Why do we spend so little time learning grammar in college?

[Mark44]

Right. But is uni any different?

Whether university is or isn't different is not relevant if the students coming into the university are supposed to be ready for this level but really aren't.

 

[gmax137]

I share some of the concerns raised in this thread, but I'm afraid it is "shoveling against the tide." The ever-present media (TV shows, news, sportscasts, movies...) is not concerned with "proper grammar" and kids grow up speaking the way they hear others. The text/tweet/facebook medium is far worse, and probably far more powerful in shaping what "sounds right" to people's ears.

The only thing any one of us can do, is to speak/write carefully. And hope it rubs off on others.

 

[DaveC426913]

Whether university is or isn't different is not relevant if the students coming into the university are supposed to be ready for this level but really aren't.

Then they get rejected.

As I said, isn't that the purpose of entrance interviews and exams? To weed out those lacking the competence and skills?

Where does it end?

"I want to study differential calculus at your university but I failed math in high school. Will I get accepted?"

"Of course. We offer remedial math programs so you can learn basic math while studying advanced math."


(To clarify: I'm not espousing this as my personal opinion that we should just let them drown, I'm simply asking: isn't this the way it is supposed to work? The system operating as it's supposed to operate?)

 

[sevensages]

Then they get rejected.

As I said, isn't that the purpose of entrance interviews and exams? To weed out those lacking the competence and skills?

Where does it end?

"I want to study differential calculus at your university but I failed math in high school. Will I get accepted?"

"Of course. We offer remedial math programs so you can learn basic math while studying advanced math."


(To clarify: I'm not espousing this as my personal opinion that we should just let them drown, I'm simply asking: isn't this the way it is supposed to work? The system operating as it's supposed to operate?)

The universities cannot reject everyone and stay in business.

The universities need students that are paying tuition to stay in business. Universities rely on the money they make from students' paying tuition to pay the salaries of the faculty.

If the public schools fail to adequately teach grammar to almost all students, the universities cannot reject almost all students because the universities would not receive enough tuition money. The universities don't control the curriculum of public schools. If the public schools are too dysfunctional to teach grammar, then the universities should do it.

 

[Hornbein]

My university required an English composition class. The correction of grammar was included. A foreign language was also required, which included the study of that language's grammar.

I have learned that grammatically correct and sensible sentences can sound strange to a native speaker. People learn phrases, not words and grammar. Note the current trend for the erroneous "cannot be understated."

 

[Hornbein]

As I said, isn't that the purpose of entrance interviews and exams?

I thought those were a thing of the past. Multiple choice exams are what's happening. It's a matter of practicality.

I had two entrance interviews but that was back in the 70's. Do colleges still do that?

 

[Averagesupernova]

If the public schools are too dysfunctional to teach grammar, then the universities should do it.

My position has been that we need to fix what is causing high school grads to not be competent in grammar, etc before they get to college. Why are we continuing to spend money on public schools when in college they're taught (retaught) what they were supposed to learn in high school and prior? I get it, if people go to college, they have to lower the bar to the point that they get enough students to keep the doors open. How low are we willing to let the bar go? Kids end up in college simply to learn basic life skills? Many college grads end up with jobs that in the past would not have required a college education. Now these students need to work off the cost of the education.

 

[Mark44]

Then they get rejected.

Or, rather, they don't get accepted into a university. Here in the US, one of the roles of the community college system is to provide an avenue, via remedial classes (classes that should have been mastered in the K-12 schools) for students to improved their grades so as to be accepted in a university.

As I said, isn't that the purpose of entrance interviews and exams? To weed out those lacking the competence and skills?

As far as I know, there aren't entrance interviews or exams. Acceptance hinges on grade-point average (GPA) to some extent (although many universities don't use them) together with some sort of formal statement that lists extracurricular activities.

"I want to study differential calculus at your university but I failed math in high school. Will I get accepted?"

One would hope not. On the other hand, one summer I took some university classes in preparation for applying to the masters' program. At the house where I rented an apartment there was a young woman living there who was an undergrad art major. She told me that she never learned how to do long division, which is something that I learned somewhere around 5th grade or so. I was shocked that a university student was so ignorant in some so basic as plain old arithmetic.

"Of course. We offer remedial math programs so you can learn basic math while studying advanced math."

I don't think any college or university would suggest this plan of action to a student.

 

[sevensages]

My university required an English composition class. The correction of grammar was included. A foreign language was also required, which included the study of that language's grammar.

UAH requires undergraduates take two English composition classes. I think most universities require that undergraduates take two English composition classes. The English grammar that students learn in an English composition class is not adequate. The universities need to have courses that are strictly about grammar.

 

[sevensages]

My position has been that we need to fix what is causing high school grads to not be competent in grammar, etc before they get to college.

I agree, but the deficiencies of English grammar curriculum at public schools is not in the control of universities. If I were a dean at a university, I would mandate that all undergraduates at my university must take two courses on English grammar in order to earn any Bachelor's Degree.

Why are we continuing to spend money on public schools when in college they're taught (retaught) what they were supposed to learn in high school and prior? I get it, if people go to college, they have to lower the bar to the point that they get enough students to keep the doors open. How low are we willing to let the bar go? Kids end up in college simply to learn basic life skills? Many college grads end up with jobs that in the past would not have required a college education. Now these students need to work off the cost of the education.

If the universities have to lower the bar and admit students with poor skills in English grammar, then the universities need to mandate classes on English grammar to remedy that deficiency.

 

[russ_watters]

Who disagree with the idea that half the purpose of a college education is to get a general education? Why do all universities mandate that STEM majors take classes in economics, history, and English literature if half the purpose of a college education is to get a general education?
[separate post]
The purpose of high school is to get a foundational (general) education. The purpose of being an undergraduate in high school is to BOTH get a general education and to get a specialized education in one's major. The first two years of college are to get a general education. The last two years of college are for specialization in one's major (and one's minor).

I advocate that universities mandate all undergraduates take classes in English grammar because half the purpose of a college education is to get a general education.

Well, college administrators certainly believe that, and there is a common implication (sometimes implied, sometimes stated explicitly) that a liberal arts degree is a complete education whereas a STEM education needs to include half liberal arts to be "well rounded". I strongly disagree with with both sides of that. I think liberal arts grads get far too little STEM education and STEM majors far more liberal arts than is useful. Just looking at society's problems, I think lack of science knowledge/understanding is a far bigger problem than poor grammar, and more importantly that grammar should be learned in elementary/high school*. And if it isn't, it shouldn't be a college's job to fix that.

*Remembering that only the top half of the population, education-wise, go to college. If you encounter someone with very poor communication skills, it's more likely they failed to learn them in high school and didn't even go to college than that they failed to learn them in college.

 

[Hornbein]

A USA high school degree just means you sat in a chair for twelve years. It's totally different in Japan or China. You've got to work 60+ hours a week, even little kids. The systems are far more demanding.

My uncle taught at 2-year Merritt College. One of his students turned in a blank exam. It turned out that he could read but could not write. He could get by by taking multiple choice tests.

At Cabrillo College a student sued the college for denying her a degree. She lost, but it still cost the college a lot of trouble and money. It's easier to pass them along, then they are someone else's problem.

The Bogdanoff brothers got PhDs in physics from the University of Burgundy despite complete incompetence. When interviewed a professor said they had put in the time and money so it was time to pass them along. Isn't that going to hurt your prestige? We haven't got any prestige.

I worked with an engineer who had a degree in image processing. He obviously couldn't do it at all, not the simplest thing. They tried to guide him down a fruitful path but he clung to his erroneous guns. This went on for years until they really needed to get the job done.

Then there were Silicon Valley engineers who were capable but never did anything. Think Dilbert's Wally. It's pretty common. After a number of years there is a cash crisis. They are laid off and given good recommendations. One of them got bored and sought out a prestigious job. She was quite pretty.

Guess why China is beating the USA in engineering. Well, I'm not going to worry about it. It's far too big for me. The institutional inertia is overwhelmingly immense.

 

[sevensages]

Then they get rejected.

As I said, isn't that the purpose of entrance interviews and exams? To weed out those lacking the competence and skills?

Where does it end?

"I want to study differential calculus at your university but I failed math in high school. Will I get accepted?"

"Of course. We offer remedial math programs so you can learn basic math while studying advanced math."


(To clarify: I'm not espousing this as my personal opinion that we should just let them drown, I'm simply asking: isn't this the way it is supposed to work? The system operating as it's supposed to operate?)

Let's say that you're the dean of the University of Texas. The University of Texas has over 53,000 students. If the public schools are highly dysfunctional, and 99% of college-bound graduates of public schools don't adequately learn English grammar in public school, do you think that the University of Texas should reject 99% of applicants for their poor English grammar skills, resulting in the University of Texas going out of business because it does not have enough students paying tuition?

My alternative to the scenario of rejecting almost everyone would be to stay in business and just mandate courses on English grammar at the University of Texas.

 

[sevensages]

Well, college administrators certainly believe that, and there is a common implication (sometimes implied, sometimes stated explicitly) that a liberal arts degree is a complete education whereas a STEM education needs to include half liberal arts to be "well rounded". I strongly disagree with with both sides of that. I think liberal arts grads get far too little STEM education and STEM majors far more liberal arts than is useful. Just looking at society's problems, I think lack of science knowledge/understanding is a far bigger problem than poor grammar, and more importantly that grammar should be learned in elementary/high school*. And if it isn't, it shouldn't be a college's job to fix that.

It is a college's job to fix that because it is a college's job to give someone a well-rounded education.

*Remembering that only the top half of the population, education-wise, go to college. If you encounter someone with very poor communication skills, it's more likely they failed to learn them in high school and didn't even go to college than that they failed to learn them in college.

 

[WWGD]

And short of taking a class, you can just ask ChatGpt to check your grammar.

 

[Hornbein]

I think liberal arts grads get far too little STEM education and STEM majors far more liberal arts than is useful.

I've gotten to know humanities students and they could not do anything that is logical. Trying to force them will not work. Their brain has no such function. To me it seems weird that they can't do the simplest thing, but that's the way it is. They may be very articulate, make a good impression, and rise to very high positions in society. Recall the recent pronouncement of a 1000% cut in drug prices. The only engineer who ever became president was Herbert Hoover. How effective was he? FDR was "not a logical thinker." I think this worked to his advantage. It gave him rapport with the average man.

 

[russ_watters]

It is a college's job to fix that because it is a college's job to give someone a well-rounded education.

Well, when society is paying for college, society should decide what college's job is and when an individual is paying for college that individual should decide what college's job is. Since I'm a bit of both, I have my opinion.

And I'll put an even finer point on it: the more "society" allows people to offload their responsibilities onto society, the more they will.

 

[mathwonk]

Feel free to ignore, as I am interpreting this question more generally as "should we teach in college things that students should have learned earlier?, i.e. should prerequisites matter?"

My take: For most of my 40 year career as a college math professor, I proceeded somewhat as follows:

The prerequisites of my course are clearly stated, and I am obligated to teach what is on the published and departmentally adopted syllabus. Therefore if a student does not have those prerequisites, I have no obligation to cater (in class) to his/her lack of preparation, indeed I am obligated to the well prepared students to not do so. I am however available in office hours to tutor anyone wishing to compensate for this lack of preparation, free of charge, (and to do so as late as 8-9 o'clock at night, in spite of complications this caused at home).

Years passed, in which, as measured by the pre-class test for prerequisites, the percentage of enrolled students having more than 15% of them approached zero, and the number of students taking significant advantage of my free tutoring stalled at 2 or 3 total, literally over 20-30 years, and I realized I was orienting my class to almost none of the students who were in the room.

Thus I began to ease up considerably on my expectations, and to try to meet everyone where he/she came to me. I got much more effective at my job, and then was soon forced to retire.

That is why I am now here, where only those come who actually want help.

verbum sapienti.

 

[symbolipoint]

So numerous the posts and responses on this topic!

The topic's question, "Why do we spend so little time on Grammar in college"?

My sense is this: Elementary school and Intermediate high school specifically teach Grammar in some of their courses. High schools require students to learn or study two years of a "foreign language" which also contain some very sharp focus on Grammar; so the student is learning (and possibly relearning) the Grammars of both languages comparatively. All of that is very powerful for the more motivated and attentive students.

What is "so little time on", I prefer to not try to make an accounting.

 

[symbolipoint]

Wow. Another one of these super long topics.
Too many posts so no patience to read; as if that means anyone is interested in this posting.

To answer the topic as a question: But they DO spend time on Grammar. It comes in the form of the requirement of two semesters of a Modern Foreign Language, so that students study Grammar of both languages comparatively.

 

[Hornbein]

My alternative to the scenario of rejecting almost everyone would be to stay in business and just mandate courses on English grammar at the University of Texas.

OK. Then when the students fail to learn grammar do you flunk them out?

 

[Hornbein]

Back in maybe 1965 my Dad tried to flunk half of the students in his engineering class. The University of Michigan wouldn't let him do that.

 

[WWGD]

Just a reminder that, as of at least the late 90s, many universities taught classes of remedial Mathematics, aka, "College Algebra", without , IIRC, a big issue made of it.

 

[sevensages]

OK. Then when the students fail to learn grammar do you flunk them out?

Yes

 

[phinds]

@sevensages I have read this thread with some amusement. I am a grammar Nazi, and as some on this forum know, I often correct people's grammar (including in at least one embarrassing instance, my own). I have my badge to show my authority:

so, I sympathize with your point of view but you carry it too far. You don't seem to live in the world that the rest of us live in, and I find your statement

The universities need to have courses that are strictly about grammar.

to be an excellent example of what in the military used to be called "pissing up a rope". You get yourself wet and have zero affect on the rest of the world.

 

[symbolipoint]

Just a reminder that, as of at least the late 90s, many universities taught classes of remedial Mathematics, aka, "College Algebra", without , IIRC, a big issue made of it.

Just a minor distraction to the topic but I believe "College Algebra" is not remedial at the college nor university level. In contrast, "Intermediate Algebra" is a remedial course when done at a college or university.

 

[Muu9]

IMO, basic grammar (the kind necessary to avoid grammatical errors) should be included or at least required in any college-level writing course.

 

[Muu9]

Just a minor distraction to the topic but I believe "College Algebra" is not remedial at the college nor university level. In contrast, "Intermediate Algebra" is a remedial course when done at a college or university.

At most of the schools I've looked at, college algebra (which is taken before precalculus) is a remedial course

 

[David Lewis]

Grammar is social currency. If universities aim to produce productive citizens, grammar may seem secondary to technical skills. But if the goal is to cultivate successful citizens, grammar is essential: it enriches self‑expression and shapes how others perceive intelligence.

Grammar snobs run the world. They hear a dangling participle and think "idiot," not "interesting perspective." Mix up "their" and "there," and suddenly your brilliant idea sounds like garbage. But say the exact same thing with perfect syntax, and everyone nods along.

Ridiculous system? Absolutely. But we're stuck with it.

 

[mathwonk]

@Hornbein: they give us the syllabus, and the criterion for passing, and then they tell us we cannot fail the number of students who actually would fail by those criteria, even if those students do not attend either class or office hours, nor turn in homework. It poses a difficult challenge.