Pet peeves: Preforming an analysis

Here’s one of my pet peeves – “preformed”. I routinely have students tell me things like

The standardization of 0.1 M base was preformed using the primary standard grade KHP.

I’m sure the student didn’t mold the base into a predeterimined shape before doing the analysis. Perhaps this student meant that they “performed” the standardization?

Of course, even the word “perform” in a description of what you’re doing in a lab is never actually necessary – unless you’re actually performing your experiment before a live studio audience. What’s wrong with saying sometihng like this?

The 0.1M NaOH solution was standardized by titrating against primary standard grade KHP.

3 Responses to “Pet peeves: Preforming an analysis”

  1. eric says:

    hmmm … from a liberal arts perspective … that would be using the passive voice. 🙂

    e+

  2. Rick says:

    True.

    On the other hand, you’re actually supposed to use the passive voice when writing about your experimental procedures for a scientific or technical journal. 🙂

  3. wb says:

    Except that Microsoft Word grammar check will flag passive voice and suggest that it be changed. That’s how proof reading is done these days.

    Which leads into a pet peeve of mine. More and more people seem to be unable to do things themselves, such as make change, add a column of figures, proof read compostitions, etc. We’ve become too reliant on technology.

    “Add it up in your head”, I say.

    “Aw jeeze, dad… “, whine my children.