So, I took an Initial Assessment and I have something to say about one of the questions asked, along with a bit of a rant! - With Love, from FireRain! · 3:14pm Jun 21st, 2018
Every year in college, it is required that everyone takes an initial assessment for their maths and English skills. It shows where you are at with your skills so that your new tutors for the next course you move onto know exactly what you are capable of.
Taking the English one first, I found that one of the questions was laughable in itself. It read,
Find below which word is spelt incorrectly and change it.
Naturally, I rolled my eyes and inwardly cringed. Why? Well, isn't it obvious? From the question, it asked me what was spelled incorrectly, and the incorrect spelling was in the question. However, the only thing I could change was below the question, which made me laugh. Kinda ironic, isn't it? I'd like to know why people think that spellings like 'spelt' and 'burnt' are correct when they have never been a thing in the first place. The worst one I've seen so far is the alternate spelling for 'earned' - 'Earnt', which, honestly, is so ugly that it looks like if fell off of something taller and more brutal than the ugly tree before it fell into a blender.
For instance, when you go to school, you learn all of the basic things, correct? In English, you are taught to spell words like I've mentioned above with an 'ed' rather than a 't' on the end. As a writer, just seeing those incorrect spellings and woeful grammar irritates me and kills my brain cells. The fact that I write them to show an example makes me feel dirty on the inside. Not to mention, the way they look in plain text is utterly atrocious and ghastly. I mean, why do people write those words like that? They are disgusting and they look awful! Also, they are derived from slang terminology, of which comes from a much older time and dialect of the English language. Annoyingly, my dad still says it the same way, which makes me cringe when I hear it.
If anyone has any answers or reasoning that can tell of how this disgrace to grammatical logic came to be, I'd like to hear it! The fact that these spellings were allowed to exist gives me a slowly decaying hope for future works of literature as writing begins its slow and painful downfall into the black abyss below. Before we know it, it'll all be reduced to nothing but an illiterate mess. (Over my dead body!)
Oh, and in case you were thinking of how bigoted this sounds, believe me, I know. Sometime's you need to show it, whether it is intentional or not, especially when it's about something you care about. I, for one, am a phenomenally large Grammar Nazi. I can't stand it when I see words spelled incorrectly, poorly structured paragraphs or sentences with no punctuation. It brings out the absolute worst in me!
Maybe the fact the description itself has an incorrectly spelled word was the whole point. Assessments can get crafty like that.
4886794
No. I quickly found out that it was a non-intentional part of the assessment. It was made clear by the fact that the assessment had parts were it was frequent and consistent with spelling incorrectly. Words and commas were added in non-editable sections that were supposedly added with the 'updated' version of the assessment. However, I have no clue as to who actually updates it to make edits, but whoever it is, they need to work on their English and grammar skills. The punctuation and spelling was all over the place!
There is only two questions that ask you to arrange words and sentences around by selecting them and adding in either a comma, or an apostrophe to correct a spelling mistake. The errors that I found were outside of this question, all apart from the one where the question asked me 'find the word that is spelt incorrectly and change it'. In other words, it was made painfully clear that the person who 'updated and edited' the initial assessment didn't know how to spell correctly, nor did they know how to punctuate properly. To someone like me, there is no worse cringe circus on the planet. It all comes down to the side of me that is plagued with Grammar Nazi fever!
On a personal note, what seems more natural to you as a choice of spelling? - 'Spelled' or 'Spelt'. (Another thing I hate is when people write 'dreamed' as 'dreamt' or 'dreampt'. Like, what is that, anyway? Apart from overly obnoxious and stupid-looking? I've seen frocks with more appeal!)
"earnt" is horrible.
Thankfully I have never encountered it.
Surely warning bells must go off when people write "funny looking" words.
For instance - background as backround.
4886807
Hehe. How embarrassing for them then.
Come to think of it, I clearly remember the last time I wrote "backround". It was during a certain test back in high school when we had someone from England join our class. (His family migrated to Australia).
Actually, FireRain... you're from the UK, right ?
If you were to encounter a test question like:
"Three black boys have set fire to the bush. On fire are small shrubs and metre high weeds. Which do you extinguish first? Explain your reasoning."
How would you respond?
The English guy wrote a paragraph stating how he refused to answer the question as he is not racist and does not refer to indigenous Australians in this manner.
Quite the answer, which made its rounds through the class, hence the reason for this test being memorable.
4886819
British English. Guilty as charged.
The problem with that question is that, although some may argue that it is racist, it actually isn't. When you think about it, anyone can set fire to a bush, but when the person or group of people are made to be black, there's always got to be that one person who gets all butt-hurt over it and calls it discriminating. Well, no, not really. Not only can black people do it, but in this sense, just because they started the fire, how does that make it racist?
They are not setting fire to something of historical importance, they are not setting fire to something such as a crucifix on the front garden of a black family, of which is an act of reverse racism, nor are they setting fire to an object or anything of religious meaning to their own beliefs. All they did is commit arson on plants. So, really, my answer to your question would be the small shrubs. I also would like to ask how it is a question that people mistake for racism when it has no indications of being racist, prejudiced or discriminating towards any type of ethnic group.
Honestly, I don't have the slightest clue on why certain people get upset over such things when there's nothing to get upset or angry about. However, if the three black boys set fire to bushes in a white family's garden, then that's an act of racism. It's the same way the other way around, with the black family as the victim of the situation. In any event, both scenarios are an act of racism and the like, but because it's only an example, it has no real relevance.
4886822
Sorry, didn't mean for you to write an extended spiel. Hope you didn't spend too much time on it...
You want to know the real twist ?
"Black Boy" is a type of grass tree.
When they burn, they burn hot and spit for a long time as the spiney "grass" (which is like very strong and thick uncooked spaghetti) has an somewhat oily core.
The core of the plant (calling it a trunk sounds strange) isn't like tree timber. Chunks fall off and act as long-burning coals, which dry out and eventually set fire to neighbouring plants.
Darn black boys setting fire to the bush...
Aussie kids know what a "black boy" is.
But I think they are now referred to "grass trees". Political correctness. And misunderstandings.
Another twist ?
Later that year a group of Aboriginals broke into the school (don't know why) and started playing with matches, so to speak.
Being later in the year, with tests to mark and all, one of the teachers was working after hours sounded the alarm.
So I guess black boys started the fire after all.
Anyway, back to what you were saying, even after people realised he didn't know what a black boy was, they still thought his response was weird. Just as you said. If the question said "ethnicity X" then... so what? Racism call-outs get tiring.
4886808
Or when some people write 'arose' as 'rose' or 'arised'. Like, what is that? I mean, really? The correct spelling is 'arose'. It's truly and sincerely confusing how some people can't tell the difference. Like most people in the world that still have a sense of mind, I sit and wonder to myself, how?