The grammar police, accompanied by a STAT Team back-up (that's a Statistical team back-up top you), are out scratching their heads on a Saturday night.
First stop: The Daily Kos, where we learn from the Great and Powerful Kos that
[Ann] Coulter is a lot of things, but it doesn't look like plagiarism is one of them.
Ann Coulter is not plagiarism? Of course not - she is a variant of poltergeist. And props to Kos for pointing that out - there isn't a person in the world who would have criticized him for not defending Coulter.
After a mandated doughnut break, the patrol was resumed at the NY Times. The Stat Team was called in to ponder this sentence in an article about the relatively greater success of women in college:
At Harvard, 55 percent of the women graduated with honors this spring, compared with barely half the men.
What the heck is "barely half"? 51%? Is that different enough from 55% to make a stink about, especially in Lawrence Summers' former backyard? Are they kidding?
Well, we could look it up, and may yet do so.
MORE: But if we looked it up in the Harvard Gazette, we would only get frustrated - way more than half of both men and women seem to be graduating "cum laude". I have no idea what the Times is telling me, and no good idea how to figure out what the Times is telling me.
Only 9 of the grads got Bachelor of Science degrees! Goodness..
Posted by: clarice | July 09, 2006 at 12:58 AM
Half the men, barely.
Sounds like a Times ad for clothing.
Posted by: JJ | July 09, 2006 at 01:43 AM
especially in Lawrence Summer's former backyard
I bet Summers' (or Summers's) funny bone would be tickled by the placement of that apostrophe in a post about the grammar police :).
Posted by: Foo Bar | July 09, 2006 at 02:00 AM
Well, I've heard that the plight of boys is the up and coming thing.
Maybe the Times will eventually clue in to the plight of truly moderate muslims who are being victimized by the groups that claim to speak for them.
Say in twenty years or so.
Posted by: Syl | July 09, 2006 at 04:49 AM
I'm going to fix that and blame the Boys of Summers'.
I knew as soon as I titled the post that hard times were coming.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | July 09, 2006 at 07:52 AM
Of course its just pure prejudice (and political pressure) that keeps Yale from accepting the Taliban man into its degree program. Its clear that just about anyone could pass at both Yale and Harvard. (Full disclosure: I once took a philosophy of science course at Harvard in order to get my degree at MIT...it was a complete joke...the word was out that to get an A just turn in a paper. Sure enough the estimable Hilary Putnam came through!)
Outside of New York and New England and certain journalism circles, I am not sure what the Yale/Harvard brand is worth anymore.
Posted by: noah | July 09, 2006 at 08:28 AM
And that difference between men and women at Harvard might be entirely explained by the tendency of men and women to choose different majors.
I don't know whether this is true at Harvard, but, in general, the grading is stiffer in fields where men predominate than in fields where women do.
Posted by: Jim Miller | July 09, 2006 at 08:46 AM
Tom, I have a serious grammar-philosophy question about creating the possessive of nouns ending in -s.
Summers = Summers' or Summers's
I understand the reason for the former, but placing euphony over logic annoys me. Why can't it be writtern Summers's (the logical way: the singular possessive is created by adding -'s, actually a contraction of the much earlier form, "his") but pronounced Summers'?
(and I have been known to correct signs at Wal-Mart that incorrectly create the plural with an apostrophe.)
Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom | July 09, 2006 at 09:33 AM
placing euphony over logic annoys me...
Interesting point in the written medium, as here.
But when folks are speaking, it is my fervent and ongoing hope that logic takes a back seat to the desire to avoid spraying the audience, or appearing to stutter.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | July 09, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Gee, 55% compared to barely half (50%+ at least 1). This is considered significantly different? Wasn't it something Summers said about gender differences on math & spatial abilities at the extreme ends of the distribution that got folks into a lather? Article was written by Tamar Lewin. Hmmm. Res Ipsa Loquitor :>)
Posted by: barrydauphin | July 09, 2006 at 10:47 AM
50% graduated WITH HONORS!
Those honors are worth about as much as John Kerry's Purple Hearts.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 09, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Patrick — EVERYBODY gets a prize, just for playing!
It's the birthday party theory of edumakayshun...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | July 09, 2006 at 02:27 PM
At Harvard grading in math and sciences is still hard..but notice only 9 grads got Bachelors of Science degrees. Yes, it may be the tiny statistical difference reflects the difference in majors (most of the girls in my sons' biochem program switched after the first year to easier majors).
Posted by: clarice | July 09, 2006 at 02:38 PM
The funny thing is that someone would think Ann Coulter is a plagarist. I think most would remember if they heard those words somewhere before!!!
Posted by: Pofarmer | July 09, 2006 at 05:29 PM
Hey, somebody has to police the policemen, TM.
This may seem petty to you, but when it comes to nitpicking I think I could probably top you once again if I were to scrutinize the first sentence of your post a bit more.
Posted by: Foo Bar | July 09, 2006 at 06:01 PM
As a teacher at an all girls high school my only complaint is that some of our smarter girls get rejected or wait-listed to make room for dumber and unmotivated boys;especially jocks who need only score an 18 composite on the ACT to get in to play football or basketball. I bet the Duke's girls lacrosse team doesn't have male strippers at their parties. Admission should be based on merit and scholarships awarded to the needy. The article went on to say boys partied more and studied less assured that their charm and personality and networking would get them the jobs they needed after graduation. I had to keep a B average in college in order to keep my scholarship. I also had to work on weekends to help pay my tuition.
Posted by: maryrose | July 09, 2006 at 06:55 PM
Graduation is important, but I've seen studies that suggest that after the first year in the real world, C students are as capable as A students. So to me, it's just a piece of paper at the undergrad level. The old saying goes "C's get degrees".
What is disturbing to me is the overall decline in enrollment for young men. That suggests a real cultural change on its way. Moreover, the young men are trending away from being rich and caucasian.
In a few years, the "old boys club" will be gone. All the potential new members will be busy plying themselves with beer and porn, when not otherwise occupied agitating gravel and 2 x 4s.
Wonder how that's going to affect the concept of "patriarchy" for the feminists.
Posted by: Soylent Red | July 10, 2006 at 12:36 AM
Let's replace "disturbing" with "interesting", so as to avoid offense.
Posted by: Soylent Red | July 10, 2006 at 12:38 AM
'I bet the Duke's girls lacrosse team doesn't have male strippers at their parties. '
Uh, maybe, but some female sports team at Northwestern was recently in the news for being too risque.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 10, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Looks like some bad PC inflation in the "Cum Laude" and "Summa Cum Laude" honors. Over half ther graduates? That's pretty weak.
Posted by: mojo | July 10, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Sorry Maryrose, but I've got to take your argument apart:
"As a teacher at an all girls high school my only complaint is that some of our smarter girls get rejected or wait-listed to make room for dumber and unmotivated boys;especially jocks who need only score an 18 composite on the ACT to get in to play football or basketball."
No, your girls aren't being wait-listed for any dumber and unmotivated boys *except* for the jocks, and there are smarter and more motivated *boys* being wait-listed for the identical reason. This isn't an indictment of gender preference, it's an indictment of college sports, and that's a different rant.
"I bet the Duke's girls lacrosse team doesn't have male strippers at their parties."
That has more to do with why there are 500 female hookers to 1 male gigilo than, again, to gender politics.
"Admission should be based on merit and scholarships awarded to the needy."
Agreed; and while we're at it, remove nonsense and fluff like "Women's Studies" from the academy, and make Secondary Education into a grad level program, requiring a *real* degree in something else (related) for entrance. Primary Ed, we can get away with the "one lesson plan ahead of the student" system we have today, although I have my thoughts on tightening up the joke that is "Education" education, as well.
"The article went on to say boys partied more and studied less assured that their charm and personality and networking would get them the jobs they needed after graduation."
That's what they believe. I'd like to see what they say after they graduate. There's also an enormous number of young women who seem to think that having fancy graphics tattooed above their butt makes them better looking, too. Self-delusion is not sex-limited.
"I had to keep a B average in college in order to keep my scholarship. I also had to work on weekends to help pay my tuition."
So? You think that guys on academic scholarships are exempt from grade requirements? I worked summers in a steel mill doing hard manual labor to help with the costs of my education.
email is human readable - aloud.
Posted by: bud | July 10, 2006 at 07:23 PM
My resident manager puts weekly notices in my elevator that gives me a grammar workout. This horrible misuse of a conjunction was this week's faux pas:
"Please make sure you're cars are removed form the parking lot by 7:30 Monday morning."
Posted by: Trickish Knave | July 10, 2006 at 08:28 PM