Summary of Condition of Installation

Issue being, there's a wide range of issues ... and you can't just simply judge "that will make someone a rubbish xxx' in the way that seems to be implied here.

There are very capable electricians and engineers out there, and, as you develop and grow, you learn to deal with whatever issues there are (or not).

However, some people just might never get the spelling and punctuation spot-on ... does that mean, as David and Mike are implying, that this is indicative of a problem?

Definitely not.

People who are good at English at school, perhaps with an academic education, even getting top marks for their academic reports, sadly have to re-learn report writing for the business world. In fact, the way we used to write documents and reports back in the 1990s is nothing like the way we present them today.

At the end of the day, in my view, it's not the basic spelling and grammar that we ought to be looking at, but a fitness for purpose (which does not include 100 % correct spelling, colon before a bulleted or numbered list, with semicolons at the end of each item. In fact,

If a summary, or report, has a succinct list of issues etc. that's readily recognisable and comprehensible, and gets the message across, I think it does the trick - even if the spelling and punctuation might not be correct.

Yes, care over the report - write in block capitals if you have to hand-write in that manner, fine by me - but I won't be marking anyone down on their spelling and grammar, but the technical content.

And finally ... quickly typing in a Forum like this, we all make mistakes, and some modern technology (predictive text) seems to be invented to purposefully trip up those involved in technical writing. Some of us will notice, however, more subtle spelling errors and grammatical faux-pas, such as incorrect 'practice' vs 'practise' and misuse of commas, semi-colons and colons; however, we don't question the integrity and competence of the poster based on that, do we? (Or, at least, I hope we don't?)

I am reminded of the original Janet Street Porter and this fella as well...

https://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+stanley+unwin&cvid=f50f5b769e3242fba273a60734b49776&aqs=edge.0.69i59j0l2j69i60j69i64j69i60.6220j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&DAF1=1&PC=ASTS

and

Janet Street Porter Spoof Interviewing Billy Connolly - Bing video

Z.

175,000 11-year-olds starting secondary school are unable to read properly, Ofsted head warns  | Daily Mail Online

Z.

This is the problem Z, and the strange thing is that it virtually didn't exist when I grew up. There was a huge difference in school then of course, we actually had books, and pencils and chalk and blackboards. The teacher could spell and speak properly, knew how to discipline disruptive pupils and we didn't have any computers or calculators, so had to learn to read and write, and even competed for the best marks in class. Now any competition is not allowed in case it shows that the mixed ability teaching doesn't work, all pupils must "pass" everything, sports must not have a winner etc. Some pupils did come out of school with better or worse EXAM results, but that is life and cannot be corrected by political maneuverings. Girls usually did better overall than boys, but that is a developmental effect, and equalised itself as everyone got a bit older. Around 10% of secondary pupils did have difficulties with reading and writing, and just about everything else, but the diagnosis was not that they should become rocket scientists, but that they should do what they could in society. Just look how Blairs' "University for 50%" has worked out, graduate pay is at the lowest level ever, and there is a huge shortage of staff at all levels, because there is no indicator of real ability available, "degree" or A level, or GCSE has very little meaning now because the standard for all exams (2391, 2382 etc) has fallen to a very low level. Getting 3 A grades at A level used to be very hard, a few percent achieving it, now 3 A* grades is 30% of candidates, were we all stupid back then?

My partner was a teacher in the "roughest" school in Bristol, yet she taught almost every pupil in the reception class to attend, behave, and begin to read, write, and add up, often even although the parents often could not do these things. They actually enjoyed coming to school because they were busy and involved, although they all got free school meals. They did not need pills for all manner of psychological disorders, or to have diagnoses which are now handed out with abandon. "Spectrum" applies to us all, but now is an excuse for everything, but good teaching can overcome nearly all difficulties. It is now in very short supply, see the first paragraph!

Zoomup said:

175,000 11-year-olds starting secondary school are unable to read properly, Ofsted head warns  | Daily Mail Online

Z.

Doesn't mean everyone with issues with spelling and grammar ought to be tarred with the same brush!

David Stone said:

Just look how Blairs' "University for 50%" has worked out

IIRC, the policy pre-dated Blair with the intention of fudging the unemployment statistics. Those extra 35% of school-leavers went to "uni" instead of the dole queue. The really clever bit was that they had to pay their own way too.

Then of course in order to provide the places, all manner of tertiary education institutes became universities. So for example, an aspiring cook took a degree in catering and then wondered where the graduate opportunities had gone. It was all a con.

I am not at all sure that things were better in our day: 50% of school-leavers had no exam qualifications - not even a single CSE.

It is not all doom and gloom now: the return of apprenticeships seems to be a good thing. Whether a T-level really is "equivalent to 3 A-levels" is another matter entirely.

Chris Pearson said:

IIRC, the policy pre-dated Blair with the intention of fudging the unemployment statistics. Those extra 35% of school-leavers went to "uni" instead of the dole queue. The really clever bit was that they had to pay their own way too.

Doesn't account for the number of people I know who had degrees before this time, with some of the characteristics we've been discussing.

David Stone said:

This is the problem Z, and the strange thing is that it virtually didn't exist when I grew up.

Newton wasn't aware of Eintein's work (as far as we know).

Oh yes they should. If they all can't read or spell then they are definitely all tared with the same brush. That is not offensive, it is just the truth.

If I can't bake a cake don't make up a pseudo technical word to describe my "condition." It simply is the fact that I have never learned to bake cakes. Simple. I am an incompetent baker. Any way my therapist tells me that it is nothing to worry about.

I hate it when people act all intellectual and talk about Mozart whilst they have never ever seen one of his paintings.

Z.

Well said Dave. I agree entirely (for once).

Z.

"Newton wasn't aware of Eintein's (sic) work (as far as we know)."

But it's all relative.

And they both had a good grasp of mathematics and were good communicators.

Z.

.But it's all relative, and I think that they both had a firm grasp on mathematics and language.

Z.