The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books - "It’s not that they don’t want to do the reading. It’s that they don’t know how. Middle and high schools have stopped asking them to."

To read a book in college, it helps to have read a book in high school.​

1728155822622.png
Illustration by Masha Krasnova-Shabaeva

By Rose Horowitch
October 1, 2024
Updated at 10:57 a.m. ET on October 1, 2024

Nicholas Dames has taught Literature Humanities, Columbia University’s required great-books course, since 1998. He loves the job, but it has changed. Over the past decade, students have become overwhelmed by the reading. College kids have never read everything they’re assigned, of course, but this feels different. Dames’s students now seem bewildered by the thought of finishing multiple books a semester. His colleagues have noticed the same problem. Many students no longer arrive at college—even at highly selective, elite colleges—prepared to read books.

This development puzzled Dames until one day during the fall 2022 semester, when a first-year student came to his office hours to share how challenging she had found the early assignments. Lit Hum often requires students to read a book, sometimes a very long and dense one, in just a week or two. But the student told Dames that, at her public high school, she had never been required to read an entire book. She had been assigned excerpts, poetry, and news articles, but not a single book cover to cover.

Read: Why kids aren’t falling in love with reading

“My jaw dropped,” Dames told me. The anecdote helped explain the change he was seeing in his students: It’s not that they don’t want to do the reading. It’s that they don’t know how. Middle and high schools have stopped asking them to.

In 1979, Martha Maxwell, an influential literacy scholar, wrote, “Every generation, at some point, discovers that students cannot read as well as they would like or as well as professors expect.” Dames, who studies the history of the novel, acknowledged the longevity of the complaint. “Part of me is always tempted to be very skeptical about the idea that this is something new,” he said.

Daniel Shore, the chair of Georgetown’s English department, told me that his students have trouble staying focused on even a sonnet.

And yet, “I think there is a phenomenon that we’re noticing that I’m also hesitant to ignore.” Twenty years ago, Dames’s classes had no problem engaging in sophisticated discussions of Pride and Prejudice one week and Crime and Punishment the next. Now his students tell him up front that the reading load feels impossible. It’s not just the frenetic pace; they struggle to attend to small details while keeping track of the overall plot.

No comprehensive data exist on this trend, but the majority of the 33 professors I spoke with relayed similar experiences. Many had discussed the change at faculty meetings and in conversations with fellow instructors. Anthony Grafton, a Princeton historian, said his students arrive on campus with a narrower vocabulary and less understanding of language than they used to have. There are always students who “read insightfully and easily and write beautifully,” he said, “but they are now more exceptions.” Jack Chen, a Chinese-literature professor at the University of Virginia, finds his students “shutting down” when confronted with ideas they don’t understand; they’re less able to persist through a challenging text than they used to be. Daniel Shore, the chair of Georgetown’s English department, told me that his students have trouble staying focused on even a sonnet.

Failing to complete a 14-line poem without succumbing to distraction suggests one familiar explanation for the decline in reading aptitude: smartphones. Teenagers are constantly tempted by their devices, which inhibits their preparation for the rigors of college coursework—then they get to college, and the distractions keep flowing. “It’s changed expectations about what’s worthy of attention,” Daniel Willingham, a psychologist at UVA, told me. “Being bored has become unnatural.” Reading books, even for pleasure, can’t compete with TikTok, Instagram, YouTube. In 1976, about 40 percent of high-school seniors said they had read at least six books for fun in the previous year, compared with 11.5 percent who hadn’t read any. By 2022, those percentages had flipped.

Read: The terrible costs of a phone-based childhood

But middle- and high-school kids appear to be encountering fewer and fewer books in the classroom as well. For more than two decades, new educational initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core emphasized informational texts and standardized tests. Teachers at many schools shifted from books to short informational passages, followed by questions about the author’s main idea—mimicking the format of standardized reading-comprehension tests. Antero Garcia, a Stanford education professor, is completing his term as vice president of the National Council of Teachers of English and previously taught at a public school in Los Angeles. He told me that the new guidelines were intended to help students make clear arguments and synthesize texts. But “in doing so, we’ve sacrificed young people’s ability to grapple with long-form texts in general.”

Mike Szkolka, a teacher and an administrator who has spent almost two decades in Boston and New York schools, told me that excerpts have replaced books across grade levels. “There’s no testing skill that can be related to … Can you sit down and read Tolstoy? ” he said. And if a skill is not easily measured, instructors and district leaders have little incentive to teach it. Carol Jago, a literacy expert who crisscrosses the country helping teachers design curricula, says that educators tell her they’ve stopped teaching the novels they’ve long revered, such as My Ántonia and Great Expectations. The pandemic, which scrambled syllabi and moved coursework online, accelerated the shift away from teaching complete works.

In a recent EdWeek Research Center survey of about 300 third-to-eighth-grade educators, only 17 percent said they primarily teach whole texts. An additional 49 percent combine whole texts with anthologies and excerpts. But nearly a quarter of respondents said that books are no longer the center of their curricula. One public-high-school teacher in Illinois told me that she used to structure her classes around books but now focuses on skills, such as how to make good decisions. In a unit about leadership, students read parts of Homer’s Odyssey and supplement it with music, articles, and TED Talks. (She assured me that her students read at least two full texts each semester.) An Advanced Placement English Literature teacher in Atlanta told me that the class used to read 14 books each year. Now they’re down to six or seven.

“It’s not like I can say, ‘Okay, over the next three weeks, I expect you to read The Iliad,’ because they’re not going to do it.”

Private schools, which produce a disproportionate share of elite college students, seem to have been slower to shift away from reading complete volumes—leading to what Dames describes as a disconcerting reading-skills gap among incoming freshmen. But private schools are not immune to the trend. At the prep school that I graduated from five years ago, I took a Jane Austen course my senior year. I read only a single Austen novel.

The issue that Dames and other professors have observed is distinct from the problem at community colleges and nonselective universities, where some students arrive with literacy and comprehension deficits that can leave them unable to complete collegiate courses. High-achieving students at exclusive schools like Columbia can decode words and sentences. But they struggle to muster the attention or ambition required to immerse themselves in a substantial text.

Faced with this predicament, many college professors feel they have no choice but to assign less reading and lower their expectations. Victoria Kahn, who has taught literature at UC Berkeley since 1997, used to assign 200 pages each week. Now she assigns less than half of that. “I don’t do the whole Iliad. I assign books of The Iliad. I hope that some of them will read the whole thing,” Kahn told me. “It’s not like I can say, ‘Okay, over the next three weeks, I expect you to read The Iliad,’ because they’re not going to do it.”

Xochitl Gonzalez: The schools that are no longer teaching kids to read books

Andrew Delbanco, a longtime American-studies professor at Columbia, now teaches a seminar on short works of American prose instead of a survey course on literature. The Melville segment used to include Moby-Dick; now his students make do with Billy Budd, Benito Cereno, and “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” There are some benefits—short works allow more time to focus on “the intricacies and subtleties of language,” Delbanco told me—and he has made peace with the change. “One has to adjust to the times,” he said.

The Columbia instructors who determine the Lit Hum curriculum decided to trim the reading list for the current school year. (It had been growing in recent years, even while students struggled with the reading, as new books by nonwhite authors were added.) Like Delbanco, some see advantages to teaching fewer books. Even the best-prepared students have probably been skimming some of their Lit Hum assignments for years. Joseph Howley, the program’s chair, said he’d rather students miss out on some of the classics—Crime and Punishment is now off the list—but read the remaining texts in greater depth. And, crucially, the change will give professors more time to teach students how they expect them to read.

But it’s not clear that instructors can foster a love of reading by thinning out the syllabus. Some experts I spoke with attributed the decline of book reading to a shift in values rather than in skill sets. Students can still read books, they argue—they’re just choosing not to. Students today are far more concerned about their job prospects than they were in the past. Every year, they tell Howley that, despite enjoying what they learned in Lit Hum, they plan to instead get a degree in something more useful for their career.

The same factors that have contributed to declining enrollment in the humanities might lead students to spend less time reading in the courses they do take. A 2023 survey of Harvard seniors found that they spend almost as much time on jobs and extracurriculars as they do on academics. And thanks to years of grade inflation (in a recent report, 79 percent of Harvard grades were in the A range), college kids can get by without doing all of their assigned work.

Whether through atrophy or apathy, a generation of students is reading fewer books. They might read more as they age—older adults are the most voracious readers—but the data are not encouraging. The American Time Use Survey shows that the overall pool of people who read books for pleasure has shrunk over the past two decades. A couple of professors told me that their students see reading books as akin to listening to vinyl records—something that a small subculture may still enjoy, but that’s mostly a relic of an earlier time.

The economic survival of the publishing industry requires an audience willing and able to spend time with an extended piece of writing. But as readers of a literary magazine will surely appreciate, more than a venerable industry is at stake. Books can cultivate a sophisticated form of empathy, transporting a reader into the mind of someone who lived hundreds of years ago, or a person who lives in a radically different context from the reader’s own. “A lot of contemporary ideas of empathy are built on identification, identity politics,” Kahn, the Berkeley professor, said. “Reading is more complicated than that, so it enlarges your sympathies.”

Yet such benefits require staying with a character through their journey; they cannot be approximated by reading a five- or even 30-page excerpt. According to the neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf, so-called deep reading—sustained immersion in a text—stimulates a number of valuable mental habits, including critical thinking and self-reflection, in ways that skimming or reading in short bursts does not.

Over and over, the professors I spoke with painted a grim picture of young people’s reading habits. (The historian Adrian Johns was one dissenter, but allowed, “My experience is a bit unusual because the University of Chicago is, like, the last bastion of people who do read things.”) For years, Dames has asked his first-years about their favorite book. In the past, they cited books such as Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. Now, he says, almost half of them cite young-adult books. Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson series seems to be a particular favorite.

I can imagine worse preparations for the trials, and thrills, of Lit Hum. Riordan’s series, although full of frothy action and sometimes sophomoric humor, also cleverly engages in a literary exercise as old as the Western canon: spinning new adventures for the petulant gods and compromised heroes of Greek mythology. But of course there is a reason that, despite millennia of reinterpretations, we’ve never forgotten the originals. To understand the human condition, and to appreciate humankind’s greatest achievements, you still need to read The Iliad—all of it.

Due to an editing error, this article initially misstated the year Nicholas Dames started teaching Literature Humanities.

Source (Archive)
 
I think hope the solution is oldtimey adventure books (and romance for girls), and entertaining history to impart a love of and interest in the real world.
I would agree, and there's lots of that stuff around. And there's going to be people that are interested in the classics like Anne of Green Gables or Jack London's stuff, but forcing it on people usually turns them off. There's a big problem with Canadian Lit because we have some great authors but the only thing that gets taught is Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje and maybe some Margaret Laurence. I argued with a prof once about why Mowat wasn't on the syllabus and she said he 'wasn't age appropriate', as though fucking Atwood's major success isn't an overhyped YA dystopian book with a pseudofeminist skin.
They just identified Fitzjames's tooth the other day and discovered he was eaten.
gay personal anecdote: my dad knew one of the anthropologists who exhumed the Beechey Island graves in the 90s. Said it was a phenomenal experience.
 
It's not surprising to me at all that many school children don't like to read. Avid readers are like 5% of the population, for the rest their brain hurts when they try to read something too long for them. However, what is astounding that these are young people at prestigious universities, that are supposedly highly selective.

Shouldn't they be selected out then? Shouldn't they just fail their first year of Eng-Lit, and open the space for more hungry minds? The whole article just exposes what a sham modern higher education is.
 
I don't actually understand why anyone that wasn't really, really passionate about reading books would choose to study English/Literature. The only purpose of studying Eng-Lit is because you really like reading and want a career in that facet of academia, publishing/agenting, to write or edit yourself or, at the very least, run a bookshop.

As it is, even if you love reading a wide array of genres and styles, you are still going to be assigned books that are an absolute fucking struggle to get through. Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, etc. I mean sure, you could be the weirdo who loves stream of consciousness Modernists, but for most people, having to read Ulysses or The Sound and The Fury in two weeks are going to be two of the worst weeks of their lives. Even if for no other reason that reading that shit means that reading for pleasure has to go on the back burner.
 
Anecdotal: I work at a university and many students do not know how to read an analog clock.

As for reading, most of the younger female staff read fantasy literature advertised on tiktok. That is your average reader. Personally, just because you read does not mean much. You can saddle your mind with erotica and poorly written fantasy and the person who never reads will be better off.

I am of the opinion there is not much worth reading, but there is much to be re-read. Literature departments should not debase themselves by pandering to half-wit students with lacklustre reading lists and appeals to 'modern' sensibilities. That's been tried before and found lacking.

The Canon's contents can be argued about in perpetuity. It is not a rigid thing. Taste changes with the weather. Some works go with time. Others return from an absence. A few never leave despite my personal dislike (Wuthering Heights, Keats). There are, however, works most will agree upon. This is simply an expression of a living tradition found in healthy cultures. It is the dialogue with the dead, a conversation that prevents us from thinking ourselves messiahs. If an Englishman avoids reading Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare, then he is missing on a vital part of his own history and why he is the way that he is. The same with Joyce and Yeats for the Irish or Twain and Melville for the Americans.

There should be rigour and (dare I say) elitism because there has been in the past and it works. Oxford and Cambridge may have issues, but it is obvious what people pay real money for, is stricter and a more classical education than what the mainstream offers. Limitations, restrictions are far better to strengthen a critical mind than letting it run wild. That is for after university and independence has been regained. I am glad to have been forced to study Christopher Marlowe for I would never have realised how much I enjoy him. It led me to pursuing more poetry and works after university. My tastes had to be questioned to realise what my tastes were.

"More will mean worse" was Kingsley Amis' brief answer when asked what he thought of the expansion of universities. The more students, the more regressions to the mean, the greater destruction of standards and worthwhile discussion. The Humanities thrives in small settings. It cannot justify itself to the market. It shouldn't. A million more young people studying English Literature does not elevate knowledge, it pulls it down. There is no increase of distinct and unique voices, rather the noise grows and no one is heard.

Reading does not make you a better person. I wince whenever I hear about how supposedly literature improves your empathy skills or widens your understanding (my own point about knowing your own history is partly this). Great literature is its own reward. When I was younger, I thought that was the right opinion whilst not fully comprehending it. Now I am older and a little more well-read, I am convinced of its truth.

To finish, I am going to share two quotes from an essay written by TS Eliot. They are about the necessity of literary criticism and why our personal opinion (measured against tradition) matters:

When we are developed enough to say : 'This is the view of life of a person who was a good observer within his limits, Dickens, or Thackeray, or George Eliot, or Balzac ; but he looked at it in a different way from me, because he was a different man ; he even selected rather different things to look at, or the same things in a different order of importance, because he was a different man ; so what I am looking at is the world as seen by a particular mind' - then we are in a position to gain something from reading fiction. We are learning something about life from these authors direct, just as we learn something from the reading of history direct; but these authors are only really helping us when we can see, and allow for, their differences from ourselves. [...] Now what we get, as we gradually grow up and read more and more, and read a greater diversity of authors, is a variety of views of life. But what people commonly assume, I suspect, is that we gain this experience of other men's views of life only by 'improving reading'. This, it is supposed, is a reward we get by applying ourselves to Shakespeare, and Dante, and Goethe, and Emerson, and Carlyle, and dozens of other respectable writers. The rest of our reading for amusement is merely killing time. But I incline to come to the alarming conclusion that it is just the literature that we read for 'amusement', or 'purely for pleasure' that may have the greatest and least suspected influence upon us. It is the literature which we read with the least effort that can have the easiest and most insidious influence upon us. Hence it is that the influence of popular novelists, and of popular plays of contemporary life, requires to be scrutinized most closely. And it is chiefly contemporary literature that the majority of people ever read in this attitude of 'purely for pleasure', of pure passivity.

For literary judgement we need to be acutely aware of two things at once: of ‘what we like’, and of ‘what we ought to like’. Few people are honest enough to know either. The first means knowing what we really feel: very few know that. The second involves understanding our shortcomings; for we do not really know what we ought to like unless we also know why we ought to like it, which involves knowing why we don’t yet like it. It is not enough to understand what we ought to be, unless we know what we are; and we do not understand what we are, unless we know what we ought to be. The two forms of self-consciousness, knowing what we are and what we ought to be, must go together.
 
Last edited:
This reminded me, we had mandatory philosophy in university, taught by a penis who smelled of penis (pipe tobacco actually, but, not having ever smelled a real penis, I think that's what it smells like, worse than a rotting corpse). I was 15 and the penis asked me how I decided which cock to suck. I wish I were feminist-pilled and complained (on second thought, maybe not, I'd have never passed macroelectrodynamics if I'd caused trouble for a teacher, even a penis).
I know this is a thread about literature, but could you please refrain from posting your erotic fanfic and stay on topic? Thanks.

P.S. FYI a penis smells rather similar to a vagina.
 
This is worse than people think.

AI is absolutely worst at analyzing and "understanding" long, long texts. Small passages are easy for LLMs to pick apart. Longer thoughts and ideas are exponentially harder to interpret and create coherent outputs about.

If an LLM tells you about Jane Eyre, it's not basing those summaries on the book but on assorted web summaries of the work. Given a book with no existing online analysis, it would make huge mistakes even trying to regurgitate the plot.

So our ability to read and understand and digest the ideas in a whole book is one of our big advantages over AI. How interesting that kids are being deskilled in this way at exactly the time when losing this skill makes them no better than a computer at many tasks.
 
Anecdotal: I work at a university and many students do not know how to read an analog clock.

Interesting, I have a close family member who has been a teacher for a little more than a decade and she's told me the same thing. (She teaches late middle school, 7th/8th grade.)

She's vented to me about the degradation of the younger generations on more than one occasion and a lot of the things that have been brought up in this thread she has corroborated, namely things like merit-based grading as opposed to black and white "did you get this question right or wrong". She is not allowed to give a student a grade of 0 unless she is willing to jump through a ton of hoops and prove documentation of things like phone calls to the student's parents nagging them to tell their child to finish the assignment, giving plenty of extensions to the due date of the assignment, etc. It's outrageous. When I was a kid if your dumb ass got every question wrong because you didn't read the fucking book or you just straight up did not turn the paper in you got a grade of 0, and that was your own damn fault because you were a fucking retard.

Kids have not been able to read cursive for a long time now, I was in grade school ~30 years ago and it was drilled into my head (I remember my 3rd grade teacher having this "Cursive by Christmas" thing she would harp about), but I think I'm from the last generation where learning how to read and write in cursive was really a thing. I have a brother who is 8 years younger than me and when he went through school they mostly taught you what the letters looked like but didn't make you write stuff over and over again to learn the script like they did when I was in school. But things have gotten far worse than that since then as kids just straight up cannot even write normal ass print anymore. I've seen the papers my family member has graded, these are kids who are on average 13 years old and their handwriting looks like a preschooler learning to write their name for the first time, I shit you not. I'm talking literally things like letters being drawn the incorrect way (backwards, etc), spaced way apart, and just generally looking like that scene from Billy Madison where Adam Sandler tries to write a "Z" in cursive.

They cannot write or spell worth a shit because they've spent their entire lives in front of a screen/device that will either underline misspelled words in red and show them how to actually spell it or just straight up autocorrects everything as they type. It's insane. These kids are functionally retarded. I wouldn't trust them to do even the most menial shit like flipping a burger patty. There is a massive wave coming to the competency crisis once these uneducated students are pushed through the system from buck passing and "graduate" from school.
 
Likely the books they force you to read suck ass. "Diverse" focus books forced on all the kids because they think the "diverse " kids will suddenly become engaged and are then shocked that they aren't, all at the expense of the kids who are readers now being forced to read shit they don't care about.

Not bitter that I had to read crap like Night and their eyes were watching God when I was reading Dantes Inferno and Beowulf
Night was interesting although Their Eyes were watching God was fucking agonizing to read. Ugh. Same with anything besides "Passing" to come out of the Harlem Renaissance (yep, Langston Hughes sucked).

The Illiad and the Odyssey are interesting IF you tee them up correctly.
 
Perhaps the professors need to assign such books instead of the books presently assigned. Assign books students will relate to.
The current english curriculum needs to be updated and improved otherwise this problem is going to get worse. Normally Id say 'suck it up and do the reading' but the mainstream curriculum is outdated and enough students aren't paying attention that educators are going to need to evolve to meet current needs. Very few people are picking up large novels and reading them but you NEED english and literary skills to succeed in life. Theres different ways of teaching this, but using antiquated works the audience can't relate to isn't one of them.

Some of the best professors I had were the ones who tried to tie it back to current day or engage with real life. If the readings didn't tie into pop culture, current events or the life of a student engaged in college antics, then it was quickly forgotten. I learned more from doing current event assignments and writing 1 page on them then I did from a 10 page final essay. No one in college gives a flying fuck about a theme from some short story from the 1850s. I loved the books from my business classes and sometimes re-read parts of them to this day. There was more debate and discussion about Warren Buffetts annual letters than from anything by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

One observation I've seen is that english is taught in a vacuum. That is to say, it removes most historical context and you miss the big picture. Teachers spend too much time on literary devices and hooks and not enough on the meaning and context. So a story in the 1910s could be more interesting if it was taught along side some geopolitical conflict instead of just a work of fiction.
 
Victoria Kahn, who has taught literature at UC Berkeley since 1997, used to assign 200 pages each week. Now she assigns less than half of that.
“It’s not like I can say, ‘Okay, over the next three weeks, I expect you to read The Iliad,’ because they’re not going to do it.”
he has made peace with the change. “One has to adjust to the times,” he said.
A couple of professors told me that their students see reading books as akin to listening to vinyl records—something that a small subculture may still enjoy, but that’s mostly a relic of an earlier time.
Humanities department lazy as always. Imagine if math or metallurgy or logic professors just gave up like this - "times change; engineering students don't add or subtract anymore."
kids being turned off reading because they're forced to read 'classics' instead of something that would actually appeal to them.
@GunCar Gary posted a reading list made up of what appeals to them, so they're obviously not reading that either. It's the "existence of a book" part that's the problem for them, not the content.
 
The funny thing is that the very same English departments bemoaning the fact that kids can't read were the vanguard of the anti-standards movement in the 00s. They were publishing papers back then about how "proper grammar" is a racist idea, how reading proficiency scores are racist, and how requiring niggers to read novels was racist. And now, after decades of their ideas percolating down and infesting primary education, surprise, college students don't read.

using antiquated works the audience can't relate to isn't one of them.

Yes, it is. You think Aristotle was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson?
 
This has been going on for quite a while; remember a guy back in 11th grade at my local who openly admitted that he couldn't read at all, and a lot of other guys from the same class had difficulty reading as well. Education and school standards have REALLY been going downhill; people want to bend the knee to retard behavior and ensure a perpetual downward cycle.
 
It's going to be hilarious watching the Ivy League destroying their own reputation because they became too obsessed with the kind of postcard diversity that placates Jews white liberal guilt complexes that they'll crater their colleges' reputation.
 
This has been going on for quite a while; remember a guy back in 11th grade at my local who openly admitted that he couldn't read at all, and a lot of other guys from the same class had difficulty reading as well. Education and school standards have REALLY been going downhill; people want to bend the knee to retard behavior and ensure a perpetual downward cycle.
...How?
This is like growing up around people speaking a single language and somehow not understanding it well into adulthood.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar
...How?
This is like growing up around people speaking a single language and somehow not understanding it well into adulthood.

I have no idea in the slighest; granted, it was a public school, and it really wasn't known for having very high standards for basically anything. Seriously, cops had to get called in on one student like, 7 times or something - the same 11th grader, in fact - and they never did jack shit.
 
Kids have not been able to read cursive for a long time now...

I literally do not understand this. Age six or seven we look at some 18th century documents like the Declaration or Constitution and they're mystified. Then we start reading it aloud and tell them to try to follow along. In literal minutes they can read cursive and they maintain that ability. This is true well before they can write cursive letters.
 
I literally do not understand this. Age six or seven we look at some 18th century documents like the Declaration or Constitution and they're mystified. Then we start reading it aloud and tell them to try to follow along. In literal minutes they can read cursive and they maintain that ability. This is true well before they can write cursive letters.
it's just fancy ass english
i swear, we had lessons on how to write in it for signatures and such
 
Back