Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

• Without being disrespectful, this isn't a case of alums wistfully looking at the past. From a journalistic standpoint, the Ram was significantly better then than it is today. The writing was clearer and more professional, as was the choice of what to print. My issue with the Olean column (and it's not worth getting canned over) is that the topic is stereotyped and simplistic -- people in Olean are overweight and slow, and besides, they're not from NYC; gee that's clever. The column is what's called a "throwaway" in the business. That the writer turned it in is unfortunate. That the editors thought it worth running is what makes us believe that the quality of the paper is not what it used to be. If it was heavily edited, I can't imagine what it looked like originally; if it ran as he typed it, well that's your quality issue. I think if any writers for the Ram in the 70s and 80s had handed in piece like this, it would have come sailing back at us in a crumpled ball. (NT) -- 70sRam, Wed March 16, 2005 10:02:11

  ---

• Every opinion is by definition a bias but that doesn't mean the opinion is incorrect. It is quite possible that those Ram staff alumni from the 70's and 80's are not only correct, but in a very good position to make that determination. It's an open secret amongst those in higher education that there is rampant grade inflation at the high school level, and that many students are coming into colleges unprepared for what faces them (poor writing and research skills, for example). And yes, this includes students from supposedly prestigious prep schools and elite public schools, and it's being felt at even the nation's top schools. There are many reasons for this beyond the scope of this discussion but it is reasonable to conclude Fordham is not immune from the problem. In fact, I've even seen the problem firsthand in the admissions interviews I've done. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed March 16, 2005 10:02:14
  • A major reason why writing skills of high school students, college students, and recent graduates are not strong is that they have grown up using methods of written communication that value immediacy of expression over accuracy of expression: message boards, emails, instant messaging, and the like. Rules of punctuation, capitilization, and grammar are often not observed when immediacy is the goal. These rules can become forgotten when not applied, or perhaps even never learned completely. When I write on this message board, I try to give some thought to what I'm saying, but I don't labor over it the way I labor over a legal brief I'm sending to a court. And that's the problem. Young writers today not only don't labor over what they write, they've never been taught to labor over what they write. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed March 16, 2005 11:12:12
    • See, I proved my own point. "Capitalization" is the correct spelling. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed March 16, 2005 11:31:33
      • Very insightful post and I agree completely on how technology is eroding standards for communication discipline. I think there are also societal factors at work as well, such as the pressure put on teachers and schools by parents to not do anything which would make it harder for their kids to get into a good college, and the very polarized climate where truth is judged through strictly ideological lenses. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed March 16, 2005 12:00:17
  • Well, like I said i never read the Ram in those days, maybe I'l try to find some to compare it with today. You guys could be right, but as in most conversations about past versus present (and especially me being from the new generation) to me a mentality of "we were better back then", while we tend to see that progress is being made. Both mentalities are not disrespectful but instead a showing of pride in their own work. I know part of the problem is that there was an article that ruffled some feathers in the first issue it was online. I hope you can agree that The Ram is a fine college paper that compares favorably to many other schools(esp the others I have seen) and keeps up Fordham fine tradition .If you don't agree thats fine. Have a Good Day. (NT) -- Worried RAM, Wed March 16, 2005 12:43:11
    • Worried Ram, your first sentence is a comma splice. Your second sentence gets lost in too many clauses. You leave out the apostrophe and the "s" after "Fordham." You don't include the apostrophe in "thats" and spell "I'll" as "I'l." And you capitalize "Good Day." (I've left out other miscues.) Beyond that, you begin by saying you never have read The Ram from "those days," but then you say that "we tend to see that progress is being made." So why should I think you know what "a fine college paper" is? (NT) -- Drag-less, Wed March 16, 2005 14:08:14
    • This could be a matter of generational pride, or it could be an accurate commentary that what is being produced today is not as well written and edited as it was years ago. Some of the posters here have been working in the media, legal and literary professions for their entire careers and are looking at this situation with very experienced eyes. I'm not saying it definitely is the case that the "elders" are right, but on the working assumption that they are I hope the student staff listens and learns instead of resisting good advice. It can only benefit them and Fordham. The Ram is a good paper - better than some, not as good as others - and there's always room to improve. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed March 16, 2005 14:31:46