A nation of semi-literate individuals?

[ono no komachi]

During a recent round of recruitment I saw some CVs containing the following errors:

'Career' spelt 'Carrer' (this was the first word on the CV that was not the applicant's name); 'possess' spelt 'posses'; 'the companies overall strategy' instead of 'the company's overall strategy'; the bizarre expression 'this job have also entailed of retailing and replenishing'; and 'this gave me a valuable incite in to what I feel is my future career.'

These are not school leavers, these are people with degrees. And the job they are applying for requires an eye for detail and the ability to identify errors. Why is our education system not capable of producing individuals who can string a sentence together without making basic mistakes, and who bother to check their own work (or to have someone else check it for them) before judging it complete?

I'm not saying that every email or quick draft that they write has to be error-free, but surely an important document like a CV should be checked and corrected before being submitted.

Are these things no longer judged to be important? Have we resigned ourselves to lesser standards in this area because things like spelling and grammar are no longer taught and tested?

I want to shout at the owners of these CVs, I want to shake them and slap them and tell them that these details are IMPORTANT, and that they should be able to communicate using the written word without making stupid mistakes.

Even if I were in a position to do so, I fear I would be fighting a losing battle.

[gil]

Isn't it just what I've been saying in Schmoliticks.... Thanks, ono no komachi. I was beginning to think I was overstating my case.

There is no longer any believable sanction available to the teacher who feels these details are important.

[Colyngbourne]

A friend who is a university lecturer tells me that most of her students cannot string a coherent sentence together, let alone a thought-out essay. Schools do try to teach these things but it's all a matter of practice and application, I think. If they've covered 'how to write a letter' in Years 5, 7 and 9/10, that may be the only time the kids actually 'do' it until they apply for a job. Controversially (though maybe not *here*) I strongly believe it's all about how much children/young people read. The more they read (and for me, the earlier they can do this the better) the greater ease they will have with the majority of things both educational and social/cultural in their future.

Last Friday my ten yr old's class was read and then discussed the first three pages of Jane Eyre, but they mostly hadn't got a clue what the majority of the sentences meant, what a breakfast room was, why someone might sit on a 'window seat', what 'drapes' were. I am glad that my daughter did know these things by having read all kinds of books set in different periods, Little Women and the Chrestomanci books by Diana Wynne Jones being some of them, and now she is reading the rest of Jane Eyre for herself, checking some words and some long multiple-claused sentences with me.

[NottyImp]

"I strongly believe it's all about how much children/young people read. "

I agree. I was never taught much formal grammar, and although I did a fair bit of spelling practice at Junior school, that pretty much stopped at Secondary level. Almost all of my literary skills (such as they are) came from reading and unconsciously emulating what I had read. It was (and is) a process of osmosis.

[gil]

And have you noticed that many of the contestants on University Challenge these days seem to have been grounded in foreign schools, and are completing their education in British Universities?

[NottyImp]

"A friend who is a university lecturer tells me that most of her students cannot string a coherent sentence together, let alone a thought-out essay."

Something to bear in mind here is that University participation is up to something like 30%, and set to rise to 50% if this government has its way. Without being elitist (I hope), this inevitably means that students who are less able are being admitted.

Added to that, at the first formal stage of examination, GCSE qualifications seem to be much more "fractured" than the old "O" levels. I'm not sure that they are necessarily easier (although I hear plenty of people say that they are), but they require different skills. The ability to be able to write thousands of worlds quickly and coherently in an exam situation is required far less with the introduction of course-work and short modular exams.

[Colyngbourne]

I would fully agree with that. The techniques of being able to pull information together and consult sources etc would seem to be more valuable than to actually know what to do with them and how to extrapolate meaningful things from the material. It doesn't seem to require the same dense rigorous mental thought and concentration as yesteryear and the old 'O' Level.

The sheer number of students means teaching/lecturing is no longer as meaningful either - the same friend has over 400 students in lectures (in two lecture theatres connected with a live video link :shock: :roll: ), and no less than fifty students in seminars. Tutorials with one or two/three students (as I knew them) no longer exist (well, maybe in the oldest universities they do).

[amner]

And have you noticed that many of the contestants on University Challenge these days seem to have been grounded in foreign schools, and are completing their education in British Universities?

Wavid and I have met a UC contestant a couple of times (in Cambridge's famous Eagle pub no less), a chap who is appearing in this year's competition. He was buying some of Wavid's CDs.

He was a thoroughly nice chap, but would - and this is in no way overstating the case - be considered by most people as mad a cheese. Why someone smart should be considered an outsider is, I fear, il problemo du jour.
/

[NottyImp]

Wavid sells CDs down the pub? Is it a "nice little earner"?

[amner]

I believe that 'street' nomenclature would consider it lovely jubbly
.

[NottyImp]

"I would fully agree with that. The techniques of being able to pull information together and consult sources etc would seem to be more valuable than to actually know what to do with them and how to extrapolate meaningful things from the material. It doesn't seem to require the same dense rigorous mental thought and concentration as yesteryear and the old 'O' Level."

My step-son is just taking his GCSEs now and in English is, of course, studying Shakespeare. Except that he isn't. What he is studying is a book of extracts from the play, with associated, but quite limited exercises. As far as I can tell, he does not have a full copy of the text, and will never actually get to read it (he's too lazy to anyway, as it happens).

When I look at his science books, the material he appears to be studying is the kind of thing we did in our first three years at Secondary school, and seems very basic to my eyes. The reports he writes do not have to be written in the passive voice, but can be submitted as a first-person narrative, something that was severely frowned upon when I was doing O-level science.

Just two examples I've noted of what you're talking about, Col.

[NottyImp]

"Why someone smart should be considered an outsider is, I fear, il problemo du jour."

Your out of touch, Amner: "dumb" is the new "clever". Bear in mind here that most teenagers seem to think that "Jackass" is the apotheosis of sophisticated humour.

[Colyngbourne]

I dread to imagine the mental torture of helping the offspring revise this truncated education. Next up, study King Lear by imagining you're an old codger feeling cold and lonely in a field somewhere. You may choose not to illustrate your example by doodling a picture of Poor Tom's-a-cold's gurning face, or by actually quoting (from memory) something that struck you from the text itself...

Don't even mention how they learn foreign languages these days. Quel cauchemar!

[NottyImp]

Revise? If only he would do some...

[amner]

Your out of touch, Amner: "dumb" is the new "clever".

something which has clearly spread as far as simple grammar, I note, Notty
.

[NottyImp]

Lol - that was an ironic typo, ahem.

[skanky]

'Career' spelt 'Carrer' (this was the first word on the CV that was not the applicant's name); 'possess' spelt 'posses'; 'the companies overall strategy' instead of 'the company's overall strategy'; the bizarre expression 'this job have also entailed of retailing and replenishing'; and 'this gave me a valuable incite in to what I feel is my future career.'

Some of those are examples of something that irritates me weekly (I try not to be irritated too often). The attempted use of overly complicated words or phraseology when it is not necessary. If those CV writers stuck to plain English, there would be fewer mistakes. For example, instead of:

'this job have also entailed of retailing and replenishing'

write

in this job, I worked behind the till and stacked shelves

The former is no more impressive than the latter, even if it is written correctly.

This sort of thing goes on all the time on public notices and in public announcements - especially at railway stations.

Passengers are prohibited from crossing the line

What's wrong with "not allowed to" or even "forbidden"? Why use words that people may not understand (especially people for whom English is not the first language)?

In copying this official-speak, people who don't have the greatest mastery of English (and I place myself into that category), create many more mistakes than they need to. It just adds to the noise.

[pandop]

Controversially (though maybe not *here*) I strongly believe it's all about how much children/young people read. The more they read (and for me, the earlier they can do this the better) the greater ease they will have with the majority of things both educational and social/cultural in their future.


I am in total agreement with you - which is why I want to work in Children's libaries so much - if I can encourage more children to read then this would be a good thing!!

Hazel

[pandop]

Something to bear in mind here is that University participation is up to something like 30%, and set to rise to 50% if this government has its way. Without being elitist (I hope), this inevitably means that students who are less able are being admitted.


It does - although I have wondered just what the government is going to do if 51% of young people don't want to go to university ....?

Hazel

[pandop]

He was a thoroughly nice chap, but would - and this is in no way overstating the case - be considered by most people as mad a cheese. Why someone smart should be considered an outsider is, I fear, il problemo du jour.
/

<Sigh> this is indeed the case - although having said that some of the academic types I have met (and as often work at a major conference) are indeed as mad as cheese!

Hazel

[pandop]

My step-son is just taking his GCSEs now and in English is, of course, studying Shakespeare. Except that he isn't. What he is studying is a book of extracts from the play, with associated, but quite limited exercises. As far as I can tell, he does not have a full copy of the text, and will never actually get to read it (he's too lazy to anyway, as it happens).


Things have gone downhill very quickly then, as I know I read all of MacBeth for GCSE (not to mention Far From the Madding Crowd - every bloody word of it - The Crucible, and a selection of WWI poetry), and all of Romeo and Juliet the year before (whoever thought that that was a good play to teach to 13 year old boys? Especially with a text that explanied all the innuendo .... the poor things were so embarrassed, and as I went to a mixed school, having girls there seemed to make it worse for some reason :twisted: )

Hazel

[Colyngbourne]

Another teacher friend regularly teaches Romeo and Juliet at GCSE level and everybody loves it, and appreciates all the bawdy talk from the nurse. They also seem to enjoy comparing the Zefferelli version to Baz Luhrmann's. I too studied Macbeth and Far From... and Seamus Heaney's poetry and a variety of short stories (can't recall who wrote them, I'm so ancient). For those we were allowed to bring the text into the exam, but we had to know it backwards. For A level, I felt as if I knew King Lear and Othello off by heart.

[rick green]

Almost all of my literary skills (such as they are) came from reading and unconsciously emulating what I had read. It was (and is) a process of osmosis.

True enough. When I read Plato, I started speaking in dialectics. when I read Shakespeare, I was mysteriously possesed by a knack for ribald wit.
And as this is a political forum, let me deposit my conspiratorial 2 cents and say that this "dumbing down" of society is likely an intentional means of social control by the elite social sectors. I can't imagine anything more dangerous to the status quo than a literate, curious, passionate & principled citizenry.

[pandop]

Another teacher friend regularly teaches Romeo and Juliet at GCSE level and everybody loves it, and appreciates all the bawdy talk from the nurse. They also seem to enjoy comparing the Zefferelli version to Baz Luhrmann's. I too studied Macbeth and Far From... and Seamus Heaney's poetry and a variety of short stories (can't recall who wrote them, I'm so ancient). For those we were allowed to bring the text into the exam, but we had to know it backwards. For A level, I felt as if I knew King Lear and Othello off by heart.

I think that the boys were just a year or so too young - sex was still embarrasing (10 years ago there weren't so many pregnant 14 year olds) - and this was just pre Luhrmann - that came out while I was doing my A-Levels - have I ranted before about why I didn't do A-Level English Literature?

Hazel

[NottyImp]

No you haven't; rant away, Hazel, I'm all in favour of rants. :D

The thing about education in general - and literacy in particular - is that whether you come from a traditional perspective, or a more radical one, it just has to be a good thing. You can argue just as easily that a literate work-force is good for England, as you can that it empowers the working class. So why do we cock it up so badly - or at least seem to make little progress beyond the levels we've had since the war?

[Jerkass]

As I shockingly have found a topic to which I might add something...

I did a bit of recruiting with my employer a few years ago and saw all kinds of hysterical stuff. Most of it is gone now, but I can remember two particular gems:

1) Listed as a job responsibility: "Convince clients to roll their asses out of their portfolios" [I'm hoping he meant "assets"]

2) Listed as a personal skill: "Possess an inherent ability to escalate problems"

He takes problems...and he makes them bigger. As second nature.

[pandop]

No you haven't; rant away, Hazel, I'm all in favour of rants. :D

Here we go then!

As background to this I finished my primary school's set reading scheme at the age of 8 (I could have done it sooner, but was too busy reading other things) and then went on to 'free reading'.

When I was choosing my A-levels, the syllabus came with a longish list of books (about 6 sides of A4) - these were the 'approved' books for reading in your spare time (only 5% of you free time reading could be trash - and the implication was anything not on this list was trash) it contained the usual list of classics, both modern and C18th/C19th, but there was no 'light relief' if you see what I mean. Not only was I not keen on the set texts, but I had already read pretty much everything I was going to want to on that list.

But what annoyed me the most was the implication that at 16 I was no longer to be trusted to pick my own reading material. I wouldn't have minded so much if these were supplementary texts that I could choose to read, but to be told that it was this and nothing else was beyond belief. :twisted: Also I couldn't stand the woman who taught it anyway ... she was very much the type that thought she had the right to control our free time ..... :roll:

Instead I took English Language at A-Level, which was taught by the woman who recommended Wyrd Sisters to those in her GCSE Macbeth group that were interested in something different!

Hazel

[Colyngbourne]

I recall receiving a similar kind of list both after O levels and over-summer reading for university but it didn't bother me unduly. I read what I was interested in, plus a few more out of duty, and read as much other 'trashy' stuff as I liked. I think it's pretty much the job of English tutors to set predictable reading lists, and then hope you have the energy and time to cover both them and your own interests.

[pandop]

It was her arrogance in presuming to tell me what to read and what not to read that bugged me - I had been big and ugly enough to choose my own reading for half my life by this point.

Did they have the stupid 5% theory - and were they likely to try and enforce it? Even though I didn't take her class she still tried to criticise what she saw me reading in my lunch hour!

Hazel

[Colyngbourne]

No, thankfully we didn't have the 5% theory and the teachers didn't keep strict tabs on what we read in school hours - but those were the days when we had a decent school library with a wealth and range of books - 20,000 of them.

[pandop]

Our school library was appalling - but we have a decent public library (2 now, they have just built a new one) so I made full use of that!

As I said, it was the presumption that she could tell me what to read in my spare time that really irritated me!

Hazel

[NottyImp]

Oh dear...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3787721.stm

And just what we need, more Media Studies students:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3444499.stm

[Colyngbourne]

Again, neither of these would matter if parents spent time with their offspring, reading to them and talking to them. It's too easy for parents to think a TV in the bedroom will solve bedtime, by switching on CBeebies bedtime hour with some 'celebrity' reading a tale far beneath their child's comprehension (here, Jackanory did far better), or even (as I have heard from at least one acquaintance, so they can drift off to sleep whilst Mum/Dad lies beside them watching Eastenders).

[anecdote from last Thursday in a school nursery - where a four yr old chose the storybook for circle time, a non-fiction volume on spiders, which the teacher (not me) read with scant interest, followed by a story of her choice - The Little Penguin - a tedious yawn about a baby penguin losing its daddy (good parental role models offered though) and finding him + mummy again). Said four yr old rolled around agitated on floor, confessing This story is boring, I don't want to listen to it! ]

What it takes is parents' time and the willingness to miss (or use the video, why can't they?) their own pleasures. Last night 6.30-8pm chez Colyngbourne offered three chapters of James & Giant Peach, a chapter of Diana Wynne Jones Howl's Moving Castle, a chapter and a half of Jane Eyre (mostly read aloud by the 10 yr old) (plus the spouse doing a chapter of Laura Ingalls The Long Winter) and then enough time to talk about what the stories and characters were about.

The same goes for adverts and the news/media - if people can be bothered to watch it themselves and encourage their kids to stay in the room (and not always - though sometimes - turn over to the Simpsons). If you talk about the news and adverts with them just like you'd natter with them about Eastenders or Hell's Kitchen or whatever programmes you watch, it's just as easy to say 'That's a load of rubbish - listen, Coca Cola do this...' or 'The BBC is going down the pan, because when they report about such-and-such, they're not telling you...or they're using these words to describe these people, but not others...'

[amner]

What it takes is parents' time and the willingness to miss (or use the video, why can't they?) their own pleasures.

That's the key, of course. The bedtime ritual over ours involves the obligatory story and then parental pottering in case we're needed. Our TV goes on when sleep hits. It's simple, or it should be.

A bit of CBeebies doesn't hurt, but if the kids watch telly I'd sooner they use a DVD or a video which, once we know it too, we can talk about.