Students Failing Because of Poor Grammar 1343
innocent_white_lamb writes "30% of freshman university students fail a 'simple English test' at Waterloo University (up from 25% a few years ago. Academic papers are riddled with 'cuz' (in place of 'because') and even include little emoticon faces. One professor says that students 'think commas are sort of like parmesan cheese that you sprinkle on your words.' At Simon Fraser University, 10% of students are not qualified to take the mandatory writing courses."
And this is how we die (Score:4, Interesting)
At this point, is our decline even reversible? I could draw some parallels with history (as I have in past posts) --- but what would be the point? We'll just have more people argue that education is worthless [slashdot.org], or say how it's all the fault of teachers' unions, or argue that we need more charter schools.
So, we point fingers, scream, and ape talking points while our society crumbles around us. What's the point?
We're already the laughingstock of the world; the next generation actually looks worse than the boomers do, and that's an accomplishment. Screw this: I'm getting out. There must be some place in the world that welcomes those Americans who manage to not be complete morons.
Re:Spell Checking (Score:4, Interesting)
True. I've even seen it in books, where an obviously out of context word was substituted. It may have passed the "spell check", but certainly that should be no excuse to avoid proof-reading. It's more than just looking for an absence of little red lines under your text.
Re:UW has a lot of foreign students (Score:3, Interesting)
What percentage of freshman students at UW are from Hong Kong?
Just sayin', is all.
[citation needed]
Actually foreigners usually make a greater effort to ensure accurate language. Sometimes they might just not "get it" due to huge semantic differences in the languages, which is why they might say things in a strange way from time to time. But mostly the sloppiness and laziness comes from the native speaker.
Re:Oh, no... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what is the most terrifying?
I'm a foreigner in England and found that I know grammar and spelling better than most of my English friends. We're talking about people who passed through basic education system here, and at least half of them also through higher studies.
If you ask them about grammar, apostrophe rules or spelling they will just say they never studied this. Nobody ever though them this. Then you wonder why all this is in total shambles.
Problem is that all kids are prepared to pass those stupid tests and outside them they know jack shit. There are exceptions, but general population is similar to Idiocracy one.
Re:Why is ":)" less valid than "!"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Emoticons are simply forms of expressing a particular feeling or intensity, in the same way as an exclamation mark. Is the only difference that exclamation marks are considered acceptable, because they are, in some way, traditional?
Why should one not consider indicating a humorous point by placing a winking face at the end of it, rather than using some other punctuation?
For the same reason you have to cite your references in a certain way, or for the same reason you should spell out numbers ten and below.
In academics, you have to follow a certain style. As a journalist, I had to follow the AP style. Yes, styles and language both change, but this is about knowing your audience and knowing how to communicate with them.
Benjamin Franklin said "Write with the learned, pronounce with the vulgar." Only now, social media has become part of our daily conversation, so the lines are blurring between what should be formal and informal.
So now the question is "should professional communication be different from the conversational vernacular?"
Re:Oh, no... (Score:3, Interesting)
I moved to the states from Norway as an 8 year old. I would regularly get teased and bullied for my proper grammar and spelling. My teacher even told me off once, because I pointed out that it's spelled "weird" not "wierd". She wouldn't believe me.
Re:Language evolves with how people use it... (Score:4, Interesting)
I feel like this is less of a problem with literacy, and more of a problem about not being able to adapt your writing style to fit your audience.
Plus, there's nothing wrong with professors sticking up for today's grammar in the face of change.
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am German. While we have our own share of problems, I like living here but the one year I lived in the US I liked that, too.
Just one minor inaccuracy: the cost for university depend on where you live, and can range from 0-500 Eur + fees per semester. (I pay around 600)
Compared to the US, German universities are essentially free. I'm an American who has been in Germany for about a year at this point and whenever I explain that it's considered not only acceptable, but actually *normal* for a person to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt to get a university education, people are uniformly shocked. The community college (*not* a university, mind you, you can only get a two-year degree there) near where I grew up charges $71 per credit hour [gccaz.edu] for people who have residency. $71 * 12 Credit Hours (generally the fewest number of hours one can take to be considered a full-time student) = $852 or about €600 for the cheapest post-secondary education around. I understand that it's always nicer to have something for free, but I seriously have trouble sympathizing with the people who stage big demonstrations over paying €500 for a semester at a world-class university.
Re:And this is how we die (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not sure whether this indicates a lowering of level or just a change in the way the world works. Latin got obsoleted in "serious" scientific publications. Could correct English become obsolete in the same way ? As long as the arguments themselves are well constructed, I see no qualms in that. As long as communication works, the preservation of language for the sake of it serves no purpose, IMHO (if you allow me to use such acronyms, lol).
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
You make a valid point, but sometimes things really do get worse. Conversely, they sometimes actually improve: but in that case, we're all too quick to acknowledge the change.
You're indulging in denialism. Look at our international standardized test score rank. Look at the fraction of foreign students in our universities. Look at the strength and depth of our public debate. Then compare what you saw to the documented evidence of the past 50 years.
Then, after seeing all that, pause and ask yourself, "can I really explain all that away by saying we're wearing rose-colored glasses?"
The answer is no.
Re:It's the parents (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, there is a simple cure for that, dumb down college and inflate college grades! Err, wait, we're already doing that.
This might be happening at some universities, but I assure you it's not happening at the good ones. In the engineering programs here at Purdue, they still occasionally give us problems without any correct solution to make sure we can pick them out.
Re:unpossible (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe it's not so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point is that currently the language is "de"-volving.
It's ok to create new compound words for new ideas and technologies. It's ok to have colloquial words included in the official language because everybody uses them. It's not OK to simply encourage laziness and sloppiness under the pretext of an evolving language. Maybe fast food restaurants prefer to use a sign that says "Drive Thru" instead of "Drive Through" because the sign is smaller (and therefore cheaper). That's no excuse to use the word "thru" in a thesis.
Exactly.
We already have words for a great many things. Nice, specific words that mean almost exactly what you're trying to say. But people don't bother to learn these words... And then try to convey meaning by using a different word, or mashing some other words together.
An example from my own life...
One of my co-workers was trying to describe where his arm was sore after moving furniture over the weekend. He said that the "top of the upper part" of his arm was sore. Not the shoulder... Not the bones... "the muscle... on top, like when you flex..." He demonstrated, and pointed at the sore muscle. His biceps [wikipedia.org].
Or how about all those lovely people who say "literally" when they really mean it figuratively, but just want to emphasize the statement.
Re:Universities can't keep up (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is not that we do not know what 'cuz' means, it is that they are writing academic paper and so should realise they need to write in a formal style, as if talking to a respected elderly person (who might not understand shortened language and emoticons), and that this is not the 'formally correct' word
It is not that they are writing as they speak and txt, it is that they do not seem to realise that you should change your writing style depending on your audience
Do they also speak to their friends, parents, teachers, and at job interviews, all in the same style.... if so it will affect their job prospects, as will a lack of appropriate writing skills...
Language evolves and so does formal/informal writing, and formal/informal speaking, but they have always been different, and this is what these students seem to be lacking, written language has to more formal than spoken language or meaning is lost (you don't have the facial, body language and other non-verbal clues)
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
More American students are going to college than ever before. We have a much higher rate of literacy than we've ever had. You talk about 50 years ago, but 50 years ago the vast majority of Americans had never seen the inside of a college. Their grammar was probably much worse than modern students, but the local factory or textile mill never tested them. As recently as the 1950's even basic literacy (especially in poor and rural areas) was still a real problem. Fifty years ago the illiteracy rate was 2.2%. By 1979, that number had dropped to 0.2%. Here is a good summary [ed.gov] of the data up to 1979). In more recent years, the U.S. literacy rate, which is very high already compared to most of the world, has improved even more (from 1992-2003, there were slight gains).
Every generation thinks the next are a bunch of slackers. But the data makes it clear. The U.S. has never been more educated and literate than it is today.
Re:And this is how we die (Score:4, Interesting)
Only this morning I heard an author and professor on the radio about a new rewritten version of the Dutch classic Max Havelaar by Multatuli.
Apparently present students can't and won't read the original due to the long sentences used and words whose meaning has changed since it was written 150 years ago.
The man had observed the attention span of his students was too short to comprehend a sentence over several lines. Words that are maybe quaint but otherwise understood by someone in his fifties are alien to them and were replaced.
I was always under the impression literature used the classics among others to train in grammar, expand our vocabulary and breed understanding for what has been. I feel this initiative is sooner sabotage than helpful.
For me it's very strange but also interesting this dumbing down of language skills has happened over such a short time span, only some 10-15 years.
Re:It's the parents (Score:5, Interesting)
Equally disturbing to me is the lack of command in spoken English. These students, with few exceptions, are native English speakers, but it would be difficult to tell this from observing them. I was raised in the same town as these students, and progressed through the same education system under most of the same teachers. The curriculum has changed in the intervening time, but not enough to account for the disparity in abilities. It is honestly as if I speak different language than these students when I speak English properly. As a matter of fact, English is an entirely differently language from what they speak, and that appalls me.
Having working experience in the public education system, I can say that our problems are arising from our youth culture. The problems with our youth culture are largely due to a lack of interest or parenting ability on the part of our parents. Our students are held to no standards at home, or at least, very low standards. They have no desire to learn, and no desire to work. I try to inspire students when I have the opportunity, but results are highly limited. It is shocking and sickening when I consider that in short order these students will be adults, with responsibility in society. The difficulty with language is a symptom of the deeper problem: our students idolize willful ignorance and have chosen to be intellectually spayed. I feel that only the sobering reality we will face when we become dependent on this generation for their participation in society will shake us from our complacency and help us to insist upon higher standards for education. This effort should be maintained not only within the education system, but at home.
Re:unpossible (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
as long as i can remember, the next generation has always looked worse than the previous generation. mostly because they did thing differently. generation X was said to be lazy 15 years ago because they sat around with their computers all the time instead of working in a factory
I guess. I think there has been a slow decline in generational work ethic since World War 2. People from that generation always seemed incredibly capable to me, as if they could do anything. The baby boomers were less capable, but still excelled at a few life skills and were generally well-mannered. I always figured that the veterans beat that into their kids. Most people in Generation X didn't seem to know how to change their oil, but most made it though college after suffering though adolescent angst. The current teenage generation (don't know what they are called) can't seem to do anything except type on their cell phones while driving.
I find that each generation has more useless people in it. Maybe we need a big war to weed out all the rejects again and toughen everyone else up.
Re:And this is how we die (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm 25. Yes, yes, our history is full of all sorts of calamities and embarrassing transgressions. But after World War II, we'd addressed most of them. We had a recessions here, and red scare there. There were the civil rights battles, and various minor wars. But for the most part, society was stable and relatively prosperous. Income inequality was low, scientific progress rapid, and social mobility high. We were respected throughout the world. The late 1970s saw stagflation, but that was the result of an exogenous supply shock, not domestic mismanagement.
The shit hit the fan around 1980, when our Gini coefficient (which measures concentration of wealth) shot through the roof. The average take-home income stagnated; two incomes become required to achieve the standard of living that could be achieved before with one. Then, finally, our political process became shrill and infantilized, and we lost the ability to respect effective to public crises.
We squandered a system that worked and replaced it with something that resembles, on paper, what we had in 1929: largely unregulated markets dominated by oligarchs with a parasitic banking sector that corrupted the political process.
Unfortunately, we weren't lucky enough to get a second FDR.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
This goes back to a discussion the other day where someone said that modern-American public schools were exemplars of effective education. Granted that this study comes from Canada, but if that premise were true, we wouldn't see the kind of barely-literate papers TFA talks about.
What's the problem? I blame teachers' unions. When it's impossible to fire an idiot who has no business in the classroom, you end up with a generation of idiots. My 11-year old son has a better grasp of the subjective vs. the objective ("who" vs. "whom") than his English teacher; and at a social function a few years ago I had an English teacher tell me that "Speedily is not a word" (Firefox disagrees, as it did not put the little red spellcheck line underneath it). These two women are just two among countless examples of people with no clue on how language works, but are tasked with teaching the elements of language to children. If we had proper testing procedures for the teachers, and made it easy to fire them when they failed the challenge of passing along knowledge, we would have a much better crop of future citizens. (It should go without saying that pay increases for teachers would have to be tied to this scheme, to ensure that the best and the brightest are offered a monetary incentive to apply in the first in the place.)
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
Just for the record, in case your knowledge of geography is sub par (is that common among Americans?), Waterloo University is in Canada and this report is from Toronto. Not that this doesn't apply South of the border. Canada and the US are intimately linked in culture and sometimes stupidity.
The educator in the article however said this has been going on for decades. So it can't entirely be blamed on myspace and sexting. It's really because of the lack of grammar classes in primary school. I learned grammar from reading a lot of books when I was a kid. I'm still a reader, but most of the people I know never read anything except email and a few articles online. Perhaps the decline of reading can be squarely blamed on changes in popular culture. Between the lack of parenting and the idolization of idiots on tv (eg. shows like Jersey Shore, any daytime talk show and all of Fox News) kids these days don't stand a chance unless they decide early on to become nerds. And that decision can have serious repercussions.
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting, I had taken 2 years worth of college level calculus and one year worth of college level physics in high school. My class on Tribology and Applied stress analysis used to be the domain of graduate courses and were now available as undergraduate courses...
Re:Anti-intellectual BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Informal speech and writing have their place... in chat rooms
I'd disagree here. Very often the people in chat rooms are not native speakers. Abbreviated forms, especially phonetic ones, are difficult to understand for non-native speakers. As an example, one of the people in a chat room I was in often signed off with n8. I wondered what nate meant, until I remembered that he was German, that in German this would be pronounced n-acht, which translated as night. If I wrote l8r, he'd read it as lachtr, which wouldn't mean anything to him.
A few thoughts from a professional English teacher (Score:4, Interesting)
The Solution... (Score:4, Interesting)
Shortening "you" to "u," not capitalizing "i," leaving out periods, and so on are techniques I've frequently attributed to being a style that slow typists use to save time. However--unless, of course, you type with single-digit WPM--the amount of time saved by omitting what's usually no more than 5 keystrokes in a single sentence is so small that it doesn't even begin to eclipse the abnormally short attention spans of us internet generation folks.
That said, TL;DR: "Internet Slang" rarely saves time at the keyboard unless you're a really poor typist.
Re:unpossible (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course they are morons. They've spent the last 12 years of their lives not learning math, reading and writing, but rather the 12 pilars of Islam and Susie has two mommies, and GWB (or Clinton or Reagan or Carter) teh (sic) Evil, and watching the likes Glenn Beck and John Stewart, and not to forget the wonders of American Idol.
If you want people to know how to read, write, add and subtract properly, then we ought to spend more time teaching THESE things than the other stuff that in reality doesn't matter that much.
I have this theory about education. If you teach people to Read, Write and do Math, then they are well rounded and can learn ANYTHING. If they cannot do THESE basics, it doesn't matter how "well rounded" you think their education is, they are illiterate fools.
We should spend the first six years of education mastering these three things for that is the basis of ALL further education.
If you get to University level and can't read, write or do basic math properly, the system has failed you!
Re:unpossible (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, I know this isn't the first time I've ranted on this, but grammar has much more to do with upbringing than it does with intelligence, and I tend think of people as snobby and elitist when they judge others' grammar (especially considering how few people know how to correctly use a semicolon, or conjugate a gerund, or use the word 'whom'). Unfortunately, the bias against a certain grammar is pretty deeply ingrained, especially in hiring situations. But it's pretty arbitrary. And douchey. Arbitrary and douchey. Here's an exercise: the next time you ask 'who's there,' if someone responds 'it's me,' call them on their incorrect use of nominative pronouns used in conjunction with linking verbs (correct: It's I). See if you still count them among your friends.
Re:unpossible (Score:1, Interesting)
Properly stratified classes that truly challenge and educate the best and brighest children, while placing the lesser intellects into properly focused remedial programs
... sound like a great idea, but they're no miracle cure. The Finnish education system is extremely un-stratified and produces great results.
Re:unpossible (Score:3, Interesting)
Alrighty then, given that English is my second language, how would you peck out the following on your keyboard using modern American English punctuation rules and regulations?
"some say {short pause} that Idiocracy was a documentary sent back from the future {long pause} and that The Man needs a dumbed-down populace to keep the likes of Walmart and the current political system in business {pause} all we know is that popular culture emphasizes dumbness over intelligence {pause} welcome to 2010"
Re:And this is how we die (Score:3, Interesting)
You make a very interesting point. To some extent I agree with you: color, colour and kolor are for example basically interchangeable.
However, I do think there is a case for some kind of standardisation. In the middle ages there was none, but standardised rules for writing evolved so people could understand what the other had written and people could be taught and learn the language.
I am not against updating spelling rules of my own language (Dutch) or English to be more in sync with the current phonetic pronunciation. (knowledge -> nollidj) I even willing to concede that grammar evolves. But people should write sentences that make at least grammatical sense: "They're in the house" instead of "Their in the house". Otherwise the people intended to real the text will have trouble interpreting what is meant.
I like what the Scnadinavian languages have done in this regard.
My point is: There needs to be a standard, or it will quickly even become impossible to discern in what language a text was written, let alone what it means, for someone not familiar with the writer.
Think Punctuation is unimportant? Answer this: (Score:4, Interesting)
Punctuate the following letter. You cannot remove words or letters, not can you add words or letters. The order of the words must remain the same. You can only add punctuation and capitalization when required due to punctuation. Go ahead and copy/paste this into notepad/emacs/vi. Good Luck.
================
Dear John
I want a man who knows what love is all about you are generous kind
thoughtful people who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior
you have ruined me for other men I yearn for you I have no feelings
whatsoever when we’re apart I can be forever happy will you let me be
yours
Gloria
Re:Eats, Shoots, and Leaves (Score:1, Interesting)
That is a great book! I love the history of each punctuation mark. I made a similar joke (about how one comma can change the meaning of a sentence) just last week on Facebook. A friend of mine, McKenzie, posted this on her cousin Lauren's wall:
"How are you my cousin?"
I replied to the post, explaining that McKenzie's father was a brother to Terri, who is Lauren's mom, and that children of siblings are cousins. Then of course I had to follow up a a few messages later with, "Oh, NOW I see -- you meant 'How are you, my cousin?'"
Re:unpossible (Score:3, Interesting)
When I had grammar in elementary through high school (maybe some schools didn't have it in the last 30-40 years, but mine certainly did, and stressed it), I was taught "it's" is always a contraction for "it is" and otherwise you should use its, so its fairly easy to know which to use once you know the rule. I usually just think "it is" instead of the contraction and then write or speak the contraction when I want that case. In fact, I practiced to never think in contractions that have ambiguity, so I always think they are, even if I say they're. I haven't mistaken their or there since about 8th grade either, though, so part of it may be rote [wikipedia.org] and part may be due to context, as there means a place and their refers to personal ownership.
Actually, it may be possible to make an exception to the "it's" rule by personifying it and thus allowing the possessive, but the sentence I tried didn't look correct, so I'll let someone else try.
Cuz is the new ain't, and has been around since BBS-speak, if not before. There is no need for good grammar and spelling when you wanted to send a message or post then, just as there is no need for it now in IM and cell phone messaging now. The goal in is to send a message that the other person understands in as few keypresses as possible, not to, say, pad your resume or write an essay - essentially it's a form of shorthand. The challenge is to not let that creep into your writing when you do need to write an essay or resume.
Answer: (Score:5, Interesting)
Answer one:
Dear John,
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind,
thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior.
You have ruined me for other men! I yearn for you. I have no feelings
whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy. Will you let me be
yours?
Gloria
Answer two:
Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind,
thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior!
You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings
whatsoever. When we’re apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
Yours,
Gloria
Lesson: You think Punctuation is unimportant? You are wrong. Punctuation carried the Entire meaning of what we write. We do not have voice inflection, hand gestures or eye contact as we do when we communicate vocally. In the first letter, John is going to get laid. In the second letter, John is going to get a restraining order against him. Wouldn't it be nice for John to know what he is getting into?
Re:unpossible (Score:2, Interesting)
Isaac Asimov had it Right (Score:4, Interesting)
It was Isaac Asimov's opinion that the nonsensical nature of the English language is a major contributor to poor grammar and illiteracy in the United States. There are no spelling standards in our language, different letters can represent different sounds depending on the context, and grammar rules are unnecessarily complex. Asimov, President of Mensa and author of hundreds of books, thought that we should revamp the written word to spell things phonetically and do away with much of the silly grammar rules that only please those individuals so pedantic as to master them.
And whose standards are we talking about here? MLA style? Chicago? There are half a dozen different ways to place the commas in a list of items depending on the standard to which you are writing. That's why I find it hilarious when people make fun of others for poor grammar. Anyone who speaks and writes in a language as ridiculous and nonsensical as English has no right to criticize people who speak Ebonics, misplace i's and e's, or write words phonetically on MySpace.
The article isn't well written (Score:3, Interesting)
The first sentence of the article reads: "Little or no grammar teaching, cellphone texting, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, all are being blamed for an increasingly unacceptable number of post-secondary students who can't write properly."
"Increasingly unacceptable" - that's a modifier on an absolute, which is poor form. The author is trying to express the concept of "larger", with emphasis added. They did not succeed.
"Like" should have been "such as". "Like" excludes the named items, which wasn't the intent.
The comma after "Twitter" ought to be a dash.
Perhaps the Canadian Press needs to employ better editors.
Re:Oh, no... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, most if not all children entering kindergarten in the US, (British) Canada, England, and that kangaroo country already speak and understand English, and continue to do so quite well until they are fluent readers at around age 8-9, when they can begin to be taught formal rules of grammar in writing. That's a lot of unlearning to do, and it's double hard when there are no other reference points or 'toy languages' to look at, to borrow from a term from CS instruction.
I learned English late, through natively, through osmosis, but I learned Spanish in a classroom, and for me at least, it was a bit easier to reason about abstract things like nouns and verbs and adverbs and indirect objects when I didn't understand the language natively and the meaning of the words wasn't jumping out and overwhelming my thinking.
Re:Universities can't keep up (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't even have to be that extreme. Many of the routine emails at work have atrocious spelling and grammar, and I can't help but wonder if the bosses (who tend to be a bit older and have some kind of education) don't notice that too.
I can't imagine an upper level manager writing messages like this. So, not being able to write means a hard career ceiling.
Re:unpossible (Score:4, Interesting)
I spent a number of years teaching first-year composition at a small university where significantly more than 30% of the incoming first-year students simply couldn't write sufficiently well to merit their attendance in an advanced academic setting. I also worked in the writing lab, where I routinely counseled students in pursuit of advanced degrees....it was astonishing to find the quantity of Ph.D candidates who simply didn't pay attention to basic writing skills.
I suppose I'll be labeled as unduly strict, but in my classes, the first thing I told students was that certain mistakes merited an automatic 0, return of the paper to the student, and a mandated rewrite for a grade - and the error would *not* be pointed out on the returned paper.
- misuse of homophones
- it's/its and the inexcusable its'
- here/hear
- lose/loose
- where/we're/were (which aren't homophones but get misused)
- there/they're/their
- effect/affect confusion
- your / you're
- then/than
- could of/would of for could have, would have
- alot for a lot
- incorrect possessives
I also graded rather harshly on comma splices and other mispunctuation. The rationale stemmed from a long-held conviction that states that by the time a student is accepted to a college, esp a name-brand school, they need to have mastered basic competency when writing. If they haven't done so prior to the start of their college education, they need to be rudely disabused of the notion that slipshod writing is acceptable. They need to adapt quickly or fail and leave the university to those people who respect the basic precepts of scholarship - the first of which is the ability to express their positions in expository prose that is coherent and concise. Academic prose needn't be perfect (cf Muphry's Law), but when it's so riddled with basic usage errors as to detract from the content, then it fails to serve the purpose, which is (usually) the presentation and exposition of abstract concepts.
note: I do NOT claim that my own writing is perfect. However, at the time I was teaching, my job was to raise the standard for my students' writing to a minimally acceptable level, and (hopefully) better than that.
Re:Isaac Asimov had it Right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isaac Asimov had it Right (Score:3, Interesting)
"Asimov, President of Mensa and author of hundreds of books, thought that we should revamp the written word to spell things phonetically and do away with much of the silly grammar rules that only please those individuals so pedantic as to master them."
Many people have tried to do this. Most of them were very smart. Yet all of their attempts have failed completely. Can we perhaps conclude that such a project is best left as an academic exercise?
There are lots of problems with these attempts to "simplify" English. The most damning, in my opinion, is how most of them deliberately strip away layers of meaning, centuries of subtext and idiom, from the language. You throw in works from Shakespeare, Poe, and Dickens and out comes an ooze of identical pablum, like a coloring book without any crayons. And why? So lazy people can avoid learning some relatively simple rules of spelling and grammar that public school kids once easily mastered in elementary school.
Yes, English is complicated and occasionally contradictory. It's also incredibly flexible, very precise, and extremely resilient. A person with a poor command of the language can still understand and be understood, at least at a basic level. That's one reason why English is the standard language of air-traffic-control, for example.
And if you want to be able to communicate ideas of higher complexity, then you can demonstrate your ability to think by demonstrating your ability to speak and write clearly and precisely. If it's not worth your time to write well, then it's not worth my time to read.
"And whose standards are we talking about here? MLA style? Chicago? There are half a dozen different ways to place the commas in a list of items depending on the standard to which you are writing."
You exaggerate. But even if that were so, it makes little difference. Just pick a standard and stick with it. Really, it's not hard.
Re:It's the parents (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, not so much. I have taught students (college level) who failed to attend classes, handed in substandard work, and subsequently had parents call and yell at me that they were paying my salary, and consequently that their kid was entitled to pass my class.
In *college.* At a name-brand Eastern school that did OK in basketball.
At one point, I received a rather well-written communication from a parent regarding his child's grade (comp 101). I replied to his letter with a note asking him whether he considered the writing in the enclosures (copies of his child's work) acceptable.
I received an apology and encouragement to fail his child if said child continued to perform work that wouldn't be acceptable in a job setting.
It was far and away the most vindicating moment of my teaching career.
Some parents have common sense and want their kids to be smart. Some want their kids credentialed. The latter drive me crazy, esp after I received an email explaining that their child has to "get his BS at any cause." (e.g., get his degree at any cost).
Re:I noticed this problem almost half a decade ago (Score:3, Interesting)
You blame Kid Rock? Not me. I blame Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy. For fifty years (two full generations) we have had a coordinated top-down campaign from national leaders to convince people that being smart is bad (cf. "East-coast intellectuals", etc.)
So in my opinion, Kid Rock is the symptom, but Republicans are the disease.
Re:unpossible (Score:3, Interesting)
The Boy Scouts is an organization designed to mold young men into soldiers and subjects. We can do without its nationalist, homophobic, anti-freethinking training.
WTF?
An organization designed to teach kids to be courteous, kind, thrifty, brave? To volunteer in their community? To address community and world issues in a thoughtful manner, by contacting their elected representatives and engaging in respectful dialogue? To learn how, when it is time and if they feel so inclined, they should themselves run for office and serve their fellow citizens?
"Nationalist"? "Homophobic?" "Anti-Freethinking?"
Please, whatever you are smoking, please stop. It's obviously damaged whatever feeble quantity of functional brain cells you had prior to starting.
Re:unpossible (Score:3, Interesting)
"I be working" is ungrammatical to you because your variety of English has a rule that establishes an agreement between the verb and it subject (at least, in this tense). Some varieties of English--AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) in particular--do not have this rule. Standard English has taken sides with your variety, but this is mostly a historical accident (well, or due to the power and influence of the people who spoke such varieties). There is no intrinsic reason to prefer one over the other; neither way is inherently "better," and it is not appropriate to call this construction "misuse." It would be equally valid to say your construction is misuse. Additionally, there are entire languages--most, if not all, Chinese languages/dialects, for one--that do not have this relation at all. Languages and language varieties differ widely (although, interestingly, seemingly within parametric bounds) in features they choose to use or not to use.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not one "correct" way to speak or write. There are, of course, conventions, which we may broadly refer to as "Standard English"--and, of course, one's use (or not) of this variety often shapes others' views. But all languages and language varieties have a set of rules, which we call "grammar." No variety is simply a random or "lazy" variation, nor does its use reflect the intelligence of the speaker/writer. (On the other hand, the educational system and certain other areas of culture expect Standard English, and I'm not arguing that this is good or bad; I'm just arguing that speakers of the standard variety should stop perpetuating the falsehoods I've outlined here.)