Spot the problem:

I'm reading a neat book on the "Cult of significance" . So there is this idea of the "sizeless sciences" the "statisticians" the "doctors" the "scientists", "econonomists", whose quest involves finding statistical significance at the 95% level of confidence - no matter what!

anyway
spot the problem in this statement:

In the next census, you will find that about 30% of people are getting a college education and many more are getting advanced degrees because of something as simple as learning to read at an early age.

To me, I don't think I know what census - I assume America. So too say learning to read at an early age resonates with me, I still don't see why you have to jump to that as the correlation. I am sure based on absolutely no data, that learning to read at an early age is important, (if it is in the right language), there may be other variables involved, like next census where?