(Image credit: Mana Akbarzadegan via Unsplash)
When Muhammad* applied for admission to a postgraduate degree at an Australian university, he was asked to show evidence of his English language proficiency. Acceptable evidence included achieving a specific score on a commercial language test such as IELTS or TOEFL. Muhammad was upset to discover that none of the following counted as acceptable evidence of his English language proficiency: that all his prior education had been through the medium of English, that he was employed as university lecturer in the English department of a university in Bangladesh, and that he had published fictional and non-fictional writing in English.
Marlene* from Germany also applied to a postgraduate degree at an Australian university. She hardly noticed that English language proficiency constituted an admission criterion. The fact that she had studied English as a Foreign Language at higher level for her high school certificate meant that proof of her English language requirement was waived. English had never been the medium of education in her prior education. Outside her English language classroom, she has no experience with public speaking in English, nor with academic writing in English.
By most counts, Muhammad would be considered a more proficient speaker of English than Marlene. Yet the English language proficiency requirements of the university they applied to constructed Muhammad’s English as problematic and Marlene’s English as above board.
How are such decisions made? Why do some applicants need to take a test while others do not?
How do universities decide whose English needs to be tested for admission?
In new research just published in Language in Society, Agnes Bodis and I examine the English language proficiency requirements of Australian universities to answer these questions.
Language testing is often assumed to be only relevant for language learners. But who is a learner and who is not? The stories of Muhammad and Marlene show that this is not a trivial question. What made Muhammad a learner and Marlene a speaker according to university regulations?
Everyone agrees that the old concepts of “native” and “non-native” speakers are no longer valid. Yet, implicitly, a distinction that is very similar to this binary is made every time someone is required to sit a language test.
(Image credit: Nguyen Dang Hoang Nhu via Unsplash)
The language of those who are required to sit a test is subjected to scrutiny. Those who have the requirement waived get a free pass.
Inherent English versus tested English
English language requirements for university admission create a language binary between “inherent English” and “tested English.”
Inherent English is the language of those who are exempt from testing.
Australian universities grant exemptions based on a mélange of criteria related to citizenship, education, and heritage. For example, to be recognized as having an “English-speaking background” and hence not having to sit a test, one policy requires two pieces of evidence from two different sets: one needs to be a citizenship document (“birth certificate, passport, arrival documents to establish residency”) and the other a portfolio of documents providing evidence of schooling, work, and residency. Curiously, the latter may include utility bills, tax notices, and medical records, as well as a letter of reference from “a person with standing in the community.” Examples of such persons include “a school principal or teacher, doctor or pharmacist, a local manager, community leader, social worker or sporting coach who know the person’s family.” (quoted from Piller&Bodis, 2022)
How does any of this establish evidence of English language proficiency you might ask? Well, it doesn’t; but it shows that language proficiency assessments are never about language alone. Language assessments are always also about identity.
The deficient English of those who are required to have their English tested
Inherent English is about having the right citizenship, the right education, or the right heritage. Anyone who falls short on these criteria, is required to sit an English language test.
Whether English language proficiency will need to be evidenced by a score on a language test is determined through a process of elimination. Those who do not meet the specific citizenship, education, and heritage criteria are relegated to the left-over basket of those who need to be tested. This engulfs them in a deficit perspective, expressed in “not”-rules: “if you are not […], then “you will be required to demonstrate English language proficiency in the form of an English test.”
Tested English is completely different from inherent English: it is reduced to the pseudo-objectivity of a numerical score, and even comes with an expiry date.
My TOEFL test scores expired. I can no longer speak, write, or understand English.
— Hamza (@hamza_azhar) July 31, 2020
Binary Englishes map onto binary identities
These two types of English – inherent English and tested English – map onto two different speaker groups.
Inherent English is accorded to most domestic applicants, applicants with passports from some Anglophone countries, applicants with certain educational credentials (mostly IB graduates, but also some specific high school certificates, as in Marlene’s case), and a medley of heritage criteria.
Inherent English maps most closely on the identity of the white native-speaker citizen construct. But not quite: it becomes blurred by the inclusion of citizens from Black majority states in the Caribbean (who, in actual fact, rarely apply to study at Australian universities) or those with certain educational credentials from outside the Anglosphere.
While the identity of those who are deemed to inherently speak English becomes blurred, its Other is cast into clear relief: the Asian non-native speaker non-citizen.
Objective language proficiency without identity?
Language proficiency constructs are always both about language and identity. The field of language assessment has been striving for objectivity by rejecting the identity component and focusing solely on language.
Whose English should be tested before admission? (Image credit: Dom Fou via Unsplash)
University admission requirements share this pretense to objectivity. The objectification of tested language is achieved through a convoluted set of regulations that can be expected to stand up to any legal challenges as long as they are applied consistently. However, this objectification of language proficiency has not made the identity component disappear. On the contrary, identity remains baked into universities’ constructs of English language proficiency through citizenship, education, and heritage criteria.
Implications for inclusion
Universities regularly deplore individuals’ lived experiences of exclusion and divisions within their student body. A major division in Australian universities is between domestic and international students. Yet our research suggests that admission requirements contribute to maintaining the ways of seeing that undergird these exclusions. Universities could contribute to dismantling these binaries, first, by uncoupling citizenship and heritage criteria from the language proficiency construct, and, second, by conceptualizing academic language and communication as a gradient which requires ongoing development for all students.
To succeed after admission both Muhammad and Marlene, as all their peers, will need ongoing support to develop their academic literacies.
*These names are pseudonyms.
Reference
Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2022). Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission. Language in Society, 1-23. doi:10.1017/S0047404522000689 [open access]
Also relevant
Bodis, A. (2017). International students and language: opportunity or threat? Language on the Move. Retrieved from https://www.languageonthemove.com/international-students-and-language-opportunity-or-threat/
Bodis, A. (2021). The discursive (mis) representation of English language proficiency: International students in the Australian media. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 37-64.
Bodis, A. (2021). ‘Double deficit’ and exclusion: Mediated language ideologies and international students’ multilingualism. Multilingua, 40(3), 367-392. doi:doi:10.1515/multi-2019-0106
Piller, I. (2001). Who, if anyone, is a native speaker? Anglistik: Mitteilungen des Verbandes Deutscher Anglisten, 12(2), 109-121.
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: identity and success in second language learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179-206. [full access]
This work is licensed under a
This article really connects with many students, especially those coming from non-English speaking countries and aiming to study in an English-speaking nation. Indeed, English proficiency tests don’t always fully capture one’s true ability to speak, write, or comprehend English effectively. In my experience, many students demonstrate a strong command of the language but struggle to achieve high scores in tests like IELTS, possibly due to being unfamiliar with the specific marking criteria used in these exams. There’s a paradox I have witnessed, where individuals secure high scores in English proficiency tests, yet their actual language skills don’t necessarily match the achieved scores. They excel by meeting the test’s specific criteria, which might not fully reflect their genuine language proficiency level. One of the most perplexing aspects, in my opinion, is the validity duration imposed on these test scores. I have seen cases where people living in English-speaking countries who initially got high scores on English proficiency tests did worse on subsequent tests after their previous scores expired. This raises a question: Does one’s language proficiency decline after obtaining a good score and living in an English-speaking environment?
This is very interesting because it makes us think about how well someone knows a language and how tests measure this. There’s a difference between test scores and how people actually use the language in real life, and it’s a puzzle that’s worth looking into more.
Good point about deteriorating test scores indicating a mismatch between what is being tested and actual communicative ability. The problem is what the alternative to English language proficiency testing in university admission would be?
Dear Ingrid, It’s a million-dollar question!
This topic is really interesting because, as you know, not only IELTS but we also have PTE or TOEFL. In Vietnam, we accept both TOEIC and VSTEP (Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency). Although they are all English proficiency tests, the topics, difficulty levels, test formats, etc., of these tests are almost different. There are always debates about which test is better or more difficult for learners. In some tests, you can memorize or learn tips to get high scores and vice versa, and some exams require you to have social knowledge, diverse vocabulary or more academic writing. Personally, many times, I doubt whether scoring high on the above exams will help me communicate effectively in life or be qualified to study abroad.
Thanks, Hao! In our research we’ve found that people arriving in Australia with a high test score often struggled a lot with simple everyday communication. So, the relationship between tested proficiency and actual ability to communicate is in no way straightforward. The relationship becomes even more tenuous with the increasing use of AI in test preparation (e.g., studying only vocabs associated with a particular IELTS level)
This article reminds me of my experience from two years ago when I applied for a job in other country that required me to provide IELTS. I took the test, hoping it would open doors to exciting opportunities, but self-doubt crept in, making me question my test – taking abilities.
After all the preparation and effort, unfortunately, they didn’t hire me. What added to the frustration was the realization that IELTS certificate had a two – year expiration. Not only did this feel like setback in my career, but also felt like a waste of money, given the cost of the test.
At the end of the day, I can say I tried my best and it was such a valuable experience!
Thanks, Sha! It’s great you can look at the bright side of an experience that feels like a career setback and waste of money. What kind of job did you apply for and was IELTS directly relevant to the role?
Hi Ingrid! It was a teaching job. IELTS was their main qualification, however, I did not pass the minimum requirement.
🙁
Language ability tests always confuse me. At the old English centre I used to work at, HR said that only 5% of applicants are selected to become their teachers. I applied and took the test at this centre. To add more, at that time, I only knew my English ability was about 6.0 IELTS (I had an IELTS 6.0 certificate that expired 4-5 years ago), and when I was convinced that I had failed, I passed not only the test but also the demo teaching. Meanwhile, I heard that some teachers with higher IELTS scores (7.5 or higher) failed that language test. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
Good on you! 🙂 the relationship between IELTS score and teaching ability is highly questionable, of course, as your example shows.
Thank you for sharing such a worthy to read article. As an International student here in Australia I had to sit for an IELTS exam and had to save a particular band score that proves my language proficiency eligibility to study in the country. Even though I have done my BA in English and had been a teacher for like 3 years it has not been counted as my proficiency and yet I had to appear for IELTS exam. Not to mention that, even though I have proved my eligibility once before coming here but after 2 years the result would not be valid any more. So I could relate with the TWEET post that I can’t speak, read, write English anymore. Sometimes this criteria creates a burden for the test takers because sometimes people cannot secure the particular band score and for that they cannot proceed with their application and they have to appear for the IELTS exam again, until they secure the proper band score. This situation can hinder confidence of people as people starts to feel insecure about their language proficiency level. Moreover the test registration of IELTS is quite expensive and sometimes people find it difficult to spend this huge amount again and again for the same test. I think real life language communication is totally different from the IELTS test. So even if someone has high score doesn’t mean they can communicate effectively in real life situations. In my opinion the government should find or create a more efficient system to test language proficiency .
You are so right, Nurunnahar! Language testing is such an imperfect pseudo-objective gatekeeping mechanism. Many of the participants in our research about Life in a new language sat IELTS multiple times to get the score they needed for visa purposes, spent a lot of money on test preparation and the test itself, and then still found that they could not actually communicate on arrival … what would you suggest how language proficiency should be assessed for university admission? Or should it be assessed at all?
Because my comment for this post is related to this, I believe it is fair that other people are noticing it as well. English proficiency can be measured in so many ways, not to mention that language proficiency doesn’t always show on the surface, there is potential to fluency as well. For example, I have met people who can speak English but they are not “up to standard” for the US education system which made them get a test score or a certification, despite the fact that they can speak English and come from a country where English is one of the languages recognized as a lingua franca.
I have questions related to this topic:
1. “Inherent English is about having the right citizenship, the right education, or the right heritage.”
– Who makes the decision for this and how is it decided?
2. Why do most language proficiency tests have validity periods? Is it truly for the sake of accurately reflecting a person’s language ability or for the sake of the survivability of testing centres?
I understand that language ability can decline overtime if not practised, but I think there should be a different (shorter/cheaper) test for the renewals of testers who got high marks on their previous result.
I assume your questions are rhetorical … 🙂
This is a fantastic article and brings up a number of important points that demonstrate how standardised university English language testing for entrance requirements needs to be completely re-evaluated. As both a teacher and student I have made a number of pertinent observations. Firstly, the testers can be biased for a large range of reasons. I had two Vietnamese students in Singapore sit their IELTS tests at the same time. One was consistently at the top of the class and the other was struggling and just barely passing. I wasn’t sure if the latter student would get a successful mark to immigrate and study in Australia. In fact, they both got exactly the same score: 6.5 which was not an accurate reflection of their actual English language abilities.
Furthermore, a colleague of mine teaches sociology at a private University in Sydney. She has told me repeatedly that most of her students’ English level is not high enough to complete their assignments to an appropriate academic standard but she doesn’t have time nor is it her job, to teach them English and essay writing. Interestingly, she said many of the lowest levels for academic English writing are the Australian born and raised students. She reported that these students clearly have no idea how to write a university level essay and make so many basic linguistic errors she doesnt understand how they graduated from high school. Hence it seems that English language entrance exams should definitely be uncoupled from identity and need to be required for all students and not based on citizenship or heritage criteria.
Unfortunately, my repeated experience is that many international students know they can get away with handing in a rough, first draft of their work and get an acceptable or even very high mark. Many have told me so. Hence, they see no reason to edit, rewrite and improve the English or academic writing on their assignments or work to improve it throughout their studies. They know that the teachers are not necessarily objective when marking their assignments and will make allowances for them as international students. I do understand and agree that reasonable allowances should be made as it is indeed very challenging to work in a foreign language and people should not be penalised for this. Personally, I am not comfortable to hand in a rough unedited first draft of assignments. However, many of my colleagues routinely do so as they know any extra time spent improving their academic writing won’t affect their grade in any way. In contrast, I know I definitely couldn’t hand in a rough copy of my first draft and get an equivalently high grade.
Furthermore, due to this, when my classmates and I are working together on a group project, some of them get annoyed if I encourage everyone to edit and improve the academic writing or research on their parts of our project, even when I offer to edit all the English. Some of them want me to do all the editing for language and content and are not willing to improve their sections, make any changes to our project or incorporate any feedback from others in the group. From my experience this is not how group projects in the real world work. However we are not taught HOW to work as a group or WHAT the process could look like, WHY its important and necessary to have a uniform and high quality product in a real world context. Some group members understand that there are no consequences for not cooperating and working fairly as a group member and they know they will get the same mark as everyone despite their level of effort. They also understand that other group members are too uncomfortable to be honest about the group dynamics. During my last group project, the other three students stopped communicating completely about our assignment three weeks before it was due while it was quite incomplete. I was left in a very difficult situation on how to proceed. In the past, only one or two students in my group projects stopped contributiing, so the rest of us did more. I decided to do my part as well as I could, correct only the English on the other sections and continue to send messages to communicate despite receiving no responses. As all the other sections were purely descriptive and our assignment was an analysis of research, I was left to decide on and write all of our analysis and arguments alone. It was so much work. Eventually I was very distressed and informed our professor of my conundrum. The response I received was: “What exactly do you expect me to do about it?” I had no particular expectation but was very stressed and at a loss on how to proceed working on the project working alone. I then also felt embarrassed, chastised and criticised and will certainly be reluctant to speak up again. The professor took no action and we all got the same grade. Thus when students refuse to do their fair share of work on group projects they rarely face consequences. Therefore they have no motivation to change or improve their academic writing or research which creates a great deal of stress for other members of the group. Hence, not only entrance exams but coursework and group projects grading are also often based on identity. I agree with the article that not only entrance exams but the ongoing standard of academic English language required in assignments and projects, needs ongoing development for each student, regardless of their identity and heritage. I would think this is particularly relevant in a Master’s or PHD degree for applied linguistics or English language teaching.
Thanks, Ally, for these detailed reflections! Unfortunately, group projects can go pear-shaped for all kinds of reasons, particularly in online/hybrid classes …
I recently literally got a 5 point deduction for two grammatical errors I made on an academic paper. I used the words “shouldn’t” and “wouldn’t” and the professor commented that contractions are not allowed in academic writing. I was shocked at the huge marks deducted for it, but it was a good lesson learned.
Really?! Did this happen in our program? Sounds like completely over-the-top language policing … would love to see a screen shot of your writing, the feedback, and deduction if you are willing to share (you know my email)
As a student, I’m thinking about this article that talks about how Australian universities decide who needs to take English tests for admission. It’s pretty interesting and makes me wonder.
There are two people in the article, Muhammad and Marlene, who show us how this works. Muhammad knows English really well, but he still had to take a test. On the other hand, Marlene, who learned English as a foreign language, didn’t have to take a test. This is because there are two types of English in the university’s eyes: one that gets tested and one that doesn’t. I can relate to the examples mentioned in the article, as many students from Pakistan pursue higher education abroad. They often face similar language proficiency requirements, despite having received their education in English or having significant English language skills. This can create unnecessary hurdles for Pakistani students and may even discourage them from pursuing educational opportunities in countries like Australia.
Now, here’s the thing that makes me think. The rules for who gets tested can be a bit unfair. They look at things like where you’re from, what kind of education you had, and your family background. This can make it harder for some students to get into universities.
The article suggests that universities should change these rules to be more fair. They could look at language skills separately from other stuff like where you’re from. This way, more students, including those from Pakistan, would have a fair shot at getting in.
In my view, this article is an important part of the conversation about making the admission process more fair for students from Pakistan and other countries. It’s crucial to make sure everyone has an equal chance to pursue their education.
Reading the article was quite thought-provoking. It raised the question of whether foreign universities should mandate an English proficiency test for admission, which I personally believe they should. This perspective stems from the fact that in certain countries, English is merely treated as a subject and not truly emphasized as a language. Upon exploring foreign universities, I observed that numerous students struggle to comprehend their professors’ teachings due to language barriers. Furthermore, the special exemptions granted to some countries from English proficiency tests should be re-evaluated, as it’s not guaranteed that non-native English speakers from these regions are truly fluent in the language.
In my country, some renowned universities give grace marks to students with Cambridge syllabus backgrounds, possibly leading to discrimination. However, the crucial factor is their English proficiency. Cambridge syllabus students are typically more fluent as compared to other students. However, balancing educational equity and global language skills remains a challenge.
Thanks for sharing this important perspective. It’s indeed a vexed problem for which there is no easy solution … institutions want to implement a one-size-fits-all solution but maybe that’s impossible?
It’s interesting to read this article. This is just an act of discrimination towards the certain countries. I have gone through this same phase being an international student as I have to pass the language test to get admission in the university. It should be applicable to all the students and no one should be given a waivered based on any other English language test or any identity. The most embarrassing thing about language test is about its expiry date. The test expire after certain period and we have to retake the quiz.
Thank you for this interesting subject. As an international student who grew up in Iran, I was required to take an IELTS test to be where I am now. My IELTS expired this August and I totally get the tweet from above saying I can’t speak, read, or write English anymore! Hilarious one indeed!
Having a BA in English Language and Literature and teaching English for the past 5 years, I was still required to do a language proficiency test to be here. Later on, if I want to apply for a PR in Australia, I would have to take the exam again to prove that I can still speak, read, write, and understand English even though I have lived, worked, and studied for many years in an English speaking country by that time. Does not sound reasonable but it is somehow a system that has worked for Australian migrants and residents (also the government) so far.
At the end of the day, having a measure to promote language learning in people who migrate to another country is of great importance for. Their imagination of their own performance might differ very much from their communication experience in the real-life context. therefore, having a motivating system to encourage language proficiency in migrants might not be such a bad idea after all, as we know English proficiency will have an immense effect on their experience.
However, we need to bear in mind that these exams are controlled and the experience of real-life interactions is essentially different. I hope the government finds or creates a more efficient system to test language proficiency specifically for people who have been living in the country for a long period of time and are merely after a change of Visa application with an expired language test.
I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon since I applied for a Master’s degree in translation and language teaching at Australian universities as a returning student last year. As I completed a GD program in translation studies at MQ in 2018, both MQ and USYD allowed me to waive the language requirement on the basis of their policies that exempt students who have completed a program in English language teaching within five years. However, UNSW has a policy of only two years, which meant I didn’t receive an offer from UNSW. I’ve always been curious whether there is any research behind the difference in the length of exemptions between universities. I mean whether the validity of the two-year and five-year exemptions has been critically investigated… or whether they just made the decision on the spot… It also seems difficult to prove that a person will lose their language fluency after a certain number of years based on uncertain premises.
Thanks, Ste! I think you are right to suspect that the rules are made up “on the spot” … institutions need to implement their rules consistently and without discrimination, but there is far less scrutiny of the actual rule-making … language attrition is real but, just like language learning, it does not have a definite timeline; so many variables, so many different contexts …
Good luck with your studies! 🙂
My PhD on immigrant English language teachers’ professional identity traced out the tribulations of English language tests. Learning and embodying English since early childhood, and becoming and practising as accomplished English language teachers for years in their countries of origin could not exempt them from English tests, not only once, at multiple stages, such as when applying for student visa, temporary residency, immigration, teacher registration. Brutal is that some would migrate with their IELTS test but could not be registered because of the different requirements across all bands (However, it’s now the same but ridiculously high, even higher than that of the doctors.
Thank you for your comment, Nashid! Your study sounds fascinating! Has it been published? Would love to read more about it!
Fantastic piece! Very relatable for any one of us who have had to undergo any of these tests. I just want to add that citizenship as criteria for language proficiency can fall foul of anti-discrimination law. So it may be a good idea for somebody to challenge this if there is an explicit citizenship or nationality criteria. For instance I know that in some Dutch universities nationality is a criteria for exempting students from showing proof of language proficiency during admission. For instance if you are a citizen of a British settler colony ( including South Africa) you are exempt. This is very strange because in countries like the United States which have birthright citizenship there is no indication that the citizen concerned would actually know English if he/she/they was resident elsewhere. Interestingly taking English as a second language in a Dutch high school also suffices . It goes without saying that an English educated South Asian student would be asked to show language proficiency. These laws are incredibly discriminatory -Australia in particular has a history of using language laws to restrict immigration from Asia and Africa and other countries that they deem undesirable.
Thanks, Geetanjali! You are right – so many discriminatory uses of language test. Last year, in Australia, the case of a chef made headlines who was going to be deported after failing a language test 15 times – despite the fact that she had a job, and worked perfectly well with whatever English she had: https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/chef-faces-deportation-after-failing-australias-english-test-15-times/news-story/47cac59be1b68b0ffaff745477dbbca6?amp
Great piece, Ingrid. Passing language tests is an art in itself as you say. My niece is British but grew up in Singapore and when she wanted to study here in the UK, she had to take her IELTS test. This is be fair policy as she was called an international student but she was horrified when her writing score came out at 7.5!!! If course it was a simple case of her not learning how to pass the test as she is a highly eloquent speaker of English! It’s all a bit of a hotchpotch. I would hope that there is more tolerance towards correct spelling in these tests than there used to be to keep in line with how speakers of English as a first language are graded with more tolerance towards dyslexia etc. But I fear a different set of rules will apply.
Thanks, Vanessa! You are absolutely right that you have to perform to the test in order to succeed. A few years ago, there was this case in Australia where an Irish vet failed to reach the speaking score required for immigration … https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/08/computer-says-no-irish-vet-fails-oral-english-test-needed-to-stay-in-australia
Thanks for this post, and congratulations on a great article and project!
It’s fascinating (frustrating? horrifying?) to observe how these types of requirements are replicated in other gatekeeping contexts, such as visa requirements and professional accreditation.
In my research on Australian registered migration agents, there is a very similar division between those who have inherent English and those whose English proficiency needs to be proven by testing. I’ve published an article about these rules and some human rights scrutiny they faced:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10383441.2021.1900031
The examples you give in this post remind me of some of the migration students I spoke with who had similar experiences. For example, one student came from a South Asian country and had done all of his education solely in English, from primary school through to University. Used English as a lingua franca when travelling to other parts of his (multilingual) home country and in his career when working overseas, and then had been using it for several years since migrating to Australia.
He pretty much accepted it as inevitable that he had to sit another IELTS test before being able to apply for registration as a migration agent.
Thanks again for this research – it’s really important to share these rules with a broad audience and demonstrate the many reasons why they’re so problematic. It’s the first step in hopefully effecting some positive change.
Thanks, Laura! You are right to observe how deeply ingrained the idea of “language proficiency = test score” is. The other side of this coin is that people who have the right kind of English to competently do whatever they do, are still deemed unworthy for permanent residency in Australia because they can’t reach a particular test score; as Loy Lising and I showed in research with meat workers from the Philippines:
Piller, I., & Lising, L. (2014). Language, employment and settlement: temporary meat workers in Australia. Multilingua, 33(1/2), 35-59.
This is a very relatable and timely piece, Ingrid! My PTE score had just expired, so I have to retake it so my visa application can stand. Since I’ve finished my PhD and lived about 4 years in Australia, the idea that I still have to prove my English through some expensive, standardized test feels strange, unnecessary, and very political. Just adding these adjectives to Laura’s accurate list (fascinating, frustrating, horrifying). But the research that you and Agi did gives hope that a sensible solution to this injustice will manifest in some way, hopefully sooner than later. Kudos on this relevant work! Excited to cite this and your work with Loy in my ongoing study of the English language preparation of Filipino-trained nurses in the UK.
OMG, I didn’t know that a PhD from an Australian university no longer even counts as acceptable evidence of English language proficiency … good luck, Pia, and keep up the good work! Can’t wait to read more about your new research … maybe here on Language on the Move 😉
Oh, what a tangled web, Ingrid jaan. Following the money trail reveals much. Nicole’s question is helpful. Perhaps an answer in no small measure is found in her allusion to admin costs and yours to legal fees. Do you think the Uni administrators and lawyers in question in our privatized tertiary education system see the fees in question as a waste in any way? Incidentally, your opening gambit incorrectly references Muhammad. 🙂 Famously, the Prophet was once asked: ‘Where does beauty lie’, to which He replied: “It lies upon the tongue” and then He elaborated.
What your excellent exposé reveals IMO is the urgent need, for the benefit of our progeny before WW3 engulfs them and us, of an international auxlang to be adopted; it should be taught to every school child in the world along with the mother tongue in a senior position of course. The language of Shakespeare in such a truly and revolutionary universal auxiliary role, or any idiom for that matter, would way surpass the prevailing monetized system, don’t you think?
Deja vu, mes amis.
A dominant role was undemocratically assigned in 1922 to UNESCO’s antecedent, The International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, which in reality was a high profile body of Committee men (nearly all men except for Marie Curie, famously including Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson) tasked with emasculating the League of Nations’ first two plenary sessions. Little apprehended today, such is the influence of revisionists and certain venal media outlets, is the League’s primary aim in 1919 of introducing a common second language for every school kid in the world. Imagine such an initiative today in plenary sessions of the UN. French speaking diplomats, Philadelphian lawyers and corrupted administrators from various nations, on behalf of their governments and the powers that be behind the scenes, watered down the League’s primary objective of ending war by such a sensibly effective means. The League’s stated official aim, in its very first iteration in the wake of WW1’s carnage, was to introduce for all school children the practical vehicle for ending war forever: the Esperanto language in an auxiliary role to the mother tongue.
Thanks, Paul! You are right that all those fees benefit someone. David Graeber has a great analysis of the business of paperwork in The Utopia of Rules … I admire your enthusiasm for Esperanto, of course, but doubt it will happen in our life times 🙁
With very best wishes for the New Year!
There’s the rub, Ingrid, as you say in signing off: “in our life times”.
War clouds and the environmental variety too, as Churchill did similarly surmise on the eve of the short Hitlerian winter, are gathering strength.
After the war in Ukraine there wont be much left of Europe and Asia and America to prophesy about but it’ll be third time lucky on the language front. 🙂
We live in hope 🙂
My son who is Australian and spent his first 22 years in Australia moved recently to Canada and had to take an English test to apply for citizenship. Why do they waste money and time for someone coming from an English speaking country?
You are right, Nicole, the waste of resources that goes into administering language tests for all kinds of purposes is mind-boggling …
Best wishes for the New Year to you and your son! 🙂