I always answered usage questions by pointing out that, although no one
could
require the preferred spelling (unless you were an employee), everyone
hiring 
has the right to judge the degree and/or level of language formality when
verbal 
expression, particularly written, is requisite to the position.  The right
to
judge follows the Golden Rule: who has the gold makes the rules.  I have
known 
major employers (e.g., owners of newspapers) who would hire those who did
not use 
"proper" English only for manual labor positions.  Admittedly some sports
writers 
refused to conform and, on some newspapers of my acquaintance, were able to
express 
themselves as they wanted; others were edited by the proofreading
department--back 
when they existed.  I had a friend in college who wanted to be an English
teacher.  
His advisor told him, "You can't spell, your grammar is poor, and your usage
is 
atrocious.  You had better major in journalism: you will not be accepted as
an 
English major."  I told him that he should brush up on sports but not
consider 
Orlando as a good place to work: the Sentinel-Star was noted at the time for
its 
zero tolerance for grammatical, usage, and spelling errors.  Unfortunately
for him, 
the student newspaper also has zero tolerance for grammatical, usage, and
spelling 
errors.  He ended up majoring in P.E.

Scott
You have the absolute right to express yourself as you choose: others have
the same
right to reject you and/or your product as inappropriate.  Any teachers who
do not 
alert their students to the possibility that their grammatical, usage, and
spelling 
errors may impact their further education and careers is doing them a
disservice.
I had Hispanic Angelenos in my proofreading classes who had graduated from
high school
as functional illiterates--both in English and in Spanish.  They felt anger
at having
bothered to attend classes for 12 years only to be limited to menial
jobs--they were 
even rejected by skilled trade training programs because they lacked the
literacy to
read technical manuals.  When they asked me why they were not taught
"proper" English
in high school, I evaded the question by suggesting that they ask their
teachers or 
guidance counselors.

My preference is to give students knowledge and to let them make choices.
> I
> tell them that most educated writers (including the editors of almost=20
> every magazine, newspaper, and publishing house) use "all right" and=20
> not "alright," but the latter is used by a minority of writers, and=20
> its use may be growing. They can use "alright" if they like, but they=20
> can expect that a number of their readers may judge them on it. They=20
> might think twice before using "alright" in a college application=20
> essay or in a job application letter.
>
> Language is democratic, and if enough people join the "alright"=20
> bandwagon, it will become accepted the way "another" and "altogether" are=
 accepted.
> Everyone is free to jump on that bandwagon, but it doesn't hurt to=20
> weigh the consequences.
>
> Dick
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Castilleja, Janet <=20
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  If 'another' can be a word, why not 'alright'?  I'm never marking=20
>> this wrong again.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Janet
>>
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/