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

[sevensages]

To some degree, this thread is inspired by PF user erobz's thread "Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?" That's why I made a title to this thread that paralleled the title of erobz's thread. I totally disagree with erobz. I created this thread because the curriculum of grammar at Universities is a totally distinct topic from the topic of the curriculum of grammar in public schools.

I have noticed that the English grammar of many ( perhaps most) people with Bachelor's Degrees from universities in the United States of America is atrocious. I've known so many college graduates that write comma splices all the time. Both of my parents have Master's Degrees, and they both write "could of" or "should of" instead of "could have" or "should have" all the time. I see people with Bachelor's Degrees use predicate pronouns that don't match the antecedent all the time. For instance, many college graduates will write: "I'm older than her" instead of "I'm older than she." I see college graduates use the past tense of a verb when they should have written the past participle of a verb all the time. Many college graduates would write "He should have wrote the research paper yesterday" instead of "He should have written the research paper yesterday."

I attended the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) when I was in college, and UAH does not offer any courses on English grammar. And I think that most or all universities in the United States don't offer courses in English grammar. UAH mandates that to get a bachelor's degree, all undergraduates must take English Composition I and English Composition II, but those courses don't teach English grammar. English Composition I and English Composition II just consists of reading short stories and writing research papers about those short stories, not English grammar.

I think that most people will say that universities in America don't offer courses on English grammar because people should learn English grammar in public schools. But let's get real. Most graduates of high school don't learn English grammar adequately in public school. Public schools teach to the lowest common denominator. In other words, public schools teach their curriculum slow enough so that the academically weakest students in the class can understand it. Most of the academically weakest students don't go to universities. If universities had classes on English grammar, those classes at a university on English grammar would probably be far superior to the classes on English grammar in high schools. Furthermore, universities require students to take lots of classes that high schools also have. For instance, I had to take American History and Economics classes at UAH, even though I took classes on American History and Economics in high school.

I think that all universities in America should mandate that students take at least two courses on English grammar: Basic English Grammar and Advanced English Grammar. I think that in these English grammar courses at universities students should teach students how to diagram sentences, proper use of verb tenses (including how to write the past tense of a modal verb), and proper punctuation, and how to use the correct pronoun case with an antecedent. A large part of earning a bachelor's degree is to just become a well-rounded, educated person as opposed to specialization of knowledge for a specific career. That's why electrical engineering majors and physics majors have to take courses in English Composition, history, economics, and many other subjects that don't pertain to electrical engineering or physics at all. Knowing how to write and speak with proper English grammar is a huge part of being an educated person.

I don't think that graduate students trying to get a master's degree or a PhD should have to take courses in English grammar unless they are getting their Master's Degree or PhD in English because graduate school is about specialization, not about getting a well-rounded education.

I'm aware of the fact that universities in America could offer courses on English grammar without mandating that all undergraduates must take those courses in order to get a bachelor's degree. My opinion is that all undergraduates should be required to take courses on English grammar in order to get a bachelor's degree. But I think that if universities in America are not going to require all students to take courses in English grammar to get a bachelor degree, the universities should at least offer the courses on English grammar as an optional course (which the universities don't do).

Should universities in the United States of America require students to take courses on English grammar?

 

[martinbn]

For instance, many college graduates will write: "I'm older than her" instead of "I'm older than she."

"I am older than she" never made sense to me. "I am older that she is" sounds correct, but with out the "is" feels wrong.

 

[sevensages]

"I am older than she" never made sense to me. "I am older that she is" sounds correct, but with out the "is" feels wrong.

Should universities require students to take courses on English grammar?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'll say this:
I always thought that it's not that important. As long as the point comes across right? Then I had to do tech support via email. I really changed my opinion in a hurry. Some of the run on sentences, endless streams of pronouns, and general assumption that I was able to read the mind of the sender about drove me nuts. The endless referral of this, this other thing and a third other thing referring to any number of this's, that's and those other this's and that's made it about impossible to make any sense out of what was attempting to be said.
-
Honestly the most pleasant people I dealt with on the phone (I did phone support too) were probably people that were unable to read and asked for an explanation of something that was in the instruction manual. I warned them that it was rather detailed and a number of steps but I was reassured by them that they could handle it. As far as I know they always did handle it. Never a second call back from them. There weren't many that called that couldn't read but they were pleasant to talk to. I always wondered if they had eventually learned to read and write if I'd have hated them as much as I hated the emailers with atrocious grammar.

 

[sevensages]

I'll say this:
I always thought that it's not that important. As long as the point comes across right? Then I had to do tech support via email. I really changed my opinion in a hurry. Some of the run on sentences, endless streams of pronouns, and general assumption that I was able to read the mind of the sender about drove me nuts. The endless referral of this, this other thing and a third other thing referring to any number of this's, that's and those other this's and that's made it about impossible to make any sense out of what was attempting to be said.
-
Honestly the most pleasant people I dealt with on the phone (I did phone support too) were probably people that were unable to read and asked for an explanation of something that was in the instruction manual. I warned them that it was rather detailed and a number of steps but I was reassured by them that they could handle it. As far as I know they always did handle it. Never a second call back from them. There weren't many that called that couldn't read but they were pleasant to talk to. I always wondered if they had eventually learned to read and write if I'd have hated them as much as I hated the emailers with atrocious grammar.

So if that's what you think now, do you agree with me that universities in America should require undergraduates to take courses in English grammar?

 

[Averagesupernova]

So if that's what you think now, do you agree with me that universities in America should require undergraduates to take courses in English grammar?

In electronics we always suppress the noise at the source if that is practical. Fix it before it becomes a problem in multiple places. In other words fix it as soon as possible. The same should be done with grammar. Why allow anyone out of high school that is unable to form a sentence?

 

[Astronuc]

I don't think that graduate students trying to get a master's degree or a PhD should have to take courses in English grammar unless they are getting their Master's Degree or PhD in English because graduate school is about specialization, not about getting a well-rounded education.

I've recommended graduate students take a course in technical writing after reviewing theses or dissertations. I even sent a confidential email to a students advisor with the recommendation. The thesis contain numerous grammatical errors similar to examples in the original post.

Too much specialization can limit ones career opportunities, depending on the field, and probably more so in applied physics or engineering. Some diversification is advisable.

 

[DaveC426913]

Isn't that what grade school is for?
Why waste time in uni on the basics?

Isn't that what application interviews and entrance exams are for? If the prospective student didn't bother to get his three Rs squared away before getting to uni, then he's rejected.

That's how the system is supposed to work, right?

 

[sevensages]

Isn't that what grade school is for?

Nobody masters English grammar in grade school.

Why waste time in uni on the basics?

Because most students at uni have not mastered the basics.

Isn't that what application interviews and entrance exams are for? If the prospective student didn't bother to get his three Rs in a row before getting to uni, then he's rejected.

That's how the system is supposed to work, right?

Most university students have not mastered English grammar.

 

[sevensages]

I've recommended graduate students take a course in technical writing after reviewing theses or dissertations. I even sent a confidential email to a students advisor with the recommendation. The thesis contain numerous grammatical errors similar to examples in the original post.

Too much specialization can limit ones career opportunities, depending on the field, and probably more so in applied physics or engineering. Some diversification is advisable.

I don't think your views conflict with mine. A course on technical writing is not the same thing as a course in English grammar.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nobody masters English grammar in grade school.

Correct. I mastered it by high school.

Because most students at uni have not mastered the basics.

Then why did they get accepted?

That's a rhetorical question. My point being that if theyre not good enough for uni they get rejected.

 

[sevensages]

Then why did they get accepted?

That's a rhetorical question. My point being that if theyre not good enough for uni they get rejected.

You would have to ask the colleges that accept students with inferior English grammar why they accepted the students who have not mastered English grammar.

I have never heard of any uni testing students' English grammar before admitting them to the university.

UAH just accepts students based on their grades in high school and their SAT/ACT scores without administering prospective students a test on English grammar.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't think your views conflict with mine. A course on technical writing is not the same thing as a course in English grammar.

We more or less agree, but like DaveC426913 suggested, grammar should be mastered in the primary/secondary educational program. I had a strict 10th grade English teacher who reviewed grammar that we were supposed to have mastered by 9th grade, emphasized and expanded our vocabulary, and drilled us on how to construct an essay. Not all teachers or schools were like that.

I have heard that education in primary and secondary education has deteriorated over the last 3 or 4 decades, and interactions with young folks appears to confirm that concern.

 

[DaveC426913]

You would have to ask the colleges that accept students with inferior English grammar why they accepted the students who have not mastered English grammar.

Well, there's your problem.

 

[Mark44]

Isn't that what grade school is for?
Why waste time in uni on the basics?

Because all too often, the basics don't get covered in the elementary or high school grades. In addition to the examples about grammar cited in this thread, too many high school graduates do not have a mastery of basic mathematics. In the community college (i.e. first two years of college) where I taught mathematics for 20 years, the bulk of the classes we taught were remedial courses in arithmetic and algebra.

Nobody masters English grammar in grade school.

I mostly agree with @sevensages here, with the caveat that most do not master English grammar in the elementary grades, and often not in high school.

Correct. I mastered it by high school.

Well, congratulations on being a member of a very small minority.

We more or less agree, but like @DaveC426913 suggested, grammar should be mastered in the primary/secondary educational program. I had a strict 10th grade English teacher who reviewed grammar that we were supposed to have mastered by 9th grade,

I had an English teacher in 7th or 8th grade back in the 50s who gave us a solid grounding in grammar by teaching us how to parse sentences using the technique of diagramming. Unfortunately, this is a skill that doesn't seem to be much in vogue these past 50 years, with the result being that university students are hard-pressed to be able to comprehend what the basic parts of speech are: noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, conjunction, and so on.
As an example, a woman friend of mine, who holds a PhD in Biology, believed that, for example, "Mary and I" was proper grammar no matter whether this was the subject of a sentence or a direct or indirect object in that sentence.

 

[Mark44]

I have heard that education in primary and secondary education has deteriorated over the last 3 or 4 decades,

I believe this is true as well, and also believe that this is partly due to the teachers not having a solid grasp of grammar.

 

[Averagesupernova]

The whole thing is quite undefined. Does it matter at all? My opinion on this has been stated. If it does matter, then is it right to kick the can down the road? What are we sending kids to school for if they "ain't talk'n real good" as well as many other things they fail at when they graduate?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, congratulations on being a member of a very small minority.

I do not not take credit. That goes to my eleventh grade English teacher who felt very strongly that grammar was critically important to an academic education and career.

(I shouldn't say "mastered"; that was the OP's word. I'm sure I'm going to get skewerd the next grammatical error I make. :) )

 

[DaveC426913]

Because all too often, the basics don't get covered in the elementary or high school grades. In addition to the examples about grammar cited in this thread, too many high school graduates do not have a mastery of basic mathematics. In the community college (i.e. first two years of college) where I taught mathematics for 20 years, the bulk of the classes we taught were remedial courses in arithmetic and algebra.

I mostly agree with @sevensages here, with the caveat that most do not master English grammar in the elementary grades, and often not in high school.

Right but I think this thread is missing the forest here.

If we know the problem is in elementary and high school, why are we talking about how to fix it in uni? Any solution we try to apply in uni will works just as well five or 10 years earlier, where it belongs.

Wasn't it Bush that said "No child left behind"? There's consequences to that.

 

[Mark44]

That goes to my eleventh grade English teacher who felt very strongly that grammar was critically important to an academic education and career.

Apparently that's how things used to be but aren't the case for the past several decades. Instead of teaching grammar, the emphasis these days seems to be on merely getting students to express themselves in prose, with little regard given to "proper" grammar.

If we know the problem is in elementary and high school, why are we talking about how to fix it in uni? Any solution we try to apply in uni will works just as well five or 10 years earlier.

"will works" ?
Good luck with fixing problems in elementary and high school teaching.

 

[sevensages]

If we know the problem is in elementary and high school, why are we talking about how to fix it in uni? Any solution we try to apply in uni will works just as well five or 10 years earlier, where it belongs.

Three reasons:

1# Almost all high school graduates are deficient on English grammar

2# English classes in public school teach English grammar at the pace of the academically weakest people in the class. So the public school English classes are always going to be vastly inferior to the type of English grammar classes that are university could provide.

3# English classes in high school are NOT strictly about grammar anyway. Most of the curriculum in English classes in high school is about reading and analyzing literature, not grammar.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To elaborate on 2#, it's the same reason that universities require Physics majors to take classes in economics and history, even though those topics are covered in high school. Higher education can teach that curriculum tremendously better than high schools can. In high school English classes, there are academically strong students who are going to wind up going to universities in the same class as people whose ambition in life is to go into the military or be truckers or garbage men and who have never bothered to read a book or study for a test in their lives. So the teacher in a high school English class has to teach at a pace that the guy who has never bothered to read a book or do homework in his life can understand.

DaveC, I also think you're doing a bit of a false dilemma here. My position is that English grammar should be changed at BOTH the public school level and at the university level. I think that English classes in high school should focus far more on grammar and far less on reading and analyzing literature. But I also think that universities should mandate undergraduates take classes on English grammar in order to get any bachelor's degree.

 

[sevensages]

I had an English teacher in 7th or 8th grade back in the 50s who gave us a solid grounding in grammar by teaching us how to parse sentences using the technique of diagramming. Unfortunately, this is a skill that doesn't seem to be much in vogue these past 50 years, with the result being that university students are hard-pressed to be able to comprehend what the basic parts of speech are: noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, conjunction, and so on.
As an example, a woman friend of mine, who holds a PhD in Biology, believed that, for example, "Mary and I" was proper grammar no matter whether this was the subject of a sentence or a direct or indirect object in that sentence.

My English classes in 7th, 8th, and 9th grades did cover diagramming in the mid-1990s. But I have heard that English classes in middle schools and high schools unfortunately don't cover diagramming any more. If this is true, I think that for English to stop covering diagramming sentences is a huge mistake!

 

[sevensages]

In my high school English classes, we spent far more time reading and analyzing literature such as poetry such as the poetry of the Transcendalists and epic poetry such as Beowolf and The Illiad and The Odyssey and novels such as Tom Sawyer and Great Expectations and short stories than the amount of time we spent on learning English grammar. I think that mastering English grammar is far more important in life and to be an educated person than reading Beowolf and The Illiad and the Odyssey and novels and poetry.

 

[russ_watters]

The whole thing is quite undefined. Does it matter at all? My opinion on this has been stated. If it does matter, then is it right to kick the can down the road? What are we sending kids to school for if they "ain't talk'n real good" as well as many other things they fail at when they graduate?

Agreed, and to me a lot of this is based on the question/assumption of what the point is of high school or college education.

To me, the primary/required schooling every developed country provides should have the purpose/goal of producing functional members of society. There can be a lot of debate over what that means, but "be able to speak and write in the language of your country" seems like it should be an obvious goal.

This then leads to the question of what college is for. I think of college as more advanced and specialized education than general, though I've heard people describe college the way I'd describe high school. But if it's a fact that kids arrive in college "deficient", that would seem to indicate - by their own definition - that they should not have been accepted. So, what's the real goal of college (money?)?

 

[sevensages]

Apparently that's how things used to be but aren't the case for the past several decades. Instead of teaching grammar, the emphasis these days seems to be on merely getting students to express themselves in prose, with little regard given to "proper" grammar.

That's what I have heard as well.

I have noticed from reading people's posts on blogs and on facebook and such that a lot of people nowadays don't even use periods to separate sentences.

People here at PhysicsForums do tend to use decent grammar and punctuation though.

 

[sevensages]

Agreed, and to me a lot of this is based on the question/assumption of what the point is of high school or college education.

To me, the primary/required schooling every developed country provides should have the purpose/goal of producing functional members of society. There can be a lot of debate over what that means, but "be able to speak and write in the language of your country" seems like it should be an obvious goal.

This then leads to the question of what college is for. I think of college as more advanced and specialized education than general, though I've heard people describe college the way I'd describe high school. But if it's a fact that kids arrive in college "deficient", that should indicate - by definition - that they should not have been accepted. So, what's the real goal (money?)?

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.

I think that graduate school is strictly for specialization. I don't think that graduate students should have to take courses on English grammar unless they are English majors.

 

[Averagesupernova]

....half the purpose of a college education is to get a general education.

This is not necessarily agreed upon. Of course I can take it a step farther and ask for the definition of general education.
-
My stance is this: Why are my tax dollars going to educate someone who can barely put a sentence together verbally to say nothing about a written paragraph upon graduation? None of them are willing to do any manual work, not even the least exertive. Even if they did manage to show up for work the inability to communicate and the lack of understanding as to why they are even there is comical. Kids fresh out of school don't seem to understand that the reason I would hire them is because it is a net profit to me. They don't realize that their productivity counts. This baffles me. It's not just about the poor grammar. But it is a place to start.

 

[sevensages]

This is not necessarily agreed upon.

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?

Of course I can take it a step farther and ask for the definition of general education.
-

A general education is an education in most or all of the academic subjects such as mathematics, science, English, history, economics, etc.

My stance is this: Why are my tax dollars going to educate someone who can barely put a sentence together verbally to say nothing about a written paragraph upon graduation?

I don't think that private universities are tax funded at all. I think that state universities might be tax funded.

If your tax dollars are going to educate someone who can barely put a sentence together, the purpose is to make it so that that someone can learn to put a sentence together and be a productive citizen.

None of them are willing to do any manual work, not even the least exertive. Even if they did manage to show up for work the inability to communicate and the lack of understanding as to why they are even there is comical. Kids fresh out of school don't seem to understand that the reason I would hire them is because it is a net profit to me. They don't realize that their productivity counts. This baffles me. It's not just about the poor grammar. But it is a place to start.

You're getting real off topic here.

 

[DaveC426913]

"will works" ?

This happens all the time when I edit my posts. Change "it works" to "will work" and then don't proof adequately.

Good luck with fixing problems in elementary and high school teaching.

Right. But is uni any different?

 

[sevensages]

This happens all the time when I edit my posts. Change "it works" to "will work" and then don't proof adequately.


Right. But is uni any different?

This happens all the time when I edit my posts. Change "it works" to "will work" and then don't proof adequately.


Right. But is uni any different?

Yes