Woes of a grad student, part 4: Academic language

I went to Journalism School for my undergrad. There I was taught how to write really well. Now I’m in grad school where writing really well is suddenly a skill I need to shed in order to be taken seriously by the academic community. In J-school we are taught - GRILLED - in clean, concise, smart writing. The goal is to say as much as you can in as few words as you can. You achieve this by editing until you cannot possibly omit one more word.

I like this kind of writing. I know this kind of writing. I understand this kind of writing. 

However, in grad school we are assigned verbose, often pretentious academic articles in which the authors attempt to convey as little as possible with as many words as possible. In fact, if you can add syllables onto words that already exist in order to create new words that mean exactly the same thing, you are truly accomplished.

Why use equality when one can use equitability? They mean the same thing, but adding two more syllables makes it sound so much more grandiloquent. Why be content with using three syllables - condition - when one can say it in six: conditionality? Why choose the word cause when one can say causation, or even causality? Communication becomes so much more clear when it’s circumlocutorily nuanced, right? 

Come on people. I get feeling the need to create a verb, adjective or adverb from a noun (I do that too), but creating two more noun forms from a noun that’s already a noun is just plain unnecessary.

You know what else is plain unnecessary? Sentences like these: “In this form, the ‘lexicographic maximin’ rule has been axiomatically derived in different ways…There is no necessity to interpret these axioms in terms of utilities only, and in fact the analytical results derived in this part of the social-choice literature can be easily applied without the ‘welfarist’ structure of identifying individual advantage with the respective utilities.”

Just stop.