How did this ECA come about?

3VC was asked by YRP back in early 2009 to come on-site and assist with bolstering the communication skills of some new recruits who were not native English speakers and who were having some challenges clearly and effectively speaking and writing.  This contract proved fruitful and was extended, and a couple more officers were trained as well over the next couple of years.  At the time of our initial training the Training department was in conversation with the Recruiting department, and asking the question: “how can we add an extra filter into the recruiting process so as to avoid having to put officers who are in their first year of service into further remedial communication training?”

The Recruiting department members set up a meeting with us and the ECA was born!  The ECA has been modified a few times over the last few years, as we all want to ensure it is fair, equal and up to specs with the union and H.R. requirements.  It is.

At least once a year we at 3VC have a meeting with YRP representatives to go over how the assessment is working and ask if it can be modified in any way to further its goals.  The results are strong and the ongoing weekly cooperation and communication that we have with YRP is phenomenal and ultra-professional.  I am a big fan of the people at YRP!

What does the assessment do?

The assessment serves as a warning flag to those that may have trouble at OPC (Ontario Police College) and/or on the job if their English communication skills are not up to par.  If an individual fails the ECA they may re-write after studying for a certain amount of time and proving that they have made efforts to improve their weaknesses.

The Assessment:

The English Communication Assessment has 5 parts.  In part one you must correct the grammar & spelling of the sentences.  In part two you must write short, simple definitions for common informal & industry-specific idioms (slang and expressions) from law, crime and policing.  In part three you must use logic in a reading comprehension exercise to identify facts about a passage.  In part four you must write a 5-paragraph detailed report on a topic given to you.  In part five you must answer interview questions to test your clarity of speech and listening comprehension.

The police constable is a professional position that requires excellent English communication skills.  We recommend that candidates take this ECA seriously, even if they are native English speakers, and study what is needed to ensure a 75% pass.  The fail rate is approximately 10%.

How can you study for this?

There are no templates floating around the internet and no secret set of codes that will assist in getting the right answers.  You must self-evaluate your English communication strengths and weaknesses and prepare for the 5 parts mentioned above.  You can search on the internet for related exercises, study at home or class with books or ask someone to help you who is qualified.  Some choose to brush up on topics beforehand and others do not.  It is up to you.  Most people pass the first time.

Reasons why one might fail:

Some people fail the first time and are given a chance to re-write.  Here are some reasons why a person may have trouble with the English Communication Assessment:

• English is not their first language
• They are tired and cannot concentrate
• They are nervous and are not calm
• They rush it, thinking it should be easy
• They make a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes as a (bad) habit in non-keyboard writing
• They do not follow the instructions of the section(s)

This blog post is meant to give more detail on what we do at 3VC, and how our assessments work.  We are very proud of our relationship with YRP and happy that we can help their future officers become better communicators.  Anyone interested in becoming a YRP officer should contact them directly. Anyone interested in how a 3VC assessment might work for their organization should contact us to start the conversation.

I’ve edited a monthly magazine for more than six years, and it’s a job that’s come with more frustration than reward. If there’s one thing I am grateful for — and it sure isn’t the pay — it’s that my work has allowed endless time to hone my craft to Louis Skolnick levels of grammar geekery.

As someone who slings red ink for a living, let me tell you: grammar is an ultra-micro component in the larger picture; it lies somewhere in the final steps of the editing trail; and as such it’s an overrated quasi-irrelevancy in the creative process, perpetuated into importance primarily by bitter nerds who accumulate tweed jackets and crippling inferiority complexes. But experience has also taught me that readers, for better or worse, will approach your work with a jaundiced eye and an itch to judge. While your grammar shouldn’t be a reflection of your creative powers or writing abilities, let’s face it — it usually is.

Below are 20 common grammar mistakes I see routinely, not only in editorial queries and submissions, but in print: in HR manuals, blogs, magazines, newspapers, trade journals, and even best selling novels. If it makes you feel any better, I’ve made each of these mistakes a hundred times, and I know some of the best authors in history have lived to see these very toadstools appear in print. Let’s hope you can learn from some of their more famous mistakes.

Who and Whom

This one opens a big can of worms. “Who” is a subjective — or nominative — pronoun, along with “he,” “she,” “it,” “we,” and “they.” It’s used when the pronoun acts as the subject of a clause. “Whom” is an objective pronoun, along with “him,” “her,” “it”, “us,” and “them.” It’s used when the pronoun acts as the object of a clause. Using “who” or “whom” depends on whether you’re referring to the subject or object of a sentence. When in doubt, substitute “who” with the subjective pronouns “he” or “she,” e.g., Who loves you? cf., He loves me. Similarly, you can also substitute “whom” with the objective pronouns “him” or “her.” e.g., I consulted an attorney whom I met in New York. cf., I consulted him.

Which and That

This is one of the most common mistakes out there, and understandably so. “That” is a restrictive pronoun. It’s vital to the noun to which it’s referring.  e.g., I don’t trust fruits and vegetables that aren’t organic. Here, I’m referring to all non-organic fruits or vegetables. In other words, I only trust fruits and vegetables that are organic. “Which” introduces a relative clause. It allows qualifiers that may not be essential. e.g., I recommend you eat only organic fruits and vegetables, which are available in area grocery stores. In this case, you don’t have to go to a specific grocery store to obtain organic fruits and vegetables. “Which” qualifies, “that” restricts. “Which” is more ambiguous however, and by virtue of its meaning is flexible enough to be used in many restrictive clauses. e.g., The house, which is burning, is mine. e.g., The house that is burning is mine.

Lay and Lie

This is the crown jewel of all grammatical errors. “Lay” is a transitive verb. It requires a direct subject and one or more objects. Its present tense is “lay” (e.g., I lay the pencil on the table) and its past tense is “laid” (e.g., Yesterday I laid the pencil on the table). “Lie” is an intransitive verb. It needs no object. Its present tense is “lie” (e.g., The Andes mountains lie between Chile and Argentina) and its past tense is “lay” (e.g., The man lay waiting for an ambulance). The most common mistake occurs when the writer uses the past tense of the transitive “lay” (e.g., I laid on the bed) when he/she actually means the intransitive past tense of “lie” (e.g., I lay on the bed).

Moot

Contrary to common misuse, “moot” doesn’t imply something is superfluous. It means a subject is disputable or open to discussion. e.g., The idea that commercial zoning should be allowed in the residential neighborhood was a moot point for the council.

Continual and Continuous

They’re similar, but there’s a difference. “Continual” means something that’s always occurring, with obvious lapses in time. “Continuous” means something continues without any stops or gaps in between. e.g., The continual music next door made it the worst night of studying ever. e.g., Her continuous talking prevented him from concentrating.

Envy and Jealousy

The word “envy” implies a longing for someone else’s good fortunes. “Jealousy” is far more nefarious. It’s a fear of rivalry, often present in sexual situations. “Envy” is when you covet your friend’s good looks. “Jealousy” is what happens when your significant other swoons over your good-looking friend.

Nor

“Nor” expresses a negative condition. It literally means “and not.” You’re obligated to use the “nor” form if your sentence expresses a negative and follows it with another negative condition. “Neither the men nor the women were drunk” is a correct sentence because “nor” expresses that the women held the same negative condition as the men. The old rule is that “nor” typically follows “neither,” and “or” follows “either.” However, if neither “either” nor “neither” is used in a sentence, you should use “nor” to express a second negative, as long as the second negative is a verb. If the second negative is a noun, adjective, or adverb, you would use “or,” because the initial negative transfers to all conditions. e.g., He won’t eat broccoli or asparagus. The negative condition expressing the first noun (broccoli) is also used for the second (asparagus).

May and Might

“May” implies a possibility. “Might” implies far more uncertainty. “You may get drunk if you have two shots in ten minutes” implies a real possibility of drunkenness. “You might get a ticket if you operate a tug boat while drunk” implies a possibility that is far more remote. Someone who says “I may have more wine” could mean he/she doesn’t want more wine right now, or that he/she “might” not want any at all. Given the speaker’s indecision on the matter, “might” would be correct.

Whether and If

Many writers seem to assume that “whether” is interchangeable with “if.” It isn’t. “Whether” expresses a condition where there are two or more alternatives. “If” expresses a condition where there are no alternatives. e.g., I don’t know whether I’ll get drunk tonight. e.g., I can get drunk tonight if I have money for booze.

Fewer and Less

“Less” is reserved for hypothetical quantities. “Few” and “fewer” are for things you can quantify. e.g., The firm has fewer than ten employees. e.g., The firm is less successful now that we have only ten employees.

Farther and Further

The word “farther” implies a measurable distance. “Further” should be reserved for abstract lengths you can’t always measure. e.g., I threw the ball ten feet farther than Bill. e.g., The financial crisis caused further implications.

Since and Because

“Since” refers to time. “Because” refers to causation. e.g., Since I quit drinking I’ve married and had two children. e.g., Because I quit drinking I no longer wake up in my own vomit.

Disinterested and Uninterested

Contrary to popular usage, these words aren’t synonymous. A “disinterested” person is someone who’s impartial. For example, a hedge fund manager might take interest in a headline regarding the performance of a popular stock, even if he’s never invested in it. He’s “disinterested,” i.e., he doesn’t seek to gain financially from the transaction he’s witnessed. Judges and referees are supposed to be “disinterested.” If the sentence you’re using implies someone who couldn’t care less, chances are you’ll want to use “uninterested.”

Anxious

Unless you’re frightened of them, you shouldn’t say you’re “anxious to see your friends.” You’re actually “eager,” or “excited.” To be “anxious” implies a looming fear, dread or anxiety. It doesn’t mean you’re looking forward to something.

Different Than and Different From

This is a tough one. Words like “rather” and “faster” are comparative adjectives, and are used to show comparison with the preposition “than,” (e.g., greater than, less than, faster than, rather than). The adjective “different” is used to draw distinction. So, when “different” is followed by a  preposition, it should be “from,” similar to “separate from,” “distinct from,” or “away from.” e.g., My living situation in New York was different from home. There are rare cases where “different than” is appropriate, if “than” operates as a conjunction. e.g., Development is different in New York than in Los Angeles. When in doubt, use “different from.”

Bring and Take

In order to employ proper usage of “bring” or “take,” the writer must know whether the object is being moved toward or away from the subject. If it is toward, use “bring.” If it is away, use “take.” Your spouse may tell you to “take your clothes to the cleaners.” The owner of the dry cleaners would say “bring your clothes to the cleaners.”

Impactful

It isn’t a word. “Impact” can be used as a noun (e.g., The impact of the crash was severe) or a transitive verb (e.g., The crash impacted my ability to walk or hold a job). “Impactful” is a made-up buzzword, colligated by the modern marketing industry in their endless attempts to decode the innumerable nuances of human behavior into a string of mindless metrics. Seriously, stop saying this.

Affect and Effect

Here’s a trick to help you remember: “Affect” is almost always a verb (e.g., Facebook affects people’s attention spans), and “effect” is almost always a noun (e.g., Facebook’s effects can also be positive). “Affect” means to influence or produce an impression — to cause hence, an effect. “Effect” is the thing produced by the affecting agent; it describes the result or outcome. There are some exceptions. “Effect” may be used as a transitive verb, which means to bring about or make happen. e.g., My new computer effected a much-needed transition from magazines to Web porn. There are similarly rare examples where “affect” can be a noun. e.g., His lack of affect made him seem like a shallow person.

Irony and Coincidence

Too many people claim something is the former when they actually mean the latter. For example, it’s not “ironic” that “Barbara moved from California to New York, where she ended up meeting and falling in love with a fellow Californian.” The fact that they’re both from California is a “coincidence.” “Irony” is the incongruity in a series of events between the expected results and the actual results. “Coincidence” is a series of events that appear planned when they’re actually accidental. So, it would be “ironic” if “Barbara moved from California to New York to escape California men, but the first man she ended up meeting and falling in love with was a fellow Californian.”

Nauseous

Undoubtedly the most common mistake I encounter. Contrary to almost ubiquitous misuse, to be “nauseous” doesn’t mean you’ve been sickened: it actually means you possess the ability to produce nausea in others. e.g., That week-old hot dog is nauseous. When you find yourself disgusted or made ill by a nauseating agent, you are actually “nauseated.” e.g., I was nauseated after falling into that dumpster behind the Planned Parenthood. Stop embarrassing yourself.

If you’re looking for a practical, quick guide to proper grammar, I suggest the tried-and-true classic The Elements of Style, by William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. A few of these examples are listed in the book, and there are plenty more. Good luck!

Original link:  http://litreactor.com/columns/20-common-grammar-mistakes-that-almost-everyone-gets-wrong

All of us need to take stock and remember why we are good if not great people.  We all have positive characteristics, skills, talents and quirks that others enjoy and find attractive.  I encourage all of you reading this post to take the challenge and write down 10 or more reasons why you would make a good friend or partner for someone special, and keep it real.

(Originally posted on http://confidencelifecoach.blogspot.ca/ )

18 Everyday English Words That Come from Irish

March 15th, 2012

Break out your “Kiss me, I’m Irish” shirt, lads and lassies; St. Patrick’s Day is comin’ a’callin. While you’re nursing a green beer at your favorite pub, look like a nerd dazzle your friends with your knowledge of the Irish origins of some common English words such as these. (If they say, “Hey, that word’s etymology is Scottish Gaelic,” tell them Scottish Gaelic grew out of Middle Irish, and then punch them in the gob.)

1. Whiskey: It may be a cheap shot, but we’ve got to start with one that’s alcohol-related. Yes, it was the Irish who brought us whiskey, or uisge beatha, “the water of life.” We do not recommend it as a healthy substitute for water.
2. Boycott: There’s no word evolution involved with this one. Some folks in County Mayo, Ireland decided to fight back against a stubborn land agent for an English landlord who wouldn’t lower their rent. So they refused to have any dealings with one Capt. Charles Cunningham Boycott.
3. Slob: It would actually be an understatement to call someone who regularly wears clothes covered with mud a “slob.” Yet the word derives from the Irish word slab, meaning mud.
4. Hooligan: Without this word we’d just have to call soccer fans “criminals.” No one argues it’s Irish in origin, but exactly what it sprang from is murky. Perhaps a gang leader and cop-killer of the same name gave rise to the term, or the family name of a rowdy Irish clan. We’d believe either.
5. Gob: Do people ever tell you to shut your gob? Based on the context, you probably deduced they meant shut your talk-hole. It’s slang, which means there’s speculation involved, but this word most likely comes from the Irish for “beak” or “mouth.”
6. Gibberish: The Irish had to come up with a word to explain talking while drunk. “Gibberish” could be from the Celtic gibber, or the Gaelic gabairechd, meaning unintelligible talk. It could even be a play on “gob” or “gab.”

Continue reading this interesting blog post by clicking the link at the top of the article.  Enjoy!

Today’s tip (originally sent as a 3VC newsletter) is on organizing one’s thoughts better so that we can speak faster and easier to others, especially when we are put on the spot or in a fast-paced work environment.

Think of your intended message as an iceberg, floating in the ocean.  We can see the tip from the land and sea, but we cannot see the rest of the iceberg, typically 90%, until we go under water.  We know it’s there but our first impression is based on the tip of the iceberg that we see.

When you deliver a thought or message you essentially have 2 choices – to start with the 10% ‘point’ or the 90% ‘body’.

Our goal should be to summarize our information into just the main point, and deliver it as precisely as possible and in as few sentences as possible.  After delivery, wait for a response to see if you need to continue into further details.

For example, if someone asks you what you did on the weekend, you have two ways to answer:

1.  “I took the kids to the water park for some fun times.  It was great!”

2. “I took my 3 kids, Jack, Jill and Mary to Wave-O-Rama Water Park, you know the one just outside the city?  Anyway we spent the day walking around, looking at some interesting sites, of course playing in the water too!  They had slides, wading pools, water gun fighting and a bunch of other stuff.  It was great and I really recommend you take your family there soon!”

Now there is nothing wrong with #2 if the other person wanted all the extra info.  The challenge is in knowing if he or she really wanted all the details, right?  So it could be that you are giving valuable extra information, or it could be that you are giving what they consider non-important and boring extra information!  That’s tricky.

In answer #1 you have answered the question directly and precisely, and are now waiting and watching/listening to understand if your conversation partner wants any extra details.  They will ask if they want or need more info.  They will continue on if they do not.  Simple.

Our above example is a personal dialogue, but the iceberg theory of giving information or answering questions works very well in business discussions too.  So from now on, practice giving a shorter, more direct answer (with appropriate tone though) especially when you are in a busy or fast-paced environment.  It will save you and your conversation partner time and allow you to be better organized in the presentation of answers and information.

Speaking of organization, I have added some categories to my main blog so it is easy to search for articles by these topics:

Assessments
Coaching & Training Tips
Customer Service
ESL – English as a Second Language
Interpersonal Communications
Professional Communication Strategies
Public Speaking & Presentations

You can see the Categories bar located in the upper right hand side of this blog/website page.

That’s all for today folks.

Thank you,

Coach Ric

P.S. Ebooks are located on iTunes, Nook or here: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/commcoach1

It was the fall of 2006, and the place was Pearson International Airport in Toronto. I was with my wife, Linda, and our kids, Savannah and Trevor. We had just flown in from our place in Boston to hit the Toronto International Film Festival. I had to use the men’s room, so I asked my family to wait outside for a second. While washing my hands and minding my own business, I could sense next to me a stranger turning and staring at my profile. He was doing it every few seconds.

These were the early days of Dragons’ Den. If you tuned in to the CBC show back then, you’d have seen five well-dressed venture capitalists shifting around uncomfortably in mismatched chairs in some anonymous warehouse in downtown Toronto. The cast that first season consisted of Jim Treliving, of Boston Pizza fame; Robert Herjavec, who made a fortune in Internet security software; Laurence Lewin, who had an enviable job helming a lingerie empire; and Jennifer Woods, a whip-smart cattle mogul. One after the other, jittery entrepreneurs descended a staircase to present their business proposals, in hopes of scoring much-needed injections of capital to take them to the next level. Much like in the real world, we invested in some, but we dismissed most. I have to admit that on more than one occasion during the shoot, I thought I had made a mistake aligning myself with this strange TV show that had originated, naturally, in Japan.

Back then, the pitchers were corralled in a hot tent in the middle of an industrial pit in downtown Toronto. We were fed bad food, worked long hours, and, frankly, were less than impressed with the quality of business ideas being brought to us. I’d seen the British version of Dragons’ Den, which by then was heading into its second successful season, but I wasn’t sure that a show about venture capitalism would really take off in Canada. I find the world of venture capitalism to be the most exciting arena known to man. But it’s also full of dry jargon, where you bat around terms such as ROI (return on investment), EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), and valuation (what you think your company’s worth). Riveting stuff to my ilk. But I worried that producers would have to cut out the business essentials in order to make a show like this palatable to the average viewer, thereby alienating its core audience of business fans.

We debuted on Oct. 3, 2006, to lackluster ratings – a disappointment, but not a surprise. Every week, however, the ratings seemed to creep up a bit. By the end of season one, we were a cult hit – by no means as big as we are now, but people had begun to tune in. I started to become recognized in public, at first in the business arena, and then at the odd restaurant or function, and now I was being gawked at in an airport washroom!

Finally, I shot the guy a look, as though to say, “Do you mind?” And there it was, that flicker of recognition.

“Hey,” this stranger asked, “are you Kevin O’Leary? From that TV show Dragons’ Den?”

“Yes, I am.”

“I love that show!”

“Thank you.”

“But you are a total asshole.”

“Oh, really?” I said, a little shocked by such an insult. “Why do you say that?”

“Because you and those other Dragons stole that company from those kids last night. Asking for 50%. It’s outrageous! You completely stole their company and their souls.”

He was talking about a company called JobLoft, created by three savvy MBA students. They had built an easily navigable website that advertised minimum-wage jobs in restaurants and other franchises. I, and a few other Dragons, leapt on it. During the pitch, Jim Treliving alluded to the increasing difficulty in finding restaurant workers for that high-turnover industry, and here was a website that corralled them. (The deal later fell apart.)

“Wait a minute,” I said to the irate guy in the bathroom. “Those kids built a great website, but they’ve never run a business. We have every right to want control. That’s what you do when you get into business with novices who’ve never made a dime. They’ll learn a lot from us. And that knowledge, my friend, doesn’t come free.”

“Still,” the guy said, throwing his spent paper towel in the garbage can, “you’re an asshole.”

“Maybe so,” I said, “but assholes get rich because they’re not afraid to ask for what they want.”

The gentleman left in a huff. He saw a woman standing outside the washroom.

“Guess who’s in there,” he said as he passed her. “That asshole Kevin O’Leary from Dragons’ Den.”

“Yes,” the woman said, smiling wearily. “I know.”

That woman was Linda, my wife.

The 10/20/30 Rule of PowerPoint

Read more: http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2005/12/the_102030_rule.html#ixzz1mSlyCPsf

Incivility is on the rise – often because managers set a poor example – and it’s taking a toll on organizations and staff alike

By Jennifer Newman, Vancouver Sun January 28, 2012

Workplace rudeness is rising.

It’s a subtle increase in poor manners at work – not exchanging greetings such as hello or goodbye, and failing to use please and thank you. It’s refusing to hold the elevator door for stragglers, or ignoring colleagues and interrupting them at meetings.

Workplace incivility, as it is other-wise known, refers to behaviour that is rude or discourteous and conveys disrespect to others. It is different from outright aggression or bullying, which is more intense and clearly intended to target another.

According to researchers Michael Leiter at Acadia University, Heather Spence at University of Western Ontario and Arla Day and Debra Gilin Oore at Saint Mary’s University, there are myriad reasons for the uptick in rudeness.

In their recent study in the Journal of Applied Psychology, they cite reasons that range from employees having to cope with a faster job pace that precludes niceties, to a general lack of empathy and self-awareness on the job. People just don’t seem to care, or realize the impact they have on others.

No matter what the reason, work-place incivility takes a toll on organizations and staff alike. For example, one manager used her smartphone to answer email during meetings where co-workers presented business results. Increasingly, to avoid wasting time, staff put less and less effort into preparing the presentations. The decline in quality went unnoticed and the problem was compounded by other staff, who took the manager’s lead and texted during meetings.

(Cont’d by following link to original post)

Much humor and academic insight can be wrung from the little linguistic quirks existing between the English spoken in the Commonwealth, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States. Although geographic differences and the influence of other cultures obviously accounts for quite a bit of the departures, dictionaries themselves played a significant role as well. Noah Webster and his seminal 1828 publication An American Dictionary of the English Language, which reflected his desire to split from the previously standard Dictionary of the English Language (Samuel Johnson, 1755), obviously swayed how the Yanks wrote and spoke their mother (Or secondary! Or tertiary!) tongue. The following represent some of the most notable changes between the way the British and the Americans structure their language.

1. That whole “u” thing

   Reading “color” versus “colour” might clue one in to whether or not the literature in question hails from the United States or one of the Commonwealth nations. The latter favors the original “u” in words like the aforementioned and “neighbour” and “flavour” and the like.

2. Oxford comma

   One of the most blood-boilingly controversial grammatical phenomena in the English language, the Oxford (or serial, or Harvard) comma — which separates listings of three or more (in “John, Paul, George, and Ringo,” for example, it nestles itself behind Harrison) — rarely pops up in British English. American English, save for journalistic works, loves it.

3. Punctuation’s relation to quotation marks

   When it comes to quotes, Americans usually place their punctuation marks inside before moving on to the next sentence. The exact opposite holds true for British English speakers and writers, as they prefer leaving them on the outside.

4. Verb forms for collective nouns

   Collective nouns understandably baffle English speakers on all sides of all ponds, but there’s really just one general rule to keep in mind. While in (or writing for) Commonwealth nations, collective nouns — which include nation names — pair up with plural verbs. In the United States, use a singular conjugation.

5. Periods after titles

   American English majors swoon over Mr. Darcy. British English majors swoon over Mr Darcy. Non-English majors have taste.

6. Placement of the day in dates

   See, British people write out their dates like this: “13 January 2012,” “13/01/12,” or “13.01.12.” While American people write out their dates like this: “January 13, 2012,” “01/13/12,” or “01.13.12.” WACKY!

7. -ize vs -ise

   Words that typically end in –ize in the United States and Canada are frequently rendered with –ise in every other English-speaking nation. However, because language wouldn’t be language without numerous exceptions, sometimes the non-Canadian British English speakers rock that -ize as well.

8. Quotation marks

   Single quotation marks are most common in British English nations, though their double counterpart has started creeping into daily use as of late. By contrast, Americans default to double quotations, using the singular ones to denote quotes within quotes.

9. Pronunciation

   Obviously, different accents mean words take on completely different pronunciations depending on their speaker’s country of origin. Uh-loo-mu-num in American English is ahl-oo-men-ee-um elsewhere, most infamously.

10. “And” between numerical units

    British English speaks or writes out numbers including an “and” in pretty much everything past 100, barring its multiples. “2012,” for example, would be written out as “two thousand and twelve,” while Americans expunge the “and” altogether and prefer “two thousand twelve” or “twenty-twelve.”

11. To continue reading the other half, please visit the original post here:  The 20 Biggest Differences Between British and American English – Online College Courses.