Critical Reading Discussion: I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Here’s Why”

Note: Before you can complete this assignment, make sure that you have read Kyle Wiens’ “I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Here’s Why”

Two key parts of critical reading include reading actively and understanding what you read.

For this discussion, answer ALL of the following:

1. When you read actively you read for comprehension, for understanding. To do that, you must first be sure you understand the writer’s main point.   Often readers mistake a work’s title for the main idea; the two are not necessarily the same.  Sometimes readers insert their own opinions/experiences and fail to understand what the author was saying.  Read Kyle Wiens article more than once if needed to make sure you understand it.  What did you determine was the main point of Wiens’ article? In other words, what is he attempting to convince you of?
2. Re-read any passages in the article that you found difficult to understand or parts that you did not completely comprehend. After all, you can’t have an opinion on the article if you don’t completely understand it.  Explain whether you agree or disagree with Wiens’ article. Make sure to move beyond a simple “I agree” or “I disagree”.  Explain why you agree or disagree. It’s  okay to disagree with some parts and agree with others, but be specific about what those parts are and why you disagree or agree. Remember: you have to understand what the author intended originally before you can agree or disagree with it. 
3. In your answer to this part of the prompt, find and include one specific quote from Wiens’ article to show either an aspect of the work you agreed with or an aspect you disagreed with.  Include a reference (or works cited) at the end of your response. If you are not quite sure what a reference (or works cited) is, click on the following link: MLA Works Cited

I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Here’s Why.

by

• Kyle Wiens

July 20, 2012

• Tweet
• Post
• Share
• Save
• Buy Copies
• Print

If you think an apostrophe was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, you will never work for me. If you think a semicolon is a regular colon with an identity crisis, I will not hire you. If you scatter commas into a sentence with all the discrimination of a shotgun, you might make it to the foyer before we politely escort you from the building.

Some might call my approach to grammar extreme, but I prefer Lynne Truss’s more cuddly phraseology: I am a grammar “stickler.” And, like Truss — author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves — I have a “zero tolerance approach” to grammar mistakes that make people look stupid.

Now, Truss and I disagree on what it means to have “zero tolerance.” She thinks that people who mix up their itses “deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave,” while I just think they deserve to be passed over for a job — even if they are otherwise qualified for the position.

Everyone who applies for a position at either of my companies, iFixit or Dozuki, takes a mandatory grammar test. Extenuating circumstances aside (dyslexia, English language learners, etc.), if job hopefuls can’t distinguish between “to” and “too,” their applications go into the bin.

Of course, we write for a living. iFixit.com is the world’s largest online repair manual, and Dozuki helps companies write their own technical documentation, like paperless work instructions and step-by-step user manuals. So, it makes sense that we’ve made a preemptive strike against groan-worthy grammar errors.

But grammar is relevant for all companies. Yes, language is constantly changing, but that doesn’t make grammar unimportant. Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. In blog posts, on Facebook statuses, in e-mails, and on company websites, your words are all you have. They are a projection of you in your physical absence. And, for better or worse, people judge you if you can’t tell the difference between their, there, and they’re.

Good grammar makes good business sense — and not just when it comes to hiring writers. Writing isn’t in the official job description of most people in our office. Still, we give our grammar test to everybody, including our salespeople, our operations staff, and our programmers.

On the face of it, my zero tolerance approach to grammar errors might seem a little unfair. After all, grammar has nothing to do with job performance, or creativity, or intelligence, right?

Wrong. If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use “it’s,” then that’s not a learning curve I’m comfortable with. So, even in this hyper-competitive market, I will pass on a great programmer who cannot write.

Grammar signifies more than just a person’s ability to remember high school English. I’ve found that people who make fewer mistakes on a grammar test also make fewer mistakes when they are doing something completely unrelated to writing — like stocking shelves or labeling parts.

In the same vein, programmers who pay attention to how they construct written language also tend to pay a lot more attention to how they code. You see, at its core, code is prose. Great programmers are more than just code monkeys; according to Stanford programming legend Donald Knuth they are “essayists who work with traditional aesthetic and literary forms.” The point: programming should be easily understood by real human beings — not just computers.

And just like good writing and good grammar, when it comes to programming, the devil’s in the details. In fact, when it comes to my whole business, details are everything.

I hire people who care about those details. Applicants who don’t think writing is important are likely to think lots of other (important) things also aren’t important. And I guarantee that even if other companies aren’t issuing grammar tests, they pay attention to sloppy mistakes on résumés. After all, sloppy is as sloppy does.

That’s why I grammar test people who walk in the door looking for a job. Grammar is my litmus test. All applicants say they’re detail-oriented; I just make my employees prove it.