay mired in one little pond. They can learn multiple skills in multiple fields. If you want to cure the problem you have identified the best way is not to rely on some other person with a different skill to do it. Saying "I have a doctorate in XXXX so I'm not qualified to do that" while simultaneously griping about something in ones field that no one is doing anything about is a way to insulate oneself from having to actually do something about the probelm.

Could I learn IT security, if I put my mind to it? Possibly.

Does my doctorate in [thing that isn't IT security] give me IT security skills, or a way to show others that I have those skills? Nope. So I'm not qualified to run our IT security.

Yep, "I'm not qualified" is a great way to insulate yourself from a problem while also griping that it exists.

Yes, and I'm discussing why that demand situation is how it is.

Not really. You're expressing your opinion on what you believe that situation is. If you're going to demand absolute correctness you need to offer it in return.


Comshaw

 

[Bramblethorn]

In that vein, No I don't see the distinction. Where would a person with a humanities degree fit in? HR? That's an entirely different environment from the tech part of an operation. Management? Again, totally different environment. Sales? The same. So where and how would they fit into the tech environment? The only way they would or could fit into the tech "environment" of a company is to be in a tech position. Any other choice would put them in the tech company yes, but outside that environment.

Just a few hours ago, in this very discussion, I gave some examples of topics where somebody with a humanities degree could be very useful in a tech company. None of those examples were focussed towards HR, sales, or management.

And what is a degree in anything for? to learn a certain thing, or to learn how to learn? A very myopic view of it would be to say that it only qualifies you for whatever it was you studied. A larger and more in depth examination of it might show that a degree teaches and equips you in how to learn. You're welcome to stay mired in that tiny little space you've allowed yourself.

LOL. You know absolutely nothing about the space in which I work, or what my jobs are.

The idea that "a degree teaches how to learn" has some truth in it, but it's far from the whole truth. A degree also teaches one a ton of useful specific things in the relevant subject matter. It's not the only way to acquire that knowledge - I'm comfortable saying that I now have PhD-level knowledge in a field that isn't the same field I did my actual PhD in - but it's certainly one of the big ways people learn.

Otherwise why bother branding degrees by topic at all? Why make any distinction between humanities and technology and any other kind of degree if we're all just learning "how to learn".

I never said nor implied that because one has a degree in X it makes it impossible for them to do Y.

If you truly believe anybody can learn anything they put their mind to, I implore you to put your mind to developing reading comprehension.

I'm sure your hypothetical philosophy major would characterize that as a Strawman Informal fallacy.

I doubt it. Most of the philosophy majors I know are better readers than that.

"X doesn't qualify me for y" is true.

Great. We could've saved ourselves a lot of time if you hadn't felt the need to argue with this true statement.

It, as you, say does not equate to "x does not mean I can't be qualified for Y". But the former can also be an excuse not to tackle Y for any number of reasons. You've been bemoaning the fact that tech companies "...can tell tales of boneheaded decisions made by tech companies because they focussed solely on the tech side of the business" Can you not see that the excuse of "well it doesn't qualify me for that" is the problem? It gives those using that an excuse not to step out of their comfort zone and tackle something else.

If anything, the problem is usually the other way around: it's not that the engineers are reluctant to tackle the people issues, it's that they're too eager to leap in with some half-assed "assume a spherical frictionless human" crap, assuming that they have nothing to learn from people who've spent years of their life studying this topic, and bungle it.

Do you want to solve the problem you're talking about? A person with a humanities degree isn't going to solve it for you.

Oh? So does "anyone can do anything if they want to learn it" not extend to humanities grads?

I've spent most of my working life on interdisciplinary projects. Sure, there's benefit to learning something about other domains, to understand how they need to link together. But there's also value in recognising that we can't all be specialists in everything, and sometimes the solution lies in finding somebody who already has the necessary expertise and respecting that expertise, not in trying to be Captain Polymath.

When I need a lightbulb changed, I get up on a ladder and change the bulb. But when I need a new power point installed, I hire somebody who's trained as an electrician. Could I learn that trade myself? Absolutely. But the time it'd take me is better spent on other things, and if I just rush in and do a half-assed job - because nobody really needs an electrical cert to do electrical wiring, other people's jobs look easy and I don't understand why they make a fuss about it! - I'm liable to kill myself or burn the house down.

What I tried to illustrate with my own career is that a person can do multiple things. They do not have to stay mired in one little pond. They can learn multiple skills in multiple fields. If you want to cure the problem you have identified the best way is not to rely on some other person with a different skill to do it.

There is more work in my organisation than any one person can do. I am inevitably relying on other people to do some of it, and given the need for more than one person, we can work more efficiently with some level of specialisation and division of responsibilities. That's how it works in any large business.

For small things that only come up occasionally, where it's not cost-effective to have somebody focussed on that one thing, sure, multi-skill. But for big things that are important to the business, you're far better off having somebody giving it their full attention, not making it up as they go.

Saying "I have a doctorate in XXXX so I'm not qualified to do that" while simultaneously griping about something in ones field that no one is doing anything about is a way to insulate oneself from having to actually do something about the probelm.

I get that this is a thing you want to rant about, but it's not particularly relevant. It's not about "insulating", it's about large workplaces having far more work than any one person could do on their own, and the value in having people develop different skillsets focussed on different parts of the work, rather than one person trying to cover everything.

 

[TheLobster]

Anybody who pays attention to tech can tell tales of boneheaded decisions made by tech companies because they focussed solely on the tech side of the business and forgot that ultimately their products are intended to be used by humans, including humans who don't have the same requirements as a Silicon Valley software engineer.

I've been working in tech for years and what I've seen is pretty much the opposite. The boneheadedness comes from focusing too little on tech, and how the technology in your product differentiates itself from the competition, and too much on the irrelevant fluff in UX and design.

Interestingly enough, this affects startups and big corporations alike. In the former case, it breaks out as a deluge of copycat apps that chase the latest trend (mobile, social, cloud, AI) to secure VP funding and hopefully get the founders and early employees acquihired by likes of Google or Facebook. If there is any focus on tech there, it's mostly about using the latest and shiniest languages and frameworks, as a form of status signaling amongst the dev & open source crowds. Real innovation is almost never a factor there, nor is long term technical viability of the product.

Older, large tech companies are affected by this too; Google is the obvious example. In the effort to make their products allegedly more user-friendly, they lose sight of what made it successful in the first place, beginning a slow downward slide into irrelevancy.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Actually it's called picking a fight for no reason other than to have one. Just drop your empty fronts already.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I've been working in tech for years and what I've seen is pretty much the opposite. The boneheadedness comes from focusing too little on tech, and how the technology in your product differentiates itself from the competition, and too much on the irrelevant fluff in UX and design.

Interestingly enough, this affects startups and big corporations alike. In the former case, it breaks out as a deluge of copycat apps that chase the latest trend (mobile, social, cloud, AI) to secure VP funding and hopefully get the founders and early employees acquihired by likes of Google or Facebook. If there is any focus on tech there, it's mostly about using the latest and shiniest languages and frameworks, as a form of status signaling amongst the dev & open source crowds. Real innovation is almost never a factor there, nor is long term technical viability of the product.

Older, large tech companies are affected by this too; Google is the obvious example. In the effort to make their products allegedly more user-friendly, they lose sight of what made it successful in the first place, beginning a slow downward slide into irrelevancy.

IMHO, the issue is not that the humanities are irrelevant in the workplace but that they're undervalued.

Anybody who pays attention to tech can tell tales of boneheaded decisions made by tech companies because they focussed solely on the tech side of the business and forgot that ultimately their products are intended to be used by humans, including humans who don't have the same requirements as a Silicon Valley software engineer.

(I'm not speaking from vested interests here; all my credentials are in STEMM fields.)

Preventing that is why marketing departments exist. Their job is to understand customers wants and needs and help guide products towards that end within the limits of the available technology.
If a company ignores that I can't see how having a few English Lit majors on the payroll is going to make a difference.

 

[drobert44]

My kid teaches English at H S level; she makes them read novels.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'd encourage people who read the Atlantic article to also read this rebuttal by one of the teachers who was interviewed for that article. https://cmsthomas.substack.com/p/the-atlantic-did-me-dirty

Sounds like Horowitch started out with her mind already made up about what the situation was and what its causes were, and then ignored whatever didn't fit that predetermined narrative.

...I was immediately curious about the actual texts at the center of this “crisis” so I asked Horowitch directly what types of books were the sticking points in her professor friends’ curricula. Unsurprisingly, it was canonical classics. As Horowitch points out, I am just “one public-high school teacher in Illinois,” but while professors at elite universities sound the alarm over Gen Z undergrads not finishing Les Miserables because they are uninterested in reading a pompous French man drone on for chapters about the Paris sewer system, my colleagues and I have developed professional toolboxes with endless other ways to inspire our students to read about justice, compassion, and redemption.

...

Ishmael Beah’s A Long Way Gone, Ibi Zoboi’s American Street, and David Bowles’s The Prince and the Coyote, are all complex, challenging, and substantial texts that speak to the interests and experiences of my students, so it’s not a fight to get them reading. Frustratingly, despite the numerous examples I provided of students reading books cover-to-cover in my class, Horowitch opted to include only the unit that, like the original rhapsodes of the bronze age, I excerpt and abridge. Equally frustrating is that her article implies that I was forced into that decision in order to pacify floundering students or submit to the demands of standardized testing.

Rather, my experience is that young readers are eminently capable of critically engaging in long form content, but they’re rightfully demanding a seat at the table where decisions about texts are being made.

...

Perhaps the most disappointing defeat I observed in the final article was that although I shared my observations of the tireless work of colleagues at the state and national level advocating for intellectual freedom, Horowitch does not acknowledge that culturally, we do not value reading. We ban books, scrutinize classroom libraries, demonize librarians, and demoralize teachers. We pay lip service to the importance of literacy, requiring four years of English and regularly testing literacy skills, but when push comes to shove, we don’t make space for the curiosity and joy that are the foundations of lifelong literacy habits. In truth, we seem to be doggedly fighting against the best interest of a literate populace. While aggressive censorship is an agony I’ve been spared in my current position, it is a formidable obstacle I see my colleagues and heroes across the state and across the country struggling with.

 

[Britva415]

If college kids aren't reading books, it's because they're being raised by families who aren't reading books.

 

[Voboy]

If college kids aren't reading books, it's because they're being raised by families who aren't reading books.

I think that's more than a bit simplistic. My wife and I are both voracious readers; one of our kids enjoys it, the other doesn't.

People are different. Some just aren't into the same things their families are into. The idea that everyone is a copy of their parents is... well. I'll just say it's "incorrect."

Anyone raising children at this moment understands just how many different stimuli are competing for their attention. Books remain a strong contender, but there are so many others that some kids will simply find something else they're into.

 

[Britva415]

I think that's more than a bit simplistic

Of course there are exceptions - readers can come from non-reading families too, just as much as non-readers can come from reading families. But family environment is super important for not only the skill of literacy but also the habit of reading.

I think my statement is a fair description of the overall trend and isn't about any specific individual person or family.

It's a point nobody else here has made so far, and I think it's being woefully overlooked.