Poor spelling and grammar result in binned CVs

looksee

'On RTE's 'Drivetime' this week John Herlihy from Google spoke of the huge number of spelling and grammatical errors on graduates' CVs which, he said, are binned immediately.' (Irish Independent)

Teachers marking exam papers are not - for the most part - allowed to mark down students who make spelling and grammar mistakes. Spelling and grammar have been treated as secondary to expression and imagination in, for example, English essays. Schools went though a stage where formal, rote teaching was very unfashionable. Maybe this has changed, I have not had contact with the Primary system for some years, but the result has been that even some teachers have a hazy grasp of the basics of spelling and grammar. There is a post from a teacher here on Boards where it is clear that s/he does not know the difference between there, their and they're.

On many fora there is a very high standard of English, but on others the level is dismal. I fully accept that it should be possible to 'converse' quickly and without worrying too much about typing, spelling and grammar, and that people whose English is not so good should not be discriminated against. However for many people their main contact with written language is in chat rooms and on sites such as Boards. How can their English improve (ie, become conventional) if they are only reading creative spelling and unconventional grammar?

Does it matter? English did not always have strict rules, will it return to being more fluid? And if so, how do we deal with situations where accuracy is important?

Anyone correcting grammar on chat sites is labelled a 'grammar nazi'. It would not be desirable to have people pedantically arguing about every sentence, but there are posts where it is almost impossible to decipher the poster's meaning, and queries about interpretation often turn acrimonious. Should there be a 'Word' type grammar and spell-check (:eek:) on message windows?

This is not intended as a rant, but a question about language, where it is going, what is important, and whether we should be concerned about it.

colly10

looksee wrote: »

'On RTE's 'Drivetime' this week John Herlihy from Google spoke of the huge number of spelling and grammatical errors on graduates' CVs which, he said, are binned immediately.' (Irish Independent)

Teachers marking exam papers are not - for the most part - allowed to mark down students who make spelling and grammar mistakes. Spelling and grammar have been treated as secondary to expression and imagination in, for example, English essays. Schools went though a stage where formal, rote teaching was very unfashionable. Maybe this has changed, I have not had contact with the Primary system for some years, but the result has been that even some teachers have a hazy grasp of the basics of spelling and grammar. There is a post from a teacher here on Boards where it is clear that s/he does not know the difference between there, their and they're.

On many fora there is a very high standard of English, but on others the level is dismal. I fully accept that it should be possible to 'converse' quickly and without worrying too much about typing, spelling and grammar, and that people whose English is not so good should not be discriminated against. However for many people their main contact with written language is in chat rooms and on sites such as Boards. How can their English improve (ie, become conventional) if they are only reading creative spelling and unconventional grammar?

Does it matter? English did not always have strict rules, will it return to being more fluid? And if so, how do we deal with situations where accuracy is important?

Anyone correcting grammar on chat sites is labelled a 'grammar nazi'. It would not be desirable to have people pedantically arguing about every sentence, but there are posts where it is almost impossible to decipher the poster's meaning, and queries about interpretation often turn acrimonious. Should there be a 'Word' type grammar and spell-check (:eek:) on message windows?

This is not intended as a rant, but a question about language, where it is going, what is important, and whether we should be concerned about it.

I wouldn't really see it as that important to be great at spelling, at the same time I wouldn't hire someone with spelling mistakes on the CV cause it says that they're not even interested in the job enough to run a spell checker over
the CV. It would be that lazy, half assed attitude that would stop them getting it

Pygmalion

looksee wrote: »

Spelling and grammar have been treated as secondary to expression and imagination in, for example, English essays.

Is this really a bad thing? Is it wrong to have some spelling and grammar mistakes if you express yourself perfectly (which DOES rule out txtspk or sentences which are difficult to understand).

Does it matter? English did not always have strict rules, will it return to being more fluid? And if so, how do we deal with situations where accuracy is important?

English is a natural language, it came about as a means of communication between people in their day-to-day lives, there's words and phrases you'd hear in Ireland that people in America/Australia wouldn't understand at all and vice-versa (admittedly TV and the internet are helping to "standardise" this a bit), there are sentences that would be perfectly accurate to some and completely wrong to others.

I'm not saying spelling/grammar aren't important, but generally when people bring up this argument there are people who have decided that the vocabulary, spelling and grammar of a language must remain completely static and that it's not right unless it's their own usage.
While forgetting of course that their own usage would have been considered a complete joke if they went back a generation or two.

Again, I'll repeat that txtspk is a bit of an extreme example here before I get accused of wanting evry1 2 tk lyk dis

looksee

Pygmalion wrote: »

Is this really a bad thing? Is it wrong to have some spelling and grammar mistakes if you express yourself perfectly (which DOES rule out txtspk or sentences which are difficult to understand).

As a person who is involved in art and creativity, I am not going to argue that creativity is unimportant, I think it is very important. It is essential to problem solving which is one of the major requirements of education. However, is it possible to express yourself perfectly if you are using words that people interpret differently?

I am not totally hung up on the idea that grammar should be exact and inflexible, but I do think that it is easier to understand if everyone follows the same rules. For example, increasing numbers of people do not know the difference between 'accept' and 'except' which can result in them saying exactly the opposite of what they think they are saying. "We have decided that we should except your application" Is this a firm using slightly archaic English, or someone who has a weak grasp of English.
It could mean:
Your application is ok
Your application is not ok but we will take it anyway
Your application is not ok.

If you want to do a job or a course requiring calculations you would accept that you have to be able to accurately add and subtract. If you want a job involving computers you have to use the correct terminology. Almost all jobs require communication skills, and grammar and spelling are basic to these skills.

I'm not saying spelling/grammar aren't important, but generally when people bring up this argument there are people who have decided that the vocabulary, spelling and grammar of a language must remain completely static and that it's not right unless it's their own usage.
QUOTE]

This isn't about my opinion, it is about people trying to get jobs and the opinion of employers. The question is, should we be doing more to make students' English acceptable to employers?

Herbal Deity

looksee wrote: »

Spelling and grammar have been treated as secondary to expression and imagination in, for example, English essays.

This is wrong.

There is no expression or imagination taught in English in the majority of secondary schools. Students are told not to do the short story question in the JC and LC because they're harder to get marks in than something like a formal letter or debate about something specific.

That said, they don't teach spelling or grammar either, it's more about learning off loads of notes about literature.

old_aussie

If you don't correct peoples grammar and spelling, how will they learn?

It's better to be corrected and learn than to continue on being at a disadvantage all your life.

At the least, people should use a spellchecker.

As John Herlihy from Google says, "CV's with mistakes are binned immediately".

Sometimes winning a job comes down to the finer points.

Bad spelling can be the difference. If it comes down to spelling and grammar, then you lose your chance of getting the job you want.

Please feel free to correct my spelling and grammar.

nlgbbbblth

old_aussie wrote: »

If you don't correct peoples grammar and spelling, how will they learn?

It's better to be corrected and learn than to continue on being at a disadvantage all your life.

At the least, people should use a spellchecker.

As John Herlihy from Google says, "CV's with mistakes are binned immediately".

Sometimes winning a job comes down to the finer points.

Bad spelling can be the difference. If it comes down to spelling and grammar, then you lose your chance of getting the job you want.

Please feel free to correct my spelling and grammar.

CVs not CV's.

You did ask.

dawvee

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

CVs not CV's.

You did ask.

Well, if you want to get really pedantic, the plural of CV is CV. :pac:

(Curriculum Vitae to Curricula Vitae)

Doge

colly10 wrote: »

I wouldn't hire someone with spelling mistakes on the CV cause it says that they're not even interested in the job enough to run a spell checker over
the CV. It would be that lazy, half assed attitude that would stop them getting it

The only problem here is that theres dyslexic people out there who really want the job also! See what i mean?
Should they be required to include in their CV that they suffer from dyslexia?
I think not, because people could falsely use that as an excuse.

CV's and interviews work well in professions that require education and skills,
but for some jobs they're a load of B.S imo.

In trades for example, a contractor would rather take someone on for a week,
and see personally if they're suitable for the work, rather than to do an interview and not know whether the person will actually do the work!

I just dont think judging by first impressions is that fair a lot of the time really.

colly10

waveform wrote: »

The only problem here is that theres dyslexic people out there who really want the job also! See what i mean?

I assume that someone who suffers from dyslexia would still be able to use a spell checker, (I could be totally wrong here, I have no understanding of dyslexia) the words returned by the spell checker may not look correct to them but if you know you get confused with b's and d's and what the spell checker is returning looks like it has a b when it should be a d then you'd know your just seeing it wrong.
Or they could just ask a friend to check the spelling on their CV

The Big Red Button

waveform wrote: »

The only problem here is that theres dyslexic people out there who really want the job also! See what i mean?
Should they be required to include in their CV that they suffer from dyslexia?

I have a couple of dyslexic friends. If they're applying for a job, they send their CVs to me to have a glance over before sending it in.

Really, given the current climate etc, there's no excuse for not having your CV as perfect as it can be as regards spelling and grammar.

lil_lisa

Especially with auto corrections and spell checks!

Euro_Kraut

lil_lisa wrote: »

Especially with auto corrections and spell checks!

The problem with the spell checker is that it only shows incorrectly spelt words and not incorrectly used words.

I am dyslexic and some of the most frequent errors I make are typos that spell actual words, just not the one I was looking to write.

For example, 'fro' instead of 'for', 'from' instead of 'form'.

Having said that spell check is a god send. I never had got through college or be able to do my current job without it. It eliminates maybe 70% of my errors.

It bugs me when people get all high and mighty about misspellings. I think its a mistake for Google to bin a CV for a spelling error. They may well be missing out on excellent employees because they are equating spelling ability with intelligence.

Euro_Kraut

dawvee wrote: »

Well, if you want to get really pedantic, the plural of CV is CV. :pac:

(Curriculum Vitae to Curricula Vitae)

A curriculum vitae. No need for the capitalisation?

Pygmalion

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

A curriculum vitae. No need for the capitalisation?

Acronyms almost always get capitalisation though, but the last few posts about this are a perfect example of people taking spelling and grammar a bit too seriously :P

baalthor

looksee wrote: »

'On RTE's 'Drivetime' this week John Herlihy from Google spoke of the huge number of spelling and grammatical errors on graduates' CVs which, he said, are binned immediately.'

Ha, the irony ...

Sean and Larry were in their office, using the whiteboard, trying to think up a good name - something that related to the indexing of an immense amount of data. Sean verbally suggested the word "googolplex," and Larry responded verbally with the shortened form, "googol" (both words refer to specific large numbers). Sean was seated at his computer terminal, so he executed a search of the Internet domain name registry database to see if the newly suggested name was still available for registration and use. Sean is not an infallible speller, and he made the mistake of searching for the name spelled as "google.com," which he found to be available. Larry liked the name, and within hours he took the step of registering the name "google.com" for himself and Sergey

As you can see, my turn of the century copy of Wordpro hasn't heard about Google:



I went to primary school in the 70s and each day we had a 30 minute class called "Spelling". We each had a little book (the Spelling Book!) full of words graded by their difficulty. During "Spelling Tests" the teacher (or Master as we referred to him) would pick pupils at random and ask them to spell out a word from the assigned part of the book. You didn't want to get too many of these wrong as corporal punishment had not been completely abolished at this time ...
I would say this worked well for everyone with the exception of the dyslexic kid for whom the process was a bit of a humiliation. But he got his own back later by bullying the nerdy kids ...
Hopefully this early education (plus the Firefox spellchecker) has ensured that this is a correctly spelled post:)

Going back to Google, most large companies use a computer to automatically scan CVs so getting the spelling correct is important.

grrrrrrrrrr

OP schools cant teach someone to turn on spellcheck!!

You just a fool if you have a spelling mistake

looksee

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

OP schools cant teach someone to turn on spellcheck!!

You just a fool if you have a spelling mistake

Indeed.

lil_lisa

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

You are just a fool if you have a spelling mistake

FYI

borderlinemeath

I hate receiving any type of written communication that is spelled incorrectly or have incorrect grammar.
A CV should not have any spelling or grammar mistakes as it is supposed to be a cover letter to your skills, and if your skills cannot grasp how to spell then forget it.
It really is a different generation that today thinks it is ok to use even a mild form of text speak in email/written communication, ie cud/could or wud/would. It is force of habit and lazy in my opinion.

lil_lisa

But now you're generalizing between people who are lazy and people who have a problem, that's not fair. It's just a shame that the interview process is after the CV step. I'm sure people who have an issue with spelling or grammar are still well able to present themselves and should be given the opportunity to!

the_syco

Everyday I respond to customers via email, and write updates on their problems. If I was bad at spelling, constantly confusing words, and making no sense, it'd give an unprofessional look of the company to the client.

If you know you have a problem, get someone to proofread it. Esp with CV's.

Heck, even those who can spell should get someone to proofread the CV, as sometimes the mind can skip a word, and every time you read the sentence, your brain inserts the word, but until someone proofreads it, the missing word won't be picked up.

It could be a minor "a" or it could be a "de". The former can be overlooked. The latter... who wants a professionally trained bugger who has years of experience bugging, with teams of other buggers? :P

nlgbbbblth

dawvee wrote: »

Well, if you want to get really pedantic....

I don't.

Dublin_Gunner

OP schools can't teach someone to turn on spell_check!!

You're / You are just a fool if you have make a spelling mistake.

It wasn't your CV by any chance?


Personally, I believe grammar to be more important than spelling. At least if you spell things incorrectly, people can generally understand what you mean.

Eats shoots and leaves. Eats, shoots, and leaves.

I'm of the opinion that correct spelling and grammar should be paramount. Why have we lost direction in education of these basic elements of written communication?

Their, they're, there. Where, were. and plenty of other examples you see are so infuriating (to me anyway).

I'm no snob, but I would have assumed basic written communication skills and grammar should be at the forefront of our academic education.

Exams should be marked down for errors in spelling and grammar.

While I do believe expression and personal development are important, what's so wrong with pupils expressing themselves in a grammatically correct manner? With NO spelling mistakes!

If I got a CV in that had a large amount of spelling and grammatical errors, it would go to the bottom of the pile, or in the bin.

(I'm waiting for the first smart arse to correct spelling and grammar in my post lol)

Pines

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

(I'm waiting for the first smart arse to correct spelling and grammar in my post lol)

How could anyone turn this challenge down? A full stop at the end of the sentence above would help, preferably inside the parentheses.*

Also:

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Their, they're, there. Where, were. and plenty of other examples you see are so infuriating (to me anyway).

It would also be nice to see a capital letter for the word "and", just because that's how we pedants like our sentences to start.

So I guess that puts my post firmly on the chopping block for criticism now as well.


* Extra marks for anyone who can definitively say how "lol" ought to be punctuated; it's probably not part of the sentence which precedes it at all and maybe "lol" should be an exclamatory sentence on its own. In fact it raises a bunch of issues. If you decide it ought to be "(I'm waiting for the first smart arse to correct spelling and grammar in my post. lol!)", then it looks wrong if you don't capitalise the word ("Lol"), and it looks wrong if you do. Safest to use the alternative, all capitals version ("LOL") to skirt the issue entirely.

Frei

Loose and lose. It is a disease, the amount of times I have seen these words used incorrectly in professional publications.

Louvarella

In my work I receive a lot of handwritten forms and statements from members of the public and its shocking to see how the majority of young people write and spell. There are the obvious mistakes like already mentioned - "your, you're; there, their & they're" but often its far worse than that. I find it hard to believe that so many young people have such poor spelling and grammer.

Also I have noticed the actual handwriting is very poor quality and often has a very teenage/childlike look about it.

There is a very clear divide between the handwriting skills and grammer between those under 25ish and those over 25ish. As a previous poster mentioned, it must be down to a overall change in the importance of correct grammer/spelling at schools.

I agree that on social forums and general interneting that grammer and spelling is not that important but in the real world, I think it says alot more about a person than they realise.

Maybe I'm just a grammer nazi?!!

AARRRGH

I hire people for Quality Assurance positions.

If their CV has any grammar or spelling mistakes, or even inconsistent use of full-stops at the end of bullet points, they ain't getting the job.

I'm sorry, but if you couldn't be arsed getting your CV right then I'm going to assume you're lazy and have poor concentration.

Frei

Aside from certain things like dyslexia or learning difficulties, bad spelling should not be excused. I hate it.

Living in America for a year when I was a kid, has messed me up a bit in regards to certain words. I never ever want to spell sulphur as sulfur..

AARRRGH

Frei wrote: »

Aside from certain things like dyslexia or learning difficulties

[controversial]
My experiences working with people who are dyslexic or have learning difficulties have not been good. I always ended up having to correct their work or do their work for them.
[/controversial]

/Just sayin'

miec

I agree that the standards in spelling and grammar have declined rapidly in recent times. I think it is extremely important to ensure there are no spelling or grammar mistakes on a CV.

Also I was a voluntary literacy tutor for a while and the student I worked with really wanted to know how to spell correctly and use the correct grammar. So getting things right is just as important to a person with literacy problems, probably even more so because they are acutely aware that they are at a disadvantage (but in the process of rectifying it).

The thing is if we drop standards in spelling and grammar it will become harder and harder to understand each other. I also believe that the way a person expresses themselves in writing or speaking is indicative of how their mind works. Potential employers are aware of this but they do not have the time to speak to hundreds of people so the quickest way to ascertain who is the right candidate is through CVs and application forms. If a person cannot express themselves correctly in a job application then the potential employer will infer from this that they would not be able to represent their company effectively. It is cruel fact but the real world is harsh and I think children and young people need to know this. Teachers are not doing kids any favours when they overlook spelling and grammar errors.