As we all know, methods that remove hair from the root may reduce hair regrowth, but results may vary. However, as we also know, existing hair removal methods can only remove hairs that are currently sticking out of the skin. Hairs that are dormant are not removed. So you go through your favourite hair removal method, and then a few days later there are hairs growing back in that area. Are they the same hairs regrowing, or are they previously dormant hairs waking up? We have no way of knowing, so it's hard to tell how well the hair removal method is actually working.
What I want is a system that causes any hair that was once removed to absolutely, infallibly grow back looking noticeably different. For example, where my body hair is black, the regrown hair would all be blonde. Then I could tell if it's actually working.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
More information please: how does severance pay work in the private sector?
There was a story in the news a few days ago where, with the changeover to HST, some tax jobs are changing from provincial to federal and the people who hold those jobs are getting severance pay even though they're going directly to work for federal. This is being presented in the media as an outrage.
This leaves me with one question to which I don't know the answer: what would happen in a similar situation in a private sector? I've never been in a situation in which severance pay is involved, but it seems to me just based on logic that you'd still get severance pay. You lose your job because your employer no longer provides your particular service. So you either apply to or are recruited by the people who now do provide that service. That's a sensible way to go about job search/staffing. But severance pay is not a function of how sensible or successful the laid off employees' job search is, it's a function of the nature of the lay-off, no?
So, in the private sector, when there are layoffs with flawless outplacement, do the laid off workers still get severance?
This leaves me with one question to which I don't know the answer: what would happen in a similar situation in a private sector? I've never been in a situation in which severance pay is involved, but it seems to me just based on logic that you'd still get severance pay. You lose your job because your employer no longer provides your particular service. So you either apply to or are recruited by the people who now do provide that service. That's a sensible way to go about job search/staffing. But severance pay is not a function of how sensible or successful the laid off employees' job search is, it's a function of the nature of the lay-off, no?
So, in the private sector, when there are layoffs with flawless outplacement, do the laid off workers still get severance?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Two perspectives on O Canada
As a Translator
One of the first things we learned in translation school is that the single best resource for translations is previous translations. Why re-do work that has already been done? You are being derelict in your duties if you don't search for previous translations when it is reasonable to expect their might be one. However, the very next thing we learned in translation school is not to perpetuate bad translations. If there are flaws in the previous translation and it's not being explicitly quoted in the target language, you are obligated to correct the flaws. The previous translator was fallible, just like you are. You are being even more derelict in your duties by letting a sub-optimal translation stand without improving it.
Another thing we learned in translation school is that when you cannot capture the precise connotation necessary, you should always err on the side of not making people look worse than they are in the source text. A profanity can't be translated by a stronger profanity. A slur can't be translated by a more hateful slur. Something that will cause the audience to react negatively can't be translated by something that will cause the audience to react more negatively. Clients have trust us to as their very voice, and taking their carefully-chosen words and turning them into something less tactful is unforgivable.
O Canada is a translation. It was originally written in French. The English version isn't a particularly close translation of the French, because the purpose of the text is to be a song, and it is more important that it serve that purpose (rhythm, rhyme, message) than that it capture every single nuance of the French meaning.
However, even given the latitude of literary translation, there are two lines in the English version that are problematic: "in all thy sons command" and "God keep our land glorious and free".
Both of these lines are exclusionary, and nothing similarly exclusionary appears in the original French. (There is "...il sait porter la croix", but that's not as strong as "God keep our land".) Therefore, the translation elicits a stronger negative reaction in the audience than the original. This is doubly unforgivable, because the audience in whom the text elicits the negative reaction are also the people in whose mouths these words are being put. We sing the anthem on our own behalf, so this suboptimal translation is forcing us to represent ourselves before the world with exclusionary sentiments. To do this simply because it has been done before is to perpetuate a flawed translation, and given the context and the importance of the text, to do so would be beyond the pale. If this crossed my desk and I let it stand, I'm quite certain I would be promptly relieved of all responsibilities where I have the final say on any text, because my employer could no longer trust my judgment.
As a Conspiracy Theorist
When I first heard they were considering making O Canada gender neutral, I assumed they were changing it to "in all of us command". It turns out they actually wanted to change it to "Thou dost in us command," which is unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce. Then they cancel the change because it's unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce.
This isn't the first time I've heard people choose the most awkward gender-neutral construction possible, then complain that "politically correct" language is awkward. "Firemen, er, and um firewomen? Firepeople?" Um, how about "firefighters"? "All of mankind! I mean, um, personkind?" How about "humanity"? I do find myself wondering if they do this on purpose.
When I point this out, people often tell me that it isn't malicious, it's just that other people aren't as good at thinking of words as I am. I find this difficult to believe (who hasn't played dumb every once in a while?) But if it actually is difficult and you seriously can't think of a suitable, neutral, non-awkward word, ask a professional like me, or look it up in Termium.
One of the first things we learned in translation school is that the single best resource for translations is previous translations. Why re-do work that has already been done? You are being derelict in your duties if you don't search for previous translations when it is reasonable to expect their might be one. However, the very next thing we learned in translation school is not to perpetuate bad translations. If there are flaws in the previous translation and it's not being explicitly quoted in the target language, you are obligated to correct the flaws. The previous translator was fallible, just like you are. You are being even more derelict in your duties by letting a sub-optimal translation stand without improving it.
Another thing we learned in translation school is that when you cannot capture the precise connotation necessary, you should always err on the side of not making people look worse than they are in the source text. A profanity can't be translated by a stronger profanity. A slur can't be translated by a more hateful slur. Something that will cause the audience to react negatively can't be translated by something that will cause the audience to react more negatively. Clients have trust us to as their very voice, and taking their carefully-chosen words and turning them into something less tactful is unforgivable.
O Canada is a translation. It was originally written in French. The English version isn't a particularly close translation of the French, because the purpose of the text is to be a song, and it is more important that it serve that purpose (rhythm, rhyme, message) than that it capture every single nuance of the French meaning.
However, even given the latitude of literary translation, there are two lines in the English version that are problematic: "in all thy sons command" and "God keep our land glorious and free".
Both of these lines are exclusionary, and nothing similarly exclusionary appears in the original French. (There is "...il sait porter la croix", but that's not as strong as "God keep our land".) Therefore, the translation elicits a stronger negative reaction in the audience than the original. This is doubly unforgivable, because the audience in whom the text elicits the negative reaction are also the people in whose mouths these words are being put. We sing the anthem on our own behalf, so this suboptimal translation is forcing us to represent ourselves before the world with exclusionary sentiments. To do this simply because it has been done before is to perpetuate a flawed translation, and given the context and the importance of the text, to do so would be beyond the pale. If this crossed my desk and I let it stand, I'm quite certain I would be promptly relieved of all responsibilities where I have the final say on any text, because my employer could no longer trust my judgment.
As a Conspiracy Theorist
When I first heard they were considering making O Canada gender neutral, I assumed they were changing it to "in all of us command". It turns out they actually wanted to change it to "Thou dost in us command," which is unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce. Then they cancel the change because it's unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce.
This isn't the first time I've heard people choose the most awkward gender-neutral construction possible, then complain that "politically correct" language is awkward. "Firemen, er, and um firewomen? Firepeople?" Um, how about "firefighters"? "All of mankind! I mean, um, personkind?" How about "humanity"? I do find myself wondering if they do this on purpose.
When I point this out, people often tell me that it isn't malicious, it's just that other people aren't as good at thinking of words as I am. I find this difficult to believe (who hasn't played dumb every once in a while?) But if it actually is difficult and you seriously can't think of a suitable, neutral, non-awkward word, ask a professional like me, or look it up in Termium.
Standards: I do not think it means what you think it means
A book came out recently with the thesis that people should lower their romantic standards, even going to far as to suggest that people should marry someone who doesn't meet their standards.
Based on what I've seen in reviews, the book makes a good argument. The examples given of too-high standards look foolish, making those of us whose standards aren't anywhere near that foolish feel smug and good about ourselves, and making it tempting to buy the book as a gift for people who you think are handling their private lives foolishly. I'm sure it will sell very well.
But I find myself wondering whether it really is ultimately helpful to ask people to ignore their standards. Standards tend to be there for a reason; that's why they're standards. Think about your own standards. Aren't they there for a reason? Even if they're foolish?
As an example, we'll take the most foolish of my own standards: I find facial hair repulsive. Yes, this sentiment is foolish, shallow, petty, and hypocritical. However, the fact remains that it's like an emergency power cut on my libido. I would, by far, much rather go to bed alone than feel facial hair touch me while my noun is being verbed, no matter how skilled the mouth surrounded by that facial hair or how awesome the person whom it's attached to.
Now suppose you were looking at me as a prospective partner. And suppose you have facial hair, or would like to retain the option of having facial hair in the future. (If you can't identify with having facial hair, replace it with any other part of your body where you want the option of not necessarily diligently removing hair for the entire rest of your life.) Would you want me to try to ignore my revulsion and move forward in our relationship? Would you want a partner who's struggling not to cringe every time you kiss her, or engaging in a sexual power struggle over personal grooming? Wouldn't you rather I leave you alone so you can use your time and energy to pursue someone who isn't repulsed by standard personal grooming choices?
The same goes with all my standards. They're there for a reason. Even when they are objectively foolish, they're either factors that would cause me to find it more enjoyable to spend time alone than with someone who doesn't meet a given standard, or factors that would be a hindrance to making a life together in the long term. And I'm sure that your standards are the same. I just don't see that any good could come of trying to ignore them.
Based on what I've seen in reviews, the book makes a good argument. The examples given of too-high standards look foolish, making those of us whose standards aren't anywhere near that foolish feel smug and good about ourselves, and making it tempting to buy the book as a gift for people who you think are handling their private lives foolishly. I'm sure it will sell very well.
But I find myself wondering whether it really is ultimately helpful to ask people to ignore their standards. Standards tend to be there for a reason; that's why they're standards. Think about your own standards. Aren't they there for a reason? Even if they're foolish?
As an example, we'll take the most foolish of my own standards: I find facial hair repulsive. Yes, this sentiment is foolish, shallow, petty, and hypocritical. However, the fact remains that it's like an emergency power cut on my libido. I would, by far, much rather go to bed alone than feel facial hair touch me while my noun is being verbed, no matter how skilled the mouth surrounded by that facial hair or how awesome the person whom it's attached to.
Now suppose you were looking at me as a prospective partner. And suppose you have facial hair, or would like to retain the option of having facial hair in the future. (If you can't identify with having facial hair, replace it with any other part of your body where you want the option of not necessarily diligently removing hair for the entire rest of your life.) Would you want me to try to ignore my revulsion and move forward in our relationship? Would you want a partner who's struggling not to cringe every time you kiss her, or engaging in a sexual power struggle over personal grooming? Wouldn't you rather I leave you alone so you can use your time and energy to pursue someone who isn't repulsed by standard personal grooming choices?
The same goes with all my standards. They're there for a reason. Even when they are objectively foolish, they're either factors that would cause me to find it more enjoyable to spend time alone than with someone who doesn't meet a given standard, or factors that would be a hindrance to making a life together in the long term. And I'm sure that your standards are the same. I just don't see that any good could come of trying to ignore them.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Things They Should Invent: translate criminal skills into marketable job skills
Inspired by a text I was working on, it occurred to me today that some of the skills involved in being a drug dealer could be useful in the straight job market. Drug dealers need to build a client base, market themselves appropriately, anticipate and manage supply and demand under constantly shifting market conditions, and keep overhead down. They have to have people skills, negotiation skills, business planning skills, and networking skills. They're franchisees or entrepreneurs working on 100% commission.
I can't do all that, and I have a respectable, socially-acceptable grownup job!
I wonder if they take this into account in criminology? I know one thing the corrections system does is try to make offenders into people who will be productive members of society once they're released, which includes making them employable. I wonder if they take into consideration how their criminal skills could be rebranded as marketable job skills?
I can't do all that, and I have a respectable, socially-acceptable grownup job!
I wonder if they take this into account in criminology? I know one thing the corrections system does is try to make offenders into people who will be productive members of society once they're released, which includes making them employable. I wonder if they take into consideration how their criminal skills could be rebranded as marketable job skills?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Programming note
Know what's fun? A gigantic urgent project that will take an extra five person-days per team member due for Friday sans faute, and this in a week that started out with the entire team having only two hours free collectively.
So blogging will be light to non-existent for the better part of this week.
On tap:
- Do Slavic languages' treatment of verbs of motion affect urban planning in those countries?
- What George Smitherman and his supporters need to do to win my vote.
- The argument for steadfastly clinging to your most ridiculous standards for romantic partners.
- O Canada: a translational analysis and a conspiracy theory
Meanwhile, enjoy Eddie (au masculin today) torturing his translators as he demonstrates his thesis that Rome fell because Latin is hard:
So blogging will be light to non-existent for the better part of this week.
On tap:
- Do Slavic languages' treatment of verbs of motion affect urban planning in those countries?
- What George Smitherman and his supporters need to do to win my vote.
- The argument for steadfastly clinging to your most ridiculous standards for romantic partners.
- O Canada: a translational analysis and a conspiracy theory
Meanwhile, enjoy Eddie (au masculin today) torturing his translators as he demonstrates his thesis that Rome fell because Latin is hard:
Monday, March 08, 2010
How they could have made Own The Podium a success with simple rebranding
The problem with Own The Podium, (apart from its arrogance and inhospitality) is that it took perfectly satisfactory potential outcomes and redefined them as failure. Every Canadian athlete sets a personal best? FAILURE! It's universally acknowledged as the Best Olympics Ever? FAILURE! A world record is set in every event? FAILURE! We win a number of medals proportionate with our population? FAILURE! We top our own Olympic medal count record? FAILURE!
However, if we do own the podium and win the most medals of any country, we've merely met our stated goal. There's no remaining awesome in that achievement.
This could all have been avoided with a more benign branding choice. Instead of Own The Podium, they could have called the program something like Olympic Dreams, with the stated goal of giving Canadian athletes the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give the performance of a lifetime on home ice. The thing where they let Canadian athletes get more practice time in the Olympic facilities? "We have built state-of-the-art sporting facilities using the very latest technology, and our very own athletes have volunteered to test them extensively to make sure that every possible problem has been anticipated and solved once the torch is lit." (Of course, that would have been hella embarrassing once Nodar Kumaritashvili died, but as a branding choice without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's pretty good.) All the investment that went into technological advances in sporting equipment? "We're using this golden opportunity to foster the Canadian sporting industry and showcase its innovation and expertise on the world stage."
Then they could have proceeded with exactly what they did anyway, the program would have been a success by any definition (Joannie! Tessa&Scott! Alexandre Bilodeau! The hockey teams!), and our record gold medal count would have been the icing on the cake rather than a half-assed attempt to move the goalposts after the fact.
However, if we do own the podium and win the most medals of any country, we've merely met our stated goal. There's no remaining awesome in that achievement.
This could all have been avoided with a more benign branding choice. Instead of Own The Podium, they could have called the program something like Olympic Dreams, with the stated goal of giving Canadian athletes the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give the performance of a lifetime on home ice. The thing where they let Canadian athletes get more practice time in the Olympic facilities? "We have built state-of-the-art sporting facilities using the very latest technology, and our very own athletes have volunteered to test them extensively to make sure that every possible problem has been anticipated and solved once the torch is lit." (Of course, that would have been hella embarrassing once Nodar Kumaritashvili died, but as a branding choice without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's pretty good.) All the investment that went into technological advances in sporting equipment? "We're using this golden opportunity to foster the Canadian sporting industry and showcase its innovation and expertise on the world stage."
Then they could have proceeded with exactly what they did anyway, the program would have been a success by any definition (Joannie! Tessa&Scott! Alexandre Bilodeau! The hockey teams!), and our record gold medal count would have been the icing on the cake rather than a half-assed attempt to move the goalposts after the fact.
Analogy for today's Anthony Wolf column
Anthony Wolf writes a column about why it's not fair for a custodial parent to remarry against their kid's will.
I agree with his thesis, but I think it could be explained better, so I made an analogy:
Imagine your daughter is a few years older and has gone off to university. She lives in apartment-style student housing, sharing a two-bedroom suite with another girl. Partway through the year, the other girl decides to move her boyfriend into the suite. Your daughter objects, saying she hardly knows this guy and doesn't want to share her home with a guy she hardly knows. She doesn't want a third person on the shower schedule. She doesn't want a strange man she didn't even choose herself into what has so far been female-only space. She doesn't feel comfortable with him seeing her bras hanging up to dry or her used pads in the bathroom garbage can. She doesn't want to bump into him when she gets up to pee in the middle of the night, or lose the ability to sit in the living room in her jammies and watch movies.
But her roommate insists. "You don't get to control my life," she says, "Aren't I entitled to some happiness?" So she moves in the boyfriend. There's now a man your daughter didn't choose living in her home against her will. That's not fair to your daughter, now is it?
It's equally unfair for you to move in your man against her will. "But I love him!" Yes, and your daughter's roommate loves her man. That still doesn't make it fair to your daughter.
At this point, many parents will say "But I'm the adult, I'm supporting her, I'm paying for the house." Yes, and that makes it even more unfair, because your daughter can't move out of your home. She's completely trapped. Plus, because your man is an adult and your daughter is a minor, he technically has parental authority over her. So think back to the roommate situation, and imagine your daughter's roommate is also her landlord, and when the boyfriend moves in he'll become her landlord too, and she has signed a lease that they won't allow her to break. That's not fair at all, is it? If that were an actual landlord/tenant situation, she might actually be able to take them to court!
So if a member of the household objects to bringing a new member into the household (especially when the current household member is a 14-year-old girl in a female-only household, and the prospective new member is a strange man), do them the decency of waiting until they're in a position to leave if they choose. Four years isn't too long to wait.
(As an aside: Personally, I can't imagine four years being too long to wait to get married in a case like this where you have an extremely good reason to wait. You still have the person in your life, they're still there for you, you just can't share a household quite yet. You've found the love of your life! A four-year wait is small potatoes, especially when you can still see them and talk to them every day.
Time goes faster when you get older. While I'm technically old enough to be the mother of a 14-year-old, given social norms the lady in the column is probably somewhat older than me, so four years would seem like even less time to her. I seriously cannot put myself in that mental place of not being willing to wait.)
I agree with his thesis, but I think it could be explained better, so I made an analogy:
Imagine your daughter is a few years older and has gone off to university. She lives in apartment-style student housing, sharing a two-bedroom suite with another girl. Partway through the year, the other girl decides to move her boyfriend into the suite. Your daughter objects, saying she hardly knows this guy and doesn't want to share her home with a guy she hardly knows. She doesn't want a third person on the shower schedule. She doesn't want a strange man she didn't even choose herself into what has so far been female-only space. She doesn't feel comfortable with him seeing her bras hanging up to dry or her used pads in the bathroom garbage can. She doesn't want to bump into him when she gets up to pee in the middle of the night, or lose the ability to sit in the living room in her jammies and watch movies.
But her roommate insists. "You don't get to control my life," she says, "Aren't I entitled to some happiness?" So she moves in the boyfriend. There's now a man your daughter didn't choose living in her home against her will. That's not fair to your daughter, now is it?
It's equally unfair for you to move in your man against her will. "But I love him!" Yes, and your daughter's roommate loves her man. That still doesn't make it fair to your daughter.
At this point, many parents will say "But I'm the adult, I'm supporting her, I'm paying for the house." Yes, and that makes it even more unfair, because your daughter can't move out of your home. She's completely trapped. Plus, because your man is an adult and your daughter is a minor, he technically has parental authority over her. So think back to the roommate situation, and imagine your daughter's roommate is also her landlord, and when the boyfriend moves in he'll become her landlord too, and she has signed a lease that they won't allow her to break. That's not fair at all, is it? If that were an actual landlord/tenant situation, she might actually be able to take them to court!
So if a member of the household objects to bringing a new member into the household (especially when the current household member is a 14-year-old girl in a female-only household, and the prospective new member is a strange man), do them the decency of waiting until they're in a position to leave if they choose. Four years isn't too long to wait.
(As an aside: Personally, I can't imagine four years being too long to wait to get married in a case like this where you have an extremely good reason to wait. You still have the person in your life, they're still there for you, you just can't share a household quite yet. You've found the love of your life! A four-year wait is small potatoes, especially when you can still see them and talk to them every day.
Time goes faster when you get older. While I'm technically old enough to be the mother of a 14-year-old, given social norms the lady in the column is probably somewhat older than me, so four years would seem like even less time to her. I seriously cannot put myself in that mental place of not being willing to wait.)
Things They Should Study: is ESL harder when both parties are ESL?
I overheard a conversation today between two people, from two different countries, both of whom spoke English as a second language, speaking to each other in English because it's the lingua franca here in Toronto. They seemed to be having some difficulty, and I wondered if it's because both of them spoke English imperfectly in different ways, and they weren't accustomed to each other's imperfections. I didn't hear enough of the conversation to tell if this was the case, or if they would have had as much trouble with a native speaker of English.
However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.
When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)
It would be really interesting to do research on this.
However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.
When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)
It would be really interesting to do research on this.
Things They Should UNinvent: public opinion polls in lieu of factual information
"Canadians say rising health costs unsustainable."
So? Are they actually unsustainable, or do people just think they are? Did the people polled conduct economic projections, or did they just state their opinion?
They often have this kind of question as the daily poll on newspaper sites. "Do you think the housing market will slow down by the end of the year?" "Do you think the worst of the recession is over?"
It doesn't matter what peoplel think! Give us facts and information!
So? Are they actually unsustainable, or do people just think they are? Did the people polled conduct economic projections, or did they just state their opinion?
They often have this kind of question as the daily poll on newspaper sites. "Do you think the housing market will slow down by the end of the year?" "Do you think the worst of the recession is over?"
It doesn't matter what peoplel think! Give us facts and information!
Sunday, March 07, 2010
How to teach writing: make the content obvious
My high school English classes focused on two things: writing skills and literary analysis. The problem was that they tried to teach us writing skills by having us write literary analysis essays. For me, this meant that I had trouble focusing on my writing skills because I was struggling to come up with decent literary analysis. (I neither particularly care about nor am very good at literary analysis.) This was compounded by the fact that some teachers would give you better marks for coming up with a creative and unique interpretation and fully justifying and supporting it with the text, while others would give you worse marks for not coming up with the standard interpretation. I never reached the point of giving a moment's thought to "Is the structure of my argument optimal? What questions would the reader be asking at this point?" because I was too busy trying to come up with a thousand words about symbolism.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
Things They Should Invent: coffee makers that automatically turn off when the carafe is empty
Having an empty carafe on the hot plate of a coffee maker is bad. It might damage the carafe, and there's no situation in which any good can come of this.
Solution: put some kind of weight detector under the hot plate. If the carafe is empty and the coffee is not in the process of brewing, it switches off the hot plate.
Since the weight detector is there, it could also be used to stop the coffee from brewing at all if there's no carafe on the hot plate.
Solution: put some kind of weight detector under the hot plate. If the carafe is empty and the coffee is not in the process of brewing, it switches off the hot plate.
Since the weight detector is there, it could also be used to stop the coffee from brewing at all if there's no carafe on the hot plate.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Bilingualism as an expense
You sometimes here people talking about language training or bilingualism in terms of cost.
Second language training (most often French) is an academic subject. Bilingualism is a skill.
Can you think of any other academic subject or skill that people think of in terms of expense? "You want to teach our children calculus? But what will that cost?" "I don't know why all these special interest groups insist that public servants have to be computer literate. That's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against non-bilingualism - it's what keeps me in a job! (My motto: Je parle français so you don't have to!) I just find it really odd that it's thought of in terms of expense, when I can't think of anything other academic subject or skill that's thought of that way.
Second language training (most often French) is an academic subject. Bilingualism is a skill.
Can you think of any other academic subject or skill that people think of in terms of expense? "You want to teach our children calculus? But what will that cost?" "I don't know why all these special interest groups insist that public servants have to be computer literate. That's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against non-bilingualism - it's what keeps me in a job! (My motto: Je parle français so you don't have to!) I just find it really odd that it's thought of in terms of expense, when I can't think of anything other academic subject or skill that's thought of that way.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
In all of us command
When I was in Grade 3, a substitute teacher told us that the words to O Canada had been changed. The line "in all thy sons command" was now "in all of us command". That seemed eminently sensible to me, so I started using it and never looked back.
That's why it surprised me to hear in the Speech from the Throne that they're considering changing O Canada to make it gender-neutral. I thought they did that 20 years ago.
That's why it surprised me to hear in the Speech from the Throne that they're considering changing O Canada to make it gender-neutral. I thought they did that 20 years ago.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
This is so cool!
Sesame Street from 1977. Buffy Sainte Marie explains breastfeeding to Big Bird, while actually feeding her real-life baby! I love how it's so simple and age-appropriate, and yet answers every possible question without any drama
Dog show dress codes
A while back, I discovered that dog shows have dress codes for humans.
This video takes this phenomenon to its natural conclusion:
This video takes this phenomenon to its natural conclusion:
Monday, March 01, 2010
Things They Should Invent: bathroom electrical outlets that are nowhere near the sink
Everywhere I've ever lived has had the electrical outlet just to the left of the sink. This means that for practically everything I might use them for, the cord has to go over/next to/through the sink, especially since I'm left-handed.
Surely there's a better way!
Surely there's a better way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)