My whole problem with the class article is that the woman profiled seems to think it's all based on economics, ignoring environment, education, and culture. I get why it could be helpful at a local level for teaching and understanding your students, but her genralizations leave a lot out. For example, I would think most poor/working-class immigrants would not fit into her analysis of food preparation at all.

My mother grew up dirt poor, and not just because she was living under the Occupation. In fact, my grandparents let one of my aunts be brought up (and later adopted) by the bourgeois family in town to give her a better chance.

8 of my Dad's siblings didn't go to college. He and my uncle did because of the GI bill. So most of my relatives here were farmers, but, because of my Dad's job, I was exposed to the uber-rich throughout my life. Yet, because my Dad grew up on a farm, we always grew our own fruits and vegetables and ate them throughout the year.

By our income, we were certainly middle class, but our practices wouldn't fit her model at all. We didn't have a lot of "things" but I grew up in a 10-room colonial (which we didn't own) with parents who argued over the value of Bach (Mom) vs. Beethoven (Dad). Mozart being relegated to the back burner by all.

And the people I've met in academia and publishing (both of which pay sh*t) certainly wouldn't fit her middle-class parameters, primarily because of their education.

It depends whether you consider "neither" as singular or plural. You'd say "neither one limits", I think.

Neither terms nor options limit.

And the people I've met in academia and publishing (both of which pay sh*t) certainly wouldn't fit her middle-class parameters, primarily because of their education.

I've thought about this over the years, and I'm pretty sure my best friend from college's parents made almost the same salaries my parents did. But my parents were a consultant and a political appointee, and hers were an office manager for anesthesiologists and a physical plant manager. My family was definitely more upper class than hers, which I definitely attribute to education and expectations. She was the first generation in the family to go to college, and even my grandmother has a college degree.

Hmm. If it is an arguable grammar point, I might leave it as is, since partner and client have already approved.

Last week at work, baby!

Patricia T. O'Connor says:

When both halves of the subject (the parts on either side of or or nor) are singular, so is the verb: Neither alcohol nor tobacco is allowed. When both halves are plural, so is the verb: Ties or cravats are required.

If you have a plural and a singular, the one nearer the verb should govern the verb: Neither the eggs nor the milk was fresh. Neither the milk nor the eggs were fresh.

A quick google turns up that "neither" is generally accepted to be singular in formal writing, though it often takes the plural in conversational language.

Well, my grandmother would have killed me for using that word, and my father will kind of give me a Look if I use it

Heh. Here it's used without a second thought.

I feel lucky that my grandparents are/were all pretty liberal and accepting of differences.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

I mean, there are obviously (as this latest conversation topic shows so well) differences. In Judaism it's even more obvious, because some of the rules may be significantly different between the different groups. And yet, the question is what one does with those differences, and how they're interpreted, I guess. t /states the obvious

Last week at work, baby!

Oh!

Class discussion--how interesting!

In my family, class mobility was all about education. Mom's side of the family were Irish immigrant farmers until Mom's generation. Out of her and her five sibs, two brothers were farmers, one brother and BIL were union workers, and my mom had her RN (the first in her family to have a post-secondary school education). Her younger sister was the first with a 4-year college degree. On Dad's side, Grandpa was a jack-of-all-trades/small farmer immigrant from Sweden whose pension ended up coming from Stateville prison, where he was a janitor the last decade or so of his career. Grandma was from a more WASP-y middle-class family (Great-Grandpa Jesse was a barber on the South Side of Chicago), so it was interesting that she and her sister married two Swedish brothers who didn't have that same background. Dad's sister was a social worker, Dad worked for GE/ComEd and got his college degree in his late 30s, and his brother was an architectural engineer with the first 4-year degree in the family.

However, for those in my generation, the big thing was "Go to college!" on both sides of the family. All of us cousins have at least an associate's degree, and most have a BS/BA if not higher. Getting that degree meant you have more options than the grandparents did, and that was what everyone wanted for us.

My K-8 education was at a public school, but one filled with mostly middle- to upper-middle class kids, and a few who were from upper-class (it was an excellent school system at the time), but money wasn't really discussed much amongst us kids. I was really surprised to find out that one of my acquaintances was going to be boarding for high school--I had no clue her parents had that kind of money! High school had many more rich girls (private Catholic school) who were more about flaunting their status ("Daddy bought me a car for my 16th--it's a great little Porsche!" Ugh.), so I was used to that type by the time I went to college and saw more of them. One of my best friends there, though, was a trust fund kid (her grandpa was Dubuque Packing) who was as down-to-earth as could be.

My whole problem with the class article is that the woman profiled seems to think it's all based on economics, ignoring environment, education, and culture. I get why it could be helpful at a local level for teaching and understanding your students, but her genralizations leave a lot out. For example, I would think most poor/working-class immigrants would not fit into her analysis of food preparation at all.

I think her work is more about people (in this case teachers) not assuming that their assumptions are the only assumptions. She then gives them wide examples of other assumptions they could be encountering with their pupils and discusses how to work with them.

I don't think its supposed to be a comprehensive analysis of class and every possible permutaion. And I don't think she means for the information to be used as "if X person is Y class they are making all the assumptions on this list" so much as "you have now encountered a person of a different class background than yourself. y'all have different expectations of 'normal'. there are things you may wish/have to teach them that you'd have never expected".