4 ms·

A liberal arts education teaches you many useful things: grammar, for example. Read his opening paragraph again. "As usual I get a ton of mail on subjects tha

by grot 15y ago

A liberal arts education teaches you many useful things: grammar, for example. Read his opening paragraph again. "As usual I get a ton of mail on subjects that are controversial, and one of the more painful ones was the fact that the Dropping out is probably not for you post gave people the impression that I'm against studying the arts, literature or any other non hard science." Awkward, no? That's because it's a run on sentence. The things that a liberal arts education teaches you are not always obvious. Of course you can read Plato or Homer or Augustine by yourself, but unless you're in a collegiate environment, it's very very easy to be lazy. How many times have you picked up a book, skimmed through it, and never opened it up again? How many times have you actually read a book, and then for some weird reason, forgotten all of its contents very soon after? Formal schooling forces you to reengage with texts again and again. Formal schooling forces you to be critical of yourself and your own work before someone else has a crack at it. All of these things can be accomplished by a very motivated and disciplined individual. But how many of us are actually that motivated and that disciplined?

DanBC 15y ago
I've read stuff from liberal arts graduates that was just as bad as the example, if not worse. See the trend in the late 70s, 80s and early 90s for "freedom" and "creativity" without "stiffling" grammar and spelling rules.
bermanoid 15y ago
Awkward, no? That's because it's a run on sentence. Awkward, perhaps, especially when cut-and-paste de-highlights the link around "Dropping out is probably not for you". But it wasn't a run-on sentence, jacquesm properly connected the independent clauses with a conjunction instead of just smooshing them together. As opposed to the sentence that I just wrote, which did not, and actually constitutes a run-on sentence (though some purists might object to lumping comma-splices together with run-on sentences). If you're going to insinuate that someone's education is lacking based on their grammar, please make sure to actually point out a grammatical mistake. Or better yet, let's leave the grammar policing aside, it doesn't add much to the discussion given that jacquesm writes plenty good English for blog-format prose...
- georgefox 15y ago
  In fairness, it was awkward, and there are quite a few comma splices and other grammatical errors in Jacques's post (e.g., the second paragraph). I actually found this a little distracting myself. That said, I agree that grammar policing is kind of a low blow.
  - jacquesm 15y ago
    I'm happy to accept the low blows, being a non-native English speaker/writer anything that will help me to improve is more than welcome. Of course it would be nice if such comments were accompanied by suggested fixes and/or constructive criticism of the content. But you can't have everything ;)
    - georgefox 15y ago
      If English is not your first language, then you're obviously doing quite well. As a fairly typical American, I can only speak English, and I have much respect for anyone that's bilingual. (Incidentally, most of the bilingual Americans I know have liberal arts degrees.) Here's my feedback, though: I thought your post read as if it had been written hastily. There were some mistakes that seemed careless, like not capitalizing Wikipedia or omitting hypens and dashes in constructs like non-hard science and pro-education. Additionally, there were some issues with sentence structure, especially comma splices, which bermanoid referred to above. For example, the second paragraph: I guess it was to be expected the way I phrased things there so let me take a moment to correct this perception, the offending lines are right at the start in: The comma there isn't valid, as it splits two independent clauses without a conjunction. I'd use a period instead, but I'd also rephrase slightly: I guess it was to be expected with the way I phrased things, so let me take a moment to correct this perception. The offending lines are right at the start: I'll take one last example: You can study those subjects to your hearts content and there are lots of places online where you can discuss them until the cows come home. First, hearts vs. heart's seems like another hasty oversight. This sentence, though, is a different type of run-on. Technically, if you put a comma before and, you're safe, but without it, us grammar nerds call it a fused sentence. This is a pretty serious nitpick, and this is very common among native speakers as well, but two of these in a row caught my eye.
MKT 15y ago
Let's not forget that you could major in STEM and take plenty of liberal arts courses. For example, I was an engineering major and still took English I and English II, as well as Japan Before 1600, History of the Labor Movement, African History and some others. Let's not turn this discussion into comparing multiple false choices to each other.
- caseysoftware 15y ago
  Agreed. The options are not mutually exclusive. I also was an engineering major and picked up two minors outside my field specifically in the social sciences. I wonder how common the reverse is? As in [choose: English, Art, History, etc] majors taking Calculus or Physics..

by grot 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

I've read stuff from liberal arts graduates that was just as bad as the example, if not worse. See the trend in the late 70s, 80s and early 90s for "freedom" and "creativity" without "stiffling" grammar and spelling rules.

bermanoid 15y ago

Awkward, no? That's because it's a run on sentence. Awkward, perhaps, especially when cut-and-paste de-highlights the link around "Dropping out is probably not for you". But it wasn't a run-on sentence, jacquesm properly connected the independent clauses with a conjunction instead of just smooshing them together. As opposed to the sentence that I just wrote, which did not, and actually constitutes a run-on sentence (though some purists might object to lumping comma-splices together with run-on sentences). If you're going to insinuate that someone's education is lacking based on their grammar, please make sure to actually point out a grammatical mistake. Or better yet, let's leave the grammar policing aside, it doesn't add much to the discussion given that jacquesm writes plenty good English for blog-format prose...

georgefox 15y ago
In fairness, it was awkward, and there are quite a few comma splices and other grammatical errors in Jacques's post (e.g., the second paragraph). I actually found this a little distracting myself. That said, I agree that grammar policing is kind of a low blow.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  I'm happy to accept the low blows, being a non-native English speaker/writer anything that will help me to improve is more than welcome. Of course it would be nice if such comments were accompanied by suggested fixes and/or constructive criticism of the content. But you can't have everything ;)
  - georgefox 15y ago
    If English is not your first language, then you're obviously doing quite well. As a fairly typical American, I can only speak English, and I have much respect for anyone that's bilingual. (Incidentally, most of the bilingual Americans I know have liberal arts degrees.) Here's my feedback, though: I thought your post read as if it had been written hastily. There were some mistakes that seemed careless, like not capitalizing Wikipedia or omitting hypens and dashes in constructs like non-hard science and pro-education. Additionally, there were some issues with sentence structure, especially comma splices, which bermanoid referred to above. For example, the second paragraph: I guess it was to be expected the way I phrased things there so let me take a moment to correct this perception, the offending lines are right at the start in: The comma there isn't valid, as it splits two independent clauses without a conjunction. I'd use a period instead, but I'd also rephrase slightly: I guess it was to be expected with the way I phrased things, so let me take a moment to correct this perception. The offending lines are right at the start: I'll take one last example: You can study those subjects to your hearts content and there are lots of places online where you can discuss them until the cows come home. First, hearts vs. heart's seems like another hasty oversight. This sentence, though, is a different type of run-on. Technically, if you put a comma before and, you're safe, but without it, us grammar nerds call it a fused sentence. This is a pretty serious nitpick, and this is very common among native speakers as well, but two of these in a row caught my eye.

MKT 15y ago

Let's not forget that you could major in STEM and take plenty of liberal arts courses. For example, I was an engineering major and still took English I and English II, as well as Japan Before 1600, History of the Labor Movement, African History and some others. Let's not turn this discussion into comparing multiple false choices to each other.

caseysoftware 15y ago
Agreed. The options are not mutually exclusive. I also was an engineering major and picked up two minors outside my field specifically in the social sciences. I wonder how common the reverse is? As in [choose: English, Art, History, etc] majors taking Calculus or Physics..