U.C.D students are semi literate

MrMatisse

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

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

Spectator#1

I'd say he probably does have a point, yeah although I probably wouldn't go so far as to say the average UCD student though. I'd like to hear the interview before I commit myself to agreeing though!

Any chance there's a webcast of it or anything? What show was it on etc...?

This is probably going to be a long thread...

copacetic

he is prob right, but all students are and most of the rest of society too.

MrMatisse

radio one i think. There could probably be a thread devoted to his quotes though.

MrMatisse

you must have heard it too. we cant spell either.

(also double checked my spelling);)

Blowfish

Did he base this on any sort of study? If not, then it's not worth paying attention to.

MrMatisse

its just his em expert opinion

Blowfish

holyrood85 wrote:

its just his em expert opinion

heh, as an academic, you'd think he would know better than to give completely unsubstantiated claims like that, especially when they are going to be fairly controversial.

Spectator#1

Blowfish wrote:

heh, as an academic, you'd think he would know better than to give completely unsubstantiated claims like that, especially when they are going to be fairly controversial.

He's qualified to state that as an opinion as somebody who works in UCD. He wouldn't need evidence to substantiate an opinion claim - which is what I presume that was.

I'd be interested to know how he meant it. I can't find any webcasts of the interview, whose show was it on?

Young Siward

'Old codger' without question, arrogant beyond belief, dogmatic to the core, but Moore McDowell is a good lecturer regardless.
Not that I'd agree with his political beliefs in the slightest.....

Though it would be rather ironic to see him wheel out mass generalisations to prove a point. If the modern student is indeed illiterate, then surely it must be the system that is at fault, and as a member of the UCD Governing Authority, it would be up to the likes of Moore McDowell who must accept a degree of responsibility.

copacetic

Young Siward wrote:

' If the modern student is indeed illiterate, then surely it must be the system that is at fault, and as a member of the UCD Governing Authority, it would be up to the likes of Moore McDowell who must accept a degree of responsibility.

presumably he was talking about the standard of written english that students have when they arrive to the college? I think it is stretching it to to blame him or UCD.

Nothing new in this, it's nearly 10 years since I finished in UCD and the same things were said then as now.

pretty*monster

I wouldn't be at all suprised if he was correct.

Chakar

In what context did this comment occur? As part of a discussion on the education system and the students?

I think his comment is pushing the boat out a little too far.

copacetic

Chakar wrote:

In what context did this comment occur? As part of a discussion on the education system and the students?

I think his comment is pushing the boat out a little too far.

i would like to hear what exactly he said. I wouldn't be surprised if he meant
it as a compliment!

humbert

Without context I couldn't really comment but as a general statement I think it applies very widely to our generation and despite being a university UCD isn't an exception.

Courses at 300 points, go figure.

InFront

"Semi-literate" would imply serious literacy problems in the context of the highly demanding academic environment. This cannot be the case: UCD students are by and large what could be described as 'high achievers' in state examinations, they did not secure a place in UCD by mere partial literacy. McDowell in making his accusation of compromised vocabulary seems to be the one who misuses this pretty simple term.

The_Minister

Quote Deleted due to libellous content
He is the most entertaining lecturer that I have ever had. He was funny, informative, and interesting. Compared to most Economics lecturers he is Krusty the Klown. I loved his lectures, and always wondered what people in UCD that he would pawn that day.

gerry87

The_Minister wrote:

I loved his lectures, and always wondered what people in UCD that he would pawn that day.

Maybe Moore has a point... i don't know if it's you or me, but I've no idea what that says.

I didn't like his lectures at all. Very boring man.

Spectator#1

humbert wrote:

Courses at 300 points, go figure.

Points are determined solely by space and demand. They don't reflect in any way on the intelligence or literacy required to succeed in a course.

copacetic

Spectator#1 wrote:

Points are determined solely by space and demand. They don't reflect in any way on the intelligence or literacy required to succeed in them.

I think what he meant was that if you only managed 300 points at your leaving cert there is a chance that your skills aren't great.

I think thats a little unfair though, I did engineering in UCD back when you needed 490 to get in and there were plenty of 550+ points students with terrible spelling and grammar. Right enough it doesn't affect you that much in eng but to get points like that you needed to get high marks in all leaving cert subjects, including English.

Spectator#1

copacetic wrote:

I think what he meant was that if you only managed 300 points at your leaving cert there is a chance that your skills aren't great.

So what was he suggesting? We should raise the points for courses to cut out the chaff? That's like lowering the age of consent to deal with a paedophilia problem! I don't think the points have anything to do with it.

Plus, like you said, there's plenty of idiots doing 500+ point courses so I can't see how it might be effective.

copacetic

Spectator#1 wrote:

So what was he suggesting? We should raise the points for courses to cut out the chaff? That's like lowering the age of consent to deal with a paedophilia problem! I don't think the points have anything to do with it.

Plus, like you said, there's plenty of idiots doing 500+ point courses so I can't see how it might be effective.

well I dunno what he meant, as I said I thought it was unfair.

I actually agree that there are plenty of idiots doing 500+ points courses but poor spelling and grammar doesn't make you an idiot. What I do think is that you don't need great spelling or grammar to get high points in the LC so why would you work on it when you could be studying things that will get you extra points?

The fault is with our secondary education, it's nothing to do with UCD, it's just an example of a universal problem.

humbert

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

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

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

*this may vary from school to school.

copacetic

humbert wrote:

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

well would agree with this. Although drop out and repeat rate in engineering was massive even back when you needed 500 or so to get in..

Sangre

Can we please keep the libellous comments to a minimum please? All offending posts have been removed, next one gets a ban.

The_Minister

gerry87 wrote:

Maybe Moore has a point... i don't know if it's you or me, but I've no idea what that says.

Its an internet thing.

Ah Moore mc
I enjoyed his lectures back in the day.
It's not that they were overly funny they were just plain interesting.

Has there been an outbreak of text speak in exam scripts and projects that is getting up his goat? Thats understandable.

If it's any consolation,UCD has always had a name for being semi illiterate in the sense of bad spellings or at least it had when I was a student there and Moore was giving out about it then.
Somethings are always the same,thats comforting.

Stepherunie

To say that is pigeon holing most students. Sure we have low points courses but we also have some of the highest points courses in the state, this does not of course say much but still, to say that all students are semi literate is complete speculation. Moore McDowell to say that of all students, most of whom he has never even met, let alone taught is ridiculous, he ridicules a student body he doesn't know, personally I take offence to that comment but unless I have it in context I'm unwilling to send him an email to that effect.

Ernie Ball

Stepherunie wrote:

To say that is pigeon holing

'Pigeonholing' (one word). Also, it should read 'is to pigeonhole'.

most students. Sure we have low points courses

'courses that don't require high points'

but we also have some of the highest points courses in the state, this does not of course say much but still,

'courses that require some of the highest points totals in the state'

Also, there should be a full stop or a semi-colon after 'state', not a comma.

to say that all students are semi literate is complete speculation. Moore McDowell to say that of all students,

'semi-literate' 'For Moore McDowell to say that of all students'

most of whom he has never even met, let alone taught is ridiculous, he ridicules a student body he doesn't know,

There should be full stops after 'ridiculous' and 'know.'

personally I take offence to that comment but unless I have it in context I'm unwilling to send him an email to that effect.

'Personally, I am offended by that comment, but unless I have it in context, I'm unwilling to send him an email to that effect.' (note the commas)

Are you sure you're in a position to take offence?

humbert

Dude, it's an internet forum!

Stepherunie

I'm going to go with I was drunk, it's impressive I did so well.

And yes, I feel I am in a position to say so, you are in no position to comment on my abilities on the basis of one post of mine that you have read.

And I'm guessing he was commenting on essays and exam scripts that he has corrected, have you seen any of my work? No, therefore I don't feel you're in a position to comment.

Ernie Ball

Stepherunie wrote:

I'm going to go with I was drunk, it's impressive I did so well.

There should be a full stop after 'drunk'.

And yes, I feel I am in a position to say so, you are in no position to comment on my abilities on the basis of one post of mine that you have read.

There should be a full stop or a semi-colon after 'so'.

And I'm guessing he was commenting on essays and exam scripts that he has corrected, have you seen any of my work?

There should be a full stop after 'corrected'.

Spectator#1

Ernie Ball wrote:

There should be a full stop after 'drunk'...

We all got your point, you can stop now.

You definitely should illustrate why you think there should be full stops in places where Stepherunie placed commas or other things he did are mistaken; otherwise you're in danger of being mistaken for a petulant dickhead. Punctuation is an art, not a science.

In any case, I would suggest that some of your suggestions for full stops would be better served by hyphens or semi-colons. The sense of the sentence runs on in some cases and putting a full stop in would disrupt that, like here:

Stepherunie wrote:

I'm going to go with I was drunk, it's impressive I did so well.

You also made some mistakes. There were a few one-word sentences, lower-case letters starting sentences, ending quotes after the full stop - I could go on, but I won't.

There's plenty of other people who might make objections to what McDowell said that didn't make quite as many mistakes - not that I think those mistakes reflect on Stepherunie's literacy, it might have been one careless post.

humbert

Your grammar and punctuation may be impeccable, but you are unable to see that finding trivial faults with the English some people use on an internet forum says little about the general level of literacy in UCD. Instead it amounts to pettiness and highlights the fact the intelligence and good English don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

Your grammar and punctuation may be impeccable, but you are unable to see that finding trivial faults with the English some people use on an internet forum says little about the general level of literacy in UCD. Instead it amounts to pettiness and highlights the fact the intelligence and good English don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I don't believe the faults are trivial. They are instances of the near-illiteracy that McDowell was talking about. That's what being semi-literate looks like. In any case, the howls of protest indicate that most here take McDowell's charge seriously. This implies that they don't think being semi-literate is the trivial matter you do.

The average UCD student cannot punctuate or spell properly, doesn't know how to form the possessive with any kind of accuracy, abuses the passive voice and writes in run-on sentences. Stepherunie is no exception to this rule, his or her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Spectator#1

Ernie Ball wrote:

The average UCD student cannot punctuate or spell properly, doesn't know how to form the possessive with any kind of accuracy, abuses the passive voice and writes in run-on sentences. Stepherunie is no exception to this rule, his or her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

But surely you accept that there is a difference between being semi-literate and mere lazy writing?

Your point stands - I wouldn't necessarily disagree with McDowell's statement, or you for that matter - but sifting through perceived mistakes (and that's all they are for the most part, or at least until you explain them) and making imperative statements regarding one person's careless posts isn't really proving anything.

There is always the (very likely) possibility that Stepherunie was just being lazy with his/her post - which is not the same thing as being semi-literate.

humbert

The faults you have highlighted do not indicate "near-illiteracy". To say so is ridiculous. However, I do think the state of English in UCD and further afield is in serious decline. It's taught poorly and not enough emphasis is put on the basics.

Ernie Ball

Spectator#1 wrote:

You also made some mistakes. There were a few one-word sentences,

I was correcting a post. Not all of my corrections were or were meant to be full sentences.

lower-case letters starting sentences,

Nonsense. I didn't start any of my own sentences with lower-case letters.

But surely you accept that there is a difference between being semi-literate and mere lazy writing?

Not much. The problem is that neither the lazy writer nor the semi-literate one care very much about language. If you can write correctly, why wouldn't you? It takes no more effort. Unless, that is, you really are semi-literate....

but sifting through perceived mistakes (and that's all they are for the most part, or at least until you explain them) and making imperative statements regarding one person's careless posts isn't really proving anything.

I don't have to explain why I'm right in order to be right. Every one of those sentences I corrected was poorly expressed and every one of my corrections was correct.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

The faults you have highlighted do not indicate "near-illiteracy". To say so is ridiculous.

Then I guess your standards aren't very high. Which is typical of the average UCD student.

However, I do think the state of English in UCD and further afield is in serious decline. It's taught poorly and not enough emphasis is put on the basics.

Basics like punctuation and sentence structure?

Blowfish

tbh if your attitude is typical of people who aren't 'semi-illiterate', then i'm quite happy with my literacy level.

Ernie Ball

Blowfish wrote:

tbh if your attitude is typical of people who aren't 'semi-illiterate', then i'm quite happy with my literacy level.

Good for you.

copacetic

Ernie Ball wrote:

If you can write correctly, why wouldn't you? It takes no more effort. Unless, that is, you really are semi-literate....

I suggest a site wide investigation into your posting history. It's clear you are a model for us all and I'm sure all your posts are perfect examples of clear, concise and correct english. Surely we can all learn something from Ernie. Let the search begin!

Spectator#1

Ernie Ball wrote:

I was correcting a post. Not all of my corrections were or were meant to be full sentences.

...

Nonsense. I didn't start any of my own sentences with lower-case letters.

Was I too pedantic in pointing out that your corrections didn't read as proper sentences? Are we all unequivocally subject to your opinion on how far this kind of pedantry should actually go?

There is a protocol to be observed in the quoting of other people and you did not adhere to it.

Not much. The problem is that neither the lazy writer nor the semi-literate one care very much about language. If you can write correctly, why wouldn't you? It takes no more effort. Unless, that is, you really are semi-literate....

I'd agree with you on that point for the most part. I try to write properly even on boards.ie. The point is, there is a difference in context between here on an internet forum and elsewhere (exams, letters, CV's...). Provided the author adheres to most grammatical and syntactical rules it's quite easy to discern their meaning. While I try to be as clear as possible, I wouldn't begrudge somebody using contractions or more informal constructs to get their point across, provided it makes sense. I don't think that's the same thing as illiteracy.

I don't have to explain why I'm right in order to be right. Every one of those sentences I corrected was poorly expressed and every one of my corrections was correct.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, quite simply. There is more than one way to construct a sentence. You suggested a better way to have done so in that case, but not the way.

What's more, you're not correcting anything if you don't explain why those corrections need to be made in the first place. By just posting these one word 'corrections' without any qualifications for their pertinence you're just being supercilious.

Your point has been made at this stage. I still wouldn't agree that a lax attitude towards spelling/grammar etc... is the same thing as an inability to spell. You might argue that the former is even more reprehensible than the latter but by taking a patronising, insulting and condescending tone (such as you have) you're only making the situation worse.

Ernie Ball

Spectator#1 wrote:

There is a protocol to be observed in the quoting of other people and you did not adhere to it.

You are right. However, there is a different protocol when copyediting, which is what I was doing. And there's no protocol at all for copyediting on the internet, whereas the protocols for composition on the internet are (or ought to be) the same as for composition anywhere.

I'd agree with you on that point for the most part. I try to write properly even on boards.ie. The point is, there is a difference in context between here on an internet forum and elsewhere (exams, letters, CV's...). Provided the author adheres to most grammatical and syntactical rules it's quite easy to discern their meaning. While I try to be as clear as possible, I wouldn't begrudge somebody using contractions or more informal constructs to get their point across, provided it makes sense. I don't think that's the same thing as illiteracy.

I agree with you and I don't begrudge anyone their informal constructions. However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-illiterate prose and Stepherunie's is an example of that, whether he/she can do better or not.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, quite simply. There is more than one way to construct a sentence. You suggested a better way to have done so in that case, but not the way.

I never said or implied that mine was the only way. What I did say was that the sentences I corrected were incorrect and mine weren't. That is the case whether I explain why they were incorrect or not.

What's more, you're not correcting anything if you don't explain why those corrections need to be made in the first place. By just posting these one word 'corrections' without any qualifications for their pertinence, you're just being supercilious.

Were my aim to educate Stepherunie, you might have a point. That wasn't my aim. My aim was to make a point. And, as you put it:

Your point has been made at this stage.

humbert

Ernie Ball wrote:

Then I guess your standards aren't very high. Which is typical of the average UCD student.

I simply don't have your penchant for exaggeration. After the previous petty criticisms and now this altogether risible remark, you come across as being bitter.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

I simply don't have your penchant for exaggeration.

Ah, but you do:

Instead it amounts to pettiness and highlights the fact the intelligence and good English don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Blowfish

Ernie Ball wrote:

Ah, but you do:

No, that was actually a valid point.

Ernie Ball

Blowfish wrote:

No, that was actually a valid point.

So says the proud illiterate.

Spectator#1

Lads, what are we like? It's Saturday night and we're arguing semantics. Let's have a séance instead...

humbert

Spectator#1 wrote:

Lads, what are we like? It's Saturday night and we're arguing semantics. Let's have a séance instead...

Agreed. *Hangs head in shame:o

Blowfish

Ernie Ball wrote:

So says the proud illiterate.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word illiterate.

I also said absolutely nothing to indicate that I was proud. I simply stated that I would much prefer to be considered semi-illiterate than to come accross as completely arrogant and pedantic.