/lit/ - Literature

>>17544979
It's because most of these people likely didn't have a distinct voice when they entered into these programs and in all likelihood never wanted one. This style lets them borrow Post-Modern jargon--OP's image reads like something out of a Walmart-brand Baudrillard--and use it to paint over the gaping, desperate tone they would have otherwise.

Funnily enough, this type of speech could also be taught by upper-level educators as an effective means to hide meaning from both readers who aren't interested enough to comb through the gunk of what's begin said, as well as from the student who's writing whatever's being said.

This means that one of them comes up with an interesting idea, it will be so drenched in faux-programmatic technical managerial speech that only the professor will readily be able to pick out what their student is actually saying--and if that's something interesting, and something that could potentially set warning bells off for the wrong people, no one will ever know, because no one wants to read pages and pages of this garbage unless, like the professor, they're getting paid to do so.

This is of course high, almost outlandish, speculation, and I doubt that university lecturers are teaching their students to think and write unintelligibly so as to mask a certain kind of programming that might be taking place on college campuses.

But it does make one think, doesn't it?