If "Harvard undergraduates don't get the attention", who does?

<p>Now I certainly need to look at a LAC or 2 in details. Thanks to JHS et al.</p>

<p>“At Harvard, none of these things are true…”</p>

<p>At Williams, one of the things the professors focus on is grammar.</p>

<p>^ Isn’t it kind of a waste to have a professor focus on grammar? At Harvard the TFs do that, no?</p>

<p>All kidding aside – and that was kidding, sort of – I don’t mean to suggest that there’s an inherent incompatibility between good teaching and good scholarship. In fact, at a high level I think the opposite: I think one of the things that can make someone a bad teacher is lacking ideas that have been thoroughly thought through and defended. But there IS a real difference. My mother was a great teacher – charismatic, inspirational, attracting a coterie of devoted followers. Year after year, she changed people’s lives, and to be with her in a crowd was to have a steady stream of people thanking her for setting them on a good course decades before. But, despite her PhD, she was never a great scholar. In a sense, she was like a star actor – she took other people’s words and embodied them with passion and conviction, made them come alive, made them seem like part of her character.</p>

<p>There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that; it’s a valuable service. And in high school, where she taught for most of her career, it’s a great way for kids to learn. (She focused on grammar a lot, by the way.)</p>

<p>Anyway, there are plenty of people who are both good scholars and good teachers, plenty who are mediocre or bad at both, and a few who are good scholars but poor teachers or good teachers but mediocre scholars. Unis and LACs both have people in the first set, and try to avoid people in the second. As between the third and fourth sets, they jump different ways, which is part of what gives them their separate character. Recognize, though, that there are so many excellent scholars out there without jobs that there are high-quality people teaching at colleges up and down the prestige ladder.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nothing in that sentence is ungrammatical. “None” is not a contraction of “not one.” If you’re going to be all prescriptivist, at least be right.</p>

<p>@sewhappy: I am definitely also a “dabbler,” but since I’ve only had one year of classes at Harvard, it’s hard to say whether my experience will turn out to be like your son’s. My classes have been great so far, if sort of general. The people who are clearly going to be the next Bill Gateses and so forth are quite intimidating, but in my experience there are enough people like me (who claim to have no idea what they’re going to do with their lives) that I don’t feel isolated. Academically speaking, my advisors tend to be like “Don’t worry about it, you have plenty of time to decide what you’re going to do.” Time will tell if they’re right, I suppose.</p>

<p>^None of these things is true? </p>

<p>If that was the “mistake,” then yes Schmaltz is wrong. When none refers to a plural (“things”), both “is” and “are” are acceptable, although there are some purists who disagree, and in fact most would agree that “are” sounds better.</p>

<p>Wow. “None” being singular isn’t a matter “some purists” care about. It’s standard English. I’ll grant that in informal, spoken English lots of people who should know better use plural verbs when the phrase is “none of [plural noun] [verb]”, but in written English that’s not acceptable at all. It’s just a common mistake.</p>

<p>Your high school teachers may have given that a pass, kids, but out in the world you are going to get called on it. Sorry.</p>

<p>^According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, “Clearly none has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen in the 19th century. If in context it seems like a singular to you, use a singular verb; if it seems like a plural, use a plural verb. Both are acceptable.” (p. 664)</p>

<p>I could cite many accredited scholars that say the same thing. In fact it appears based on the Google Search I just did that the SAT is one of the few places that considers “none” purely singular. Who to trust: the SAT and a few kids on CC (who probably worship the SAT) or everyone else?</p>

<p>

Yes, out in the real world we will get shot down (for not even making a mistake) by pretentious grammar police (I will not use a specific N-word here) who were misled in their own education. Well heck I’ll take my chances.</p>

<h1>37 was a great post, JHS.</h1>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, the SAT does not consider “none” purely singular. The College Board follows the practice of matching the plurality or singularity of the object of the prepositional phrase, as is recommended by most grammar sources. </p>

<p>JHS is incorrect.</p>

<p>^Okay. I’ll add that as far as the SAT goes, this appears to be a pretty informative link for those wondering more about it:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=node/246[/url]”>None of these sources are [sic] trustworthy | Polysyllabic;

<p>Hmmm. That’s a pretty powerful statement, even if Merriam Webster isn’t my favorite source.</p>

<p>Clearly “none” is not exclusively singular. The phrase “I looked for unicorns, but there were none” is OK. But I really have trouble with the notion that “none of my pets are hairless” is OK. The fact that this may be a 19th Century “myth” doesn’t mean that it holds no sway over 21st Century thought and practice. Like papal infallibility, or Germany – it may be of recent origin, but many people take it seriously. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, touch</p>

<p>Now that I’ve successfully hijacked this thread and turned it into a grammar war, I will posit that: (a) there is nothing wrong with splitting infinitives and (b) there is nothing wrong with ending a sentence in a preposition. Who among you will dare to challenge me??</p>

<p>Just kidding.</p>

<p>^^Haha sorry JHS :). I’m not a kid either though (well, at least I don’t think of college students as kids). Well now that you’re not a kid I guess your thing about kids wasn’t that pretentious. </p>

<p>

Yeah the last thing I meant was actually partly serious. If you or Schmaltz or probably quite a few other people were evaluating me I’d get knocked down a notch and probably would have no chance to defend myself. When I said I’ll take my chances I was kind of serious, because I am not going to memorize every grammar rule out there, hence I’m hoping I don’t really screw up or get a grammar police evaluating me. Because I’m sure I make grammar mistakes all the time. I probably made one here.</p>

<p>williamsdad – Thanks. That makes me feel a little bit better after drooling on myself in #46, apparently.</p>

<p>prosciutto, Senior – discussing English usage is a lot more sensible and productive than discussing whether Harvard has adequate undergraduate orientation.</p>

<p>“none of my pets are hairless”</p>

<p>I was taught that that “are” is wrong, but I don’t know much about English as it’s my second language.</p>

<p>As for LACs, I checked this thread (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/williams-college/940554-williams-right-me.html?[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/williams-college/940554-williams-right-me.html?&lt;/a&gt;) and had mixed feelings.</p>

<p>JHS:
English not being my first language, I was waiting intently for the verdict, but I obviusly didn’t opine. To my surprise, I was right: It can be singular and plural.</p>

<p>Example 2: None of the documents (is/are) identified in the brief.
Think: Not one of the documents is identified in the brief. (singular subject/singular verb)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.llrx.com/columns/grammar1.htm[/url]”>http://www.llrx.com/columns/grammar1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>According to the “Grammar Goddess,” it’s “None…is…”</p>

<p>Look, she’s a goddess, and I’m not. I doubt if any of you AM, either.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What are you saying here? Are you attempting to explain where the misconception that “none” must be singular comes from, or are you sticking by your debunked correction?</p>

<p>Edit: You edited your post now. The link you posted says:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I could quote thirty additional sources that support the plurality of “none” when the object of the prepositional phrase is likewise plural, but I won’t. Many of these, moreover, explain that the equation of “none” with “not one” is unfounded.</p>

<p>A sampling of some of those aforementioned sources:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm[/url]”>http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>[Pronouns[/url</a>]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“800score Free GMAT/GRE Courses”>http://www.800score.com/guidec4view1V1d.html]Plural</a> / Singular](<a href=“http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm]Pronouns[/url”>http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>New York Times Stylebook</p>

<p>And so on…</p>

<p>"It can be singular and plural. "</p>

<p>You mean singular OR plural. But either one only if you go with the sloppy, whatever-floats-your-boat school. I agree with JHS…there was a point somewhere in the late 20th Century when the English teachers started to loosen up, and not expect any more out of their students than their own drug-addled teachers had expected out of them. Just because Snooki says “None…are…” does not make it correct.</p>

<p>The New York Times Stylebook? What does the New York Times Stylebook say about plagiarism?</p>