bad with

USAGE SUMMARY

In most cases, the phrase "bad with" is not considered grammatically correct or proper to use in written English.
However, there are a few instances where it can be used colloquially or in informal writing. One example of using "bad with" in a sentence could be: "I'm not good with numbers, but I'm bad with them." This sentence would convey that the speaker is not skilled or proficient with numbers, and may struggle with them. Another example could be: "She's always been bad with directions, but she's great at navigating with a GPS." In this case, the speaker is implying that the person struggles with directions but has found a solution to compensate for this weakness. Overall, it is best to use "bad at" or "not good at" in most situations when discussing skills or abilities in written English. "Bad with" should be reserved for casual or informal conversations.

News & Media

Science

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

I'm bad with names myself.

The New Yorker

"I'm just really bad with faces.

The New Yorker

"I was pretty bad with a virus.

Independent

And wouldn't be bad with pie, either.

The New York Times - Food

"It's four years of bad with Hillary.

The Guardian

I might be bad with Occam's Razor.

The Guardian - Sport

I'm very bad with a camera.

The Guardian

Certain phrases are repeated too frequently: Alice is "bad with jetlag", "bad with animals" and "bad with names", while Isabel is "bad with accents".

The Guardian - Books

I don't see anything bad with running.

The Guardian - Lifestyle

I was just bad with the short game".

The New York Times - Sports

What could be bad with the World Series in town?

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

While "bad with" is common in informal speech, consider using "bad at" or "not good at" for more formal writing to maintain clarity and grammatical correctness.

Common error

Avoid using "bad with" when "bad at" is more appropriate. For example, say "I'm bad at math" instead of "I'm bad with math".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "bad with" typically functions as a predicate adjective describing someone's lack of ability or negative association with something. Ludwig AI shows various examples of this usage, indicating its descriptive role. This phrase is often followed by a noun.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

70%

Wiki

15%

Science

10%

Less common in

Formal & Business

1%

Reference

1%

Academia

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "bad with" is a commonly used expression to indicate a lack of skill or aptitude in a specific area. While generally acceptable in informal conversation and some news contexts, it is often considered less grammatically precise than alternatives like "bad at" or "not good at". Ludwig AI reports that many examples of "bad with" can be found in media, science, and wiki articles. When writing formally, particularly in academic or professional settings, substituting "bad at" is advisable to ensure clarity and grammatical correctness.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not good at

A more grammatically standard way to express a lack of ability.

poor at

Similar to "not good at", but slightly more negative.

struggle with

Suggests difficulty or effort required to deal with something.

inept at

Focuses specifically on a lack of skill or clumsiness.

have difficulty with

A more formal way to express struggling with something.

not competent with

Indicates a lack of the required skills or knowledge.

unskilled in

Highlights the absence of proficiency or training.

lacking in

Emphasizes the absence of a necessary quality or skill.

deficient in

Emphasizes a lack or shortage of a particular quality or ability.

weak in

Indicates an area of vulnerability or lack of strength.

FAQs

When is it appropriate to use "bad with"?

The phrase "bad with" is generally acceptable in informal contexts, like casual conversations. However, in more formal or academic writing, it is better to use alternatives like "not good at" or "inept at".

What's the difference between "bad with" and "bad at"?

While the phrases are often used interchangeably, "bad at" is generally considered more grammatically correct and widely accepted. "Bad with" is more colloquial. It's safer to use "bad at" in formal writing.

Can I use "bad with" to describe a lack of skill?

Yes, "bad with" can be used to describe a lack of skill, but it's more common in informal settings. For more formal writing, use alternatives such as "unskilled in" or "deficient in" to express a lack of skill.

What are some alternatives to "I'm bad with names"?

Instead of "I'm bad with names", you could say "I'm not good at remembering names", "I struggle with names", or "I have difficulty remembering names".