Talk:List of countries by literacy rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HDIItalic text 2006 report must be used,the data used in this article is very old.

Contents

[edit] Broken

This whole Wiki article is broken and should be deleted.

i see that the literacy rate for US is listed as 99.9% but i do believe that CIA World Fact Book lists it as 97%. Is there a reason for this? Any Feelings? (zro) 192.203.222.60

Probably, the Cia World Fact Book is more accurate, since the United Nations Development Programme Report often uses estimations. --Patrick-br msg 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Umm, the CIA World Fact Book says it is 99%. I quote: Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)
---- (someone please put the signature timestamp thing here... I have no idea how to do it)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.67.46 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2006
The CIA World Factbook used 1979 figures for that "97%" number (ie, it used to have a 1979 year by that number). I don't know where the 2003 estimate came from, but the usual US measures use effective grade level rather than a yes/no on whether the person can read and write at some level. So I wouldn't be surprised if there were no studies between 1979 and 2003 that measured the actual literacy rate in the US. -- KarlHallowell 11:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Germany has about 4 million illiterate people @ 82 million inhabitants. These constitute 4.8% rather than 0.1% of the population. Also, from my personal observations, I dare to very much doubt the literacy numbers listed for the USA (99.9% and 97%, respectively). 85-90% literacy looks rather realistic. Similarly, the numbers for Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria are very optimistic.

From the first paragraph: Because definitions and data collection methods vary across countries, literacy estimates should be used with caution. UN Report. --Patrick-br msg 13:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am having hard time believing that the literacy rate in the USA is 99.9%. There were so many other statistics putting the literacy rate in the USA as low as 84%.

As a side note, at some point it was so bad (as found by a specific study) that the Royal Canadian Air Farce (a satirical show) joked that only 4 in 7 Americans receive a High School diploma, but it is nothing compared to the fact that only 1 in 3 of those can actually read what it says.

Wikipedia itself lists USA's literacy rate to be (optimistic) 97% and the graph on this page shows USA to be under 95-99% bracket instead of 100% (99.9%+?) bracket. OTOH the Wikipedia article of literacy says: In the United States alone, one in seven people (i.e., over 40 million people) can barely read a job offer or utility bill, which arguably makes them functionally illiterate in a developed country such as the US - G3, 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with this one, rather than the table. Skinnyweed 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, these figures tend to give biased viewpoints on exactly how literate people in these countries are. I bet the qualifying level is 'how to write your name correctly' because more than 0.1% are defunct in literacy. Skinnyweed 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If so many countries have 99.9% literacy rate (which I doubt) perhaps it should be rounded to two or three decimal places stargate70

Shouldn't Estonia be 22nd instead of 2nd? I like Radiohead

[edit] USA Literacy Rate

The article states, "In 1992 the USA conducted a big National Adult Literacy Survey. According to the National Institute of Literacy". This is true and important to include, but a few caveats are in order. In my experience, the test was very poorly made and seemed designed to generate the highest illiteracy rate possible. I took one of the sections of a sample test which was provided to US newspapers, and I failed the section on reading a bus schedule. I'm literate (advanced degree, Ivy League undergrad), polyglot (I've read literature in ten languages) and a frequent user of public transportation in many countries and several languages. Nonetheless, I found the table impossible to read and felt that a good number of the answers provided were incorrect.

I don't know enough about this federal organization to say anything with authority, but based on this published sample, I suspect it is not a disinterested party in the debate about literacy. To justify its mandate, and budget, it most likely wishes to have figures showing a very high number of adults who are unable to read.

When it comes to international comparisons, it's essential to remember that there is no standard definition of literacy and that many nations rely on self-reporting: in the census, people are often asked "Can you read and write" or even "Can you read and write your name", and the answer for this question is then simply accepted.

Many Europeans gleefully latch on to this figure about the US but then fail to critically examine how literacy numbers are generated in their own countries. Many European countries have sizeable immigrant populations from poor countries in which illiteracy is very common. It's surprising, therefore, that these populations apparently do no exceed 0.01% of the general population. When I've raised this matter in casual conversations with European friends, they tend to respond, "Ah, but those people are Somalis/Turks/Berbers/Pakistanis/Kurds/Nepalis, not real Swedes/Germans/French/Italians/Britons, so they don't count." Non-citizens, including those without legal papers, most certainly did count in the National Adult Literacy Survey (as they should have), and this also needs to be borne in mind. Interlingua talk email 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never met, where I live, an illiterate person of sound mind over 8 years old and that's with relatives living in rural, high unemployment areas. What comes to immigrants from non-EU countries, literacy and adequate language skills are part of the residency requirements. Non permanent refugees are a different matter, though, as they're only temporarily here and thus not really part of the actual population. The way general literacy rate is mainly assessed here is through PISA and other OECD tests (and national studies) - All of which point at USA having disproportionate number of people with low scores even if the average score can be classified as ok. - G3, 10:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The USA also accepts far more immigrants than most other countries on the list. Therefore, measuring "adult literacy" in the USA is as much a test of the educational system of other countries as it is of America. A fairer comparison would only count people born and raised in the listed country, since then you are really measuring the educational potential of the country and not simply how closed their borders are. (It must be very easy to have 99.9% literacy if your country never lets in anyone from a country that's way down on the literacy list.)

Is the issue here really creating a "fair" literacy rate list? In this case fair seems to mean certain countries get their scores adjusted because they accept more immigrants? This is meant to be a measure equivalent across all borders. While perhaps there are reasons that certain countries do better or worse than some people perceive they should, the goal here is to give a relative comparison based similar criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.189.212 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I just read a report by the US Department of Education and you can find the executive summary here: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/index.asp?file=OtherResources/ExecSumAdultLitFirstLook.asp&PageId=156

They divided literacy rate into 5 groups where 5 is the best and 21-23% of Americans are in group 1 and another 25-28% in group 2. I trust this report more than others since it would be in their interest to under report illiteracy rates.


The thing with United States is that it has no official language(unfortunately) so that 99.9% includes people who are illiterate in English but literate in some other language. Lenny.

[edit] Liberia

I didn't see a listing, so added it, based on World Factbook dataMzmadmike (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congo

The protected table for The Republic of the Congo is null. I suspect "The" is not needed, but don't know how to fix itMzmadmike (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fake countries

I see that in 89th position is a country called "Quagmire!", and in 177th is "Fonk!"

Fixed, that was vandalism inserted in the last few days. andy 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other problems

Greece is in the 79th place with a literacy rate of 98%. Please check it.

Yes, but if you believe that nonsense, you also believe that Haiti has 99.9% literacy rate. UN has made itself the mouthpiece of the member states instead of figuring out what those numbers are. Probably, the EU and World Bank estimates would be a good sources to compare to these often fanciful figures, so that Greece would not be at 79th place while Haiti in the 15th!!

IRAQ? not on the list

[edit] What about the Vatican?

I read in an Atlas (couple of years old) yesterday and acording to it the Vatican had a litaracy rate 99% and a population of 1000 people. That means 10 people who can't read. According to the world factbook it has 100%. Did they teach the 10 persons to read or executed them or something to recieve a higher rank? Does anyone know anything about this? And how is Monoco doing?

The Vatican does not have population of 1000. It's more like 700 or 800. Most of the citzens of The Vatican live in Italy and hold a dual-citzenship. So it is 100% litaracy. Also the Vatican does not execute people. Monoco has 99% litaracy. 3232330 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

I don't have a problem with the 99.9% countries all being #1, but the next lowest group (starting with Estonia) should be 21st in my counting, then the 99.7% group (starting with Barbados) should start with 22nd, then the 99.6% group should start at 26, and so on. Or am I totally off base. I'd be happy to do the updating if people agree. --Jolomo 02:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Literacy Rate

The only source for this article the United Nations Development Programme Report 2005 lists Greece as having a literacy rate of 91% (see page eleven list number 24 of the pdf file), however this article lists it as 97.5%. If there is evidence for a literacy rate of 97.5% in Greece it needs a citation.

Yes, but if you believe that nonsense, you also would believe that Haiti has 99.9% literacy rate!! UN has made itself the mouthpiece of the member states instead of figuring out what those numbers are. The EU and World Bank estimates would be good sources to compare to these often fanciful figures, so that Greece would not be at 79th place while Haiti in the 15th!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izady (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a good point actually. Haiti along with other African states which are listed as 99% are incorrect. The source says about those countries: "In the absence of recent data, estimates from UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Institute for Statistics. 2003. Correspondence on adult and youth literacy rates. March. Montreal, based on outdated census or survey information, were used and should be interpreted with caution: Bahamas 95.8, Barbados 99.7, Comoros 56.8, Djibouti 70.3, Eritrea 60.5, Fiji 94.4, Gambia 42.5, Guinea-Bissau 44.8, Guyana 99.0, Haiti 54.8, Hong Kong, China (SAR) 94.6, Hungary 99.4, Lebanon 88.3, Poland 99.8 and Uzbekistan 99.4."
Greece however is listed correctly as 96%. Sbw01f (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. does not have 99.9 rate

This article's assertion that the U.S. has a 99.9 percent literacy rate is absurd. I spent many years working with literacy programs, teaching adults to read and I can tell you that there are literally millions of adults in America who can't read (and we're talking about native-born citizens who speak English as their first language).

Um... Personal experience probably isn't the best measure of rates of literacy (and isn't really an acceptable source for an encyclopedia). The CIA world fact book (mentioned above) is probably a better source. Nato 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it all depends on the definition of literacy so all numbers have to be taken from the same study. Jeltz talk 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that some countries define literacy as "over 18 and has attended school." It doesn't specify actual literacy, graduation, nor competence. Some countries base it at age 15, others at 18. This listing is only a very general guideline.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt

On December 19 2006, the Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif announced that the illiteracy rate in Egypt is 25% in 2006 (down from 29% in 2005) in contrast to 44% in the article. I think that this article is not accurate. For example, in the United States, I once saw on a television program that 50 million Americans are facing difficulties in reading. So, the percentage of the United States is not correct. --Meno25 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the correct number to use for Egyptian literacy in this article is 55.6% since that is what appears in the UN report. Ie, the article is supposed to list the numbers used in that report not any other figures like Nazif's figures above. Let us also keep in mind that literacy figures are notoriously incomparable. -- KarlHallowell 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 99.9% literate or literate in English?

The issue I have with the U.S. numbers is simply that there's no national American language. In Germany it's easy to ask "Can you read and write German?" It's not so cut and dried in the United States. I'm willing to bet that the majority of immigrants (legal or otherwise) in this country are fully literate in their native languages, but not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanlund (talk • contribs)

  • So what?
Germany has a shitload of Turkish people. By analogy with the ideas of Jordanlund above, if they speak Turkish but not German, they are literate. So what is right!--169.232.119.242 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Of Egypt and Afghanistan

I find it hard to believe that Afghanistan has a higher literacy rate than Egypt. I mean, come on, Egypt's no center of intellectual discourse (anymore), but it should in theory perform better than a war-torn, rubble-filled country that is Afghanistan. Just *how* did they derive these statistics?

And I'm still sore about Malaysia "losing" to Myanmar and Vietnam. I mean, honestly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amry (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Egypt was incorrect. I thought it was a little odd so I checked the CIA factbook, and of course the info was about 20% too low on this page. As for Vietnam, what do you expect? They're communist, everyone gets an education. Even the most undeveloped communist or former communist countries have highly educated citizens, just look at central Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiribati

Where is Kiribati? I know the literacy is something like 90%. --Indolences 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False numbers

The issue isn't the United States listings, as mentioned by most of the comments here, but rather a very large chunk of them. The article links to a pdf of the table it uses as its source, but that table does not have information for many countries (including the United States). So who knows where it gets its numbers.

[edit] Bogosity of figures and factual accuracy

The figures quoted in this article are completely bogus. The UN article quotes nothing of the sort for these nations and I happen to know (as a trained adult literacy tutor) that the facts for Ireland are way off. I note that the UN article cited has numerous tables of figures and it looks like the wrong ones are cited. The OECD report into adult literacy rates should be much more accurate. I see this has come up repeatedly on this talk page but the problem has yet to be addressed.

Comments? - Alison ☺ 04:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Here's a link to the OECD report of 1995; the IALS report[1] - Alison ☺ 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There are various ways to get this information or to gather statistics about it. The current page is based upon a UN report. Unless you are disputing that this reference isn't reliable - then the factual accuracy cannot be disputed. Of course its not the penultimate correct statistics - but then there will never be such a beast. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct, on the last comment. The term "literacy rate" is not clearly defined in the article; indeed, the UN are unclear about it too. Each country publishes its own stats and defines its own baseline so the whole matter is entirely subjective. The '95 OECD report defines a very clear baseline standard of literacy and applies it across the board. As an adult literacy tutor from Ireland, I know that the Irish figures are completely off the mark and organisations like NALA[2] paint a very different story - Alison ☺ 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the trouble here is that you have a far more strict definition of literacy - please see Literacy - iirc the UN data uses the UNESCO definition "Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society." - the means for information gathering is defined at the top of the report. That you personally have another definition or more strict definition of literacy doesn't make either the UN report - nor yours, the most correct one.
To label something with "factual accuracy disputed", you would have to actually suspect that the data is faked or significantly slanted/biased, something which i do not think that you do.
Personally i think that you may be correct in assessing that the level of literacy required in the UN report, has little value when applied to developed countries, and is more useful in assessing development in the developing countries. But that doesn't make it factually incorrect.
Please do not readd the disputed tag unless you truly believe that the UN data is faked or severely slanted/biased. --Kim D. Petersen 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what might be wrong with the UN data, assuming that Wikipedia's literacy chart accurately reflects that source, but this is not a question of definitions. By your own definition of literacy--i.e., "Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society." According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, which compares 1993 and 2003 data, 14% of the adult US population has "less than basic" literacy, meaning that these people are capable of "no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills." See: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

This certainly indicates that these 30 million American adults fall below your most level of literacy, and cannot in fact be considered literate by any reasonable definition.76.229.145.192 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)S. Hendrix

The definition of "literacy rate" by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy is not the same definition as in the UN report. Its not that hard. For a global literacy assessment - you have other demands as for a national one. You need to measure different things. --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's a large number of countries for which no literacy rate is given in the UN report. For example, the first ten in the table have no literacy rate given: Norway, Iceland, Australia, Luxomburg, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, and the United States. Only one country, Italy of the first 20 on the UN table has an entry. Further, Georgia which doesn't have an entry in the UN table is currently listed as having a literacy rate of 100.0% despite placing well into the list of "medium human development" countries in the UN table (from a glance at similar former USSR republics, it's literacy would probably be no better than 99.5%). Where are those numbers coming from? -- KarlHallowell 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See footnote d (which is also in the current version). A value of 99.0% is set for the countries that are marked with .. in the original table (as per the report). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

Australia is not on this list? Yet it is shaded in as 95-100% on the map?... --Borgardetalk 10:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected - must have fallen out. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNESCO definition

This is probably the definition used in the table:

Adult illiteracy (rates for adults above 15 years of age) reflects both recent levels of educational enrolment and past educational attainment. In so far as possible, data refer to the proportion who cannot, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on everyday life. Source: UN Common Database (UNESCO estimates) [3]

--Kim D. Petersen 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cuba

According to the UN report cuba should be ranked 52. However it is ranked 22 on the page. The source provided says nothing about cuba, it's about Romania. Vandalism? Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States Literacy Rate Isn't Wrong...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html

99% for both males and females (above age 14, I believe it was). Quit bickering about it, now.

65.255.130.104 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

I can't find the UK on this list, nor any of her constituent nations. It is, however, coloured on the map to suggest a Literacy rate of 95-100%. The CIA World Factbook suggests 99% for the United Kingdom, but this is defined as age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling, and does not, necessarily, relate to literacy. Does anyone have a source for the actual literacy rate of the UK, and its relative position? 62.49.22.228 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007/2008 data

Updated the page with the new UNDP data from the 2007/2008 report. Please do not enter CIA world fact book etc. data on top of this - as it is (at the moment) unlikely to be newer than the ones on the page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's this phrase supposed to mean?

"For purposes of calculating the HDI, a value of 99.0% was applied."

What's this supposed to mean? If some of the HDI values are the result of generous estimates and not of actual statistics, should they be taken into account at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.72.47 (talk • contribs)
First of all there is no reason to believe that they are based on "generous estimates" - second HDI has no real influence on the literacy figures (its the other way around HDI is based on this). But the introduction blurb (from the UNEP) states that these are high-income countries that no longer run this particular statistics. (for instance the US and UK). Since its both documented in the text and in the footnotes - i see no problem. (note btw. that the CIA world fact book uses the same figures (just older)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nb: Please sign your posts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)