U.C.D students are semi literate

dafresh

humbert wrote:

You're right, the leaving cert isn't a true reflection of your abilities in general.

It's more a reflection of how well you prepared for it but I do believe that, for example, science courses at 300 points is a recipe for a high drop out rate. But that's off topic.

The leaving cert course doesn't put nearly enough emphasis on spelling and grammar, particularly grammar*. Which I think is absurd, like. If we are never taught properly/rigorously and we are exposed to appalling English on television the result is not surprising.

*this may vary from school to school.

You shouldn't blame the leaving cert/school/popular media for poor spelling and grammar...it comes down to personal responsibility and intellectual ability.

humbert

dafresh wrote:

You shouldn't blame the leaving cert/school/popular media for poor spelling and grammar...it comes down to personal responsibility and intellectual ability.

I don't think I does. I have made some effort to prevent my English from deteriorating too much, but it is of course the responsibility of primary and secondary education to maintain a certain standard of English. Intellectual ability may influence how easily people grasp these things but it's naive to assume that it's the deciding factor. Some people have a natural aptitude for language and some people come from backgrounds with different standards of English.

beanyb

I'm not going to pretend that I have perfect grammar in any way. I'm sure there are going to be plenty of mistakes in this post that could be pointed out to me, but I honestly think that I have far better grammar than most people I know. I try not to do it much, but sometimes I just cant not point out some of the ridiculous things people come out with. Like worser, for example. There's only so much I can take without the ultimate pedant coming out in me.

The basics just aren't taught well. If people can't grasp capital letters, full stops and just using the correct tenses how are they ever going to deal with more complex sentence structures? That is the fault of the education system at its most basic level. Intellectual ability does clearly play a role, but if you aren't taught the basics at an early age it's difficult to come back from no matter how intelligent you are. You can hardly blame the four year old in Junior Infants for not teaching themselves basic grammar and spelling.

A lot of it, I think, is also down to the fact that a lot of children don't read that much anymore. I read a lot as a child, and I think it at least instilled in me the ability to make my sentences understable, if not perfect. How many people just watch the film instead of reading the book?

Sangre

Ernie Ball wrote:

The argument would be ridiculous if posts on this forum were the only evidence that McDowell is right. Unfortunately, there is much more evidence in every single set of essays or exams that non-science lecturers receive.

Something that you and McDowell have all examined?

While I don't doubt that UCD's literacy rate could improve, to call the majority of college graduates as semi-illiterate is hyperbole pure and simple.

Anyway people's level of grammar and syntax will usually reduce in time, especially if not actively kept up. When was the last time anyone was actually taught proper English? This is especially true in any course where precise English isn't needed. Who cares if a doctor doesn't have perfect English?

Ernie Ball

Sangre wrote:

Something that you and McDowell have all examined?

While I don't doubt that UCD's literacy rate could improve, to call the majority of college graduates as semi-illiterate is hyperbole pure and simple.

Anyway people's level of grammar and syntax will usually reduce in time, especially if not actively kept up. When was the last time anyone was actually taught proper English? This is especially true in any course where precise English isn't needed. Who cares if a doctor doesn't have perfect English?

You need to make up your mind. Is it that UCD students aren't semi-literate or that it doesn't matter that they are?

Sangre

I really don't. The second part of my post was a 'what if' reaction to the claim in the OP.

cast_iron

I agree with Ernie entirely.

I agree with his demonstration of people's illiteracy, because in this thread, it is part of the point.
When giving out about someone complaining about bad literacy, it might be advisable to be literate when doing so. To do otherwise just invalidates your point - internet forum or not.

I don't think we can use what people write on boards.ie to be a valid poll of UCD student's literacy levels.

As Ernie said, if you can write something correctly, then why wouldn't you? A person's literacy level is a measure of all their literacy skills - regardless of where one uses them.

I think some people may be taking it as an insult to their intelligence. I would disagree. I know people who are much smarter than myself, but they can neither spell nor punctuate to save their live.

copacetic

cast_iron wrote:

I agree with Ernie entirely.

I agree with his demonstration of people's illiteracy, because in this thread, it is part of the point.
When giving out about someone complaining about bad literacy, it might be advisable to be literate when doing so. To do otherwise just invalidates your point - internet forum or not.

I don't think we can use what people write on boards.ie to be a valid poll of UCD student's literacy levels.

As Ernie said, if you can write something correctly, then why wouldn't you? A person's literacy level is a measure of all their literacy skills - regardless of where one uses them.

I think some people may be taking it as an insult to their intelligence. I would disagree. I know people who are much smarter than myself, but they can neither spell nor punctuate to save their live.

Ernie, where are you? Please review the literacy level of your fanboys post above. I'm counting a pile of errors, including grammar, commas, spelling, sentence structure, double negatives, etc etc. He needs your help.

cast_iron

copacetic wrote:

Ernie, where are you? Please review the literacy level of your fanboys post above. I'm counting a pile of errors, including grammar, commas, spelling, sentence structure, double negatives, etc etc. He needs your help.

Lol, very true. You should have seen it before I edited it!

However, I wasn't the one complaining that McDowell was wrong to criticise the literacy levels of students.

Oh, and since you have such a grasp of correct grammar, please show it by pointing out my errors. No need to wait for my idol Ernie to do it for you.

copacetic

cast_iron wrote:

Lol, very true. You should have seen it before I edited it!

However, I wasn't the one complaining that McDowell was wrong to criticise the literacy levels of students.

Oh, and since you have such a grasp of correct grammar, please show it by pointing out my errors. No need to wait for my idol Ernie to do it for you.

Well, I don't want to make myself to look like Ernie! Glass houses and all that. My point is that we are all guilty of bad grammar/spelling and Ernie picking on a soft target was meaningless, he has plenty of errors in his posts too. It is down to our education system and also the fact we place little value on the strict rules that Ernie wants to apply.

I also didn't complain that McDowell was wrong, I think he is right. I also think Ernie is full of it!

Ernie Ball

copacetic wrote:

Ernie, where are you? Please review the literacy level of your fanboys post above. I'm counting a pile of errors, including grammar, commas, spelling, sentence structure, double negatives, etc etc. He needs your help.

I would, but I've been threatened with banning by the local sheriff if I do any more copyediting. So I'll leave this one to you. But you've failed to correctly form the possessive on 'fanboy's'.;)

copacetic

Ernie Ball wrote:

But you've failed to correctly form the possessive on 'fanboy's'.;)

Ernie, please don't tell me you subscribe to the modernist notion that it
is ok to start sentences with conjunctions?:eek:

Ernie Ball

copacetic wrote:

Ernie, please don't tell me you subscribe to the modernist notion that it
is ok to start sentences with conjunctions?:eek:

'Fraid so.

cast_iron

copacetic wrote:

Ernie, please don't tell me you subscribe to the modernist notion that it
is ok to start sentences with conjunctions?:eek:

Is it modernist to spell ok as you do?

As for my other request, it wouldn't be "stones and glass houses". Unless you are comparing a soft target to a request. Interesting that you point out there are errors in our posts but unwilling to point them out.

In any case, we can both agree it's going a touch off topic at this stage, so before a banning stick arrives, I'm done with the semantics.

copacetic

cast_iron wrote:

Is it modernist to spell ok as you do?

As for my other request, it wouldn't be "stones and glass houses". Unless you are comparing a soft target to a request. Interesting that you point out there are errors in our posts but unwilling to point them out.

In any case, we can both agree it's going a touch off topic at this stage, so before a banning stick arrives, I'm done with the semantics.

No, I meant I wouldn't go around listing other peoples mistakes in my far from perfect posts. I am the one in the glass house here! Besides, I don't think it matters. Yourself and Ernie do, so you should hold yourselves to a higher standard than the rest of us mere mortals.

cast_iron

copacetic wrote:

No, I meant I wouldn't go around listing other peoples mistakes in my far from perfect posts. I am the one in the glass house here! Besides, I don't think it matters. Yourself and Ernie do, so you should hold yourselves to a higher standard than the rest of us mere mortals.

Sorry, I took your quote up the wrong way.

And yes, I am an immortal.

yevveh

Moore's quotes are the stuff of legend for me. I remember one the Tribune showed: he was talking to a student and told her to "quit cluttering up the Economics department and go become an air hostess" (slight paraphrasing methinks).

In my opinion he's was a great and very interesting lecturer. I don't disagree with his comment, despite the slight pedantic nature of this thread. It seems to me like it was a comment - one that he's willing to back up, I'm sure: I've heard that he announced to this years first years that they were the worst Economics class he'd ever seen, so I'm sure there was something to provoke that statement. (Note: I can't confirm that it was him, though I'm pretty sure it was. Don't take it as gospel). Eitherway, slight grammatical errors don't bother me so much as an unrelentless "rules are rules" attitude. I can't say I have high expectations for everyone to use proper grammar and I don't think it will change in the future, unless a less lax attitude in the English primary and secondary courses can fix it.

panda100

holyrood85 wrote:

Legendary economics boffin moore mc dowell on the radio yesterday talking about the modern ucd student.

Has he a point? or is he just an old codger;)

Evryone who got into university is literate,i.e able to read and write so he is talking a load of balls. Writing styles change and adapt from generation to generation so you are not illiterate just beacuse you write 'what' as 'wot'.Its just the changing of the times just like our English has completly evolved since Shakspearean English.

Chakar

panda100 wrote:

Evryone who got into university is literate,i.e able to read and write so he is talking a load of balls. Writing styles change and adapt from generation to generation so you are not illiterate just beacuse you write 'what' as 'wot'.Its just the changing of the times just like our English has completly evolved since Shakspearean English.

I doubt the Oxford Dictionary would agree.Of course English language evolves but there's a difference between the evolution of the language and the using of shortened words instead of the appropriate word.

padser

Whether or not he was correct in the comments he made it's absolutely disgraceful in my opinion that, as a current lecturer in the college, he would openly air such opinions.

Considering that many of us will be looking for jobs in the not to distant future on the strength of our degree's, to have one of our lecturers go onto a national radio show and tell the nation that there is a good chance people with these degree's are semi illiterate is pretty bad form imho.

I also have great pity for anyone who thinks he was a 'great' lecturer. He was one of the worst I ever had (mind you the one worse one I had was the other one I had from the economics dept so maybe if most of your lecturers come from there he would be one of the 'greats').

Steibhin

Those who complain about standards of English are surely among the most boring and pretentious in our society. Not that Mr McDowell could ever be considered either. English is a non standard language (unlike German for example) there are no rights and wrongs, merely norms. Spellings and grammer change and evolve over the years.

Colour or Color? Which is right? Which is wrong? Neither and both. McDowell and other member of the proper English mafia need to get over themselves. Unless genuine confusion arises as regards meaning, than I don't see a problem.

hullaballoo

Yeah! It's a ridiculous click he's involved in.

Spectator#1

panda100 wrote:

Writing styles change and adapt from generation to generation so you are not illiterate just beacuse you write 'what' as 'wot'.

I completely, completely disagree with you. Right now, there is a right and a wrong way to spell 'what'. 'Wot' is one of many wrong ways to do it. Fair enough; people use it in text messages where brevity is important, but if I bought a book with that kind of spelling in it I'd demand my money back and I would have a very bad opinion of its author.

Anyway, people can read and write and still be illiterate. As far as I'm concerned, literacy is also about the ability to communicate, to express oneself and to understand others in kind. In this sense, I think you can talk about spiritual, intellectual and emotional illiteracy. When you look at it like that, I think McDowell has made a valid point. One only need look to the "I've just realised..." thread for some great examples of this kind of illiteracy.

However, I don't know if that's how he meant it because I haven't heard the broadcast. If anyone finds it on the net please post a link! He may have just been talking about spelling, I think he was right either way.

Spectator#1

padser wrote:

Whether or not he was correct in the comments he made it's absolutely disgraceful in my opinion that, as a current lecturer in the college, he would openly air such opinions.

Considering that many of us will be looking for jobs in the not to distant future on the strength of our degree's, to have one of our lecturers go onto a national radio show and tell the nation that there is a good chance people with these degree's are semi illiterate is pretty bad form imho.

I also have great pity for anyone who thinks he was a 'great' lecturer. He was one of the worst I ever had (mind you the one worse one I had was the other one I had from the economics dept so maybe if most of your lecturers come from there he would be one of the 'greats').

I would say it's a disgrace if he noticed a serious problem with the intellectual capabilities of the new generation of citizens and didn't speak out. There's more serious concerns than whether or not you get a job. Plus, if you're not up to getting a job, why should he cover it up for you by keeping his mouth shut?

Some people have said that he's a crank, and there's always the possibility that he just said it to be controversial - personally I think there might be a bit more to it than that, I'd find it hard to believe he made it up to piss people off.

Spectator#1

Steibhin wrote:

Those who complain about standards of English are surely among the most boring and pretentious in our society. Not that Mr McDowell could ever be considered either. English is a non standard language (unlike German for example) there are no rights and wrongs, merely norms. Spellings and grammer change and evolve over the years.

Colour or Color? Which is right? Which is wrong? Neither and both. McDowell and other member of the proper English mafia need to get over themselves. Unless genuine confusion arises as regards meaning, than I don't see a problem.

There is a standard of English. 'Colour' and 'color' are variations on a word indicating perceived hues in the world. To spell it 'culur' would be wrong.

If you take 'literacy' as significant for the ability to reason, articulate and understand oneself, other people and the world we are in, McDowell's statement becomes more sensible and this thread's preoccupation with spelling and grammar only seems to confirm it!

Here's an interesting thought from Eric Voegelin:

"In statistics we speak of 'illliterates' as people who cannot read or write, and the word has this meaning in other languages too. But, in English, better than in German, we have worked out that a man can possibly read and write at the primary school level but still may be a totally stupid guy who cannot express himself with regard to a very wide ranges of reality, especially matters of reason and the spirit, and is incapable of understanding them. Such is an 'illiterate'...

So there is illiteracy among people who are able to read and write very well but who, as soon as it is a matter of understanding a problem of reason, or of spirit, or questions about right action, of justice, are completely uncomprehending, because they do not get it. There, the loss of reality can be noticed which then also expresses itself in the deficient command of language." (Hitler and the Germans, Introduction, Lecture 1.)

Sangre

Spectator#1 wrote:

Anyway, people can read and write and still be illiterate. As far as I'm concerned, literacy is also about the ability to communicate, to express oneself and to understand others in kind. In this sense, I think you can talk about spiritual, intellectual and emotional illiteracy. When you look at it like that, I think McDowell has made a valid point.

Well considering the word illiterate means 'unable to read and write' I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't see why you're trying to add obscured meanings to something McDowell obviously didn't mean. I took take illiterate to means mostly Caucasian and it would also start to make more sense but I wouldn't because that would be stupid.

Also noticed this;

If you take 'literacy' as significant for the ability to reason, articulate and understand oneself, other people and the world we are in, McDowell's statement becomes more sensible and this thread's preoccupation with spelling and grammar only seems to confirm it!

Why would we take it to mean that? Why don't we take the primary use of the word which is clearly what McDowell intended? I someone how doubt he was referring to the Voegelin train of thought. You seem to be trying very hard to agree with him.

Spectator#1

Sangre wrote:

Well considering the word illiterate means 'unable to read and write' I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't see why you're trying to add obscured meanings to something McDowell obviously didn't mean. I took take illiterate to means mostly Caucasian and it would also start to make more sense but I wouldn't because that would be stupid.

That's a nice straw man argument. It would work too if that was a complete definition. Where did you get it?

Here's one that supports what I said:

Literacy is the ability to read and write. In modern context, the word means reading and writing in a level adequate for written communication and generally a level that enables one to successfully function at certain levels of a society.

Here's another,

The ability to read, write, communicate, and comprehend.

And another one...

...means being able to speak, listen, read, write, and view; thinking is an integral part of all these processes.

This one is more basic but especially significant considering your limited definition of 'illiteracy'. I've emboldened the important bit.

Ability to read. A person's level of literacy is determined by the size of his vocabulary and how well he has cleared his definitions of these words. Grammar skills also plays a part, of course.

Sangre wrote:

Also noticed this;

Why would we take it to mean that? Why don't we take the primary use of the word which is clearly what McDowell intended? I someone how doubt he was referring to the Voegelin train of thought. You seem to be trying very hard to agree with him.

As you can see, there is a sense to the meaning of the word 'literate' that implies an ability to communicate, understand and articulate. This is the sense that Voegelin refers to in the quote I made above. You could do what this definition does and make a distinction between basic and functional literacy, the functional being closer to what Voegelin was (and I am) talking about:

the ability ot both read and write a short simple statement about everyday life - this is a definition of basic literacy as opposed to functional literacy which requires a greater degree of understanding and fluency in the language]

You ask why don't we take McDowell's comment to be about basic literacy, signifying basic reading and writing abilities? You seem to think it's obvious that this is what he was talking about. Here's two reasons for not thinking that.

1. We don't know for certain, McDowell mustn't have specified because this discussion is happening. With just this in mind, your guess would be just as good as mine BUT...

2. ...we're talking about a university. As Panda has already said, quite rightly:

Panda100 wrote:

Evryone who got into university is literate,i.e able to read and write

so, I think it would be silly to presume that that's what McDowell was referring to. Of course everyone can read and write at a basic level in university.

So, no, I'm not trying too hard at all to agree with him. I could still disagree with him having pointed this other sense of 'literacy' out, so could you. I happen to think that UCD (amongst other colleges) happens to churn out adults that are seriously lacking in awareness, understanding or appreciation of their own place in the world - people like certain high-level administrative staff of this very college who are happy to conduct their lives through the medium of advertising jargon and truisms.

I could add to this that it's a little worrying that most of the people on this thread, including you, don't even seem to be aware of this important sense of the word 'literate'. If he did mean it this way, you're one of the people he's talking about. If he didn't, he's one of the people Voegelin's talking about!

Ernie Ball

Fuel to the fire:

http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie/

especially:
http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie/The_Causes_of_Grade_Inflation.pdf

Blush_01

Steibhin wrote:

Those who complain about standards of English are surely among the most boring and pretentious in our society. Not that Mr McDowell could ever be considered either. English is a non standard language (unlike German for example) there are no rights and wrongs, merely norms. Spellings and grammer change and evolve over the years.

Colour or Color? Which is right? Which is wrong? Neither and both. McDowell and other member of the proper English mafia need to get over themselves. Unless genuine confusion arises as regards meaning, than I don't see a problem.

I think (as Spectator pointed out) you'll find there's a Standard English.However, unlike what Spectator said, this exists in conjunction with regionalised Englishes. We speak Hiberno-English here, but we're still expected to perform formally with Standard English in mind. Academic circumstances count as formal ones. I couldn't care less how you personally spell or punctuate anything, but please try to keep in mind that there's a standard for a reason.

As for the colour/color issue, I think you'll find that color, like neighbor and favor etc. is how those words are spelled in American English, which is not the same as the English we speak or write here. This point is reinforced when you consider international marketing of literature and even humour. Vocabulary alterations are hugely significant within each form of English. With this in mind perhaps you should also get over yourself?

By the way, do you suggest that German doesn't change over time? What about the (fairly) recent adjustment with relation to the scharfes s? The German spelling reform of 1996 was an international government implemented change. Luxembourg didn't accept the changes but Germany, Austria, Lichtenstein and Switzerland did. Just because the Irish education system has a woeful policy when it comes to teaching grammar doesn't mean that English grammar doesn't exist.

dafresh, I'm 100% in agreement with what beanyb has to say about basic education in the matter of grammar and spelling. We had as little instruction about English grammar as the teacher could possibly get away with in Primary School and in Secondary they considered us to have learned about grammar in Primary School. Hence, they also avoided teaching us. Young Irish people as a whole have a very, very poor standard of grammar and I include myself firmly in this. The majority of us know some things instinctively, but have never learned it formally. (Look at Steibhin's attitude to the whole thing!)

Panda, your "what"/"wot" point is utterly ridiculous. That's not an adaptation in English usage, that's laziness. There's a distinct difference. Now, I can understand someone adjusting their writing in a text message (although it irritates me immeasurably and I refuse to succumb to txttlk - ugh, I feel dirty!) and using internet abbreviations (to a limited extent) but you wouldn't write a prescription without the vowels, would you? No, I thought not.


Also, I wholly agree with what Padser said. It might be perfectly fine for McDowell to air his opinion as opinion if it was to be taken as nothing more, but we are all fully aware at this stage that despite his pronouncing it his opinion, it will be considered by many to be a statement of proven fact.

princess-sprkle

this whole thread is tl:dr.