by Aimee Levitt
It's time, once again, for Central Connecticut State University to make its annual ranking of the nation's most literate cities. Why bother? Well, according to Dr. Jack Miller, the study's author, literacy is a sign of a city's cultural vitality.
St. Louis was slightly less vital in 2012 than it was in 2011, slipping in the rankings from eighth to ninth. But most of the data was compiled before the Central Library reopened, in all its post-makeover glory. Next year we'll get 'em!
The most interesting part of the study, though, may have been what it has to say about education and literacy.
In terms of education (measured by percentage of citizens with a high-school diploma and a bachelor's degree), St. Louis ranks 45th out of the 76 cities in the study. The discrepancy between our that and our number-nine literacy ranking is one of the greatest in the entire study.
Why is that? Although the study offers only data, not interpretation, we're going to venture a theory of our own:
We've got a kickass library system, third only to Cleveland and Fort Wayne, Indiana. (Kickass-ness is measured by branches, books available, books checked out and staff members per capita.) Can it be that the library is doing what it's actually supposed to be doing: offering knowledge -- and, OK, entertainment -- to anybody who wants it, regardless of how much education or cash they have? And that St. Louisans actually read because they want to, not because some professor requires it?
It's such a beautiful idea. We so want it to be true.