I had a Rabi-like professor in grad school. He was world renowned theoretical physicist, but he was a terrible teacher. His office was across a courtyard from where he taught, and I was convinced that he dropped his notes one day on his way to class, and that they had been blown around by the wind. He picked them up, but he never sorted them back into the correct order.
The notion that good writing is a talent not a skill feels like letting people off too lightly. Anyone who can earn a PhD should be able to learn to put ideas in a coherent order, and make them clear. It may take talent to do it at a level deserving a Pulitzer, but not at the level required to spare the reader physical pain. Plus, what we tell our students really is true: good communication skills really will mean more people will read (and cite!) your paper, and you will do better at job applications, and get more grants, and on and on.
I'd say it's a skill with an element of talent. Anyone can learn to be competent with effort, but some people will find it relatively easy. Which adds another reason to the list (that's maybe implied but not stated): some fraction of terrible academic writing is just people not putting in the effort they would need to in order to produce something good.
I suspect that this may have something to do with discipline. Some of the best writers I've encountered are professional historians. There's one in particular where I've repeatedly claimed that if they published their grocery list, I'd read it. I've read and enjoyed their writing about bits of history I'd no previous interest in.
There are, unfortunately, historians who are not of that quality. But they don't make it all the way down to incoherent, which seems to fit what you said about Neils Bohr.
Yeah, as a historian I am going to defend my discipline a bit and second what you've said. But even beyond elite, Pulitzer-level stuff, if you avoid the theorists (as I do) there is tons of good, readable stuff. And I would argue that this transcends the issue of topic -- some of the most obscure stuff can prove to be fascinating, and some of the seemingly most sexy topics tedious as hell. But I would say that one of the things that we assess when we review work submitted to journals or presses is the quality of the writing. In fact, I think the long run of the historical profession shows a whole lot of brilliant writing that not only gets popular plaudits, but win awards within the profession, indicating that in fact historians value good, clear writing more than most fields.
One of my biggest revelations moving from academia to business/industry is that in academia the burden is on the reader to parse what the author wrote. Everywhere else the burden is on the author to clearly and succinctly communicate the key message to the reader.
That's true of scientific public speaking too. Indeed, it's the reason why even those academics who like to putter with "public speaking" mostly speak with children. Academics are used to having the power dynamic whereby the viewer/reader/listener is expected to do the work to understand the speaker. Good public speakers realize that the onus is on them. If they don't do a good job, the listener will click off to listen to a Colbert comedy segment or some dramatic Kim Kardashian moment.
Good speakers/writers/etc. realize that >>they<< are the ones who have to hustle.
I had a Rabi-like professor in grad school. He was world renowned theoretical physicist, but he was a terrible teacher. His office was across a courtyard from where he taught, and I was convinced that he dropped his notes one day on his way to class, and that they had been blown around by the wind. He picked them up, but he never sorted them back into the correct order.
The notion that good writing is a talent not a skill feels like letting people off too lightly. Anyone who can earn a PhD should be able to learn to put ideas in a coherent order, and make them clear. It may take talent to do it at a level deserving a Pulitzer, but not at the level required to spare the reader physical pain. Plus, what we tell our students really is true: good communication skills really will mean more people will read (and cite!) your paper, and you will do better at job applications, and get more grants, and on and on.
I'd say it's a skill with an element of talent. Anyone can learn to be competent with effort, but some people will find it relatively easy. Which adds another reason to the list (that's maybe implied but not stated): some fraction of terrible academic writing is just people not putting in the effort they would need to in order to produce something good.
I suspect that this may have something to do with discipline. Some of the best writers I've encountered are professional historians. There's one in particular where I've repeatedly claimed that if they published their grocery list, I'd read it. I've read and enjoyed their writing about bits of history I'd no previous interest in.
There are, unfortunately, historians who are not of that quality. But they don't make it all the way down to incoherent, which seems to fit what you said about Neils Bohr.
Yeah, as a historian I am going to defend my discipline a bit and second what you've said. But even beyond elite, Pulitzer-level stuff, if you avoid the theorists (as I do) there is tons of good, readable stuff. And I would argue that this transcends the issue of topic -- some of the most obscure stuff can prove to be fascinating, and some of the seemingly most sexy topics tedious as hell. But I would say that one of the things that we assess when we review work submitted to journals or presses is the quality of the writing. In fact, I think the long run of the historical profession shows a whole lot of brilliant writing that not only gets popular plaudits, but win awards within the profession, indicating that in fact historians value good, clear writing more than most fields.
One of my biggest revelations moving from academia to business/industry is that in academia the burden is on the reader to parse what the author wrote. Everywhere else the burden is on the author to clearly and succinctly communicate the key message to the reader.
This is a nice concise summary, thanks.
That's true of scientific public speaking too. Indeed, it's the reason why even those academics who like to putter with "public speaking" mostly speak with children. Academics are used to having the power dynamic whereby the viewer/reader/listener is expected to do the work to understand the speaker. Good public speakers realize that the onus is on them. If they don't do a good job, the listener will click off to listen to a Colbert comedy segment or some dramatic Kim Kardashian moment.
Good speakers/writers/etc. realize that >>they<< are the ones who have to hustle.