![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yay for academia?
Mar. 9th, 2011 07:08 amJust finished the mandatory anti-plagiarism module for my writing class. (Why, yes, I DID do a similar module for the LIBS150 course last fall. According to Tom, just about every course at UMUC requires something of the sort, no matter how far in your studies you are. Joy.)
According to the module, most courses at UMUC prefer APA-style citations. LIBS150 used MLA. The module covered APA more heavily, but made references to MLA and Chicago/Turbian styles.
I can understand that different academic paper styles require different formatting, and different citation formats. Biology versus literature, for instance.
But the fiddly little differences between styles are driving me mad.
WHY does each style have to require its own unique title for the citations page? APA is "References". MLA is "Works Cited". C/T is "Bibliography". WHY does they all have to have their own cannot-be-deviated-from method of citing the author's name? There's initials only, abbreviated first name only, and full first name only. (No, I haven't yet memorized which goes with which style. I intend to rely heavily on the stylebook i was required to buy for this class.)
Why does APA require double-spacing in citations? It doesn't make a particle of difference in legibility as far as I can see, in the examples given. And reverse indentation? Really? Is a line or two of empty space between citations not enough to denote to a reader than you are now looking at a new citation and not an additional line of the previous one?
And why did the module inform us that APA considers footnotes a distraction and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary - in a footnote?
Meh. I need to shower and go retrieve Zodlings from their bedrooms. More homework and ranting later.
According to the module, most courses at UMUC prefer APA-style citations. LIBS150 used MLA. The module covered APA more heavily, but made references to MLA and Chicago/Turbian styles.
I can understand that different academic paper styles require different formatting, and different citation formats. Biology versus literature, for instance.
But the fiddly little differences between styles are driving me mad.
WHY does each style have to require its own unique title for the citations page? APA is "References". MLA is "Works Cited". C/T is "Bibliography". WHY does they all have to have their own cannot-be-deviated-from method of citing the author's name? There's initials only, abbreviated first name only, and full first name only. (No, I haven't yet memorized which goes with which style. I intend to rely heavily on the stylebook i was required to buy for this class.)
Why does APA require double-spacing in citations? It doesn't make a particle of difference in legibility as far as I can see, in the examples given. And reverse indentation? Really? Is a line or two of empty space between citations not enough to denote to a reader than you are now looking at a new citation and not an additional line of the previous one?
And why did the module inform us that APA considers footnotes a distraction and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary - in a footnote?
Meh. I need to shower and go retrieve Zodlings from their bedrooms. More homework and ranting later.
