Agreed.  He is one of my top 5 favorite follows on Twitter along with Darren Rovell and some friends.

Just curious...How many years - or decades - has it been since elementary school students were required to diagram sentences and master grammar? 

I'm reminded of my own elementary school teachers - Franciscan nuns.  They often taught two grades - 50 to 60 kids - simultaneously in the same classroom.  Some how, some way, they actually succeeded.  I took it for granted then, but not now.  The clearest evidence of their success were the class rankings of their students who went to the local public high school. 

Learn English, take Latin.

So let me get this straight..  A bunch of 35 year-olds are hiding behind their computer and ripping on 20 year-old college kids at a paper ranked in the top 15 in the country by princeton review? I bet ripping on kids makes you feel like a real tough guy.. Get a life, and realize that all of these students are smarter than you will ever be. 

Your bold-faced paragraph is encouraging.  I wonder how widespread is that practice now.  I'll ask a few teacher friends for additional insight into today's approach to teaching the king's English. 

I'm 21, and a Senior at Ohio University.  If you want to know who I am, it's easy enough to find out.  If I had been polled in the Princeton Review study, The Post would not have received a good review.  My parents, both Ohio grads from the 80's, have both remarked that the paper is not of the quality that is was when they are in school.

Basic research mistakes and misquotes are not what I expect from OUr school newspaper.  Does The Post take everyone who applies?

At the risk of being wrong, I invite anyone who says the Post is worse today than (X) years ago to hit the microfilm on the first floor of Alden and pick any date near your supposition.

I think you will find the college writers of that era to be just as awful as they are today. The percentage of Scripps grads and Post writers that go on to become Peter King or slate.com editors is a decisive minority compared to future ice factory managers, sheriffs' department attorneys and community theatre activists.

As I've said before, the public discussion of all this lags by about a decade. The quality issues, the lack of editing, the tug-of-war whether newspapers can be saved were waged internally in the early 2000s. Inside the industry, it's just counting down the days until the bomb goes off. At this point, you either have to accept what a newspaper is or don't buy it. There will be mistakes, likely due to not enough eyes looking at each page. There won't be context, because the person writing it isn't old enough to remember a similar situation to draw from. TAll the veterans with ink on their hands were let go in about 2003 in a buyout. I'm 27 and the oldest person in my news room. There used to be an a-hole who sat in a corner office at every paper who knew everything there was to know about the city he worked in. He's gone now. That's depressing.

I don't see the need to dawdle at a crime scene. Newspapers don't attract the same level of writers and thinkers they did a generation before. This is what is left. Take it or leave it. The best and brightest went elsewhere.

And even if The Post and other papers were providing outstanding storytelling and flawless stories, the consumer does not pay for it, does not want it wholesale. The advertising isn't there. The educated public is not there. Jim Lehrer pumps out a newscast fit for Murrow every night and no one watches. The Economist gives a flawless take on the world's events every week and you have to take out a second mortgage to get it delivered to your home just to subsidize fantastic journalism.

What does this have to do with a newspaper given out for free and has plenty of eyes to put on pages? When the professional end of the business doesn't provide incentive for innovative, driven people to enter it, the pool of applicants at the college rank dips considerably. When a university can make money by opening the floodgates of admission for a major that isn't exactly rigorous, you create problems, as well.

That's where we are.

Correct, there was an error in one sports headline this morning.

Not quite a "serious content flaw," but point taken. Thanks for the feedback

Does anyone actually proofread The Post before printing starts?  I'm admittedly grammar deficient, but even I noticed that today reading the headline for the first time.

this is the nerdiest board in all of college sport.

You're correct . . . and we're darn proud of it, too!

It's really nice to have such versatile players.  It really confuses the opposition!