The teaching of Geography in Schools page 2

First reference on that Wikipedia site: CIA World Factbook.

Yes, and then further down it goes on to say why a Harvard literature professor thinks their methods are suspect.

Essentially it’s because they based it on written replies to a survey; when an illiterate person would obviously find it much more difficult or impossible to reply to it, therefore biasing the responses in favour of literate people.

Originally posted by unproductive:

First reference on that Wikipedia site: CIA World Factbook.

Yes, and then further down it goes on to say why a Harvard literature professor thinks their methods are suspect.

Essentially it’s because they based it on written replies to a survey; when an illiterate person would obviously find it much more difficult or impossible to reply to it, therefore biasing the responses in favour of literate people.

If they couldn’t read the survey they would be considered illiterate. (or is this more screwed up than I thought?)

Originally posted by tyralpha:

Originally posted by unproductive:

First reference on that Wikipedia site: CIA World Factbook.

Yes, and then further down it goes on to say why a Harvard literature professor thinks their methods are suspect.

Essentially it’s because they based it on written replies to a survey; when an illiterate person would obviously find it much more difficult or impossible to reply to it, therefore biasing the responses in favour of literate people.

If they couldn’t read the survey they would be considered illiterate. (or is this more screwed up than I thought?)

If they couldn’t read the survey they wouldn’t be able to reply, therefore they wouldn’t be counted at all.

Originally posted by unproductive:

Originally posted by tyralpha:

Originally posted by unproductive:

First reference on that Wikipedia site: CIA World Factbook.

Yes, and then further down it goes on to say why a Harvard literature professor thinks their methods are suspect.

Essentially it’s because they based it on written replies to a survey; when an illiterate person would obviously find it much more difficult or impossible to reply to it, therefore biasing the responses in favour of literate people.

If they couldn’t read the survey they would be considered illiterate. (or is this more screwed up than I thought?)

If they couldn’t read the survey they wouldn’t be able to reply, therefore they wouldn’t be counted at all.

Ok, that is messed up, I think I’m going to do a bit of research (I don’t think the CIA is that stupid…)

Originally posted by Frostbringer:

Originally posted by woodythedon:

Ironically, something like 80% of Americans can’t find Iraq on a world map.

Ironically many people from Austria lough about this and claim this as proof that all Americans are stupid, but can’t find Iraq on a world map themself.

That’s sadly true.

Interestingly, when I was watching this video on Americans and general ignorance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

One of the related videos showed us Brits aren’t much better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mkwB9ayK4&feature=related

couldnt they just get someone to help them with it

Originally posted by darkninja210:

couldnt they just get someone to help them with it

Well yes, but then that’d make the people who did the survey think that the replier was literate, which may not be the case, further inflating the number.

Maps are useless. We have lots of Nuclear weapons.