The trouble with academia: Write to impress or write to express?

We teach university students that they must use ‘impressive’ vocabulary. The result is a pretentious manner of prose.

Sachal Afraz October 11, 2012
I’d like to expand on a pearl of wisdom that I received from where most pearls of wisdom originate ─ my grandmother.

She is a published Urdu novelist and part-time journalist, but more than that she is an intellectual searching for depth in the meaning of death as she sees herself approaching the imminent reality of it. A more popularly acclaimed introduction would be as Bushra Ansari’s aunt.

Lucky for you, I’ve chosen to talk about one of the least morbid topics she happened to discuss with me: Academic writing. Despite having published novels, my grandmother does not consider herself a good writer. She explains that,
“A good writer is one who can form well-structured sentences, use impressive vocabulary, and follow their pre-planned outline for the piece. A great writer, is one who doesn’t need to.”

When journalists are trained to write for the media, they are taught to strip down to the basics. They must abandon long, winding sentences and use 'big words' only when they are absolutely essential. Simply substituting a simple word for a more complex synonym does not constitute good writing.

Compulsive use of difficult vocabulary is compared to the young actor who overacts just to show off his entire range of expressions. While published novelists and seasoned journalists seem to be at grips with this concept, the world of academia continues to teach the opposite.

We are teaching university students that the language they use must consist of ‘impressive’ vocabulary and sentences must have academic syntax. The result is a fake, pretentious manner of prose that the author constructs to appease teachers and hit the word-limit while sounding ‘academic’. It is almost as if we demand that all papers consist of unnecessarily long sentences and boring expression.

Re-entering the academic world after working for an English language newspaper can be rather revealing. Every time I would write original, thoughtful material, I would get reprimanded for my taking too much liberty with the language. Whenever I did a cut and paste job of basically just stringing together other people’s opinion in a sufficiently cosmetic and superficial manner, I would be rewarded with an 'A'.

Now that I think of it, this trend that I experienced at the University of New South Wales (Sydney) was exactly what I had to go through for four years during LUMS. The only difference is, at that time I accepted it as the way of being 'educated'.

Now, there is an argument for the pretentious academic style. Many teachers insist that learning the academic style is necessary for understanding the complete range of the language before one can truly master it. I understand that reading and using difficult words and phrases is the only way to master them, but why are we forcing it? Is proficiency of language represented by the accuracy with which thoughts can be expressed, or by the number of lesser-known dictionary words that can be fit into sentence? If the academic demand for boring expression is a means-to-an-end kind of learning strategy, then all students should be told this as they are about to graduate.

The current style of academic teaching is a bit like the sophomore who uses expressions like 'right-wing philosophy' and then stands around smugly hoping that someone in the room doesn't remember which hand-side was supposed to represent which specific school of thought. Surely there are less pretentious, more effective ways of developing language.

I would also recommend listening to Sir Ken Robinson’s views on the need for changing education paradigms.

Read more by Sachal here.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter for blog updates and more! 
Sachal Afraz A graduate from the Lahore University of Management Sciences currently pursuing post-graduate studies at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia.
The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necassarily reflect the views and policies of the Express Tribune.


JustSaying | 11 years ago | Reply While I understand his take on this subject if the author happens to be a Creative Writing major, I don't see how academic writing needs to be a work of art. Since the author does not specify his major, I believe he refers to academic writing in a general sense. When you say that you are shot down every time you have tried to be original and thoughtful, it might not necessarily be because the instructors disagree with your content but that the expression might be out of place. Indeed, not using the vocabulary of the field of study (be it simple or bombastic words) in a consistent way might introduce ambiguity for which there is no room when you are trying to drive home an academic discussion. I may know a much simpler word for 'relativity', but if I am trying to build upon the existing body of knowledge in the field of Physics to prove a point in my paper I rather stick to the original word as its use has connotations that (I would assume) my intended audience is deeply familiar with. Journalists are advised to strip down to the basics as it caters to a mass audience where you may not be able to make similar assumption. You can take liberty with the language at your leisure in a creative writing class. You may still be criticized for your writing style, but a creative prose may evoke different reactions in different readers, which is certainly not what academic writing intends (or pretends) to do.
Parvez | 11 years ago | Reply I made a mistake passing this over yesterday. Brilliant read. Made me think of something told to me while watching an accomplished artists work of a simple street scene done in crayons on paper, in the style of a nine year old. That was ' you have to know how to paint like a master, to be able to paint like a nine year old. '
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ