Period: Reports of My Death…

Everyone seems to agree that technology has killed the period. (See here and here.) I think this is probably just a wee bit premature, but I get their point. (Get it? Point? [Rim shot.]) One of my colleagues and best friends, Jeremy, worried on Facebook that such claims could make like difficult for us educators if our students ever catch wind of them. I've not yet had such an encounter with a student, though I have had students who have complained that my expectations for their writing (e.g. "proper" grammar, no spelling errors, etc.) are excessive. Here is my teaching philosophy/advice to students on the matter: Master the standard rules first. Once you've proven you understand those, then you can break them. I'm reminded of something that a blogger I follow (and highly recommend) wrote recently:

There was so much about art I never considered. I was one of those people who looked at paintings and wondered how they got in museums when it looks like a kid could do it. I was wrong…. Of course, Van Gogh could paint a realistic looking animal. He chose not to. Duh. (link)

For the record, I've never had a student who has mastered grammar/punctuation. Hell, I'm not sure that I've mastered it

Using Macros in MS Word for Grading Student Papers

I have found that using macros in Word saves me a lot of time and effort in grading student papers. If you are unfamiliar with macros, here is a good place to get started. Before I read a word in any of the students' papers for a given assignment, I run a macros that put them all in the proper formatting I require in the syllabus. I also employ separate macros to identify and highlight citation or other requirements specific to any given assignment. Coding or recording a macros is not without its problems, but even with those issues, I've found the investment to be well worth it.

Running List of Pet Peeves: #10 "Actually...."

It's actually really annoying when people over-/misuse the word "actually." It's supposed to denote some unexpected or surprising information, but some folks simply throw it around.

Refuting the Singular They

My colleague "John" over at Memoirs of a SLACer argues that:

...the rise of the singular "they" should not be condemned, it should be embraced. When professors look down their noses at students they see as poorly trained they are ignoring the fact that these students (and the fluid qualities of language) have effectively solved the problem of awkward “s/he” constructions .

Respectfully, I think he's wrong. First, there are other more elegant ways around the problem of gender in English besides ignoring number. Second, if my students want to flaunt the rules of grammar, they need to prove first that they actually know that they are breaking the rules. I don't believe that they know the rules to begin with. When a student writes a grammatically perfect paper for me, s/he can do whatever the hell s/he wants for the rest of their tenure as my student, no questions asked. So far, no one has come remotely close to that.

In general, I understand that our lives are becoming increasingly casual, and I don't think that is necessarily bad. However, it comes with costs. I've written before about how education--and higher education in particular--is in part about distinction, about demarcating some from others on the basis of a given measure (even if that measure is relatively arbitrary). I am all for having a discussion about the appropriateness of this endeavor, but abandoning such distinction is about as radical as it gets, and I don't see it happening any time soon. So, if we're going to distinguish, we need ways to do that. Language is one such way. Not only that, but it's a good way to do it that forces students to wrestle with the (literally) symbolic issues that we find so important sociologically.