The other day my sister the epidemiologist overheard me talking about the writing problems of undergraduates and she jumped in with, “It’s a real problem for us, too.” She outlined one instance. When senior researchers conceive their projects, one of the first things they do is ask assistants of various types (interns, etc.) to conduct a “literature review.” That means reading up on the topic and summarizing every relevant study, report, essay, etc. Each item gets a one-page synopsis, a clear and short and simple but comprehensive description. No critical thinking required, and no other “21st-century skills” needed, either.
According to her, more and more young people rising in the sciences have a hard time with it, and it’s blocking the progress of research.
Her conclusion agrees with a survey conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. The findings are here. The survey asked employers what skills and knowledges they wanted out of college graduates, and the AACU aimed to take the findings and determine how colleges are performing on the “workplace readiness” factor.
Here is one finding:
“Only one in four employers thinks that two-year and four-year colleges are doing a good job in preparing students for the challenges of the global economy.”
As for employers having a narrow, vocational view of higher education, this finding is a surprise:
“Employers believe that colleges can best prepare graduates for long-term career success by helping them develop both a broad range of skills and knowledge and in-depth skills and knowledge in a specific field or major.” Note the general knowledge request.
Finally, when it came time to identify the most common skill or knowledge cited by employers as needed in the post-downturn, globalized, 21st-century universe, what came up first was a basic, longstanding skill: “The ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing.” Eighty-nine percent of employers highlighted it; “critical thinking” and “analytical reasoning” came in second at 81 percent.
We hear lots of talk about the rise of “nonlinear thinking” in the Digital Age and “interactive writing” in Web 2.0, but I take “effectively communicate orally and in writing” as a straightforward, linear practice, one that serves best in most scientific settings. And business, too, according to my brother the actuary, who told me a while back: “Anyone who can write is a major asset in business.”
39 Responses to Employers Want 18th-Century Skills
marktropolis - March 9, 2010 at 11:21 am
So Mark, who was it that was being taught to “effectively communicate orally and in writing” in the 18th Century? Better question: how many institutions of higher education were in existence, and what was their purpose? Higher learning for white male property owners, perhaps? Methinks your choice of title may have clouded this issue further than you intended.The subsequent question (which the survey doesn’t address) is this: with all these “expectations” for higher education, if institutions of higher education are not producing these individuals (like widgets), why is it that they insist on highering graduates of four-year institutions? And while no one can effectively articulate what one learns in “college” these employers still insist on college degree holders. Employers want higher ed to do more (more critical thinking, more writing and speaking, more skills, etc.) – and yet these are the same employers who want tax cuts, which would further erode the ability/capacity of states to support higher education. They want “world-class” higher ed, they want employees who not only have broad general knowledge but skill-specific depth as well, but they don’t want to pay for it. We continue to make attempts to define these “skills” (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/). But is there really a connection between what happens in higher ed and these skills? If I’m a science major, what skills am I learning that propel me in the workplace (and I’m speaking here of commercial workplace, not the workplace of a research university)? If I’m an English major, what skills are you teaching me that will serve me in the workplace. And should that even be anything you think about?In other words, what about this schism between “higher learning” as promoted by folks like Derek Bok, and “skills learning” as promoted by the Business Roundtable? Which side do we (we meaning academe) want to land on?
markbauerlein - March 9, 2010 at 11:42 am
By “18th-century” I meant only Enlightenment norms of objectivity and linearity. To read race into this is quite a stretch.
marktropolis - March 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm
That being the case, I would argue that part of the challenge in K-16 education in this country is that we are stuck in a model that was initially based on those same norms of objectivity and linearity. And while race may be a stretch, my point is that the world has changed a bit since those “Enlightment norms” were actually norms. And one could argue as to whether they were in fact norms, or if they were objectives put forth by an elite in control of mass education. In addition, I’d argue that reading race into this may not be that much of a stretch, as a significant portion of educational and employment history, or rather the progress (or lack thereof) in education and employment attainment has played out in the sphere of race. Going back to the survey, 71% of employers want institutions to put more emphasis on “teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with others in diverse group settings”, and 57% want more emphasis on “cultural diversity in America and other countries.” That doesn’t sound very 18th Century to me.
markbauerlein - March 9, 2010 at 3:25 pm
The point of my post is that those Enlightenment norms of linearity and objectivity in reading and writing are still norms, marktropolis. Also, if you look at other surveys on the subject, such as the National Association of Manufacturers Skills Gap reports, you find the same ranking of basic reading and writing skills at or near the top. Also, remember that it was during the Enlightenment that the organized study of cultural difference, particularly from a historical viewpoint, arose.
marktropolis - March 9, 2010 at 3:39 pm
No pun intended here, but I would hardly describe the 18th century study of cultural differences “enlightened.” That said, what you’re saying is that basic reading and writing have always been at the top of the heap. Isn’t that supposed to get taught in K-12? Aren’t you supposed to be doing more advanced things in college? Which goes back to my earlier point: If in fact, these employers really just want basic reading, writing and ‘rithmatic, shouldn’t they be aiming their guns at K-12? Additionally, shouldn’t they simply be satisfied with a high school diploma?
cleverclogs - March 10, 2010 at 8:01 am
While I secretly covet these kinds of findings because it allows me to tell my students that collaborative projects and writing assignments are not devices of torture but useful skill-building opportunities, I think it’s important to remember that education, especially higher education, is not entirely about getting a job. I’m suspicious of these findings on that same report:Only 40% want to see more emphasis on “Democratic institutions and values.”Only 52% want to see more emphasis on “Civic knowledge, civic participation and community engagement.”And this is for students who, as far as I can tell, are barely conversant with American history and can’t understand why they would give up a Saturday to do volunteer work except as it “looks good on their resume.” It’s not surprising, of course, since employers are only interested in the skills that make for better employees and not skills that make them better American or world citizens. But I like to think that education, at all levels, does care about these things and that part of our job is helping people become ethical members of society who can keep other social forces in check. That’s the only way our society will continue to function.
eacowan - March 10, 2010 at 8:12 am
Perhaps the corporate world (and their corporate allies in present-day academic administrative circles) is hindering its search for employees by limiting its choices to persons who think in a linear way. This way could be described as thinking logically “in a line” from point A to point B to point C…. It could also be described as an unimaginative way of thinking that could be likened to a person’s walking slowly, one foot in front of the other. I suspect that the corporate world really sees “linear thinking” in the latter sense.”Non-linear” thinking would be creative, imaginative, inventive, not needing to proceed from A to B to C… but going directly from A to D with points B and C already understood. (Yes, I know that there are people who jump from A to D without an awareness of B and C, often “jumping to the wrong conclusion”.) It seems to me that educated people would use both linear and non-linear thought. It also seems to me that the two modes of thinking resemble left-brain and right-brain thinking. Perhaps people trained in both modes of thought could be called “stereognothic”? –E.A.C.
catlkelley - March 10, 2010 at 9:05 am
I work in higher education in an academic/technical support office, so I get to see both sides of this. I wholeheartedly agree with Mark Bauerlein’s analysis. I have often said that the most valuable employees to me are those who can think “in a straight line.” By this I do not mean unimaginative or plodding along, one foot in front of the other. I mean that I need people who can follow an argument from start to finish. I also mean that they can construct their own arguments without getting into a snarl, or wandering off into unrelated side issues. I have only a few employees who can do that. The younger ones are particularly inclined to wander off into issues that have no bearing whatsoever on their jobs. Collecting information is good, and divergent thinking is good – but ultimately the problem at hand needs to be solved or at least resolved. Curiously, the opposite is also true, in the sense that they often don’t dig deep enough into a problem and come up with inadequate solutions or approaches. I think that the basic problem is that they can’t frame the problem, and as such flounder around when trying to figure out how to solve it. The connecting factor here is intellectual discipline and focus. I sometimes think that there is an epidemic of ADD in this generation, because they seem so unable to focus or think clearly.There are obviously many other qualities of employees that I value. But the one that frustrates me the most is this inability to frame problems, combined with a lack of mental discipline and focus.Calling this an “18th century skill set” is just distracting however, as it has brought a lot of irrelevant issues into the discussion.
11191947 - March 10, 2010 at 9:50 am
I would call effective communication and analytical reasoning “the basics”, not 18th century skills. Why wait until the 18th century? The Greek philosophers exemplified these skills, as I’m sure great ancient thinkers in other cultures did. The challenge now is cultivating these skills in a broader segment of society. According to many, if it is expected, it can be done.
demery1 - March 10, 2010 at 10:20 am
The 18th C. in Britain saw tremendous increases in literacy among both men and women, many of whom weren’t property holders. It’s worth noting that extensive developments in the teaching of speaking and writing also emerged in 18th C. Scotland, where those of Scottish ancestry were taught “English” speaking and writing.Scot may have been white guys in the 21st century sense, but they were a significantly disadvantaged minority, occupied by a colonial power. Mass education was a means of political and economic emancipation for Scots, Welsh, and Irish minorities. Of course, this allowed them to participate in the expansion of empire and subjugation that followed, but again, Britain was far ahead of other nations in efforts toward abolition in part because colonized citizens saw the harms of occupation.Read a book, marktropolis.
dank48 - March 10, 2010 at 10:52 am
Among the sacred cows currently grazing our intellectual pastures are nonlinear thinking and multitasking. Speaking only for myself, I can sometimes think reasonably well, so long as I make sure that one step logically follows from the previous one and logically leads to the next one. This is undeniably linear. My multitasking ability seems bounded by driving to work while shaving with an electric razor. Anything more complex than that, such as talking on the phone while driving, is beyond me.Possibly I’ve been superseded by a superior strain of humanity, like the neanderthals, and I’m just too dim to appreciate their abilities. But I fail to see much benefit from scattered attention, unfocused thinking, and dismissal of the unfascinating, aka nonlinear thinking. And judging by the recent campaign to discourage texting while driving, for many if not all people, multitasking means screwing up more than one thing at a time.Yes, employers want people who can read and write and communicate effectively. There’s nothing sinister about this, much less racist, sexist, or whateverist. The basics are the basics for good reason. Without a good foundation, even the most elaborate, beautiful, impressive structure will not stand for long. Linear thinking and doing one thing at a time just seem pedestrian in today’s world. Never mind that they tend to be effective; they just aren’t fashionable.
dank48 - March 10, 2010 at 10:54 am
Mark asks about employers: “why is it that they insist on highering graduates of four-year institutions?” Interesting question.
11394127 - March 10, 2010 at 11:26 am
As a Ph.D in French literature, but also jobless, I turned to software technical writing in the 1980′s. Imagine my surprise when my boss called me in to her office one day, shortly after I had completed a manual for a brand new product. She looked at me open-mouthed, exclaining “I can read this!” Perhaps this was the reward of the training in France, where in mid-century the old rule still applied: “If it isn’t clear, it isn’t French.” The principle had carried over into my English. Rhetoric and composition were taught in France in a traditional way, with, of course, “linear” organization. My surprise was that my boss should have been surprised: it was simply the way I had been taught to write. (Yes, I got good raises while I was there, and eventually took a salary cut to go back to my first love, teaching.)
dank48 - March 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm
In #12, “Mark” should read “Marktroplis” of course. Sorry for the mistake.
academics_lol - March 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Employers covet employees with 18th century skills. Those who can sharpen quills and write manuscripts with 250 word sentences are in exceptionally high demand. Even scientific literature reviews require interfacing with “21st-century” databases, and communicating effectively in today’s workplace implies working in digital environments.
tmendeztmendez - March 10, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Dear All,This blog is consistent with Dr. Smith’s earlier email attachment about “Liberal Arts Education”
markbauerlein - March 10, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Not really, academics_lol, for I have yet to see a workplace survey that puts “working in digital environments” high on the list. Employers need people who can read with comprehension and write with clarity and directness, within and without “digital environments.”
ohreally - March 10, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Following, somewhat, on comment #15, I will make an admittedly minor point. Mr.Bauerlein is mistaken when he writes, “That means reading up on the topic and summarizing every relevant study, report, essay, etc. Each item gets a one-page synopsis, a clear and short and simple but comprehensive description. No critical thinking required, and no other “21st-century skills” needed, either.” Such a literature review involves quite a bit of critical thinking as a careful task analysis will reveal. A real problem of armchair analyses of literacy and critical thinking is the misconception that because after years of practice a commentator can do higher-order tasks (such as write a lit review) that they are then somehow basic or require little critical thinking. This confuses automaticity with simplicity or ease.Also, without knowing what is “wrong” with the lit review mentioned above the problem may have been not a lack of “critical thinking” but too much. Let me relate a story that interrupted my thinking about the hierarchical nature of our conceptions of types of thinking and writng tasks. Midway through my doctoral work at elite research 1 university, I found myself taking an undergraduate course somewhat outside my field in a university that was nearly off the map. I was assigned to write a summary of an important research article in the field. I wrote, consistent with my recent training, a critique more appropriate to the kinds of assignments and discussions I had had in my seminars. This was not well-received, and I was asked to do the task again. I found that it was very difficult to write a straight summary at the level of detail being asked, rather than a summary for another purpose such as analyzing, synthesizing or critiquing. Two points to make here. 1) Writing without a rhetorical purpose other than to recapitulate is a harder task than some realize, particularly because without some other purpose, one is faced with the challenge of making judgements about importance or centrality without a clear basis for doing so. If the reply is that a lit review has a rhetorical purpose above and beyond recapitulation, then it follows that it is not “mere” summary. 2) When one has become accustomed to critical thinking, putting aside judgement, discernment, etc. for the purposes of summary is harder than it sounds. It’s not like stepping up or down a ladder; writing summary isn’t just a step down from writing analysis or two or three steps down from writing synthesis and evaluation.In some idealized set of objectives we can imagine them in hierarchical relation, in practice with real people with real, idiosyncratic histories of literacy, the relations can be far more complex. So, maybe these assistants went from being stduents asked to write critiques of studies to being assistants asked to write straight summaries and their difficulties reveal more about the differences in expectations between faculty of upper-divsion students and expectations of practitioners of “assistants”. By the way, there is empirical research that demonstrates that reading multiple texts synthetically (as in a lit review) requires different kinds of literacy knowledge, skills and strategies than reading texts individually and serially.
jamccain - March 10, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Wow, great discussion all.What is your take on this? To what degree should the schools be in the business of providing trained workers for the nation’s industries? Should community colleges be solely responsible for training students/workers for the workforce? or should the industries train their own employees?
pennimanwd - March 10, 2010 at 7:08 pm
In response to dank48 commenting on the question posed by marktropolis:Isn’t it ironic that the discussion is posed around clear communication among other things and yet we accept someone talking about corporations “highering”? What does that mean – uplifting? Sure, we all know what marktropolis meant, but what he said was a detraction from his argument. Yet another reason to return to good old fashioned skills of clear “righting”.
markbauerlein - March 11, 2010 at 9:27 am
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, ohreally. In the post by “literature review” I meant scientific reports, clinical studies, and the like. Yes, too much “critical thinking” is a problem in the task.Note, too, that in the survey empoyers asked for more broad knowledge. They wanted more than just workplace training.
marktropolis - March 11, 2010 at 10:51 am
demery1 (#10), any good books to recommend? My reading of what happened to the Scots, Welsh and Irish was that mass education was in fact the tool of subjugation. Something that played out into this past century with violence in Ireland between those who wanted to be Irish, and the Brits who wanted them to be English. Granted, a simplification, but my responding question is this: political and economic emancipation for whom? Do you really believe that Britain “was far ahead of other nations in efforts toward abolition in part because colonized citizens saw the harms of occupation”? Abolition in Britain (and the US, and to a certain extent anti-Apartheid in South Africa) at the state level was motivated for more by economics than by some moral opposition to occupation. Slavery feel in the US not because of the abolitionist movement – it feel because the north and its factories couldn’t compete with the south an its free labor. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political and economic act – not one of clear-eyed morality.And I’m fairly certain there are some Scots (and Welsh and Irish) out there who would disagree that forced education in English was to their benefit. Whether or not they’d read any good books.And pennimanwd (#20), English as a second language, what can I say. If you understood what I said, then I guess my unintended irony was useful.Spelling aside, I would think that “hiring” should result in some uplifting (at least for the person being hired). Otherwise, why bother? Which is, kind of, what I think this discussion is all about: at root, is work for the purpose of satisfying employers or workers? Or, said differently, is education for the purpose of improving one’s own life (whether that’s personal or economic), or the satisfaction of a future employer?
richardtaborgreene - March 11, 2010 at 10:57 am
Elsewhere I have written in support of the idea that employers find strongest and best masters of a language, highly articulate ones. BUT employers are not themselves all that articulate so when they say they want great communicators, they are expressing at least two and possibly four distinct factors—mastery of a natural language to the level of being so good at articulating a differing other’s views that that other applauds how well you articulate them, being so highly educated that you emotionally stand outside of your own nation/gender/era/profession/etc.’s views and see both good and bad in them and imagine alternatives to them all (this is technically the factor “being highly educated” some say), motivation to be an anthropologist at work observing the norms/lingos/issues/traditions/cultures/rites/practices/roles etc. there and see the limited package they constitute and all they omit, passion for success that is on the limited meretricious terms that modern consumer markets and producer cultures promote.These four—language, educatedness, motivated observation, passion for limited roles–define who rises to the top in businesses (for citations start with Grint’s leadership book’s bibliography). It is of course bold and dangerous to put words in businessperson’s mouths but the four factors I just listed, have had a little research on them, enough to suggest further research–the problem is outcome measures—there is NO consensus and NO possible consensus on what constitutes a good safe powerful outcome. So whenever someone says businessmen want X or Z, you have to ferret out what latent, unbespoken criterion of success from the viewpoint of what latent, unbespoken stakeholder you are assuming.
marktropolis - March 11, 2010 at 11:16 am
markbauerlein (#17), I think you’re confusing what employers think colleges should do, and what employers want out of future employees. Just about every job description I’ve read in the past year or so (at all kinds of levels for all kinds of jobs) have required capacities in digital technology. Can’t get my hands on any “surveys” per se, but I’m sure they’re out there. SCANS comes to mind, and while that’s 10 years old (an eternity in Internet time) it still talked about computer and technology skills.
markbauerlein - March 12, 2010 at 9:53 am
The point is that while emplyers want technology skills, they find that deficiencies in basic reading and writing skills to be significantly worse than deficiencies in technology skills.
goxewu - March 12, 2010 at 10:31 am
There are only 24 hours in a day and 124 credit hours in a bachelor’s degree. The main reason (other than deficient K-12 preparation) for deficiencies in basic reading and writing skills is the proportion of undergraduate education taken up with technology skills (“technology” standing for vocational ed, from marketing to computer science to marine biology to digital photography). In other words, employers have fewer/lesser complaints about college-grad job applicants’ “technology skills” because those applicants have spent a lot of credit hours getting them. At the expense, of course, of reading and writing skills of a decent humanities-education level.The question is: How much of their applicants’ undergraduate education in “technology skills” are employers willing to give up in exchange for singificantly increased “reading and writing skills”? My guess: Not a whole lot. Like everybody else, they want their cake and to eat it, too.
markbauerlein - March 12, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I assume that businesses respond to costs, and if they see a shift in college curricula toward writing and it decreases costs for them (for instance, having to bring fewer writing coaches into the workplace), they’ll go for it.
goxewu - March 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm
#27 ignores the “zero-sum” point of #26:Any “shift in college curricula toward writing” will come at the expense of that portion of college curricula now devoted, in the broad sense described in #26, to “technology skills.” Employers will then have to bring in “technology coaches” to repair the deficiencies in “technology skills” lost in that shift of college curricula back toward writing.If employers had found that college graduates with a traditional liberal-arts education sprinkled with a few “technology skills” courses filled the bill, then all these college departments of, and majors in, sports management, digital media, public health, occupational therapy, etc., etc., would have never sprung up and spread like they have. What employers want is the reverse: graduates with a “technology skills” education sprinkled with a few liberal arts courses. And those liberal arts courses should be Writing 101ab, not The American Novel in the 19th Century.I don’t like it, either, but that’s the way it is.
tech2doc - March 14, 2010 at 9:37 am
Plus, have you read scientific papers. They’re awful! Written by a handful of folks talking to another handful of folks. The audience is kept small for a reason. PhD’s only want as much collaboration as they are forced to do…otherwise they are mostly interested in job security.If you write clear,concise papers for a large audience…you quickly bring competition for your grant money. I’m actually half surprised they don’t make up their own languages for the occasion.
markbauerlein - March 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm
If you look at surveys and discussions of workplace readiness, or talk to business folks about the issue, they’ll tell you, “Look, we can teach technology skills, and we can do it pretty quickly. But we can’t teach writing skills–it takes too long and it’s too labor intensive. You do it.”Don’t equate basic literacy with tech skills.
goxewu - March 14, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I thought that when we finally got rid of George W. Bush, we’d also gotten rid of the use of the the word “folks” to cuddlify people who just aren’t cuddly (“The folks at Blackwater” “The folks at the Venezuelan Embassy”). Yes, I know, Obama does it, too. Less, but he still does it. Personally, I know some people in business, but I don’t know any “business folks.”People in business SAY they can teach technology skills quickly and cost-effectively, but that’s because for the most part they don’t have to. College departments of sports management, digital media, occupational therapy, and public health, etc., do so much of it for them. If curricula take away tech courses in favor of more writing courses, the yelp about deficient technology skills in college graduates applying for jobs with them will be a lot louder than the alleged one about deficient writing skills.Note: Take a look at a position-vacant info sheet from a business with a sizeable tech quotient. See the tech requirements? See the writing requirements? Next question.Another note: I’m in academe only occasionally these days and in the for-profit private sector most of the time (and, no, not for-profit higher ed). Among the people in business I know, other than a subject-verb-object high school competence in writing, they want tech skills appropriate to their businesses’ specialties.Colleges and universities, as they have developed in the later 20th and early 21st centuries, are the places to teach tech skills of more than a trade-school level. They’re not supposed to be teaching “basic literacy.” That’s supposed to have been done in high school. In high school, a college-capable high school student is supposed to learn to read and write well enough to, say, compose memos in a job at a biotech firm. In college, that student majors in biology in order to acquire a reasonable working knowledge of biology and to learn the “technology skills” appropropriate to the field.It’d be nice, I suppose, if these biologists and sports management “folks” knew something about American Fiction in the 19th Century. But they really don’t have to in order to function effectively in their jobs. (Sure, it’d be nice of the sports management read “This Animal of a Buldy Jones,” but it’s not absolutely necessary.)
yandoodan - March 15, 2010 at 11:11 am
marktropolis, I can well understand your objections to this post, as you are clearly a past master of non-linear thinking and dialectic. I have a mental image of your boss assigning you a lit review on viral toxicology, and getting 50 pages of class warfare analysis. This, of course, goes for #7 (eacowan) as well.#8, catlkelley, gets the point. Linear doesn’t mean plodding; it means following a train of thought to its conclusions. Linear thinking is not only consistent with creativity, without it creativity doesn’t work. Is the linear thinking that resulted in the Firth of Forth Bridge, or Chartres Cathedral, plodding and non-creative? Nonlinear thinkers like eacowan and marktropolis like to conceive of themselves as “thinking outside the box” (tired cliche), but they are really just confused. marktropolis in particular is a slave to tired old 19th century ideas.Now two minor points:#30 (op) — this was exactly my experience entering the job market in 1977. No one wanted my hard-won specialized training; they could train faster and better. Worse, prospective bosses assumed that my “college boy” head would come stuffed with errors and arrogance. I was finally hired for my purely analytic skills (spatial mathematics, a rare subject in those pre-GIS days).#31 (goxewu) — Apart from the non-linear injection of political comment, I agree with you on “folks”. “Folk” should be used to refer to a group sharing a common culture (or sub-culture). “Sports management folk” (never “folks”, a redundancy) would mean “people who share the culture unique to sports management”, when you want to discuss what makes sports management experts culturally distinctive. In some cases there is no substitute; the people who are native to the Southern Appalachians (“Appalachia” is a neologism, and I think a bigoted one) are “mountain folk”, never “mountaineers” or (the n-word of the mountains) “hillbillies”. Sorry — a bonnet-bee of mine, and a classic demonstration of my mastery of non-linear dialectic.
sahara - March 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Having taught and worked in both the business and academic side of college life, I applaud what Bauerlein is saying about needed and desirable communication skills. These skills were in demand in the 1970′s and still are today.Could some of you perhaps edit your own writing about writing???Rather than pontificating to the extreme with stilted, stuffy, quasi-literate, wannabe cute language, why not set a good example with regard to communication skills? Nobody wants to read an obtuse 18-line paragraph; isn’t that partly the point here?
goxewu - March 16, 2010 at 9:28 am
If #33 is going to get all picky about other people’s writing:Why does “1970′s” have an apostrophe signifying the possessive?Why does the first sentence of the second paragraph have three question marks?”Wannabe” IS “cute language.”For #32:Is this linear enough?
sahara - March 16, 2010 at 9:39 am
OK, goxewu, since you’ve become preachy: No. 28: Why do you use “etc.” twice when once will do? Why do you put your punctuation inside the quotation marks some of the time, and outside the quotation marks some of the time?No.31: Why do you have two phrases inside the parentheses?Both: How about putting a space between your sentences?
goxewu - March 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Re #36:I’m not preachy. sahara is. I’m just pointing out the black spots on the pot addressing all us kettles.But, as long as sahara asked:”etc., etc.” is for rhetorical effect. I didn’t invent this.I have two phrases inside the parentheses because it’s my style.I do put single spaces between my sentences; at the publications that pay me handsomely for my deathless prose, double spaces between sentences went out with the IBM Selectric. If sahara means why don’t I put a line space between the single-sentence points in #35, it’s because I want to emphasize them as a group.As I said, I’m not the preachy grammarian hall monitor here. I’m just pointing out that the resident PGHM has a pen of clay.
marka - March 19, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Yikes! I’m surprized this kind of article gets academics all heated up — apparently still in an Ivory Tower! I’ve got multiple degrees from well-regarded schools, and have more than 3 decades of experience in the working world beyond. I fully believe in the value of a liberal arts education — not just because it may provide a good solid basis for that world beyond, but to be a better citizen. That said, academics who spout nonsense about the goal of a college education should be about better rounded people, not job skills – wake up! The only folks who can afford an education – now @ $50,000/year a pop – that doesn’t help them with job skills are … ? Yes, that’s right, rich folks, or folks who are willing to assume hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt … How is that debt going to be paid? Is it worth it to us as a collective society to ‘educate’ individuals who don’t have adequate job skills, @ a hundred-large apiece? Get real. Not only do employers expect decent communication skills — a proxy for thinking ability too — so do parents, and the students themselves. Take a decent survey of these folks, and taxpayers too, and I’ll bet our society’s expectations for ‘higher education’ include just these basic communication & thinking skills. I am appalled at the state of ‘education’ that deems these basics as unworthy of attention — what ‘more important’ things are being ‘taught’ in our education system? We are producing way too many folks with ‘degrees’ that are essentially meaningless to the rest of us, who can’t talk or think their way out of a paper bag — and I speak with experience in hiring & firing. ‘Education’ is not just for an elite group of ‘well-rounded’ people who have no discernable job skills — that simply harkens back to the well-rounded elite that went to prep schools, finishing schools, and then on to college or university, and got gentleman Cs. The 21st Century schools ought to have ‘graduates’ who can actually read, write, and meaningfully communicate with the rest of us. And that isn’t even covering math education, in which we are also lacking. No wonder we import engineers & scientists from around the world — we don’t educate enough here to meet even the minimum of demand. Grrrr …. ;-)
goxewu - March 19, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Question for marka:Put aside for the moment the matter of the quality of the teaching undergrads get. Everybody thinks most academic problems could be solved if everybody just worked harder and did their jobs better.How much of the specialized “job skills” part of an undergraduate curriculum would you be willing to cut in order to have more classes that would teach how to “read, write, and meaningfully communicate with the rest of us”?None? (Maybe 6 credits out of 120?) A little? (12 – 18 credits?) A lot? (24 or more?)
goxewu - March 20, 2010 at 11:01 am
Sorry, that last line should obviously be:None? Very little (Maybe 6 credits out of 120?) A little? (12 – 18 credits?) A lot? (24 or more?)