In Defense of (a Few) Typos, Part II

THOUGH I HAD FIGURED I'd left the subject for good after my last post, So It Goes readers might want to know about a New York Times editorial today that admonishes those who would reject others simply because of a small typo.

The editorial, with the headline, "For a Typo?", recounts a case in which an otherwise qualified candidate for public office is disqualified because "a cover page on his packet of signatures said that there were 131 folders when there were actually 132."

To be fair, the editorial is really about how difficult it is for new, underfunded candidates to gain entry into the sweepstakes for any elected office, even at the local level, as was the case here. But I think it also strengthens my contention that typos need not be treated as an instant "game over" no matter the context.

Let me be clear, as I may not have been in the last post on this all-so-important issue, typos are not a good thing. They can lead to embarrassment at best and dangerous confusion at worst. The world would be better without them. Also, I acknowledge there's a different between a typo -- which I define as an error overlooked by someone who truly does know better -- and bad language skills? I mean, even a good speller can sometimes absent-mindedly use "there" when he means "their" or "they're." But when you see someone mistake them repeatedly, there's a problem.

But can't we just treat typos as a small red flag, certainly to be considered among an array of data, rather than an end of discussion?

Speaking of which, enough on this subject already.I promise.

Jeff

Comments

[Patrick Cronin]

As someone who reads many a resume and cover letter, spelling and grammar matter. While a single typographical error should not and generally does not necessarily disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate, I highly recommend proof reading official job application letters. We can endure typos in our Blogs and email, but a formal letter, even if submitted electronically, is taken as a direct reflection of the candidate's interest in the position.

[Jeff Weintraub]

I agree, Patrick.