graduated/have graduated.

You should use "graduated" if you are being specific about time e.g.

Nine out of ten students who attended this university between 1990 and 2005 graduated with distinction.

Also note that tenses should match.

If you are being non-specific about time:-

Nine out of ten students who have attended this university [i.e. since its foundation] have graduated with distinction.

Thank you very much, Contrex.

I'm not so sure about that.

I don't think there's much practical difference between the two.

Let's seek the opinion of JTT, he likes telling me I'm wrong.

US English is pretty lax with the "did/have done" distictinction, but it is still a useful one.

Re: graduated/have graduated.
Both are correct, but as always, correct doesn't tell us much about language use. Also, there are no errors in your sentence, Yoong Liat.

It's not so much specificity about time as it is mention of time that doesn't include "up to now". When using the present perfect, we can be very specific about the time as long as the meaning is "up to now".

[There are some very limited instances in English where past time adverbs are used in conjunction with the PP. ESLs should avoid using these until they have a very firm grasp of this relatively difficult area of English]

Since September 26, 1942, the university's date of inception, nine out of ten students who attended this university graduated/have graduated with distinction.

Since September 26, 1942, the university's date of inception, nine out of ten students who have attended this university have graduated with distinction.

Since September 26, 1942, the university's inception, nine out of ten students who attended this university graduated with distinction.

Since September 26, 1942, the university's inception, nine out of ten students who have attended this university graduated with distinction.

What's the difference between the PP and the PS? The PP is more formal, making it more likely to be seen in written English or formal speech. The PP can be used to highlight past action/actions, giving them a greater sense of importance than does the PS.

We on the North American side of the pond are not, in any way, shape or form, lax wrt the use of the PP. We simply use it differently than does BrE, though those distinctions are narrowing, with BrE coming under the influence of the NA language giant.

Yes, dammit all to hell you bastards, leave our language alone.

Thanks, JTT.

:wink:

"We on the North American side of the pond are not, in any way, shape or form, lax wrt the use of the PP. We simply use it differently than does BrE, though those distinctions are narrowing, with BrE coming under the influence of the NA language giant."



My pleasure, McTag.

Both BrE and NaE use the PP in exactly the same structural fashion, of that there's no doubt; the differences relate to frequency of use. Maybe, just maybe, the change isn't being generated solely by NaE influences.

I'll venture that there is less formality today in society in the British Isles than in times past. Maybe the change is only following the natural pattern of "less formal -->> less need for the PP".