Opinion The Average College Student Is Illiterate - Spelling is atrocious, grammar is random, and the correct use of apostrophes is cause for celebration. Worse is the resistance to original thought.

1743679439807.png
Oxford undergraduates on a late night drinking spree, 1824. By Robert Cruikshank. (Photo by Hulton Archive.)

Link/Archive

I’m Gen X. I was pretty young when I earned my PhD, so I’ve been a professor for a long time—over 30 years. If you’re not in academia, or it’s been a while since you were in college, you might not know this: the students are not what they used to be. The problem with even talking about this topic at all is the knee-jerk response of, “yeah, just another old man complaining about the kids today, the same way everyone has since Gilgamesh. Shake your fist at the clouds, dude.” So yes, I’m ready to hear that. Go right ahead. Because people need to know.

First, some context. I teach at a regional public university in the United States. Our students are average on just about any dimension you care to name—aspirations, intellect, socio-economic status, physical fitness. They wear hoodies and yoga pants and like Buffalo wings. They listen to Zach Bryan and Taylor Swift. That’s in no way a put-down: I firmly believe that the average citizen deserves a shot at a good education and even more importantly a shot at a good life. All I mean is that our students are representative; they’re neither the bottom of the academic barrel nor the cream off the top.

As with every college we get a range of students, and our best philosophy majors have gone on to earn PhDs or go to law school. We’re also an NCAA Division 2 school and I watched one of our graduates become an All-Pro lineman for the NFL. These are exceptions, and what I say here does not apply to every single student. But what I’m about to describe are the average students at Average State U.

Reading

Most of our students are functionally illiterate. This is not a joke. By “functionally illiterate” I mean “unable to read and comprehend adult novels by people like Barbara Kingsolver, Colson Whitehead, and Richard Powers.” I picked those three authors because they are all recent Pulitzer Prize winners, an objective standard of “serious adult novel.” Furthermore, I’ve read them all and can testify that they are brilliant, captivating writers; we’re not talking about Finnegans Wake here. But at the same time they aren’t YA, romantasy, or Harry Potter either.

I’m not saying our students just prefer genre books or graphic novels or whatever. No, our average graduate literally could not read a serious adult novel cover-to-cover and understand what they read. They just couldn’t do it. They don’t have the desire to try, the vocabulary to grasp what they read, and most certainly not the attention span to finish. For them to sit down and try to read a book like The Overstory might as well be me attempting an Iron Man triathlon: much suffering with zero chance of success.

Students are not absolutely illiterate in the sense of being unable to sound out any words whatsoever. Reading bores them, though. They are impatient to get through whatever burden of reading they have to, and move their eyes over the words just to get it done. They’re like me clicking through a mandatory online HR training. Students get exam questions wrong simply because they didn’t even take the time to read the question properly. Reading anything more than a menu is a chore and to be avoided.

They also lie about it. I wrote the textbook for a course I regularly teach. It’s a fairly popular textbook, so I’m assuming it is not terribly written. I did everything I could to make the writing lively and packed with my most engaging examples. The majority of students don’t read it. Oh, they will come to my office hours (occasionally) because they are bombing the course and tell me that they have been doing the reading, but it’s obvious they are lying. The most charitable interpretation is that they looked at some of the words, didn’t understand anything, pretended that counted as reading, and returned to looking at TikTok.

This study says that 65% of college students reported that they skipped buying or renting a textbook because of cost. I believe they didn’t buy the books, but I’m skeptical that cost is the true reason, as opposed to just the excuse they offer. Yes, I know some texts, especially in the sciences, are expensive. However, the books I assign are low-priced. All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them. Why buy what you aren’t going to read anyway? Just google it.

Even in upper-division courses that students supposedly take out of genuine interest they won’t read. I’m teaching Existentialism this semester. It is entirely primary texts—Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre. The reading ranges from accessible but challenging to extremely difficult but we’re making a go of it anyway (looking at you, Being and Nothingness). This is a close textual analysis course. My students come to class without the books, which they probably do not own and definitely did not read.

Writing

Their writing skills are at the 8th-grade level. Spelling is atrocious, grammar is random, and the correct use of apostrophes is cause for celebration. Worse is the resistance to original thought. What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.

Exam question: Describe the attitude of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man towards acting in one’s own self-interest, and how this is connected to his concerns about free will. Are his views self-contradictory?
Student: With the UGM its all about our journey in life, not the destination. He beleives we need to take time to enjoy the little things becuase life is short and you never gonna know what happens. Sometimes he contradicts himself cause sometimes you say one thing but then you think something else later. It’s all relative.
Either that, or it looks like this:

Exam question: Describe the attitude of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man towards acting in one’s own self-interest, and how this is connected to his concerns about free will. Are his views self-contradictory?
Student: Dostoevsky’s Underground Man paradoxically rejects the idea that people always act in their own self-interest, arguing instead that humans often behave irrationally to assert their free will. He criticizes rationalist philosophies like utilitarianism, which he sees as reducing individuals to predictable mechanisms, and insists that people may choose suffering just to prove their autonomy. However, his stance is self-contradictory—while he champions free will, he is paralyzed by inaction and self-loathing, trapped in a cycle of bitterness. Through this, Dostoevsky explores the tension between reason, free will, and self-interest, exposing the complexities of human motivation.
That’s right, ChatGPT. The students cheat. I’ve written about cheating in “Why AI is Destroying Academic Integrity,” so I won’t repeat it here, but the cheating tsunami has definitely changed what assignments I give. I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop. Sadly, not writing exacerbates their illiteracy; writing is a muscle and dedicated writing is a workout for the mind as well as the pen.

What’s changed?

The average student has seen college as basically transactional for as long as I’ve been doing this. They go through the motions and maybe learn something along the way, but it is all in service to the only conception of the good life they can imagine: a job with middle-class wages. I’ve mostly made my peace with that, do my best to give them a taste of the life of the mind, and celebrate the successes.

Things have changed. Ted Gioia describes modern students as checked-out, phone-addicted zombies. Troy Jollimore writes, “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters.” Faculty have seen a stunning level of disconnection.

What has changed exactly?

  • Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Last semester across all sections, my average student missed two weeks of class. Actually it was more than that, since I’m not counting excused absences or students who eventually withdrew. A friend in Mathematics told me, “Students are less respectful of the university experience —attendance, lateness, e-mails to me about nonsense, less sense of responsibility.”
  • Disappearing students. Students routinely just vanish at some point during the semester. They don’t officially drop out or withdraw from the course, they simply quit coming. No email, no notification to anyone in authority about some problem. They just pull an Amelia Earhart. It’s gotten to the point that on the first day of class, especially in lower-division, I tell the students, “Look to your right. Now look to your left. One of you will be gone by the end of the semester. Don’t let it be you.”
  • They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom. I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I’ll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out. I’ve even told them to plan ahead and pee before class, like you tell a small child before a road trip, but it has no effect. They can’t make it an hour without getting their phone fix.
  • It’s the phones, stupid. They are absolutely addicted to their phones. When I go work out at the Campus Rec Center, easily half of the students there are just sitting on the machines scrolling on their phones. I was talking with a retired faculty member at the Rec this morning who works out all the time. He said he has done six sets waiting for a student to put down their phone and get off the machine he wanted. The students can’t get off their phones for an hour to do a voluntary activity they chose for fun. Sometimes I’m amazed they ever leave their goon caves at all.
I don’t blame K-12 teachers. This is not an educational system problem, this is a societal problem. What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all? That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs. I’m a tenured full professor. I could probably get away with that for a while, but sooner or later the Dean’s going to bring me in for a sit-down. Plus, if we flunk out half the student body and drive the university into bankruptcy, all we’re doing is depriving the good students of an education.

We’re told to meet the students where they are, flip the classroom, use multimedia, just be more entertaining, get better. As if rearranging the deck chairs just the right way will stop the Titanic from going down. As if it is somehow the fault of the faculty. It’s not our fault. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve been given.

All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad. One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us. We can’t expect them all to burn with the sacred fire we have for our disciplines, to see philosophy, psychology, math, physics, sociology, or economics as the divine light of reason in a world of shadow. Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.

Hilarius Bookbinder is the pseudonym for a tenured professor with an Ivy League PhD who writes Scriptorium Philosophia.

A version of this essay originally appeared in Scriptorium Philosophia.
 
Setting aside "no child left behind" pushing kids through to graduation, teachers themselves aren't blameless. There was an English teacher at my high school who had some really bizarre rules - no "be" verbs, no pronouns, etc. - that completely fucked up everyone's writing. When I got to college, I had to unlearn everything she'd taught me. She was extremely anal about her rules and insisted this was how college professors expected you to write. After getting feedback from actual college professors, I realized she was full of shit.
 
Classical Liberal Arts taught the skills you needed to appreciate the high cultural works of our society and its predecessors.
I came through the STEM route but I agree - I think the cultural side IS important. Our culture is deep and education should give us all, science or humanities side, a good grounding in it. The number of times I see a reference to something and young people just do not get it. And you think well that’s clearly a pun on a psalm or Shakespeare or whoever and it just causes an argument. This is obvious stuff, it’s not subtle in jokes, like really obvious things which show just a total ignorance.
Our art is being destroyed by soup wielding eco terrorists. Art is important. Literature is important. It’s our roots and if you uproot a plant it dies. Even the archaeology is being harmed - they threw orange paint over Stonehenge, in Sweden they had someone melt down a load of Viking silver. Cheddar man got blackwashed. The Marxist menace needs to be scoured from the universities and we need to go back to learning and exploring, not being told that ideas are offensive
I despised The Poisonwood Bible, it wasn't just that it was complaining about Christianity, white men, and colonialism, it was that it was long-winded and fucking boring about doing so. The other authors seem pretty woke too.
I read it when I’d just had a baby, so I think the colonialism stuff went right over my head and I saw the motherhood side of it. I know the one daughter who married the dude and lives happily in the slum is unrealistic but the mother’s descriptions of the sheer futility of trying to ‘civilise’ the people where she was rang true. The daughters’ perspective chapters I thought were weaker, but the mothers ones captured that unreality and grind and the horror of moving from suburbia to the jungle pretty well.
I’ll read most stuff, but I’m struggling with the modern crop. The only recently published books I’ve bought seem to be history ones…
 
Last edited:
With the UGM its all about our journey in life, not the destination. He beleives we need to take time to enjoy the little things becuase life is short and you never gonna know what happens. Sometimes he contradicts himself cause sometimes you say one thing but then you think something else later. It’s all relative.

If this is how students write in a mid-tier university, imagine what the essay submissions at the shit universities look like.
 
Yeah being forced to read the dreck these lisping homosexuals call "literature" does that to you. Pick better books ass hole. School systematically destroyed my enjoyment of reading for pleasure. I think I've read like 2 books since I graduated college, because i had to read so much pretentious slop that the fags in the humanities consider "classics" or "serious adult novels" or whatever the fuck, I reflexively can't do it anymore. Fuck you John Irving and fuck college English class, you made me hate reading you cunts.
I really despise The Great Gatsby for similar reasons. It's a book that manages to feel twice as long as it actually is.
 
I really despise The Great Gatsby for similar reasons. It's a book that manages to feel twice as long as it actually is.
I don’t know how I lucked out enough to not be forced to read that pile of dog shit, but I can assure you A Prayer for Owen Meany is just as awful as Catcher in the Rye is purported to be. If it came out that English teachers were subjecting their students to this type of dreck as either a humiliation ritual or to systematically drive children away from reading, I would not be surprised.
 
Last edited:
He complains about original thought, but I will bet you he doesn’t allow his students to have it, even if they were capable.
Universities now do not allow original thought. Students are told that there is an opinion that’s sanctioned and they are shown that any deviation from that will result in being mobbed and destroyed.
 
Why do students need to be able to read and comprehend novels? Believe it is far more important for students to be able to read and comprehend non-fiction works. Few novels these days are worth reading, in my opinion. I get far more from histories and other non-works.
I think it's optimism at this point, since the highest usage of the language is always in novels and poetry (not nonfiction). If someone can read Blood Meridian or Ulysses and have a conversation with me about it, he is definitely maximum-level literate.
 
I depression-napped through college and scraped out a C average in a worthless piece of paper. Lucky me my parents planned ahead and I at least got the paper without the crippling debt. I didn't need college to do what I do, which is a job I'm damn good at and I like quite a bit, but if I'd not done college they'd never have given me the job. When you can't get a good job without a worthless piece of paper, and you can get the paper basically by just giving the school money and then doing nothing...
 
All the cool kids get their reading skills from Kiwi Farms.
The average word count requirement for an essay is around a thousand words IIRC. Most KF users could get that wrapped up in under 15 minutes. The content will probably not align with most teachers' political stance out there and it will contain a couple of naughty words but the average Kiwi will👏get👏it👏done👏
 
Last edited:
I'm just saying my time in college was capped off by realizing my peers were all dumber than me. They're literally boxes of rocks up there with no activity. The average person's IQ peaks at 90 and nothing will convince me otherwise.
Everybody gets forced through classes they don't want or need, all based on the idea that the average student is having some kind of grand existential epiphany in multiple classes. But the truth is that the average person isn't getting any benefit, it's like forcing a little kid to watch Hamlet and write an essay.
I have a question: why the hate for Harry Potter? These are not bad books for kids. It's not a high-brow literature, but I am curious why do you think they are disastrous?
It's not so much the books as the sort of person they helped create. It was ground zero for adults who think they're highly educated, yet only read modern pop fiction meant for minors, or who read no books at all, just movie/TV fanfiction.
 
Setting aside "no child left behind" pushing kids through to graduation, teachers themselves aren't blameless. There was an English teacher at my high school who had some really bizarre rules - no "be" verbs, no pronouns, etc. - that completely fucked up everyone's writing. When I got to college, I had to unlearn everything she'd taught me. She was extremely anal about her rules and insisted this was how college professors expected you to write. After getting feedback from actual college professors, I realized she was full of shit.
what the actual fuck
 
The crappy part about your average Collegian being retarded is the fact that the grades below College are also as retarded. Little power level, work in the education system and I'm seeing lessons that are just retarded. Common Core (The retarded version of Math that makes you as stupid as a nigger) for example, is still alive and well. If you want education to get better, the education system needs to get DOGE'd hard.

I really despise The Great Gatsby for similar reasons. It's a book that manages to feel twice as long as it actually is.
Because most of it is the author fellating Gatsby. Easily one of the books I'd recommend the movie over.
 
I don’t know how I lucked out enough to not be forced to read that pile of dog shit, but I can assure you A Prayer for Owen Meany is just as awful as Catcher in the Rye is purported to be. If it came out that English teachers were subjecting their students to this type of dreck as either a humiliation ritual or to systematically drive children away from reading, I would not be surprised.
I managed to dodge it courtesy of To Kill a Mockingbird

That said, I do give a little pass to books that plod maybe just a bit, because you have to remember, there was no other entertainment competing for your time that would deliver good parts any faster. It was expected to consume a little of your time to read, having a novel that you could polish off in two days of piecemeal reading probably would've left you feeling short changed as a reader.
 
Grading attendance is asinine and extra work. Some classes require discussion; the good profs are usually able to build regular attendance into other grades. For example, grading class discussions, requiring reference or rebuttal to in-class discussions on essays, etc. Or, you can just rock tests and understand that the best students will likely perform well even without attending, and everyone else should plan to show up and learn or fail.

The US middle class is funded strictly through crippling debt. The lower class is funded through tax redistribution and debt. If you think, “this is unsustainable and doesn’t make any economical sense,” well, yes.

People don’t read classic literature either, though.

Reading novels trains and demonstrates comprehension and stamina (and reading novels usually happens for fun). Reading them isn’t per se causal to literacy; rather, reading them is highly correlated to (all forms) of literacy. It’s a signal moreso than a standard: if a kid can’t make it through Doestevsky, he for sure won’t hack Solzhenitsyn.
Not so sure re Solzhenitsyn. Have never read any Dostoevsky but have read a number of Solzhenitsyn's works, starting when I was a 18-year-old college student in 1974.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LimeRikki
Everybody gets forced through classes they don't want or need, all based on the idea that the average student is having some kind of grand existential epiphany in multiple classes. But the truth is that the average person isn't getting any benefit, it's like forcing a little kid to watch Hamlet and write an essay.
No I'm talking about people who were supposed to be experts in my field. I can count actually competent I met on one hand. The rest were literal retards who got there because they just did. Majority of all "experts" are retarded. Your average doctors are stupid. Your engineers are nigger tier. You have accountants who make hundreds of thousands of dollars even though they don't know economic basics. You have engineers who couldn't tell you how a car engine works. You have electricians who can't tell you what a circuit is. It is no longer the minority. It is the majority. The majority of people are literally retarded and they fail upwards because schools don't punish them for failing. Most schools don't even give Fs anymore, they give Es instead because Fs for Failure was oppressive.

We coddled people and didn't let them fail and let people who were incompetent become gatekeepers to hoard power. America doesn't punish retards. Retards fail upwards.
 
That said, I do give a little pass to books that plod maybe just a bit, because you have to remember, there was no other entertainment competing for your time that would deliver good parts any faster. It was expected to consume a little of your time to read, having a novel that you could polish off in two days of piecemeal reading probably would've left you feeling short changed as a reader.
This is not quite true, and possibly more interesting than it might appear. In general, the aesthetic preference has always been for saying things as briefly as possible; writers really respect writers who say as much as possible with as little as possible. But there are other considerations that traditionally contributed to padded length, specifically oral tradition, where some stories had to be memorized and thus involve lots of repetition (Homer, the Vedas, etc), and also economic reasons, where at various times authors were paid by the word (yes, really) because they were essentially just delivering content to advertise around. This is one reason Dostoevsky was as loquacious as he was. He literally wrote books by dictating them to a stenographer, he got paid by the word, he was just gossiping about his fictional worlds; it turned out though that he had great psychological insights, so that was interesting content. The writing itself is shockingly bloated despite its classic status.

As far as assessing literacy, just pitch Hemingway at kids. It's very brief and it still requires high literacy to discuss what you just read. Assigning kids Tolstoy novels is a bit extreme when they are also expected to do math homework and have a life.
 
Back