The article by Kyle Weins was surprisingly relatable for me. After reading the title, I thought how absurd it seemed to not hire someone because they may have poor grammar. But as I went on I emphasized the word poor next to grammar. It tells me that he does not mean missing a comma in a spot even he himself might miss. What he does mean though are mistakes like not understanding to, too, and two. Or there, their and they’re. These sorts of grammar mistakes were ones that I’d almost say I grew up drilling and thus seldom make mistakes with them unless I am simply not paying attention to my writing.
I still felt overall that giving out an exam on grammar could be harsh but I can understand why. Especially based on the argument that more grammar errors increase the likelihood that even someone who doesn’t use it, like a coder, might make more mistakes coding. However, I would have liked to see something that supported this claim but I digress. The one point that does support his fight for good grammar is that other employers certainly look for mistakes in resumes.
I can both relate to and respect Wiens’ views on grammar although I am not sure if it is fair to all employees, writers, and coders alike. If you applied the same concept to blue-collar work, you would essentially be potentially expelling great workers who simply have bad grammar.
On the other hand, the article written by Lavenda Oluoch took a different approach to English in the U.S. and it is one I agree with. Why should there be extra pressure to learn English when people who do not know the language are already trying to assimilate to new standards or customs?
I also liked the fact that Oluoch brings up the use of English in democracy and how it can hide discrimination. As I read this portion I thought of voter rights and how people in certain states can be turned away for reasons that should not dictate whether a person can vote.
As I read Oluoch’s article I was hoping to read more directly opposing the views of Wiens points of grammar but I believe Oluoch’s opposition still comes through especially when stating the advantages of being bilingual. Being literate in more than one language is clearly a good thing, so what if the best one is not English? I think the example we heard in class from Professor Friend is a good example of this when he spoke about a student who used Spanish to write an assignment because it made more sense that way, and that student was still successful in the assignment. This makes me agree with Oluoch that the focus should not be just on English and that other languages should be posted on signs and public spaces. This is further supported by the point that those learning another language do better when they still get to use their own.
For more about what level of grammar and English should be taken into account, check out this blog post.
Leave a Reply