I don't know Joe Guy, the article describes the University policy as:
At the University of Hull, a new policy says the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written English can be seen as "homogenous, North European, white, male, and elite".
It adds that students with English as a second language or educated at poorly performing schools can be discouraged if high standards of written English are required.
Instead it plans to encourage students to develop a "more authentic academic voice… that celebrates, rather than obscures, their particular background or characteristics".
I read this as saying that because some people are educationally disadvantaged due to their coming from "poorly performing schools", they are no longer going to require a "a high level of proficiency in written English" for students claiming that such a policy "a high level of proficiency in written English". Now there may be a place for such "voices" in some writing, but I still think it is silly to choose to lower the standards rather than bring the students up to an university acceptable level of writing. I don't see this as silencing their voices, but making their messages more accessible. By all means do not discourage the "authentic" voices in areas like poetry and creative prose, but let's not kid ourselves that lowering the standards makes everyone more equal.
Right. All this is doing is speeding up the race to eliminate any kind of qualification whatsoever and lower the bar all the way to the ground. And while everyone is 'equal' if there are no qualifications to be met, that is not the kind of equality one should be striving for. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
Qualifications are homogenous, North European, white, male, and elite.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
"Poor" spelling is not indicative of stupidity. If a person is capable of conveying an intelligent thought, does it matter how it's spelt? Or how it's spelled? The very concept of a "correct" English spelling is a fairly recent invention, is still evolving (see, e.g., various publication style guides) and there's still no universal agreement on the spelling -- or even the meaning -- of many words among English-speaking peoples (see, e.g., this BBS).
To the extent music is a "universal language" that conveys sonic ideas, it has (and has had) numerous notation systems, tonal systems and styles over human history and across the globe. Which is correct? When you hear a piece, would you even know, let alone care-- how it was written down and scored, or whether it uses microtones as an alternative to the "standard" 12-tone "alphabet"?
Perhaps it is only your lack of imagination that insists there must be one orthography imposed on all.
It is reasonable to require fluency in the dominant(or default) system of musical notation so that they can communicate at least in music schools which teach theory.
by the same token it is reasonable to require a certain mastery of English even if spelling is made less important. If a student cannot communicate effectively either in expression or comprehension it is a waste of resources for them to be there.
yrs,
rubato
Bertrand Russell thought it was more important to teach correct pronunciation than correct spelling. The next person who pronounces "forte' (meaning strength or strong point) as "fortay" I'm going to say something really cutting to. hurtful, even.
Bertrand Russell thought it was more important to teach correct pronunciation than correct spelling. The next person who pronounces "forte' (meaning strength or strong point) as "fortay" I'm going to say something really cutting to. hurtful, even.
the other thing is that the meaning and value of a degree from a particular institution is defined by the requirements. Making them less could mean the degree is worth less
Fowler's Modern English Usage says that the pronunciation of forte—meaning a thing for which someone has a particular talent—has "been unstable for most of the 20th century: some still pronounce it as one syllable."
I haven't my Fowler to hand: like most of my books it's in a box in the basement until I find the time and energy and $$$ to build some bookshelves. But it does not look to me as if Fowler is railing against the two-syllable pronunciation. And if it's good enough for Fowler it's good enough to me.
Fowler probably had more to say about the modern distinction between its and it's.
I listened to a short podcast on the word forte at the M-W link I gave and it said that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. I guess they're right about that.
Fowler probably had more to say about the modern distinction between its and it's.
It seems that "it's" should be the written possessive form of it but it must be some type of a rule that contractions trump logic when it comes the written word.
Usually I prefer to use words any way that sounds right to me at the time. I never have been much of a grammatician.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
"Poor" spelling is not indicative of stupidity. If a person is capable of conveying an intelligent thought, does it matter how it's spelt? Or how it's spelled? The very concept of a "correct" English spelling is a fairly recent invention, is still evolving (see, e.g., various publication style guides) and there's still no universal agreement on the spelling -- or even the meaning -- of many words among English-speaking peoples (see, e.g., this BBS).
To the extent music is a "universal language" that conveys sonic ideas, it has (and has had) numerous notation systems, tonal systems and styles over human history and across the globe. Which is correct? When you hear a piece, would you even know, let alone care-- how it was written down and scored, or whether it uses microtones as an alternative to the "standard" 12-tone "alphabet"?
Perhaps it is only your lack of imagination that insists there must be one orthography imposed on all.
The fact that you fucked up the formatting on that post is hysterical!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
At the University of Hull, a new policy says the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written English can be seen as "homogenous, North European, white, male, and elite".
... -"BB"-
It is a university. If it is not elite it is useless.
Hey, rubato — you've got my little signature on that one block-quote so that it looks like I was saying something that big RR actually said.
However, I see it was posted on a Saturday night at 11:36 PM MT (12:26 AM CT/1:36 AM ET). Posting while intoxicated can be almost as embarrassing as drunk-texting your ex. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
It is a university. If it is not elite it is useless.
It is a university. If it is not elite it is useless.
yrs,
rubato
I agree with the sentiment, if not the fucked up formatting.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
