Vocabulary--is it overrated?

[Redlass]

I just got out of a rather lengthy meeting where we were discussing the writing of test questions. We've been getting complaints that are questions are too difficult for college students. So we had a discussion about what we needed to do to make sure students were able to understand the questions.

One of the things that came up was that the vocabulary of the average student is shrinking exponentially. It was also said that as editors we are out of touch with students and their abilities. Of our department, I am the one with the least education--I have only a bachelor's degree and it's in journalism of all things. ()

While we all have fairly large vocabularies (you really have to if you're going to make the English language your trade), we don't typically use those vocabularies except when we're deciphering or rewriting. However, now we're having to question exactly how far back we should pull in terms of the words we use.

On one hand, we're not testing the vocabulary of students and these are not English majors who are taking our courses.

On the other hand, we all have a great love for the language and for its versatility. It is annoying to have to limit its richness or to substitute a stale word that lacks the exact shade of meaning we're looking for, simply because the stale word is more common.

I've always worked to write things in a manner that is easy to understand (and yes I know I don't always succeed, that's what provides the challenge to my job). Now, though, I'm beginning to question whether I'm too out of touch with the general public to do my job well. There have been incidents even at Epinions where I've scratched my head because people have complained that there were too many big words used in a review. I go back and read that review and don't know what they're talking about.

So what is the answer? How does a writer find out what the vocabulary limits of his or her readers are? Mind, I'm not suggesting that we pare our language down or excise those vibrant words with specific meaning. However, if I know my readers won't understand a particular word, then I'll be more careful to place it in a context and syntax that give them the necessary clues to figure out the word.

Is this something unusual to our industry? Are other writers struggling to learn what language their readers understand?

[theeye]

So education is no longer supposed to expand the mind, it's rather the other way around now?

For the record, I have never found your vocabulary to be the least bit pedantic or abstruse. (Am I allowed to say that?)

-TheEye, who's about to go off grumbling again about what the world is coming to

[theeye]

Just to put this in some context, could you give us a few examples of language that's been shot down? Just how "difficult" are we talking about?

[phoenixx]

I believe that a large part of the problem with education today is our tendency to pander to the lowest common denominator.

I think you should set the standard by using an extensive vocabulary, which may force the teachers to teach to a higher level.

You can never be "too smart". A world with limited language is a world with limited possibilities.

Leslie

[Redlass]

We've asked the professor to send us in specific examples. But let me go take a look at the one book he referred to. I probably shouldn't post test questions here--exam security and all that. However, since there was also a complaint that our concepts were too challenging...

Here's a sample, though I don't know for certain that this is the passage being complained about. It is fairly representative; in fact, I'd say the following paragraph is more complex than most that we use:

"To borrow a particularly apt phrase, when it comes to professional development, you've got to own your own. The success or failure of your professional development lies primarily in your hands. No one else knows your skills, interests, and values as well as you do. Nor can anyone else as accurately gauge the development activities that will be most profitable and effective for you."

Or, to take a few different paragraphs from one of our 300-level textbooks on a weightier topic:

"Rapid prototyping is a model developed by computer systems designers. It involves creating a small-scale prototype of the training program after the first stages of analysis are completed. The prototype contains many of the key elements of what designers anticipate the final program will need. It is then tested and evaluated for effectiveness. The prototype is then discarded and work on the full program is begun.....
...Instructional design at its most basic aims for a learner-centered approach to instruction, an approach that tries to ensure that learning takes place. This means that all training must center on learning objectives and competencies--and those objectives and competencies must be determined by a thorough analysis of learner needs."

"You must be very systematic and non-judgmental when analyzing qualitative data, to identify common themes and sort appropriately. Quantitative data is very exact, and complex statistical analysis may not be necessary. In general, many problems can be identified by keeping quantitative analysis simple and in the current units that your organization is already using in other operational reports."

I don't think, though, that we get any more complex than the last paragraph given. But then, the whole point of my post is that I may be lacking in perspective, so I'm not sure you should take my word.

[theeye]

And which of those words is "too difficult"?

My personal take on it: anyone whose native language is English and who cannot understand those passage is not qualified to study the subject matter therein.

Good grief.

[Redlass]

I don't know which is too difficult! That's why this is so frustrating.

I did a Fleish-Kincaid analysis on it and those paragraphs were at a 12th grade reading level. So, surely it isn't too much to ask college juniors to understand?

But then, I'm really not trying to justify myself here (though it's tempting). I really do want to step back and see if we're being unreasonable and need to change the way we write--or at least provide more context and definitions.

[tpierzina[$]]

Methinks the average reading level here is above the average of your target audience, at least from what I've seen over the last six months or so.

I guess maybe the wordplay, "own your own," could trip some up.

[magenta321]

Just for clarification, these are not English majors who you are considering reworking things. It is for students majoring in other subjects. However these non-English majors are taking 300-level English classes? I don't know if my experience is universal, but at my University, 300-level classes were in your major. I am just getting a little confused.

Confession time -- as a pledge, I had to write some of the lazy sisters' papers, because I was deemed the "smart one". I decided I could not possibly write another person's paper for them. In each case, I told them to "tell me what to write" and I more or less transcribed what they said. I then expounded on it, and put it into decent grammar. (This tradition died that year, for anyone concerned about this practice).

One of the sisters was a nursing major, taking a freshman English class. She had to write a paper on the movie of her choice, relating it to her life. "What fluff," I thought. Watching her try to analyze the movie and relate it to her own life was painful. She could not give me anything beyond a plot-summary of Grease.

"And then Sandy gets dressed up like a bad girl, and she smokes cigarettes and she goes and..."

I don't know where you draw the line. No matter what major you select, someone will argue that people in that profession do not need to have command of the English language. This particular person argued that nurses don't need to be able to write essays (not my arguement, for the record), so her class was a waste. Phys. Ed majors argued they didn't need any classes other than gym classes. Accounting majors thought they didn't need English classes. The list goes on.

Personally, I think even the higher-level English classes are usually pretty basic, from my experience. And I think the skills you use in an English class, such as reading, comprehending, writing, forming arguements, etc. are vital to any profession.

Personally, I would fail anyone who couldn't understand those passages and who could not discuss them at any length. And that's because I don't want an idiot for a nurse, or an accountant, or...

Perhaps I would let a student's limited vocabulary in a paper slide. However if their vocabulary was so poor that they could not comprehend what they are reading, they would not belong in my class.

I may be biased though, the first book I had to read in college was Manufacturing Consent. Even my grammar checker had a field day when I quoted anything from that book. I used to count how many paragraphs were more than a page long as I read . That was my start to college, and if I could read that and comprehend it, these kids better be able to read the above referenced paragraphs!!!

[Redlass]

Sorry! My bad. The textbook is for a 300-level class in their major (hospitality management). They're not English majors at all.

[mattygroves]

Years ago, when I was a child (back when the Dead Sea was still only sick), my mother belonged to the PTA. One of the other members chastised my mum for using "big words". The word to which this person was referrring was moot . Four letters.

On the other hand, when I was 11, I threw an orange peel into the dirt. My friend told me off for littering. I told her, "don't worry, it'll decompose." She cracked up, laughing, "why couldn't you just say rot .

The point is, I think that there are a lot of people ignorant of even 'simple' vocabulary. However, there are those who love jargon and 'big words,' and will use them at the expense of clarity.

Anyway, that's my tuppence! Thanks for listening!
Cheers,
Kate

[phoenixx]

Since you peaked my curiosity, I did a little poll on my own. I printed out your excerpts, then took them to my local ballpark and showed them to the kids there. After each willing volunteer read your passage (cleared with the closest parental unit, of course), I asked if they thought the words were too difficult to understand, or if there were any other problems with what they read.

Here are some of the reactions I received:

12 yr old male: "I get it. It's fine. I'd have to look a couple words up, but it's fine, just, um, a little boring."

16 yr old female: "We haven't learned some of that stuff yet. They stop vocabulary stuff when you're small. But I guess if it's college I should know that, right?"

14 yr old male: "I don't get it, but I'm in 8th grade - I'll probably have to learn that stuff to get out of high school. Except the word stuff I don't know yet it's ok to read."

17 yr old female: "I haven't had vocab in a long time. They just don't teach that anymore. So I don't know these from, like, school, but from reading. My mom makes me read the paper every day, so that's where I get this from. But it's ok, it's not hard. If I didn't know it I could look it up."

Don't know if that helps or not, but it amused ke for an early evening while I waited for someone, so it's "all good", as they say in California.

In fact the hardest part was convinving the parental units that I wasn't stalking their children in the park - funny.

Leslie

[Redlass]

Oh, Leslie, that's too funny!

What great comments! Can I print them out and share them with my fellow editors?

What a doll you are to do that!

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I saw nothing wrong or overly difficult with the paragraphs you posted. Like mentioned above, 300-level classes are in your major, and you'd best know the vocabulary of your chosen field. "Prototype" might be particular to certain fields, but should be at least generally understood, in context, by all. "Psychopathology," a word I use in Social Work, might be a mystery to an engineering major, but the roots of the word aren't that unusual that a layperson shouldn't be able to get the general gist of what's meant by the word. Meanwhile, my husband's favorite vocabulary story comes from his grad school experience. In one of the final classes required for a person to get a Master's in Education, the professor told the students that all they would need for the next class was a writing implement. One woman (who was already a tenured teacher in a local school) raised her hand to ask "What's an 'implement?'"

Stand your ground! Don't let the dummying-down of education continue!

mj

[phoenixx]

Originally posted by Redlass
Oh, Leslie, that's too funny!

What great comments! Can I print them out and share them with my fellow editors?

What a doll you are to do that!

No problem Go ahead and print it if you think your coworkers would like to see it. I did not get names, just ages, as I was doing this unofficially on the back of scratch paper in the park...

Leslie

[kurt_messick]

In seminary we have this constant problem.

For those unaware, many professional degrees used to be in fact second bachelor degrees rather than graduate degrees. Hence, one went to law school for a Bachelor of Law; one went to seminary for a Bachelor of Divinity, etc. -- only the medical profession had doctorates. Then the degree inflation set in, and all the law schools started offering doctorates; why the seminaries didn't follow suit, I don't know (3-year, 90-hour degree, same as a traditional law school). Seminarians only get a Master's degree; an additional year or two will get a doctorate.

However, to the point...

We keep having to dumb down the language used. Fewer and fewer books read; less and less technical language. We're preparing people for ministry, we're told -- not theologians (in the classic sense), not scholars, but soup-kitchen leaders and social workers of a sort. Alas, the problem is, even the graduates who self-confess to these intentions then leave seminary, paper in hand, believing that has given the right to expound on Tillich (alas, with a very pronounced 'ch' sound at the end) and Barth (again, with the pronounced 'th' sound at the end) and all the topics they scrupulously avoided, largely because the vocabulary, the words and structures, were too difficult.

Vexing.