I thought that the quality of writing in the article was very poor. As a side note, I also found it funny that many are worried that the "prestige" of Harvard is besmirched, because the original meaning (now obsolete) of prestige was
An illusion; a conjuring trick; a deception, an imposture.
EDIT: Even the title of the article is unintentionally funny. Because academics may also be the plural of academic (better described as an academician), the title may be taken literally.
>As professors focus on their research, and students worry about securing career opportunities, both sides become increasingly disinterested in the classroom.
This sentence is atrocious, not only because of the use of "disinterested" for "uninterested" (Bryan Garner classifies this usage as Stage 4 on the language change index, meaning that it is ubiquitous but still not quite accepted [1]), but because the meaning is ambiguous. Are the views of the students about the idea of classroom learning changing, or do the students feel apathetic inside the classrooms of professors who ignore cheating?
Another poorly written sentence:
>The roughly 30-member committee was established in the fall of 2010 and includes about eight student members.
This sentence would be fine in informal speech. In formal writing, especially in a respected newspaper such as the Crimson, it is unacceptable.
Somewhere, John Simon is muttering under his breath.[2]
"As a side note, I also found it funny that many are worried that the "prestige" of Harvard is besmirched, because the original meaning (now obsolete) of prestige was
An illusion; a conjuring trick; a deception, an imposture."
Great point...
Of course prestige is the primary product for sale at such a place of business.
>As professors focus on their research, and students worry about securing career opportunities, both sides become increasingly disinterested in the classroom.
This sentence is atrocious, not only because of the use of "disinterested" for "uninterested" (Bryan Garner classifies this usage as Stage 4 on the language change index, meaning that it is ubiquitous but still not quite accepted [1]), but because the meaning is ambiguous. Are the views of the students about the idea of classroom learning changing, or do the students feel apathetic inside the classrooms of professors who ignore cheating?
Another poorly written sentence:
>The roughly 30-member committee was established in the fall of 2010 and includes about eight student members.
This sentence would be fine in informal speech. In formal writing, especially in a respected newspaper such as the Crimson, it is unacceptable.
Somewhere, John Simon is muttering under his breath.[2]
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner/d... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Lost-Reflections-John-Simon/...