Horrors of Reading Others Papers

[dark]

This is mostly me venting than anything else.

In class today, a writing intensive class, we did peer reviews. I read three other papers and my thoughts are, "GODDAMN IT WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?"

We had finished reading "Republic," by Plato of course, it is a political theory class, so it was relevant.

These people do not know what the hell they read apparently.

Not only that, their writing styles are worse than mine in middle school.

They constantly use terms like, "I think," etc. They are seniors, we learn in Eng 101 and 102 that this is not acceptable in any form of writing, especially scholarly.

They lack the ability to use logic, they give unsupported claims, mere opinions. They give no thesis statements, no reasons for anything and don't even address the question correctly. Their version of doing so consists of writing the question out and ignoring it the rest of the paragraph and paper.

I know I am not awesome, but according to them, my paper is perfect, I should get an A+, I probably will get an A, but not after I go through it and check it myself. I know my writing isn't the best, but for senior students when I am only a junior that has only had imaginative writing past 101 and 102 and no political classes at all, I should not be the best in the class.

This is a political class as I stated above, most of the people are political science majors. If this is the best that is going into politics, our political system if fucked.

Apparently the "Republic," was hard to read. People gave opinions about why they didn't like it, and nothing was supported by reason, nothing had any goddamn logic in it. "In my opinion, in my opinion...."

ajsisdfdsfjgwerk

Goddamn it! I felt like writing in huge fucking letters "IN MY OPINION!" all over their paper like you see Jack Nicholson does in the "Shining."

I wanted to rage all over their papers and tell them they are stupid, but I didn't. I remained calm and tried to help them, I doubt it will help.

I now know what my teachers meant by the student is a "Shit head," and very rarely do you find a "learner," that is actually worth teaching.

Anyways, I'll end the rant. Have fun.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

They should fail for the poor writing. Nothing is a better motivator than the threat of failure.

 

[Masterlord]

Narcissus is in the house.

 

[Fukyo]

 

[ApostateAbe]

Go to a good grad school, and you will regain your desired humility.

 

[dark]

Yeah I am pretty narcissistic, but hell, I have reasons to support my awesomeness.

Also, Fukyo, you are now my favorite person for a while .

I think it just surprises me that people are so bad at writing. I keep encountering this.

I do admit, not all the people I met are stupid, some are really intelligent and that is nice.

It's nice to have an intelligent conversation, though I rarely get that, maybe twice a week.

 

[AlisaD]

Grow up.

 

[Words]

Deal with it.

 

[Kuu]

If this is the best that is going into politics, our political system if fucked.

Welcome to reality.

 

[dark]

Me grow up?

I spent time to better myself even though I am not too great, it seems like these adults don't even care about bettering their self. If I could practice and try to be better, then so could they.

I do not believe people should be allowed to get any form of degree just by sliding by like that. I now understand why my math teacher in high school got upset when he was telling us that Cs and Ds got degrees. For someone who wants the best for people, it is just discouraging.

Like I said above, I wrote helpful things in their papers (I paid attention in my English classes and learned everything I could) in the hopes that it would help them, but from the grading that occurred on my paper, I doubt they will even read my comments.

What bothers me most is that I am very sure people have more potential than this, but they aren't using it. I guess it is part of our educational system, before college level, you didn't have to try at all to get through school, and in 2014, our state is going to graduate everyone regardless of their level of learned knowledge or grades. At least in pre college levels. There is no incentive to do well at those levels. And people discover how to do the same at colleges, my psych professor last semester said that people will talk to others to find the easiest teachers and take them every year. They find the teachers who assign the less reading and less writing.

Everyone seems to just want stuff handed to them for free.

 

[nanook]

>Everyone seems to just want stuff handed to them for free.

of course. society gets us as relatively wealthy life on the materialistic level, but eats our souls. we have payed this high entrance fee early in live, now everything should be free. and throw some yummy brains in there.

 

[Words]

People have different values, it's not up to you to correct that. Instead of pushing people to "awaken" their potential, it's best to just inform them about the activity and allow them to form their own passion. The only thing that schools need to do is allow "low" level of education; the usage of higher mental faculties requires direct incentive, otherwise known as 'passion.'

Dragons!

 

[Masterlord]

Yeah, grow up. You're not that smart.

 

[cheese]

Why all the negative comments directed at dark? He's not saying *he's* super smart, he's saying the standards of writing of his peers are terrible (a fact that many teachers and lecturers agree on; articles are regularly written about this stating the average standard of writing has been slipping for a while now and is *not adequate* for work life). Why do you have to knock him for assessing the quality of other people's work? What's wrong with that? Do you have to be a genius to be able to tell if someone is capable of spelling/using more or less correct grammar/structuring an argument/following protocol/supporting assertions with evidence/etc?

I know we get a lot of other threads and self-congratulatory circle-jerking/"I'm smarter than everyone I know" shit. But nothing in this thread looks like that. He's even said it frustrates him because he thinks they have more ability than that reflected in their work but are getting by on laziness.

Why?! I'm seriously confused. When someone makes a smug statement about being the smartest person in any room, people flock to the post eager to identify and share similar experiences. But when dark complains about low standards (in *writing*, not intelligence!), anecdotal evidence of which is far too easy to find, he's shot down? Wtf? Especially considering intelligence is harder to gauge than the quality (in broad terms) of a paper (*especially considering* papers are graded to specific criteria, which is generally made known to students - eg don't use "I think" - and can therefore be used to more accurately assess its standard).

They're at a certain level, they should be able to perform at a certain standard. In a music conservatory, if you can't perform you don't get in! And assessment is certainly possible by peers, up to a point, because there are minimum standards they know to look for. These students don't seem to be at that point. They don't seem to be following basic rules that they should have learned by now. They should be whipped into shape or kicked out. How can their low quality of work not be frustrating or disappointing? Either that or we get pissed off at the educational system for allowing shoddy lessons (perfectly viable). Cmon, weak arguments and obviously piss-poor, lazy effort is irritating. But there seems to be this weird assumption that dark shouldn't be allowed to assess his peers' work, or rather that his conclusions can't possibly be valid either because of an intelligence barrier or lack of experience. But sometimes shit is so strong anyone can smell it. And anyway, it's likely we've all given our opinion of the literary merit of some prize-winning novel before, or an equivalent - some area where according to the world we don't have the expertise to assess it but have done so with relative confidence in our abilities anyway. This isn't even in the same category.

Or is it his age? Any value judgment made by someone still in school is ill-informed and naive?

 

[Dimensional Transition]

I use terms like 'I think' a lot when writing a review about something... To accentuate it's merely my opinion, and that it could be interpreted differently.

What's wrong with this?

 

[Latro]

I use terms like 'I think' a lot when writing a review about something... To accentuate it's merely my opinion, and that it could be interpreted differently.

What's wrong with this?

It's generally implicit in subjects like this, with more subtle stylistic techniques being used to convey that what you are stating is not entirely factual. Also, you should be presenting an argument as to why your opinion is justified, even if it is not necessarily correct.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I bitch slap people to death who write in first person. This is engineering!

 

[Dimensional Transition]

It's generally implicit in subjects like this, with more subtle stylistic techniques being used to convey that what you are stating is not entirely factual. Also, you should be presenting an argument as to why your opinion is justified, even if it is not necessarily correct.

So you just use stuff like 'probably' more?

That's no big deal.

 

[digital angel]

What do you plan on doing in the future?

 

[Vrecknidj]

I grade papers for a living, thousands of them a year, mostly from undergraduates in medical programs. I teach in the US. The vast majority of students, even "advanced" ones in the US, are terrible writers. Perhaps I will find one in 50 who stands out, and, sadly, that stand-out is usually, honestly, simply "good."

Dave

 

[Stirner]

I grade papers for a living, thousands of them a year, mostly from undergraduates in medical programs. I teach in the US. The vast majority of students, even "advanced" ones in the US, are terrible writers. Perhaps I will find one in 50 who stands out, and, sadly, that stand-out is usually, honestly, simply "good."

Dave

In your opinion, what would you consider to be a stand-out paper? In my experience, I've seen a lot of doctors write up their research papers like book reports and, less like what it is, a research paper.

 

[Minuend]

So you just use stuff like 'probably' more?

That's no big deal.

Not exactly. There's a big difference between one's opinion and what one can tell is probable. The probability 2 + 2 = 4 is high, but me thinking math is a tool used by a corrupt government to keep us in check is an opinion.

An opinion is how you perceive facts, while what's probable is exactly that. When you analyze statistics, it's irrelevant what your opinion is, facts are facts. Even if there is reason to believe the statistics are based on erroneous grounds, you explain why they might be inaccurate based on probability, not opinion.

But if I remember correctly, you are not in uni, so the way you write paper in school now is not as dependent on a formal, objective structure. I would think you are even encouraged to write your opinions, if your school is anything like mine was.

As for the topic, I don't see how they haven't failed if they have been doing it wrong for years. If I turned in a paper writing like that, I would fail no questions asked.

Though, I wouldn't be saddened if it turned out the other students sucked- more jobs for meeee

 

[AlisaD]

@ Cheese
My comment was grow up for one reason only: The OP rant serves absolutely no purpose. Look at it this way:
Helping fellow students improve their writing skills - Bravo.
Learning from their errors and improving your writing skills - Double bravo.
Trying to develop a structured program to help future students improve their writing skills - Triple bravo.
Ranting about their poor writing skills on a forum - Ummmm Why? Why? Why?
It is a waste of time, a waste of energy, and in my experience, the people who do this are mostly trying to overcome their own insecurities by emphasizing everything that's wrong with anyone else, especially in the area that they are insecure about.
I sometimes feel the need to do the same thing, but try to be grown up about it, and either do something to help the situation or keep my mouth shut.

 

[cheese]

Venting has no place? He *did* try to improve the situation. Emotions were generated, and he feels enough of a connection here to discharge them. You don't have to be close, intimate friends to share things. Venting serves the purpose of making you feel better. If there's no harm done, why not? I'm guessing because Ti is scornful of anything that can't be externally measured, especially anything to do with the emotions. But we *do* have emotions, and we have to deal with them, and that process can help bonding when it involves other people. How would *not* venting and 'heroically' burying his irritation help any matters at all?

It's not a waste of time or energy if it's gratifying and not harmful, and provides a release. Sharing experiences might not be something the stereotypical INTP comprehends but that's hardly reason to claim it's immature and pointless to do so. For *you*, maybe. But for others, being open with, and part of, a group is an important part of life. That usually includes sharing the highlights of your day/week/whatever.

And how are two condescending, hostile/aggressive words meant to improve dark's situation? Did you expect them to jolt him out of his naive immaturity? Were you honestly trying to help him, or just expressing your own irritation/disgust/view of his behaviour? Did you explain to him why you thought he needed to grow up, what his specific problem area was, how he could go about fixing it? Or was it just an expression of an emotion, same as the OP?

I didn't see any of the usual whininess/self-importance/arrogance in the OP that I think warrants irritation. Maybe you're seeing something I can't, and responding to that, and I'm so surprised because I don't see it and so can't understand the response.

But anyway, interpersonal interaction involves emotion, and I don't see why he should be shot down for it. In fact the hostile responses seemed silly and immature to me, like the posters had in the past overreacted to their own self-importance and fear of being found intellectually wanting, and were now projecting their hatred of that trait onto dark. Maybe we're all imagining things. But I really don't see anything in the post to suggest anything other than what his words are saying, unless I actively try to read into them.

 

[AlisaD]

And what do you think would help, Cheese? Agreeing? Patting him on the back? Saying: "Oh yes, you poor dear, forced to live in the world of illiterate inbreeds. Poor, poor you"
How would that help?
Saying "Grow up" may shake him up a little bit, or do nothing at all. Saying: "Oh yes, you're sooooo right" would only reinforce his feeling of superiority and isolation.
If he is unhappy with his peers he can either try and help improve their abilities, or work hard and get into a school with higher standards, where students may live up to his expectations.
I can understand venting when it concerns matters one has no influence over, but is not an option I can support this case.

 

[cheese]

I meant help the situation from your perspective. "Grow up", with no reference to what you think his problem is, doesn't seem helpful to me (for what you wanted to achieve). At most it'd just piss someone off - especially if they're immature/can't see the error of their ways, etc. So it seemed like a useless tactic, if all you want to do really is improve the world, and never express something for the sake of getting it off your chest.

I don't think he's looking for pity, nor did I say I thought that. Just venting. And he wasn't insulting them, just saying he's shocked at the standard of work. That's one of the things I don't understand about the responses. They're reacting as if he was being this pompous arsehole, but is it that hard to believe that his work (not him! he specifically said he thinks they have a lot of potential they're just not using) is *genuinely better* and the others are *genuinely worse* than they should be? He's right to be appalled by bad standards. Students are not learning as they should, they're not up to where they're supposed to be, the system is failing, the students are slacking off. It's irritating and depressing to watch. When my students don't do the work and give me shoddy bullshit, it pisses me off. At the same time I understand, because I was/am like that myself. But it doesn't make it ok, unless you want to lower the standards. Bad, slipshod rubbish is jarring, to the ears/eyes/mind. How is this not understandable? I recall a thread with you grumbling about your boring office colleagues. Did that serve any purpose? Or maybe you've matured past that? Anyway, that's a much harder judgment to make, whereas this is pretty straightforward - their work sucks according to set/external standards, it's obvious, it's depressing, etc.

How do you know he won't do more to help, anyway? What's immature/naive/groundlessly superior about being shocked at the way things have turned out *up to now*, and expressing that? And it is *not* his responsibility to fix it - he is a student, not a teacher, and younger than the others to boot. It's not his fault things are the way they are right now, at this moment, so his judgment without action is perfectly justifiable. If he went on complaining for decades without doing anything, then he'd be allowing the situation to perpetuate, true. But up till now - none of this is on his head. How have they managed to get through while sucking so much? Or rather, why are they allowed to suck so much?

I guess you're getting a much more arrogant air from the OP than I am.

What about Vrecknidj? Would it be silly and immature and arrogant of him to complain to friends about the papers he marks sucking?

I think you're seeing this as a 'poor me, I'm so much better than these people and stuck in this hell-hole' thread. Whereas I see it as a 'I can't believe these people got through with such rubbish; this is really shocking' thread. It does not seem like a pity thread at all. Merely expressing shock, and perhaps wondering if anyone else has noticed the same thing, or can show him that he's wrong, etc. None of this looks like a cry for ego-stroking or agreement. More like witnessing a car crash and going "Oh my god!". Doing it on the internet doesn't make it any less valid; the feeling can carry on for a long time and be just as fresh as when it first happened.

 

[ObliviousGenius]

Why?! I'm seriously confused. When someone makes a smug statement about being the smartest person in any room, people flock to the post eager to identify and share similar experiences. But when dark complains about low standards (in *writing*, not intelligence!), anecdotal evidence of which is far too easy to find, he's shot down? Wtf?

Yeah Idk what the big deal is there especially when one can relate. I can at least, because in my college level English classes we do peer reviews as well. Every paper I grade seems like a 10 year old wrote it. Terrible grammar, no diction besides the word "good", no logical data, and other glaring flaws is what I see on these papers. I am always the last one to finish because I mark up their papers with more correcting words than words in the actual paper. Have you ever had your teacher tell you to attach another scratch sheet of paper if you need more room? Well, yeah it's sometimes needed. I can say this because all my papers are next to immaculate. I never understood how people could finish a 75 min. allotted time limit in 25. I think it's because they don't utilize what was taught to them in grade school

@MasterLord, it doesn't take a smart person to write a paper. How do you know Dark isn't smart? It sounds like YOU are the dumb one, commenting on a post with no legitimate reason for doing so. Even if he was arrogant, where is your place to say so? Do your feelings even matter? Destructive statements like that serve no purpose, not even to belittle because I doubt he was affected by it.

 

[ObliviousGenius]

And what do you think would help, Cheese? Agreeing? Patting him on the back? Saying: "Oh yes, you poor dear, forced to live in the world of illiterate inbreeds. Poor, poor you"
How would that help?
Saying "Grow up" may shake him up a little bit, or do nothing at all. Saying: "Oh yes, you're sooooo right" would only reinforce his feeling of superiority and isolation.
If he is unhappy with his peers he can either try and help improve their abilities, or work hard and get into a school with higher standards, where students may live up to his expectations.
I can understand venting when it concerns matters one has no influence over, but is not an option I can support this case.

I disagree with you on the point "Saying "Grow up" may shake him up a little bit, or do nothing at all." If what you said was meant to have an effect, but you understood the fact that it could also not have an effect what was the reason to say anything at all? This feels like a scolding more than an enlightening of truth. By your logic, your statement was equally as pointless as the OP. Your logic suggests that this forum is nothing but an infinite "hypocritical loop" in which one person continues to hypocritically point out the flaws in another poster's logic. However this loop will never end even when someone accepts the fact that what is being said is hypocritical. Even though I have come to that realization for the good of the forum flaws in logic must be pointed out. (hmm, I could go on here especially about how the forum would thrive but I won't). Anyway all our posts our in some way shape or form "pointless" and to point that out is also "pointless".

I may start a thread on this...maybe lol.

 

[Lobstrich]

I mostly agree with Cheese but I'd still like to point out that using "I think" or "In my opinion" is not a bad thing. Everything is subjective and thus based on OPINIONS.
Yes, it's implicit, but not everyone realises this and so you have to make sure that people know that what you're about to say is only your opinion. I do this all the time because at most times when people think that you're saying something that is subjective as if it is a fact, they get annoyed. And when people are annoyed it makes them unable to get anything constructive out of any kind of disagreement.

Even at that. If Bob 1 is disagreeing with Bob 2 and they both realise that "in my opinion" is implicit in any discussion it's still impossible to know if what the other guy is saying is actually in his or her opinion or if that person thinks his claim is an objective fact.

Too much hating in this thread.. You're all fucking ENFPs

Omg. I just used fuck (swearing is irrational!!! So is multiple exclamation marks.) and I had an opinion about you. I must be one myself!

Spoiler

No. The joke will never get old. And I will never stop making it. I think it's absolutely hilarious.

 

[^_\\]

"Why all the negative comments directed at dark"



Someone mentioned, "formal, objective structure". It's objective in that there is a way you are told to write things, but it's not objectively a good way to write things

"don't say I think or your paper will be bad" is not objective.

"Don't say I think or you will have said I think and we told you you shouldn't" is the kind of objective you get with these objective systems, but often enough people confuse the objectivity of the second, which those standards have confused with that of the first, and you get people actually believing its objectively bad to write "I think", and then they say stuff like this:

"They constantly use terms like, "I think," etc. They are seniors, we learn in Eng 101 and 102 that this is not acceptable in any form of writing, especially scholarly.

Which is an attack on the writing style of anyone who doesn't agree that saying the words i think, in that order, is fundamentally unacceptable (and especially so in a "scholarly" context).


OH AND

"If what you said was meant to have an effect, but you understood the fact that it could also not have an effect what was the reason to say anything at all?

The reason is, because it might have an effect.

The following example might help make it clear why, hypothetically, sometimes you should do things even if they might not have an effect

Imagine there's a man with an incurable disease, which will, if not treated, be fatal within a month.

If there is a treatment available which has a sixty percent of fully curing him and a 40% chance of not doing anything at all, is he better off being treated, or not being treated? Now seeing as 60% is higher than 0% the man has a better chance of surviving if he goes on the treatment, than if he doesn't, even though the treatment doesn't have a 100% success rate.

 

[Minuend]

"Why all the negative comments directed at dark"



Someone mentioned, "formal, objective structure". It's objective in that there is a way you are told to write things, but it's not objectively a good way to write things

"don't say I think or your paper will be bad" is not objective.

"Don't say I think or you will have said I think and we told you you shouldn't" is the kind of objective you get with these objective systems, but often enough people confuse the objectivity of the second, which those standards have confused with that of the first, and you get people actually believing its objectively bad to write "I think", and then they say stuff like this:

"They constantly use terms like, "I think," etc. They are seniors, we learn in Eng 101 and 102 that this is not acceptable in any form of writing, especially scholarly.

Which is an attack on the writing style of anyone who doesn't agree that saying the words i think, in that order, is fundamentally unacceptable (and especially so in a "scholarly" context).

I have a bit trouble with understanding what you have written here, but when you write a paper that is supposed to be based on facts, you can't tell them what your opinion is. Because if it is an opinion, it's not supported by facts. You can't agree with scientific research, it's true or false regardless of your approval.

It's like a scientist starts elaborating about how he thinks society should donate more money to health because his research tells him people have cancer. Imagine trying to sort out the result of the research between all statements for health care.

It's also practice for separating facts from opinions and writing objective papers.

And as for the "attack on people who doesn't agree". Well, should we allow people to write "lulz", "c u" and "wowzeee" if it is their opinion such words belong in that context?

 

[Puffy]

I have to agree with the OP.

I study history at an undergraduate level, so language is a large part of our assessment. A group project I was involved in recently suggested that the writing standards were not great.

At the same time it doesn't surprise me, and I wouldn't want people to put me in the "lingual elitist" box either. My writing was piss poor at the start of the university - it's a phenomenon I am a part of. The difference between me and my colleagues is that when my lecturers pointed this out to me in the first year I asked how I could improve it; I went to classes and continued to work on it (I still do as my writing isn't great, I would probably be one of those occasional 'goods' on Vrecknidj's list) .

At least over here I think it is because standards are not that high. You can get by on a 2:1 (2nd best grade) pretty easily in history, at my university anyway. Because there is a steep difference between this and a first class grade I don't think many people try. Why go all out and likely end up on a 67-9 when you can cruise by on a 61 and have the same grade overall? I can see the logic in that; the only reason my standard is higher is because I knew from the start I had the capability to get a first-class, I'd never be happy with myself if I didn't make the most of my abilities because I have big dreams.

 

[cheese]

"Why all the negative comments directed at dark"



Someone mentioned, "formal, objective structure". It's objective in that there is a way you are told to write things, but it's not objectively a good way to write things

"don't say I think or your paper will be bad" is not objective.

"Don't say I think or you will have said I think and we told you you shouldn't" is the kind of objective you get with these objective systems, but often enough people confuse the objectivity of the second, which those standards have confused with that of the first, and you get people actually believing its objectively bad to write "I think", and then they say stuff like this:

"They constantly use terms like, "I think," etc. They are seniors, we learn in Eng 101 and 102 that this is not acceptable in any form of writing, especially scholarly.

Which is an attack on the writing style of anyone who doesn't agree that saying the words i think, in that order, is fundamentally unacceptable (and especially so in a "scholarly" context).

That's only part of the problem. I can understand picking at it, but dark also mentioned/implied lack of reasoning, insufficient support for their I-thinks, bad structure, terrible grammar/spelling (and this is important in the work place, and what's more should certainly be mostly picked up by the time you're a senior)

OH AND

"If what you said was meant to have an effect, but you understood the fact that it could also not have an effect what was the reason to say anything at all?

The reason is, because it might have an effect.

The following example might help make it clear why, hypothetically, sometimes you should do things even if they might not have an effect

Imagine there's a man with an incurable disease, which will, if not treated, be fatal within a month.

If there is a treatment available which has a sixty percent of fully curing him and a 40% chance of not doing anything at all, is he better off being treated, or not being treated? Now seeing as 60% is higher than 0% the man has a better chance of surviving if he goes on the treatment, than if he doesn't, even though the treatment doesn't have a 100% success rate.

That's not what I meant. My opinion was that it was very unlikely to have an effect, and was (hypocritically) a simple expression of disgust, disdain or irritation, rather than geared at helping him. ie, there was a problem with intent - the intent was to express, not to help, so the likelihoods of success/failure and their role in decision-making is irrelevant. Generally, I'd agree it's better to try than not, but I wasn't talking about that at all.

 

[Felan]

This blog entry, http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/grade_inflation.html, gives his view of grade inflation and specifically touches on writing. I don't entirely agree with the idea that narcissism is more rampant in society today, as the blog I linked contends it is, than in the past.

Bad writing is everywhere. It is an example email exchange from my work place, admittedly he is from the Phillipines also why my response was time stamped as it was but I regularly get equally bad communications from American managers and peers:

From: Someone
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Thompson, Todd L.
Subject: SDR ######
I mean if you will take the ticket and work on it – as I believe you are the SME for Project X? Thanks.

Regards,
Someone

From: Thompson, Todd L.
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 2:01 AM
To: Someone
Subject: RE: SDR ######

Could you rephrase that as I don’t understand what you are saying?

From: Someone
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Thompson, Todd L.
Subject: SDR ######

Hi Todd,

I would like to please coordinate if you would be covering for the SDR on subject. Thanks.

Regards,
Someone

So yeah I feel Dark's frustration.

 

[Lobstrich]

I have to agree with the OP.

I study history at an undergraduate level, so language is a large part of our assessment. A group project I was involved in recently suggested that the writing standards were not great.

At the same time it doesn't surprise me, and I wouldn't want people to put me in the "lingual elitist" box either. My writing was piss poor at the start of the university - it's a phenomenon I am a part of. The difference between me and my colleagues is that when my lecturers pointed this out to me in the first year I asked how I could improve it; I went to classes and continued to work on it (I still do as my writing isn't great, I would probably be one of those occasional 'goods' on Vrecknidj's list) .

At least over here I think it is because standards are not that high. You can get by on a 2:1 (2nd best grade) pretty easily in history, at my university anyway. Because there is a steep difference between this and a first class grade I don't think many people try. Why go all out and likely end up on a 67-9 when you can cruise by on a 61 and have the same grade overall? I can see the logic in that; the only reason my standard is higher is because I knew from the start I had the capability to get a first-class, I'd never be happy with myself if I didn't make the most of my abilities because I have big dreams.

I really don't like this term "writing standards" Being frank, all I can ask is; who the fuck are you to decide what is "standard" And through that decide who does and who doesn't meet those standards. The only thing I can agree with is grammar and spelling. But the way a person writes is the way a person writes. You can't go "That's not on par with standards. Not good enough" Personally I think I'm very lingual. Looking back at my exams I was not very good at things like Mathematics. But I aced Danish (My own language) English and civics with a 12 (which in the US would be an A+) Both orally and in writing.
I think (oh no, I said "I think") that I was able to ace these because of the way I'm relaxed towards language. I don't force myself to use fancy words. I don't know if this is the same in English but we say "Jeg taler ikke, jeg snakker bare" Which would probably translate into "I don't speak, I just talk" Like I said, I don't know if that makes any sense in English. But in Danish there's a huge difference between "Taler" and "snakker" When you "taler" you use nice words, sort of "upper class" Or use "advanced" words. While "snakker" is just casual every day like.

A little example. A person who "taler" would say "That is irrelevant" while a person who "snakker" whould say "That doesn't matter" It's a bad example though because I personally use "Irrelevant while I insist that I "snakker"

Right, it's going a little too far now, I don't know if it makes any sense, lol.

My point is, who the fuck gives a crap about how a person talks? How the grammar is, how the spelling is, which words a person uses if he/she says "I think" or not. Who gives a crap?! It does not matter HOW a person talks, what matters is what the person has on his or her mind.

And while your opinion gets clouded by you getting annoyed about shallow things like which words a person uses. I'm having a good time "talking" with this guy, listening to what "he thinks" learning from each other.

 

[Puffy]

I really don't like this term "writing standards" Being frank, all I can ask is; who the fuck are you to decide what is "standard" And through that decide who does and who doesn't meet those standards. The only thing I can agree with is grammar and spelling. But the way a person writes is the way a person writes. You can't go "That's not on par with standards. Not good enough" Personally I think I'm very lingual. Looking back at my exams I was not very good at things like Mathematics. But I aced Danish (My own language) English and civics with a 12 (which in the US would be an A+) Both orally and in writing.
I think (oh no, I said "I think") that I was able to ace these because of the way I'm relaxed towards language. I don't force myself to use fancy words. I don't know if this is the same in English but we say "Jeg taler ikke, jeg snakker bare" Which would probably translate into "I don't speak, I just talk" Like I said, I don't know if that makes any sense in English. But in Danish there's a huge difference between "Taler" and "snakker" When you "taler" you use nice words, sort of "upper class" Or use "advanced" words. While "snakker" is just casual every day like.

A little example. A person who "taler" would say "That is irrelevant" while a person who "snakker" whould say "That doesn't matter" It's a bad example though because I personally use "Irrelevant while I insist that I "snakker"

Right, it's going a little too far now, I don't know if it makes any sense, lol.

My point is, who the fuck gives a crap about how a person talks? How the grammar is, how the spelling is, which words a person uses if he/she says "I think" or not. Who gives a crap?! It does not matter HOW a person talks, what matters is what the person has on his or her mind.

And while your opinion gets clouded by you getting annoyed about shallow things like which words a person uses. I'm having a good time "talking" with this guy, listening to what "he thinks" learning from each other.

Wow.

Okay, firstly, if I have done something recently to upset you then I am very sorry, I don't recall ever doing anything to you with the intention of harm. If there is let me know and maybe we can clear up any misunderstandings. But, I won't be spoken to in that tone. If you are the paladin of the individual, as you imply, then I hope you will respect my personal boundaries - "who the fuck do you think you are" doesn't cut it for me when it appears unprovoked. If not, I hope you understand if I choose not to respond in the future.

On topic.

Firstly, in academia - which is what I was referring to - there is "a writing standard" already in place. This is not a standard I have invented alone and subjugated on to others, writing has it's own language which is universally understood to allow easy communication. For example, a comma exists to signify a pause; if you start: using pauses out, of place it - might make, things more difficult, for the recipient; to understand. Having a universal understanding of how to use a pause is hence only there for the benefit of everyone, not to rule over people.

The main problem I have with your stance is not your respect for individual speech, which I most definitely agree with, it is that your stance implies a misunderstanding of language's purpose. If one person went "I'm going to communicate my own way today" that will only work if other people can understand that alteration. The very speech of the individual must be understandable or communication is not possible, the message is just for the individual alone. For example: guw yarkf jeeeiuop sarpin hoogerville. I felt like expressing my individualism, did it make sense? Language is shared, when you wrote to me Lobstrich you used English because you knew I would understand English. You were using that "universal standard" because it helped you to express your own message to me.

Cultures and groups do invent their own languages and standards, I'm sure we all have inside jokes with friends, our own made up words and things - this forum has it's own typology language that we share. However, for institutions such as academia or newspapers, or novels, etc a writing standard that is universally understood by the readers of that particular language is used as it guarantees that the most people will be able to access it's message.

I think somewhere along the line there has been a misunderstanding between us. I am sorry if I have offended in some way. But my friends writing is only graded worse if their standard of writing makes it more difficult for the lecturer to access their own message. That is the stance I was defending.

 

[Puffy]

Ah, I am sorry Lobstrich, I just read the "except spelling and grammar" part of your message. This is near enough what I was referring to when I said "writing standard", though, if that clears any misunderstandings.

 

[Dapper Dan]

Let's try to bring this back on-topic.

Anyways, OP, try to keep in mind that writing is a very INTP task. Every aspect of it caters to our strengths, and, conversely, it probably caters to a lot of other people's weaknesses.

Just imagine if we were all required to take classes on pointless social interaction. Ugh.

 

[Meer]

I kind of wish that there was a class on social interaction, instead of everyone assuming that kids will just pick it up out of nowhere.

But yes, I had the same thing happen to me in high school. We had to go through three classmates' essays. With the first, I made very detailed comments about assertions and evidence and so on, but I had given up on any hope by the time I finished reading the second essay.

How to fix education? More essays, less multiple choice, right from the get-go? I don't know.

 

[Minuend]

My point is, who the fuck gives a crap about how a person talks?

*writes

People who care about precision, logic and facts.

When you read a factual paper, you want to know the truth, not what the person thinks. If it is an opinion it is not supported by facts and thus irrelevant. When research claims salamanders are more sociable and therapeutically calming to humans than cats, I want to know how and why, not whether we should trade in all cats with salamanders to save the environment.

It's not about being better than others, it's about:
- being able to separate facts from opinions
- present unbiased truths
- as puffy said, be understood
- realizing facts say nothing of what opinions need to/ must be. If we translate it to science, it means that research doesn't tell us anything about ethics.

If you disagree with objective papers, at least give some arguments other than "it's fucked up because it's difficult".

 

[Lobstrich]

logic and facts.

Have absolutely nothing to do with how I write or which words I use.

EDIT: Most of what you said sort of has nothing to do with what I said or what the OP said.

You talk about "unbiased truths" "seperating facts from opinions" Etc.

Nobody ever said that the paper had a requirement to be factual and based entirely on 'truths'
Also, I never said that facts are the same as opinions that we should all be biased etc. Where are you getting this from? I said "who the fuck gives a crap?" Not "It doesn't matter that they are writing all their biased opinions in a paper that's supposed to be about the objective truth" Why would I ever say that? It's ridiculous.

 

[Lobstrich]

Wow.

Okay, firstly, if I have done something recently to upset you then I am very sorry, I don't recall ever doing anything to you with the intention of harm. If there is let me know and maybe we can clear up any misunderstandings. But, I won't be spoken to in that tone. If you are the paladin of the individual, as you imply, then I hope you will respect my personal boundaries - "who the fuck do you think you are" doesn't cut it for me when it appears unprovoked. If not, I hope you understand if I choose not to respond in the future.

Why are you acting as if I was yelling and screaming? You have done nothing to me. You haven't "upset" or "harmed" me, no.

What tone? I said "who the fuck gives a crap?" I did not call you anything, you're taking what I said personally. A paladin of the individual? I don't know what that means, never heard of it used that way. I'm going to assume that it's something like "defender"? Then I've never said I'm the "defender" of the individual. I said that being blinded by how and what words people are using (Like you going "I will not be spoken to in that tone") will blind you from what that person is actually saying. Oh, and I'll not be spoken in such smug tone! "If you are the paladin as you claim" Pack that together!

Also, I never said "Who the fuck do you think you are?" I said "Who the fuck gives a crap?" Don't get angry at me because societies norms are telling you that "fuck" and "crap" are insulting words. Again, who cares about "fuck"? It's a word, nothing more. What matters is what I'm trying to say, and if I was actually trying to insult you then I'd understand you getting angry.

Firstly, in academia - which is what I was referring to - there is "a writing standard" already in place. This is not a standard I have invented alone and subjugated on to others, writing has it's own language which is universally understood to allow easy communication. For example, a comma exists to signify a pause; if you start: using pauses out, of place it - might make, things more difficult, for the recipient; to understand. Having a universal understanding of how to use a pause is hence only there for the benefit of everyone, not to rule over people

I agree with you, about the commas and the grammar, I've already said (and I've also read that you said you only just read that I agreed with that -- Lol.)
But me using "fuck" or the fellow students of Dark using "I think" have nothing to do with the point you're making. It's my way of talking and it's their way of talking. I'm sure you find my grammar alright, and Dark didn't seem to have a problem with the grammar of his fellow students either.

But then again, I'd argue that caring about proper grammar is ridiculous as well. It doesn't matter. What matters is what I'm trying to say.

The main problem I have with your stance is not your respect for individual speech, which I most definitely agree with, it is that your stance implies a misunderstanding of language's purpose. If one person went "I'm going to communicate my own way today" that will only work if other people can understand that alteration. The very speech of the individual must be understandable or communication is not possible, the message is just for the individual alone. For example: guw yarkf jeeeiuop sarpin hoogerville. I felt like expressing my individualism, did it make sense? Language is shared, when you wrote to me Lobstrich you used English because you knew I would understand English. You were using that "universal standard" because it helped you to express your own message to me.

Now you're bringing in counter arguements to arguements I never said. I don't think I said "it's alright if people go awojdwadajwdajød, accept their indivualism!!". I know that in order for people to communicate we have to agree on some sort of "mutual" language. I said that people should stop wasting time on whining about grammar, swearing and the use of specific lines like "I think" - I'll repeat myself; It doesn't matter what words I use, what matters is what I'm trying to say.

Cultures and groups do invent their own languages and standards, I'm sure we all have inside jokes with friends, our own made up words and things - this forum has it's own typology language that we share. However, for institutions such as academia or newspapers, or novels, etc a writing standard that is universally understood by the readers of that particular language is used as it guarantees that the most people will be able to access it's message.

I (we) never talked about newspapers or novels. I was directing my post to general conversations but also school papers.
I don't get why it's not alright to use "fuck" or "I think" in a paper either. Because nobody's able to be 100% objective so ANYTHING we say is what we "think". So saying that using those words will make the message being sent harder to understand, makes no sense.
(this is also directed to you Minuend)

I think somewhere along the line there has been a misunderstanding between us. I am sorry if I have offended in some way. But my friends writing is only graded worse if their standard of writing makes it more difficult for the lecturer to access their own message. That is the stance I was defending.

Misunderstanding? What are you talking about? We are disagreeing. The only misunderstanding I see, actually. Is you taking what I said as a personal attack.
I don't know what you mean by "their own message" though.

 

[Minuend]

Have absolutely nothing to do with how I write or which words I use.

I've noticed

 

[Lobstrich]

Ah, I am sorry Lobstrich, I just read the "except spelling and grammar" part of your message. This is near enough what I was referring to when I said "writing standard", though, if that clears any misunderstandings.

Right, okay. If we both agree that at least some use of 'correct' "grammar" is necessary then I don't understand why you were brining in things like making up new languages and such. I never said that.

WHat I will say, though. Is that language lives on people making stuff up. I relies on you, me and everyone else to use words differently in order for it to progress with us. If we were not allowed to make up things we wouldn't have a language. -- So actually, I think that using words in ways not seen before is okay. As long as you are prepared to explain it to those people who will undoubtedly be confused.

 

[Lobstrich]

I've noticed

This is a little vague. Do you agree? Do you disagree?


Also, just in case you don't notice. I made an edit to my post.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

My first college English class...
That's around the time I officially gave up on humanity.

 

[Minuend]

Nobody ever said that the paper had a requirement to be factual and based entirely on 'truths'

Dark did in OP.

Where are you getting this from? I said "who the fuck gives a crap?" Not "It doesn't matter that they are writing all their biased opinions in a paper that's supposed to be about the objective truth"

Actually, that means pretty much the same thing...

I don't care = they might as well write opinions in fact based papers

This is a little vague. Do you agree? Do you disagree?

is riddle

 

[Lobstrich]

Dark did in OP.

Actually, no, he didn't.

He said this:
They lack the ability to use logic, they give unsupported claims, mere opinions. They give no thesis statements, no reasons for anything and don't even address the question correctly. Their version of doing so consists of writing the question out and ignoring it the rest of the paragraph and paper.

This doesn't say "We had to use logic and give supported claims without opinions" It said "I didn't like that they couldn't use logic that they gave unsupported claims but only gave their opinions"

Actually, that means pretty much the same thing...

I don't care = they might as well write opinions in fact based papers

I don't think it does, not in the context I wrote it.

is riddle

Uh, okay.

 

[Minuend]

Bing

They constantly use terms like, "I think," etc. They are seniors, we learn in Eng 101 and 102 that this is not acceptable in any form of writing, especially scholarly.

 

[Lobstrich]

Bing

Bing.

That also doesn't say "We had to use logic and give supported claims without opinions"

I do realise that "scholarly writing" suggest no opinions. But my point was never, like I said, not; "It is alright to not bring sound arguements that are only based on your opinion" All I actually said was that everything we say even if it's objective "logical" arguments is based on our subjective choices. We choose them because in our opinion, it's the best argument.

Spoiler

Bing.