I'd never do it and I would think a little less of someone who did.

However, I don't think it would influence how I judge the content of the paper.

It depends upon what we consider good academic writing. I have seen plenty of contraction-free poor academic writing. Most students need to learn to adjust tone and level of formality to specific audiences, so assign them to write at least one essay without contractions. Most can manage that quite easily.

Yeah, this. Maybe I'm out of touch or something, but that writing doesn't read acceptable to me for a high school senior in a random subject, so what this person is doing studying English at college I'm not sure. Is the point of the assignment more about a writing exercise or more about comprehension and analysis of the film?

Fine with contractions in anything. I believe the distinctions between casual and written/formal English should be subject to evolution over time. The problem with the sentence Dom posted is that it's a very poor piece of communication. I don't understand what the student is saying. What does it mean for the film to "escalate into an action by separating the people"? What the hell does "the viewer gets the idea that a specific person was executed and this was expected but not to the extent of those tragedies that are to come" mean? Why does the sentence open "overall" when it's the opening sentence and there's nothing to sum up? These are all actual problems with communication, not the sort of nittiness this thread usually centers around.

Don't.

I was passing through Detroit on a trip and picked up a book from the lending library in the pilot crew room, Guardian of Lies by Steve Martini. On page 367 is this sentence:

We allow Maricela to take the lead on this as she speaks impeccable Spanish and makes Herman and I appear almost civil.

I'm always surprised to see this most basic of grammar mistakes made in a published novel.

Free indirect discourse?

"Herman and me."

Free indirect narration should be third person, but it's possible the author is revealing character rather than making a mistake.

He certainly made a basic pronoun mistake.

The narrator. Perhaps the author knows better. Certainly Mark Harris knew better in Bang the Drum Slowly or The Southpaw when his narrator delighted with perfectly ungrammatical language.

lol I teach in Nevada. That is high school level.

lol these are the kinds of comments I make to them

Here's another opening paragraph:

Ip Man is a movie made in 2008 directed by Wilson Yip a master of martial arts back in Foshan China when the Japanese invasion in the 1930s. The film is emotionally driven. The close camera shots to showed the feeling that is being conveyed. Other than feelings the camera angle shows who seems to be the strongest and with the Japanese showing them in a low angle shot make them seems intimidating. With the camera angles in play the lighting also plays an important role setting the mood of the scene and making the antagonist look more diabolical. Though the movie is filled with a lot of actions and fighting scenes. Each fighting scenes have meanings whether whose and the best or about honor or fighting for what's right and what's important.

Wilson Yip is older than I thought.

As someone that grew up speaking like this, I can assure you that we said "should of" and meant it as "should of," not "should have." The reason is that "of" is said as "uv," so it's really "should'uv." Should HAVE would have been "should'av," and that sounds pretty stupid.

With that said, I'm not a huge fan of using dialect in writing.

I was going to guess the last one was about Rambo, but I'm not a filmy. I never seen Ip man.

Sucks to be you I guess. That's borderline illiterate imo. Actually is that one from someone without English as a first language? Kind of reads that way (whereas the first one didn't).

Pretty sure it's Apocalypse Now.

He is, but he's lived in the US since he was 5 or 6...and he has no accent.

Some kids just panic when they try to write... I do find that their openings tend to be quite bad, but then then settle in and start writing better.

Of course, getting them to rewrite it is another issue.

hey Dave, in your world, what does "should of" mean?

"Should of" and should've are normally spoken with indistinguishable pronunciation.

Which is why people adopted the incorrect (and nonsensical) alternate spelling without thinking about whether it made any sense. You grew up saying the contraction "should've" whether you thought of it that way or not. It only becomes apparent when you try to write it down. This isn't a dialect issue.

This reminds me of a story by Robert Heinlein, set in the future. He has a parent informing his children (quote probably off a bit from memory) that in the past "America used to let people drive without knowing calculus."
The next line is :
"'They really didn't?' Bob replied, ungrammatically."

In his memoirs, there are letters about the fight he had with his editor who wanted to change the kid's response to something formally correct and him arguing that a teenager wouldn't talk like that. The "ungrammatically" was the compromise they eventually settled on.

The opening of any kind of writing is always the hardest part. It sets the tone for the entire piece. You should give assignments where they write only the opening paragraph.

I do class activities like this.

I was about to post this if you hadn't. It was driving me slightly nuts that he was flailing around with this 'uv and 'av stuff when should've is like, an actual real word.

Okay, I'll try to explain this. "Of" is used as an intensifier, similar to a double negative.

For example:

"You shouldn't do that." -> You shouldn't do those things (could be in the past).

"You shouldn't of done that." -> You really should not do those things.

"You should of done none of it" -> You were being stupid doing those things.

"You should of done none of that" -> This is me lecturing you on what you shouldn't be doing.

"You shouldn't of done all that" -> You should not do those things, and now I'm irritated.

"You shouldn't of done none of it" -> You should not do those things. I'm angry, but I'll forgive you.

"You shouldn't of done none of that" -> You shouldn't do those things. I'm angry, and you aren't forgiven.

"You shouldn't of done none of all that" -> Incorrect speech, likely used as jesting hyperbole.

Conversely, "I should of studied for my test" is obviously "should have" but it has the intensity baked in. "I should'a studied for my test" has the same meaning but is less intense.

I'm guessing the author in question wasn't using the device to it's fullest extent.