Was extending literacy to the lower classes a mistake?

[lennypartiv]

If it can be predicted that certain groups of people will amount to nothing more than retail clerks, cab drivers, and janitors, why should we waste their time and our money on needless education?

 

[Questioner]

If it can be predicted that certain groups of people will amount to nothing more than retail clerks, cab drivers, and janitors, why should we waste their time and our money on needless education?

I avoid stigmatizing entire professions, so long as they're legitimate lines of work.

The bare minimum educational standards are very low to begin with, advanced learners and entrepreneurs have to learn more on their on.

Blind "faith" in a degree is also silly - degrees to some extent or another, have worth because we have faith in them being worth something, much like money - however, no a degree does not guarantee a specific job, and one cannot "force" an employer to accept their degree to begin with.

This is economically common sense, per authors such as Jolan Chang, but it falls on deaf ears for many people.

 

[hoosier88]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level, or at the level most of Olgivy's mass media and advertising is marketed to.

This has potentially made it easier for the lower classes to participate in politics, and meet the bare minimum requirement of voting.

...

Mass literacy in Western Civilization countries goes back to @ least Fr. M. Luther & the Reformation. So you're centuries late. & when Rome conquered Greece, it was the Greeks who were hired as tutors, scribes, translators, etc.

Literacy rates & reading levels have been much higher in the US in the past. It would be interesting to look into why those statistics have declined.

 

[hoosier88]

...

I respect that.

Regardless, why should an entrepreneur like myself, who speaks and writes English at an advanced level, have the same say in the electoral process as an individual who believes "life is meaningless" or doesn't give a damn about the American Dream - preferring his porn addiction instead?

… [/QUOTE]

This is the US, not France or UK in their heyday. The US went for a more pragmatic measure of virtue: results in the World. & because the US rose & rose in economics, industry, science, technology, warfare & related - we've taken it as a given that those measures are true & valid.

Academics & intellectuals are consulted for their expertise in the US, but their expertise isn't usually determinative. Unless we're in WWII & need to close technological or scientific or military gaps in a hurry. Then the technological elites get more attention than otherwise. & once the immediate war is won, the status of the scientific & technological elites goes back to normal.

In the US political system, it's a fairly brute-force kind of world. If you do extremely well as an entrepreneur, then you'll get some respect.

 

[B. Kidd]

A

...A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

Fortunately, the United States is a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people"... not some half-a$$ed elitists.

In practice, no - the Framers were aristocratic and meritocratic, they were "elites" in the very definition thereof. "The people" doesn't mean mob rule or anarchy.

The government was designed as a Constitutional Republic, with elected representatives and the electoral college as a bullwark against mob rule.

Theoretically, the college could simply ignore the popular vote entirely, and often for good reason - if anything, the discussion should be about eliminating the popular vote, not the college.

Much as the state government is "authoritarian", at least in the sense that it has power over the people, as it was designed to; such as in punishing or preventing crime and immorality - and a lawyer or judge will have more practical authority than an average person.

America's government, as is arguably the case in any civilization, was built by thinking men and women of high standards and character.

And ultimately, as per the Constitution, our government could be changed into something more overtly aristocratic and meritocratic anyway - even if one is naively appealing to the "Constitution", or their infantile idea of it anyway - that's still appealing to the authority of some "elites" - given that if one didn't feel the need to appeal to "elites", then "America" as an institution or ideal would be irrelevant, and they could just as well become an anarchist.

A true anarchist couldn't care less about any government, "American" or otherwise. The framers and their ideals and character would be irrelevant.

 

[B. Kidd]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level, or at the level most of Olgivy's mass media and advertising is marketed to.

This has potentially made it easier for the lower classes to participate in politics, and meet the bare minimum requirement of voting.

In days in which literacy tests were required for political participation, or in which most Americans only spoke English, but couldn't read or right - it was potentially more difficult for the lower classes to participate in politics, and prevent the immorality which is often, but not always associated with them from seeping its way into government - and helped to preserve America's aristocratic heritage.

This has falsely given the impression of many immoral and uneducated Americans a sense of political participation, and imaginary "rights" which they don't necessarily have.

If there were some way of rolling things back, or creating a new standard of literacy requirements for voting, so that only those who speak and write English at a much higher level of fluency than the masses do could vote, it might help to improve the morality of the nation, as well as remind the immoral of their proper place in the status quo - it would also encourage entrepreneurship and self-education, which was the hallmark of many Americans of days past - whether Booker T Washington, or others.

I don't see someone like myself, who speaks and writes English at a much higher level of fluency than most of the American population, should have the same voting rights as one whose education stopped at a 6th grade level - such a system is quite anti-meritocratic if you ask me. William Jennings Bryan is one of my family members, so coming from an educated family had something to do with it, but so did merit and my entrepreneurial spirit.

Many, if not most so-called "Americans" were likewise hostile to my entrepreneurship believing it a waste of time, taking away from more "important" things like watching TV or porn - so why should white trash (or trash period, regardless of color) have the same say in American politics as someone like me, who actually believes in the Dream?

So now Trumpers and Russian bots are against an educated population?

Jesus people

Do you remember 320 Years of History? This has to be his reincarnation. Or maybe one of his sons. The ego is so huge that as TNHarley would say, if his head were any more swole, it would take a crane to get him out of bed.
lol

You confuse competency and healthy self-esteem with dimestore Freudian gobbly-gook.

 

[sparky]

Regardless, why should an entrepreneur like myself, who speaks and writes English at an advanced level, have the same say in the electoral process as an individual who believes "life is meaningless" or doesn't give a damn about the American Dream

Because 'Liberty and Freedom for all' means the good Lord's biggest Aholes incarnate are included Q

But you want to equate literacy to a better voting contingent, so let's give that the benefit of debate

Let's say we raise the bar, educate all our young better, have them delve into the history of political sciences, read and digest the spectrum of socio-political histories of our and other comparative democratic republics

In fact, we could create an entire generation of PHD level political scientists

BUT, the 7 deadlies will still exist, and many will go that road ,despite being educated to all it's evils, singing hail to the chief, or pledging to our flag

proof?

~S~

 

[jasonlee3071]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level, or at the level most of Olgivy's mass media and advertising is marketed to.

This has potentially made it easier for the lower classes to participate in politics, and meet the bare minimum requirement of voting.

In days in which literacy tests were required for political participation, or in which most Americans only spoke English, but couldn't read or right - it was potentially more difficult for the lower classes to participate in politics, and prevent the immorality which is often, but not always associated with them from seeping its way into government - and helped to preserve America's aristocratic heritage.

This has falsely given the impression of many immoral and uneducated Americans a sense of political participation, and imaginary "rights" which they don't necessarily have.

If there were some way of rolling things back, or creating a new standard of literacy requirements for voting, so that only those who speak and write English at a much higher level of fluency than the masses do could vote, it might help to improve the morality of the nation, as well as remind the immoral of their proper place in the status quo - it would also encourage entrepreneurship and self-education, which was the hallmark of many Americans of days past - whether Booker T Washington, or others.

I don't see someone like myself, who speaks and writes English at a much higher level of fluency than most of the American population, should have the same voting rights as one whose education stopped at a 6th grade level - such a system is quite anti-meritocratic if you ask me. William Jennings Bryan is one of my family members, so coming from an educated family had something to do with it, but so did merit and my entrepreneurial spirit.

Many, if not most so-called "Americans" were likewise hostile to my entrepreneurship believing it a waste of time, taking away from more "important" things like watching TV or porn - so why should white trash (or trash period, regardless of color) have the same say in American politics as someone like me, who actually believes in the Dream?

Sounds elitist to me. Are you really suggesting that the upper classes or aristocracy are more virtuous by nature than the lower classes?
Because I would seriously question the validity of such a claim.
As for literacy levels being low I would think that commercial advertising isn't meant to be the same as reading a literary classic.
Should I expect a commercial on television to be written in high academic prose?
Like reading a Faulkner novel or something by Dostoyevsky?
So if it's on a 6th grade level as you put it I'm not surprised.
However I don't think this should be an indicator of someone's capability to vote.
Should we be also giving out IQ tests to anyone wanting to vote, just to make sure they meet the minimum intelligence requirements for participating in the so-called democratic process?
Makes me want to think how many people in congress or government would be able to pass such a thing anyway.