Re: Degrees

[Jane Bergen <janeber -at- CYBERRAMP -dot- NET>]

I'm still a little wary about the "wisdom" that simply being able to
write (especially in an academic setting) makes one a technical
writer. I think William Faulkner is a great novelist. He surely can
write....but I think he would have made a lousy technical writer. I
have edited a literary journal (with contributions by both tenured
professors and students), but few would make it in technical writing.
And yes, I did see some of their efforts to write technical documents.

Do most tech writers really believe that grammar skills and being able
to write a cohesive sentence that follows the "rules of grammar" is
all there is to it? C'mon, folks. . . What about knowing how readers
read or how they use documents? What about understanding technical
information and being able to regurgitate it so that a neophyte can
understand it? What about understanding *WHY* good technical writing
follows practical devices like chunking, building white space into
documents, or using type and graphics according to a (gasp!) method?
What about having a passion for understanding human factors involved
in developing new media methods of delivery? What about having a
propensity for solving puzzles (and putting the pieces back together
again)? What about honing skills for interviewing SMEs (subject matter
experts) or for solid research in understanding the theory behind the
technology you're writing about?

Sure, anyone CAN get a job as a technical writer....but that doesn't
mean the person is going to BE a GOOD technical writer. I don't think
having a degree in technical writing is an absolute, although I do
think a few high-level classes (information theory, not writing
feasibility studies about which grocery store is best..as I've seen
happen) never hurt anyone either.

> -----Original Message-- (heavily snipped)---
> From: Bob Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 9:19 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Degrees

> Yet I noticed when I was going to job fairs (since it's
> hard to get the
> same kind of feedback from a help wanted ad) that the large
> companies
> with HR people were interested in either a degree in English or a
> certificate in technical writing.  None of them seemed capable of
> conceiving that my background as a historian included
> extensive writing
> experience, and that the experience would be beneficial to
> a technical writer.
>
(snipped)

> preference, given
> our situation, would be for at least a bachelor's, in a field that
> requires a lot of writing (English, OK, but how about philosophy?
> political science? or the pot of gold, another history
> major?).  Why?
> Because I know these fields teach people how to write, with all that
> that entails, such as the ability to research and analyze.

Maybe I spent too much time in the academic world, but I just don't
believe the skills necessarily equate. Philosophy majors? The human
resources staffs and recruiters don't have time to wade through
transcripts and academic writing samples...they probably wouldn't know
what to look for anyway. They are usually looking for a set of
qualifications developed by documentation managers based on past
successes. It may not be on target, but it's the best they can do.
That's one reason a good portfolio with TECHNICAL (real world, real
projects), not academic, samples is important. If your writing samples
are good, they speak for themselves. If not, no amount of explanation
will help.

Jane Bergen

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=