Posted on 07/04/2012 7:43:33 AM PDT by wintertime
But I’ve been known to take correction,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then you will be gracious and fully admit that the sentence,”Honestly, why does the event’s planner at the local Marriott need a bachelors degree?”, is grammatically correct.
Thanks for taking the time to write this note. I've only seen two other responders that have given common-sense, level-headed observations (Posts #8 and #11, and your previous #15).
A lot of the other responses are just hare-brained, anecdotal, one-dimensional, or rants against the current state of public education. I groan at the sad state of both grade-school and college programs, and know they need fixing. And I'm sure the dramatic decline was largely caused by two factors: (1) government-backed student loans, and (2) unionization of public-school teachers.
Thanks!
The whole push to demand a college diploma came after the Supreme Court's 1971 Griggs v Duke Power case. Suddenly, any employment exam that flunked more blacks than whites was illegal. So employers used having a college degree as an expensive way to evaluate whether the applicant could read.
Then you will be gracious and fully admit that the sentence,”Honestly, why does the event’s planner at the local Marriott need a bachelors degree?”, is grammatically correct.
This excerpt is from your post #49 to trailhkr1: For example, why require a college degree for the events planner at the local Marriott?
I certainly will, but first you will have to tell me which grammatical condition we are dealing with:
(1) The first except above is identical to that which appeared in your initial post. If your grammar there is correct, then the sentence refers to someone at the Marriott who has/will, out of many tasks, plans one particular event. Here, the word "event's" has the possessive case applying to one event.
(2) The second excerpt carries the sense of referring to someone whose job description comprises representing Marriott in the planning of many or all events to be held there. Here the word "events" is in the nominative case, plural.
(3) If your intention in the first instance above was to convey the meaning that the grammatical construction of the sentence actually carries, I certainly was wrong, and I abjectly apologize and seek your forgiveness.
(4) But if, instead, your first sentence above was intended to convey the same identical meaning that your sentence from post #49 yields, what will you do? It's too late to be gracious in admitting error now, isn't it?
You are choking on a gnat.
Neither sentence is grammatically incorrect, and the message I wished to convey was complete plain in both instances. A gracious person would admit that their claim that my sentences were incorrect was an error on their part.
Please note that the two sentences, the first in the leading post and the in the second, are **FORTY NINE** posts and **THEE HOURS and FIVE MINUTES** apart!
Please,...Do you wish to continue this, and to fully solidify your reputation as a budding as a Grammar Nazi?
A gracious person would apologize.
( Capitals for emphasis only,)
complete plain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please make that “completely” plain. A second gnat might be too much for you.
Exactly. There was a reason why "entry level positions" were called that. You come into the company, demonstrate work ethic at an entry-level position, and get promoted based upon ability.
Those were the days an employee had some loyalty and stayed with the employer for 30+ years. Today, many employees receive the training and as soon as they get some experience with the employer they move on.
This is why employers do not want to train employees today...let the other schmuck business go through the expense and aggravation.
Of course employers are not innocent angels either in terms of loyalty by far...it goes both ways.
The answer to that is to have the wages of the employee undergoing training be low enough to cover the cost of training and internship. In an environment where nobody wants to hire the inexperienced, such a business would get many applicants even with low wages. Then, when he's trained, increase the wages to reflect his new value.
What does a hard-working, talented person prove by "tolerating" and being forced to "get along" with people who detest their values ... for two soul-destroying decades. Unless they hide their views under a basket, they will be ridiculed, marked down and continually given the short end of the stick. Even in the hard sciences, the student better not open their mouth about anything else, much less AGW methodology, for example.
Where are they learning these detestable values? Government socialist-entitlement K-12 schooling and university ( government and private) is a major source of the indoctrination.
My suggestions will, hopefully, move the student through the godless K-12 system far more quickly, possibly, avoid exposure to the university system completely, and encourage( and teach) the parents independence and self reliance in educating their own children.
Also...The fewer children in the Marxist system ( k-12 and university) the less will be the support for these godless and socialist-entitlement programs in the voting booth. As conservatives we must constantly push, step by step, toward complete separation of school and state.
Employers do train employees today. They are called Internships. Many are unpaid. In some cases, ( that I personally know) the young person actually **pays** for the Internship experience.
What if the internship were expanded somewhat? The internship would be combined with work experience, some company evening class course work, some Internet courses, some self-study, and qualifying exams and two years later he would be awarded a certificate of completion from the company.
Gee! This sounds a lot like the way my father became a professional electrical engineer ( born 1913) and a neighbor earned a Ph.D. by working for Du Pont ( although for my father and our neighbor the process took a decade or more) .
I agree. I think you should know that if I was wrong, my error was to make the claim that your sentences were grammatically incorrect.
IIRC, I did already lay the grounds for offering my amends to you, but a point has been made. You might want to look up the term "oppositional defiant disorder" and see how that predisposition might work for a lawyer's secretary, a journalist (which your essay should class with in this context, as the author/editor), or a college student submitting a freshman composition paper, for a few instances.
All I can tell you is that if one of my lab assistants or secretaries exhibited such an aggressive-assertive attitude toward the precision required by my livelihood, there would be a little something extra in their next paycheck--a pink slip.
You may credit the "educational-industrial complex" for giving me the philosophy, mental tools, business opportunity, and production capabilities to translate my ideas into very necessary (and obscenely profitable) products found in every electronic device you are likely to use.
That came about, despite early intellectual precociousness, characteristic lack of discpline, and incomplete formal training which gave me a couple of years experience as a bread truck driver, instead of finishing college (which I finally did). My attitude re correctibility was somewhat brought into line by military experience, also; and a lack of money in feeding the family sort of increased ambition.
The whole issue is whether your plan for using GEDs is sufficient for producing Marriott Events Planners who are prepared to produce public news releases that satisfy the profit-producing Marriott Grammar Nazis, or at least able to bear correction gracefully without in-your-face job-terminating oppositional defiance.
Again, let me point out that your practical experience in this realm seems to be narrow, one-dimensional, and anecdotal, resulting in being easily led on by some video-professor through whose counsel you have gained a little more confidence in your own wisdom than will be helpful in the larger arena of practical application. Approvals and acceptance needs to come from a pool a little more experienced in this discipline than most of the run-of-the-mill FR advisors.
Let me also apologize for being a little tardy in my final answer--something came up that interrupted my attention to this thread; namely, an unexpected and urgent hospital stay. I have continued because your half-baked ideas deserve my criticism. You could make it a valuable and constructive experience. Or not. Your choice.
With guarded respectfulness --
This is not your lab. I am not your lab assistant. This is Free Republic.
Both sentences were completely correct and were separated by FORTY NINE posts and THREE HOURS. Both sentences clearly conveyed the main point of my article.
Rather than accusing me of having “oppositional defiant disorder” perhaps you should being getting some help with that beam in your eye.
Your proposition suggests keyholing high achievers into promising but dead-ended occupational cul de sacs that prevent them from ever realizing the potential that could have been drawn out by masters. That is only one hole of a theory which has many. The more I look at your essay, the more holes I see.
Before dominance of the public and teachers' school systems by John Dewey's Humanists and professional-turned-union organizations, home schooling was not needed nor wanted except to families located outside of access to ed facilities. Non-public schooling was conducted by private academies and parochial groups, sometimes far more demanding than publics. For instance, look at Joe Biden, a Delaware product produced by Salesianum in Delaware. (/sarc)
Vocational training was provided within the public systems, as it is today. Within the last few months I have seen and talked with some very fine vocational efforts which are preparing late teenagers to hit the ground running, if -- but only if -- the youngsters are willing.
I took the educational courses in the mid-fifties at Syracuse when the John Dewey vs Hyman Rickover philosophy battles were raging, so I have some grasp on this. Having held the line and working outside the schools with my own children helped take advantage of both public and parental encouragement.
But that is not a general solution, which your anecdotal compromises cannot provide, as you are attempting in your adopted theories. Yes, extreme changes are needed, but they won't come through teaching-to-tests (which can be dumbed-down, and have been). Simply shifting the indicators from diplomas (for actual long-term, across the spectrum performance) to SATs/ACTs (which only measure mental nimbleness' not attitude, maturity, governability, nor consistency over the long haul) will not do for the potential employer or quality university. Vocational schools do that, but produce no doctors, engineers, scientists, technicians, nurses, financiers, ambassadors, etc. which are needed in the world to come.
Home-schooling is not necessarily home education (although I believe in it, and have 10 grandchildren engaged in it). It has its own, often more serious, faults, through the great inconsistency of the capablity and desire of both parents to carry it through.
I have seen both, and in one case damaged children worse than any public school would have. In fact, in that family, their only recovery will be through current remedial treatment in the public system. In another case, three extremely capable children were limited to home-schooling expertise. Now the boys are first-line managers in local businesses above which they cannot rise. Adequate for a good living, but challenging? The daughter had great musical capability, but it was thought she did not need piano instruction beyond primary lessons. Having taught herself to chord out a few popular hymns, she was accepted by a local small church as pianist. In doing so, her lack of further training spoiled the musical life of that church, and slowly many supporting musically trained constituents drifted away, and after her marriage and departure the musical life never returned. That was a combination of an unmusical pastor and an inept key musician. The church is now on the ropes spiritually and financially as well. These are a few more anecdotes arguing against your anecdotes.
Coming back to personal instances, conferring an oppositional attitude on one's children, through lack of a wider base of teachers, will not benefit them, nor will the converse warping of their own instinctive rejection of it. I am glad that my son, daughter-in-law, and their children do not exhibit this approach to personal relations. Sieg Heil to you, and toodle-oo. Who is the Nazi here?
That is correct. It is a testing bed for posted articles subject to close examination.
I am not your lab assistant.
That's for sure. Nor could you be if you showed a non-teachable spirit. Neither would I have considered a life partner with that approach.
This is Free Republic.
Yes, it is, where those posting their own work usually seem to advertise it as "Vanity" and get a minor exception. Yours does not, but is presented as that of a legitimate journalist. Can you take the heat in form and style, as well as content?
Both sentences were completely correct ...
They are, if they were to be interpreted as gramatically having different thoughts. But if they were intended to have the same import, then one is grammatically incorrect, as was demonstrated.
and were separated by FORTY NINE posts and THREE HOURS.
And you yourself caught the error in your Post #49 and corrected it. Can you admit that?
Both sentences clearly conveyed the main point of my article.
That intention of the content is understood, but the form is not and immediately causes a professional writer's nerves to grate, as would chalk screeching on the blackboard. Or those of his editor, the publisher, or the general public. It is a gnat which people react badly toward.
Rather than accusing me of having “oppositional defiant disorder”...
Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
I did not accuse you of this personality defect. I merely asked you to consider "if the shoe fits," for it seems to look to others that that pattern might. But I do not claim to be a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. One has to consider if a self-diagnosis can be honestly made. However, potential employers take a little different viewpoint.
... perhaps you should being getting some help with that beam in your eye.
"Beam in the eye" opens another avenue. Are you sure you want to explore that? Perhaps you'd like to consult with your pastor on that doctrine before you exert its force. It can snap back, cruelly.
Still respecting your person and individuality --
Ping for later reply.
Too late. I will not wrangle further, if that is what is wanted. Having a most sincere respect for your right to have your own opinion and defend it.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will find something we can agree on. But I'm through with this for now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.