Futurism88%

College Students Are Testing at the Level of 10-Year-Olds 78%

By Joe Wilkins84%

7/4/2026, 7:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 58.4% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,908 faulty-reasoning hits from 452 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.7% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,821 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.00% of the article peer group.

Gone are the days of university freshmen reading classical philosophers like Plato or contemporary pedagogues like Ta-Nehisi Coates. 
These days, incoming college students are lucky if they can get through Judy Blume's "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing." 
According to a new "Survey of Adult Skills" conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development  a forum for 38 high-income, predominantly Western countries  a not insignificant number of adult students enrolled in higher education are now reading and doing math at a level which, in a more functional society, would be alarming for a middle schooler. 
The survey, first spotted by the Economist, tested around 160,000 people of all ages, across all 38 member states. 
It found that across all OECD member countries, a full 8 percent of college students are reading at the level of a ten-year-old, if not worse. 
While countries like Germany and France rang in at under 5 percent, countries like Poland, Israel, and the United States blew the curve at 21, 20, and 14 percent, respectively. 
The numbers aren't much better when it comes to math. 
Across OECD countries, 9 percent of college students do math at or below a ten-year-old level. 
In Italy, the US, and Slovakia, that figure jumps to over 15 percent  only outdone by Israel, where roughly 21 percent of college students were underachieving at the same low benchmark. 
It seems there are numerous compounding explanations for these test results: pandemic-era learning gaps leading to lower levels of preparation, declining college enrollment forcing schools to lower admissions standards, and lower levels of public funding for education, to name a few. 
The results also coincide with the explosion of large language models like ChatGPT, which by many accounts have carved out a new floor for academic failure in both K-12 and college-level education. 
While there's no denying how complicated the issue is, there is evidence that removing technology from classrooms altogether could offer an immediate boost. 
In one classroom in Minneapolis, for example, a literature and English teacher banned phones and laptops, requiring all coursework to be done on pencil and paper. 
As the school-year started in September, just 46 percent of the students involved said they felt confident about their reading skills. 
A few months later in February, that number stood at 95 percent. 
Though it's just one classroom, something is clearly off the rails in the education systems of the richest countries of the world  and the longer it goes unaddressed, the more students will be pushed into the world with the reading skills of 4th graders. 
More on higher ed: Company Pulls Delivery Robots From All College Campuses 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.4%Joe Wilkins: 6.8%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Joe Wilkins: 6.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Joe Wilkins: 3.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias9.1%This article: 26.8%Joe Wilkins: 13.2%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect26.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.9%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Joe Wilkins: 1.9%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias5.1%This article: 13.9%Joe Wilkins: 4.7%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias13.9%This article: 58.4%Joe Wilkins: 25.8%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias58.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.7%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Joe Wilkins: 5.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 5.1%Joe Wilkins: 2.6%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 15.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope15.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.5%Joe Wilkins: 12.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization21.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.2%Joe Wilkins: 11.5%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion25.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.8%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.1%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof9.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.8%Joe Wilkins: 4.3%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal22.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 33.4%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground6.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.3%Joe Wilkins: 3.4%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote11.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 54.2%Joe Wilkins: 26.8%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice54.2%This article: 15.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination15.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 5.0%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.9%

452 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech331writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development • 60 words • 100.0% coverageThe Economist • 19 words • 100.0% coverageOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
84%flagged-word coverage
102 attributed words84% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-74.0 ptsWriter: 74.0%Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +55.2 ptsWriter: 3.6%Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: 58.8%58.8%Indoctrination-20.5 ptsWriter: 20.5%Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.