We are not that dumb

Hedges and Carr present the negative literary statistics that are omnipresent in our society. They spend time focusing on the negative, blurting out random and un-cited evidence. Speculation and antidotal evidence is used in both Hedges and Carr’s articles without using literary techniques of analysis. These two articles are just plan annoying and not well written in the opinion of a 13^th grade student. Hedges and Carr don’t spend time in their texts discussing literacy they simply present their one-sided opinion without delving into the multiple perspectives of what literacy actually is and how it can be defined in many different ways.

            Scribner and Thompson provider relief in the seemingly never-ending pessimistic discussion on literacy. Instead of railing on the current society, they prevent interesting and invigorating perspectives on literacy. Scribner tries to define what literacy is and uses three different metaphors to categorize literacy. The first metaphor, literacy vs Adaptation was the most powerful in my opinion. In this metaphor Scibner defined literacy as functional literacy, which was the ability of an individual to do “customary activities” (9). She brings up an interesting point, can a person still be considered literate if she can only speak and read at a middle school level but is still able to complete tasks required of her? Can this person still be considered literate if she can complete necessary but not optional tasks? Scribner argues that the customary tasks are different in every society so is it actually possible to create a universal definition of literacy or must it be approached on an individual level?

Thompson’s article provides a relief to the constant critique of our generation being less literate because of technology. Opposed to any other article I have read that provide zero evidence when stating that we are less literate because of our facebook, email and iChat lingo Thompson provides evidence from Andrea Lunsford 5 year study to back up his conclusions. He states that “that young people today write far more than any generation before them” (1). This non-sensible argument that we are not as literate is preposterous because no other generation has written more then ours is writing now. Yes, this is interesting but what really seals the deal for me is that in her study “she didn't find a single example of texting speak in an academic paper” (2). To me that really hammers the point home. Although this article in very interesting its legitimacy has to be questioned. Where did the texts she used in her study come from? Did she take works from private schools as well as inner city public school? How every skeptical I may be, it was nice to read a positive article for a change.

Literary concerns, wow, there are certainly a lot of those. I think that my biggest concern is the growing discrepancy in our education system. Simply put public schools are not what they used to be and they are getting worse. If we don’t fix this problem as a society I think we will begin to see a large increase in “illiteracy” in our country.