0

When I was writing a diary, I suddenly came up with this question.
1. I met a schoolmate on Google. She was a graduate of ABC College in 2000.
2. I met a schoolmate on Google. She was a 2000 graduate of ABC College.

I am not sure which of the above sentences is the best. Could you help me please? Thank you.

Kitty

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    In the context you have provided, both variants work equally well.
    – Erik Kowal
    Commented Dec 26, 2014 at 11:15
  • To day someone was a graduate in 2000 is to subtly imply that they are no longer a graduate now. This is preposterous. The person IS, and always will be a graduate, but saying she WAS "a 2000 graduate" states directly that she graduated in 2000. Which is what you meant to say.
    – Brian Hitchcock
    Commented Dec 26, 2014 at 22:30
  • Preposterous to us snoots, but most people wouldn't even notice (nor misunderstand what was intended)
    – Rusty Tuba
    Commented Dec 27, 2014 at 14:26

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

I see there are a couple of answers posted as comments, but I'll add mine anyway.

As one comment points out, the first is probably not correct, since it implies that your colleague is no longer a graduate, which they are since you can't stop being one.

But the second option is not quite right either as it uses a noun, 2000, as an adjective. This is becoming quite common but seems to me to be both ugly and unnecessary. So I would write, "She graduated from ABC College in 2000."

Improve this answer
2
  • Since when has there been anything the slightest bit wrong with noun adjuncts?
    – Jon Hanna
    Commented Dec 27, 2014 at 18:14
  • There's nothing wrong in general; my explanation was misleading. For example, a "dog bowl" meaning a bowl for dogs and a "soup bowl" meaning a bowl for serving soup are both fine. To me, using 2000 - or any other date - in this way doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's grammatically correct but not common usage in the UK?
    – Stephen Gosden
    Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 10:39
1

I met a schoolmate on Google. She was a graduate of ABC College in 2000.

Perfectly fine. We could apply a false pedantry and say that then she was also a graduate of ABC College in 2001 as well, but that is the sort of false pedantry that is apt for the season, because it belongs only in the sort of riddles that come in Christmas crackers. When we say someone was something in a particular year, it's implied that they weren't before. Whether they were or were not after that depends on the nature of what we have said they were, not on riddling.

In all, perfectly fine and perfectly clear.

I met a schoolmate on Google. She was a 2000 graduate of ABC College.

The form "A [year] [noun]" isn't widely used, but graduation is one of the cases where it is used, meaning that they graduated in that year. So again this is perfectly fine and perfectly clear.

You could also say:

She graduated from ABC College in 2000.

This gains nothing in correctness or precision, but I prefer this simply because in the context of meeting an old schoolmate I am more interested in learning what they've done in the meantime (graduated) than in their qualification and educational status (being a graduate). This would be different if I followed with something that made that status relevant ("… I suggested she send her CV to our HR department.")

It's also technically correct to say:

In 2000 she graduated from ABC College.

But this puts a bit more emphasis on "2000" than I think it warrants, unless perhaps one was listing a timeline of events.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .