‘‘We didn’t perceive any shortage of organs back in the day,’’ says Dr. Nicholas Tilney, the Francis D. Moore professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and one of the nation’s premier kidney-transplant surgeons"
This was in a New York Times Magazine article. I also heard it recently from a head economist of a major financial institution. It just doesn’t seem like a very professional-sounding phrase to me.
It’s not. It’s just another sign that standards of communication are continuing to erode. If “back in the day” is in use by professionals now, I guess “It’s all good” and “keep it real” can’t be close behind. Personally, I like to express myself in public on a higher plane than that.
Of course, this new phrase is a perfectly clear one that won’t lead to any issues of misinterpretation or ambiguity.
So, it’s only natural that you’ll appeal to some “higher plane” (no doubt in and of itself once a novel phrase whose use by hip youngsters was frowned upon by older and better educated individuals) to criticize this phrase.
A month ago in NPR they had an English professor from some UK University that published a grammar guide relating to constructions or words not to be used. I was impressed. He criticized both unclear constructions that “sounded educated” as well as items from pop-culture that harmed the depth and clarity of the language. I don’t believe that he would have any problem with the phrase, “back in the day.”
Frankly, it gets clearly at the idea of what was standard practice or belief for a previous generation. It makes perfect sense in terms what were widely perceived problems for transplant surgeons when the practice began, and I wonder what other phrase would communicate this idea as clearly.
As far as I’m concerned, it makes our language more effective so I’m fine with it.
threemae- Do you happen to remember the name of the professor or the program he was on? I’d like to listen to it.
(Yes I know my sentence structure is all wrong, but I’m not a doc or an economist) 
Well, legal writing tries to be lofty yet comtemporary, so let’s see if I can find any legal opinions using the phrase:
Garcia v Allen, 28 S.W.3d 587, 595 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied)(emphasis added).
QED, yo!
Back in the day, and educated englishman was expected to at the very least be able to speak English, French, Greek, and Latin. In verse. If you can’t meet the standards of eloquence of times past, you can’t, IMO, criticize modern standards of communication. If you CAN mee them, then you probably understand not only the impracticality of expecting everyone to adhere to these standards, but also have a deep enough knowledge of language to appreciate the merits of the contemporary manners of speaking.
That said, I acknowledge that politics would be more entertaining if politicians were truly eloquent orators.
Very well stated.
But obviously less fun than throwing one’s hands up into the air and declaring, “Oh, the kids these days, why back in the day…”
You’ll have to help this poor, ignorant slut of a professional translator and copy-editor by explaining just what it is that is so horrible about the phrase “back in the day.”
And this equally slutty, but old-enough-to-be-his-father professional writer by explaining just what the phrase means.
It means “in some indefinite time in the past, but still within my memory, when we didn’t have all this new-fangled razzmatazz of the kind presently being discussed/when things were much better than they are now with regard to the matters presently being discussed.”
This example doesn’t count. Obviously a comma is required after “back in.”
Well, which do you have a problem with: professionals using idioms or idioms being used in public? If it’s the former, the attorneys here who say ‘my bad’ and ‘keep it real’ might feel a little sad that you feel that way.
Also, do you only take issue with urban idioms?
I’d exclude the “within my memory” and “much better” parts and you’ve got a damn good definition.
To me, people use idioms when they are incapable of expressing themselves with more clarity. And do the attorneys you speak of use those trite little phrases around their bosses or in court? Probably not. This topic touches on a pet peeve of mine, specifically the dumbing down of our society.
And as to the question about urban idioms, I smell your trap. And the answer is no, I am not a racist.
Whoa. You are way off base. There was no trap and I was in no way implying you were a racist. My question was legitimate on its face.
Back in MY day, we let people use terms and idioms that accurately described the topic discussed. Should I not say things like “that dog won’t hunt” or “the topic at hand” or “when I was knee high to a grasshopper”? (ok, noone should use the last one and expect to be taken seriously).
My experience with the phrase, “back in the day” is that it is used to compare(disfavorably) the past practice with the present. It’s almost a satirical reference to a false nostalgia. In my job, we use it to poke fun at not only some outmoded practices that were taught to us as gold standards, but also to underscore to those who are not experienced enough to know the history of practice that there will indeed come a day when they say the same phrase in reference to parcel of wisdom that they are currently venerating.
Ex:“Back in the day, we poured Betadine into open ulcers–it was a standard of care.” (pssst-not a good idea and it hurt and didn’t help the wounds heal, but that’s another thread).
I have also heard it used to express exasperation with perceived unneccessary complications. Ex: “Back in the day, you got a cup of coffee. Nowadays, it takes you longer to order the damned thing than it does to drink it!”
I have also hear it used to compare the present practice (unflatteringly) with the past.
Ex:“Back in the day, kids were respectful of their parents–there was no backtalk or they soon learned what was what.”
But I put that usage in with “and I trudged thru the snow uphill, both ways…”
I don’t know about now, but it was widely accepted back in the day.
But it is clear, as long as you know what “back in the day” means. In fact, it might be that “back in the day” is the best way to say it. I referred to some a business associate as “cool people” because that was the best way to describe her. It implies that we get along, we are closer and have some connection beyond just a formal collegial rapport, that she’s someone I can really count on. And “cool people” is a way to describe that more concisely.
The language moves on. It has always been so.
Exactly.
Do you have any actual evidence that “standards of communication are continuing to erode”? When did this erosion begin, and what prompted it? Can you point me to any peer-reviewed literature that makes this claim? How would one even determine what constitutes “erosion” or “standards”? Do you think the claim is even testable? How would the use of “back in the day” in professional settings be counted as evidence without appealing to a priori value judgments?
I have very similar questions about the claim presupposed here, but I’ll spare you the redundancy. I’ll just say I’m very curious about what standards you use for measuring the relative dumbness of society over time.
Please keep in mind the irony of my opinion that either:
a. you are not communicating your ideas effectively.
or
b. your ideas are … unintelligent.