As a subscriber to Usenet e-mail thread lists, I sometimes pause to wonder whether participating authors use freely available software spell-checkers and grammar tools. I guess I've come to expect that when written ideas are exchanged with peers, material presented for public reading will minimally conform to standard rules of speech. But that's not the case.

When I read e-mail, for example, I don't anticipate stumbling across obvious blunders in grammar such as the use of the pronoun "your" instead of the contraction "you're." A pet peeve is the use of the wording "a couple" instead of "a couple of."

Some may argue that such oversights are excusable in hobby-related e-mail reflectors, but I find it hard to defend such conspicuous faults in professional exchanges. When I pointed out this state of affairs to Jacqueline, an engineering friend of mine from Connecticut, she replied, "If you can't write, draw!"

Jacky contends that engineers can't discuss technical subjects without using paper and pencil anyhow. Thus the proverbial dinner napkin block diagram. "Engineers don't need to write like Shakespeare," she says. While I agree that much of what we need to communicate can be conveyed diagrammatically, it bothers me that the English language is increasingly taking a back seat to dispatch.

Some engineers feel it's okay to blunder grammatically, especially when you've got a point to make—and you have to make it fast. To my way of thinking, that's a transgression of the unwritten rules. For one thing, poor English casts doubt on the level of competency of the writer. Moreover, it can make mockery of the writer's organization.

In this increasingly global marketplace in which we toil, readers in some countries may come to biased conclusions based on incorrect interpretation of text. Such judgments could be unfortunate. Misunderstanding is always lamentable. At its worst it can result in loss of business.

A few years ago I spent a few semesters teaching math and electronics at the undergraduate engineering level. Much to my surprise, I found that many of my students couldn't write effectively. Many had trouble with punctuation and simple spelling. Run-on sentences were rampant. Vocabulary was limited.

Surprisingly, my pupils from abroad almost always had command of the King's English. That was especially true for those collegians schooled in the various countries of the U.K.

If I gave a pop quiz to my students, it was usually one that required the drawing of a diagram. The student would then provide appropriate equations, and solve for some parameters. As an option, however, I always offered the opportunity to write as many paragraphs about the subject as the quiz taker might wish. Almost invariably, undergrads from Wales or Ireland or Guernsey would take my essay option. American students would not.

Regardless of the geography of an engineering student's education, I argue that it's universally important to be able to create meaningful documentation that conveys what's needed to be said in a terse and easily understood manner. To my way of thinking, clear writing is a reflection of clear thinking.

However, my engineering friend insists that she never did well in English when in school. Jacky's forte was mathematics and science, subjects that were supposedly diametrically opposed to writing and grammar. Her observation is that if you're proficient in one area, you're likely not going to have mastery in the other. Math and English are mutually exclusive, she insists.

If you're a mathematician, engineer, or scientist, does that mean you're somehow an inherently poor writer? If that's true, then I guess I'll enjoy job security for the rest of my working career in engineering.

Is there a dichotomy between math and English skills? Jacqueline might write: "Of coarse there is." What do you think?

Return to Poll

		Click here to get your listing up.