Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers or High Schoolers, Where is the Literary Talent?
word munger writes "A few weeks ago, Chad Orzel read a New York Times article which analyzed the best high school writing on the new SAT test. The Times' writer appeared surprised that the best high school writing was so bad. Chad then wondered if the best bloggers could do any better under the same conditions and it was put to the test. Over 500 people tried the timed online test, but just 109 scoreable responses resulted. Professionals graded all the responses which were then posted on a web site where readers can rate the essays themselves, as well as find out the professional score. So who's a better writer, a blogger or a high schooler? You can also read Chad's analysis — or better yet, you can decide for yourself."
In Florida we have (or had, it's been a while) a law called the Gordon Rule. It requires that each student must write a minimum number of words in order to graduate from high school. Though I don't agree much with the quantity required, I think it's a good idea. For me it has always seemed odd that people will practice tennis, math, guitar in order to be proficient but will not do the same thing for writing. For many students the argument is, "I know how to speak English. All I need to do is write it down." Do bloggers write better than non-bloggers? I don't know... but at least it gives some practice in using words.
> For alot of Bloggers, High School (much less College) was quite a long time ago, and most employers aren't quite as pedantic as English Teachers are.
Reading the article, it seems like the primary problem is that the bloggers tended to not follow directions and wrote about whatever they actually felt like, instead of what they were supposed to write about.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
That is a very odd comparison, to say the least. The 2 groups are different in too many ways. The testing styles are too different in too many ways. The requirements were different as well. Testing conditions were different. Etc. Hardly scientific. But, it does make great press, right? Odd that so many Slashdot stories moan about science vs. , but then they go with a weird story like this where a "study" is presented as science just because the authors used sort-of scientific "talk" to present their "findings." Isn't this the type of story that 20/20 or Dateline makes up to get viewers?
As a writer (yes, you can't tell from my slashdot writing, which proves my point...), one needs limitations when one writes. For example, what reading level shoudl I write to, who is the audience, what is the audience comprehension level, and what style or genre would you prefer for my text. The instructions for both tests give very little of this information. I would find it impossible to write to my audience here... the exam graders/judges.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
I want to know what happens when you take a cross section of bloggers. Like say, political bloggers, and then cross section that further. Take it down into standard authoritarian, authoritarian social, authoritarian economy, and true liberal. Be interesting to see the results.
You're right. People are complaining that "good writing doesn't come from 25 minutes of work!!" but really this study just proves that people who write blogs think they're fucking Aristotle or something. Maybe even literally.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I disagree with this comparison completely. At least how it's being judged and what it's being called. I think the real question here is,
"who is better at critical thinking?" The bloggers, or high school kids with little life experience under their belt?
To say this is a test of writing, is just sick. Writing requires passion, inspiration, and thought. After visiting the site and seeing what exactly the question/comment that the "contestants" were required to write about, I didn't even want to bother looking at any of the submissions.
Another big difference, is that the SAT test takers are under pressure to perform for their educational future, whereas the "bloggers" don't really have anything riding on it.
I like to fancy myself a writer, but I know i'm not consistant with it. I really only write when I'm inspired to do so, and usually it's to vent whatever crappy experience I'm going through or as a release valve to the craziness that goes on in my head from time to time.
That's a far cry from asking my opinion in regards to a certain subject, then timing me as to how fast I can composite an opinion and express it in writing.
If this were to be an accurate accounting of flat out writing skill and the use of the english language, a better test would be to have the "contestants" write out a technical manual, and judge it on who could clearly and best explain how to setup your widget du jour.
Exactly. One of my favorite things in the whole world is some bootleg recordings of steely dan recorded in a garage, they're sold on amazon as "founders of steely dan" or "android wherehouse" and a bunch of other names. They are *TERRIBLE*. Complete trash. Point being -- they're my favorite thing because they give me hope for my own endeavours seeing how shitty something can start out, and how pretty it can end up.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
They didn't have a written portion of the SAT back in my day, but there were "essay" questions on the New York States Regents Examination for English (a standardize test, but taken by graduating seniors in New York State only). I happened to have an odd "tough" English teacher that taught us exactly what the graders wanted to see: I wrote grossly inane piece of crap, but aced the exam, as you would expect.
And yeah, "Standardized" tests are far from the panacia some people think they are.
I hesitate about whether I should post this now. When I was at school, I was never confused by the difference between 'lose' and 'loose' until a teacher pointed out to the class that it was possible to confused the two. It took me a couple of years to sort them out in my head again after that...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's testing a students ability to cope with the impossible. It's training them for the peasant society of tomorrow. It is not giving a good indication of their abilities. No standardized test could ever do that.
I have nothing to say.
I would say that becoming a better writer requires WRITING a lot - not reading more. Reading helps you know what works in a general way (and to avoid ideas done to death in your genre), and you do need to know grammer. But only writing and more writing truly improves the craft.
Do NOT sign up unless your are serious about doing critiques. It is a fair bit of work.
Anarchists never rule