Job Discussion Forums

[vinpinman]

[arioch36]

Cole

[johnslat]

I teach at the community college level here in the States (Santa Fe, NM.)
From what I've seen/heard, the "average college student" these days has less mastery of "proper English" (both spoken and written) than used to be the case.
I suspect there are many factors responsible (assuming my "anecdotal observations" have any validity), but here are a few of my guesses.

1. Grade inflation; 2. Social Promotion; 3. The failure to teach even the fundamentals of English in far too many public schools; 4. The pressure to attend college (it's been said that a college degree nowadays is, with respect to getting a decent job, the "new high school diploma".)

So, are my observations accurate, and can my personal experience be extended to a general statement? Or am I just an old fuddy-duddy, bemoaning the present sad state and harboring a nostalgic longing for "the good old days" (which were very likely not so "good", anyway?)

Beats me.

Regards,
John

[arioch36]

being the old fuddy duddy you are, how long have community colleges been around?

[johnslat]

Dear arioch36,
Good question - I really had no idea, so I looked it up. Longer than I would have thought, longer than even a fuddy-duddy such as myself.

"Many of the early community colleges were an extension of high schools, like the first established in Joliet, Illinois in 1901. This was a two year system compared to one year high school extension. These initial community colleges generally were very small, usually less than 200 students and focused on a liberal arts education with the goal of transferring students to four year institutions. They were more reflective of high school needs and lacked a definite identity. Many of the early community colleges were normal schools and prepared teachers. Primary emphasis was placed on traditional middle class values and developing responsible citizens.
During the 1920s and 1930s there was a shift in the purpose of community colleges to developing a workforce, which was influenced by wide unemployment during the Great Depression. Developing "semiprofessionals" became dominant national language to describe junior college students and was used until after WWII. A two-year, terminal education, was seen as more socially efficient for students who could advance past high school but not attain bachelor's degrees. This national vocational movement was seen to give junior colleges a target population, but numerous students wanted more than a semiprofessional education; many maintained a desire to transfer. Throughout this time period, there was a move for more public two-year institutions along with a trend to separate from high schools and affiliate with higher education. With the change in affiliation came a new status which encouraged junior colleges to develop additional credibility through the creation of professional criteria and use of scientific methods.
After WWII, skilled jobs were needed and the G.I. Bill afforded more educational opportunity to veterans which resulted in increased enrollments. Another factor that led to growth was the rise of adult and community education. After WWII, community colleges were seen as a good place to house continuing education programs. The 1947 Truman Commission was a very important national document for community colleges. It suggested a network of public community colleges that would provide education to a diverse group of students at little or no cost along with serving community needs through a comprehensive mission.
This national network exploded in the 1960s with 457 community colleges and the enrollment of baby boomers. A series of grants through the Kellogg Junior College Leadership Programs helped train many community college leaders during this decade. Growth continued during the 1970s when many enrolled to escape the Vietnam era draft. The 1970s also marked a shift to faculty development, including more instructional training for the unique student body and mission of community colleges. During the 1980s, community colleges began to work more closely with high schools to prepare students for vocational and technical two year programs."

[cspitzig]

I've got several friends who work at a for profit school(in the US). Basically, this school tries to spend as little as possible, so that it barely keeps its accreditation. They have no requirements for letting students in. They lie to students about what will be expected of them when they attending school.

The students at the community college I work at seem far better students than those at my friends' school. Of course, we work on different subjects. I think a lot more students at the community college start in lower classes than where I got my BS. Most of the students I tutor are below Calculus I(I mostly tutor math), while I think anything below Calculus where I went to school was classified remedial(or some euphemism). Also, a lot more students are older or ESL students.

[Glenski]

[spiral78]

It seems to me that there's a distinction between

1) grading one's language depending on the language skill level of the listener

and

2) speaking ungrammatically regardless of the listener

I could be wrong, but I thought the OP was more about the latter...

And, so far as grading one's speech for a listener's comprehension - well, this is something of a universal skill. Even non-teachers often grade their language when speaking to non-natives - sometimes without need, or out of prejudice about how well a non-native will understand, but it's a sort of natural response in any case...

and there's some research precedent for doing it (to some extent) in the classroom.

[gaijinalways]

Good point spiral, I also though she was referring to the second point. Grading versus just being unable to recognize what is ungrammatical and not acceptable for most speakers (I added this last part) are very different. Is uppose it's a form of pidgin English.

I think Aleksandra's observations seem to be more based on her use of formal vocabulary. I would have to wonder on the setting where these conversations took place. Using jargon like 'instrumentalisation' is hardly necessary in most conversations. I disagree with the mentioned person who responded it sounded 'ugly', but rather I think it's unecessary.




Soapdodger in another thread spoofed some of the 'business English' that's floating around, and it certainly isn't the type I try to teach (though having to understand it at times is a necessary evil). Using common words like profit and income though, are necessary, and don't depend on knowing a technical term which has few uses.

[markholmes]

Slightly off topic, but how do you talk to people when you are not teaching and the person's level of English is not that great? I tend to listen to what they say and then answer the question or converse with them using the same grammar (mistakes and all) and vocab that they use. That way they have no problem understanding.

[arioch36]

Holmes
Slightly off topic, but how do you talk to people when you are not teaching and the person's level of English is not that great? I tend to listen to what they say and then answer the question or converse with them using the same grammar (mistakes and all) and vocab that they use. That way they have no problem understanding.

I think that is at least one half of this topic. I definitely adjust to the level of the person I'm talking to, usually I try to be just a little better, poor enough for them to understand, good enough for them to get a little better.. but basically by using simple grammar and simple words. I still cringe at the the idea of deliberately speaking bad english

Slat,
resourceful as always. I remember in grad school we discussed/ researched the effects of the greatly expanded educational system, and the idea of the negative effects of the system producing too many graduates for too few jobs, similar to what is happening in CHina now.

[gaijinalways]

[jwbhomer]

[Glenski]

I adjust my vocabulary to the level of the people I talk to, whether in class or outside class. I also simplify my grammar, but I certainly don't use the poor level of grammar my students do!

Why give them a bad example?

[Glenski]

Ok, I took a closer look at that article. Let's put it up here for all to see and dissect. Like the OP, I find a lot of fault with it, but perhaps not in the same way.

Migrant dishwashers in the UK being forced to limit their vocabulary in order to communicate with the British staff? Hmmm.

A PDF document that to me looks more like what editors and writers use to simplify writing and keep out unnecessary verbiage, not something meant for spoken English. Hmmm, again.

Plain English vs. a more grand execution of Webster's dictionary of our language? Well, as a scientist, I can tell you that "dumbing down" is a lot of what we do to explain things, mostly to the layman and student, and often to fellow scientists simply because fields are so specialized that the intrinsic jargon (oops, is that not a plain English term?) can be too hard even for another scientist to understand. Technical writers, especially for magazine articles, thrive on dumbing down the language.

And, to talk of great writers... well, that's literary English, not spoken English, which is what I thought this was all about. Twain may have written in plain English, but it was never easy for me to get through some of his long and complex sentences. Shucks.