Well, it is a regular occurrence for linguistics grad school applicants from other countries to point out errors in the TOEFL (where the “correct” answers match usage manuals but not any part of the actual language), so it really is just a thing we do, you know?
Well apparently the discrepancy between the formal rules and the vernacular are widening.
@dfbdfb - Where were you when I was suffering through Sister Margaret’s grammar class? I would love to get the two of you in a room and see who comes out alive because that was exactly the sort of nonsense up with which she would not put 
More seriously, surely even linguists who appreciate English “as it is” must use a “traditional” style manual when submitting journal articles or book chapters?
Nobody caught my too subtle attempt at humor in the last post 
"“There is some”?? You are saying the correct usage is “some is”? There is some who are is mixing singular and plural. "
You would say “Some is …” in a sentence like the following: “Some of the controversy surrounding A is that B, C and D are thought to be E.” I suppose that’s because in this context, controversy is a noun without any countable quality.
Right-- the controversy is, not the controversy are. But you say some who are, not some who is.
Sure, because “who” indicates that you were referring to people - some (of the people) who are visiting are blah-blah-blah. But you could use “some … that is” or “some … which is” like so:
Some of the controversy that is sweeping the nation is blah-blah-blah.
Some of the food which is on the table needs to go back into the refrigerator.
the food IS, the people ARE.
And as an aside, is it the food “which” is on the table, or the food “that” is on the table? The latter sounds enter to ny ears.
My understanding was that “which” was for adding information whereas “that” is for limiting information.
The food which is in the blue bowl … You’re now telling the person something new about the food - that it is in a blue bowl, too.
The food that is in the blue bowl … There may be several bowls of food, but you’re telling the person only about that food in the blue bowl.
But dfb is the authority here!
Well, am sidetracked at present by the Super Bowl commercials that are on tv (that sounds better to me than “which”, but what do I know).
uh guys,
can we get back on track please??
this is NOT a thread about linguistics!
Agreed, enough with the linguistics/grammar conversation on this thread.
Post 614-- “Top schools are focused on what applicants do well. However, that same amazing applicant may have other subject areas where they are not the strongest and need to catch up a bit. Many students aren’t equally strong in every subject.”
Totally disagree that top schools are focused on what applicants do well. Otherwise they would be magnet colleges along the lines of magnet high schools for the arts or sciences. Top schools want well-rounded students who have already shown success in every subject. There are “magnet colleges” for certain professions like MIT for engineering–but they still want well rounded kids.
Remedial courses are being offered at colleges not to “refresh” (as Princeton puts it in big italics) nor to “catch up a bit”. They are being offered to teach things that someone should have learned in HS and did not or could not learn during that time . It is not simply “refresher calculus” or “refresher AP chemistry” needed to pull things together for higher math; it’s “basic algebra” from 8th grade.
I see education as a process with certain requirements to be met before you hit the next level.
A HS diploma is supposedly certifying that an individual has certain qualifications in math and reading skills at its most basic.
College means you are building on skills already learned.
If part of college education is spent learning HS curriculum then the value of college diplomas are cheapened.
I don’t think you can generalize, gouf. Certainly, elite colleges have plenty of students who can do everything well. But they also accept a certain number of “pointy” students who are exceptionally good in one area and less good, or even sub-par, in certain others. I had a college classmate who was a professional musician who had been touring internationally since his early teens. I don’t know the details of his academic background, but he hadn’t graduated from a conventional high school (I think he got a GED instead), and was terrible in math. He needed extensive tutoring to barely pass the school’s math requirement - but did well in his other classes, and continued his music career after graduation. I doubt our alma mater has any regrets about their decision to admit him.
Princeton MAT 100 covers precalculus, not calculus, topics. I.e. it covers topics that students should have learned in the “four years of mathematics” that Princeton expects applicants to complete in high school.
Basically, the answer to your implied question in reply #595 (“I’m more interested in why a college would provide remedial reading and math classes.”) is that even the most selective colleges admit some students who need remedial courses (including perhaps the “pointy” students referred to in reply #634, or promising students from high schools where the math instruction is weak).
Of course, when you get away from the most selective colleges, then the percentage of students needing remedial course work increases, as a reflection of the weakness of high school courses in many high schools, or weakness of the student’s ability to learn the subject and remember it after the final exam.
I dislike the term “special snowflake. Just for fun, I would like to know how many of you who use that term had a high stats child with a rigorous class load in a rigorous high school who had good EC’s (state awards in 2 of them), lots of community service including a leadership role in one, great rec’s , essays, etc. – who was disappointed when admissions results came out. Yes we knew the odds (all those AP calc and stat classes, lol). But the child you deride as a “special snowflake” had the character to graciously congratulate and be genuinely happy for his classmates/friends who had their own dreams come true. And as a parent I know the back story of a child who overcame some significant challenges. As a parent I know a a child who loved learning for learning’s sake since he was a toddler. As a parent who had multiple parents of his classmates confide in me that he was the one child who supported their child when they were going through a rough time with school or personal issues I know my child has “good character”.
Yeah. It works out that way sometimes. You and your child pick yourselves up, and make the best of it. Your child attends a good school and does well. But it is still painful to read that others think you and your child have that “special snowflake attitude”. Sure we were disappointed – we are human.
I also know how it feels when it all does go your child’s way. When your other high stat child applies ED to a school she really wants to attend and gets in. The joy, the relief,the feeling that the system works “just right”. I totally get that one, too.
It’s so easy to say that parents like me just want our kids to attend “name schools”, but that YOU really value a top education. Wait – so do I! I am completely uninterested in impressing people (just like you), I don’t care where anyone else’s child goes to school (just like you), my child didn’t apply to a bunch of Ivies (none, actually). That wasn’t what it was about for us.
I don’t know what other people’s motives are and it is not for me to decide. I like to think that all of us would like the best for our children and would like to see their dreams come true. I also know that doesn’t always happen. And that we go on. And make the best of things.
So can we stop labeling other people’s other people and their kids?
"who was disappointed when admissions results came out. "
80-95% of applicants, including the special snowflakes, to the most competitive colleges WILL be disappointed. That is the cold hard reality.
“Dreams” based on the incredibly low odds of acceptance at a particular college are not realistic for the vast majority of students and that is why some posters try to get it into Newbies brains that they should NOT encourage their children to put their “dreams” and hopes on what amounts to a lottery ticket. Sorry if that seems harsh. Reality CAN be harsh sometimes.
I think there is a big difference between somebody who is disappointed in not getting something he hoped for, and somebody who is a sore loser. (Hey, anybody watch the Super Bowl yesterday?) I think it’s natural to be sad, disappointed, etc. I don’t mind hearing that–it’s only when one starts to blame somebody else that I think one is in sore loser territory.
I agree ,hunt. And in my case we were not sore losers. We are however human, and yes we were disappointed. Not “sore losers” though.