All students may be required to study a second language. (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

Thinking in terms of the NSW unit system - what about kids who want to go into areas where they are probably better off doing other subjects - e.g. bio, chem, phys, 4U math for a biotechnology/med science degree?

Last thing you need is a set course, the beauty of the current system is pick and choose whatever we want.

I dont think any subject should be compulsory (including english) for the HSC. OF course unis should have prerequisites.

 

[dreamee]

The problem here is not actually learning a foreign language...

It is more about the idea of it being compulsory, or the (IMHO) slightly out of proportion rewards that go with it that is causing some controversy.

Although Australia should undoubtedly push for foreign languages as part of the curriculum, they may be able to do it in other ways. Instead of targeting the top of (HSC, SC, school leaving years), perhaps the focus can be turned to primary school years.

If the interest in a foreign language is instilled into younger Australian children, they should be able to similarly appreciate the culture of the people of their language, improve their understanding of the English language, and become more aware of the increasingly global environment that we live in. On top of this, they can develop an interest in the language, and not do it in the future just as a boost to their UAI.

Just some food for thought...

 

[circusmind]

YOu will be surprised. More and more people from countries where english is not a main language are learning it. If you go to Russia, India, KAzakhstan, LAos, Mali, Kenya - there are people who know english - at least a little bit. Obviously you didnt get my point, take those countries which I mentioned before - there would be hardly anyone speaking Japanese in those countries.

Still, less than one in six people worldwide speaks English, and most of those people are concentrated in Britain, USA, Western Europe.....it is by no means ubiquitous. It is the de facto lingua franca of world business and politics, yes, but that is cold comfort when you're trying to interact with the man on the street in XXX foreign city.

Dont know what you are talking about here -language quite simply is a communications tool - you dont need to write essay or a thesis in a different language.

Language is far more than a tool. It proscribes what we can think and how we can think it. It reflects and creates the culture it's tied to. Learning another language dramatically enhances your understanding of the importance and power of language in general.

LOL, Firstly its is very very very difficult to be proficient in more than one language. If your native language is say Japanese and you live/studied in Japan and you moved to Australia for work - you may still know english, but you would be much better at speaking Japanese than english. There are very few people, very few - that are actually really fluent in multiple language - and these guys for the UN as translators.

As I said already, the majority of the world is multilingual. Multilingualism only seems amazing and difficult to us because we've grown up in a (sometimes jingoistically) monolingual culture. In many parts of the world, multilingualism is the norm, and a necessity, and has been for all of recorded history. I'm not talking about the elite of society here; in many places multilingualism is the norm for the average man.

You will be surprised how much is communicated just by the movement of lips, facial expressions and hand gestures. As they say about 60% of communication has to do with body.

Firstly, hand gestures and facial expressions differ in meaning between cultures. Secondly, these things only act as expression for the most basic of messages (anger/love/happiness/sadness/whatever) or as an aid to the message being conveyed in language. There is simply no way you can function adequately in a foreign environment without language.

False statement, there are people who made living and are making one in foreign countries without having to learn the native language of the foreign country. Dont make assumptions.

Yes, either in some situation where they are highly skilled but rely on language services of others to function, or in absolutely unskilled labour. Obviously the former is inefficient and the latter unrewarding.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Last thing you need is a set course, the beauty of the current system is pick and choose whatever we want.

I dont think any subject should be compulsory (including english) for the HSC. OF course unis should have prerequisites.

The HSC is already fucked up enough without trying to add a compulsory language to it.

For there to be any benefit it would have to replace something for at least the last 4 years of school. So what do you not do for those 4 years so that there is time to do a language? Everything I remember doing from years 9 - 12 is much more important than some language I may never use.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sure, English is going to always be the most important, in our lifetimes. However, you gain a massive edge in any dealings with foreign English-speakers if you speak their language as well.

This was on 702 radio a while ago... in studies they did of people whom learnt a language as a part of their university degree, it was found that if anything employers found their language skills interesting, but nothing beyond that. That study resonates with what I imagine is probably the truth. I do think knowing more than one language would be nice, but I think the practical benefit is overhyped.

I also have to agree with DHJ that countries that successfully become multi-lingual do so due to a changing culture. It is possible in the future that Australia will become more integrated with china and chinese may be a very useful language to learn, but for now I don't believe that's the case. I would be truly interested in so

I do think there is value to be gained in learning another language, but I question whether this value is really so great that we need make it mandatory (scrap the 10% extra uai thing right away... how stupid). We don't even have mandatory maths/science in years 11,12...

As I said already, the majority of the world is multilingual. Multilingualism only seems amazing and difficult to us because we've grown up in a (sometimes jingoistically) monolingual culture. In many parts of the world, multilingualism is the norm, and a necessity, and has been for all of recorded history. I'm not talking about the elite of society here; in many places multilingualism is the norm for the average man.

Yes but most of these people are multilingual because their culture demands it.

Still, less than one in six people worldwide speaks English, and most of those people are concentrated in Britain, USA, Western Europe.....it is by no means ubiquitous. It is the de facto lingua franca of world business and politics, yes, but that is cold comfort when you're trying to interact with the man on the street in XXX foreign city.

It is probably the language spoken by at least 2 out of 3 of the world's wealthiest people... Your example of chatting to some guy on the street in some foreign city is an example of something I don't think we need to equip people to be able to do.

 

[Sparcod]

Edit: I wish the poll was public. I'd be interested to see the relationship between those who voted yes/no and those who've had to properly study another language.

I didn't really think of that when I created this thread. I think about 10-15% (from memory) study a language for HSC.

 

[HotShot]

Actually you've very wrong about that. My mother learned Spanish when she was a teenager, lived in Spain for a year about twenty years ago and is still fluent in it. She only spent two years really doing Spanish comprehensively. After that, it was easy. Once you get it down, you can be fluent for life and it only takes a year or two study as well as living in the country.

And again you're wrong about not many people being fluent in multiple languages. As has been pointed out in this thread European schools make it compulsory to know two languages. Switzerland for one has five official languages and most people will know at least two or three of those.

Depends on how 'fluent' - your defintion. Would you say her english level is the same spanish?

Making it compulsory to learn language (however many) doesnt necessarily mean they will be fluent at it. In India you are requied to learn State language, national language and another language + english. I can guarantee you there are very few, that will be fluent in more than one.

Trust me, even a diplomat - a former of diplomat for Australia said this. Diplomate are required to know a few languages - he said although he knows a quite a few languages he is only fluent in one -english.

He can maybe understand other languages, maybe talk as well - but that doesnt make you fluent.

 

[circusmind]

Yes but most of these people are multilingual because their culture demands it.

Of course. I'm suggesting that our culture, too, should demand multilingualism.

It is probably the language spoken by at least 2 out of 3 of the world's wealthiest people... Your example of chatting to some guy on the street in some foreign city is an example of something I don't think we need to equip people to be able to do.

When I said 'man on the street', I meant the guy you're buying food from, haggling with, booking a hotel with, organising travel with, getting medical/legal advice from, etc. etc. The majority of people you interact with on a day-today level, unless you're some sort of high-flyer yourself, are going to be relatively uneducated, and thus more likely to not have a high level of English.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Edit: I wish the poll was public. I'd be interested to see the relationship between those who voted yes/no and those who've had to properly study another language.

Of course people who've studied another language will be supportive of it. For one it feels silly to say you've wasted your time, for another it's a neat piece of knowledge that separates you from the herd etc. The interesting question IMO is how they feel their employer(s) have/will value their language skills.

There is more to life than employment, but that is the usual argument wheeled out by politicians on this topic.

Of course. I'm suggesting that our culture, too, should demand multilingualism.

Yea but I'm saying it's outside influences (neighbouring countries, migrant populations, prospective business opportunities) etc which drive their culture to be multilingual. We really don't have that yet, but I suppose you could argue in 10-20 years we may and we should get in early.

When I said 'man on the street', I meant the guy you're buying food from, haggling with, booking a hotel with, organising travel with, getting medical/legal advice from, etc. etc. The majority of people you interact with on a day-today level, unless you're some sort of high-flyer yourself, are going to be relatively uneducated, and thus more likely to not have a high level of English.

So we should institute mandatory language classes so when people decide to travel to another country they can interact with the regular population?

I can sympathise with the idea of instituting language classes, but my main problems are:
- There's more important subjects that could be made mandatory imo.
- It should have to be a single extra language (i.e. mandarin or some such) and instituted as a part of a broader cultural change.
- Any sort of university entrance reward is ridiculous.

 

[kami]

YOu will be surprised. More and more people from countries where english is not a main language are learning it. If you go to Russia, India, KAzakhstan, LAos, Mali, Kenya - there are people who know english - at least a little bit. Obviously you didnt get my point, take those countries which I mentioned before - there would be hardly anyone speaking Japanese in those countries.

So we can live and make a living in these countries on the basis of that little bit? Also, this little bit is often restrained to the tourist districts in many countries since this generation are learning english but the previous generation has not had that benefit.

Dont know what you are talking about here -language quite simply is a communications tool - you dont need to write essay or a thesis in a different language.

You're right, you don't know what I'm talking about at all. You can't completely experience the essence of another culture without engaging in its language as many concepts are destroyed in the process of translation.

LOL, Firstly its is very very very difficult to be proficient in more than one language. If your native language is say Japanese and you live/studied in Japan and you moved to Australia for work - you may still know english, but you would be much better at speaking Japanese than english. There are very few people, very few - that are actually really fluent in multiple language - and these guys for the UN as translators.

Of course you'll be more proficient in something you have more experience in, it'd be foolish to even contend that point. However fluency in other languages is not as difficult as you make out - there are plenty of lecturers at university from say russia or germany who are completely fluent in english. Don't forget the many children of asiatic and middle eastern immigrants who are completely bilingual. There are also plenty of people from my classes doing International Studies who manage to be sufficiently proficient in their second language so as to study diverse things such as literature or physics overseas. None of these work for the UN.

You will be surprised how much is communicated just by the movement of lips, facial expressions and hand gestures. As they say about 60% of communication has to do with body.

So I can tell that Mary had an abortion in 1993 and there is now scarring along the ovaries and it is my job to fix that? Or that Josh divorced Amy and now she wants child support, his children are 3, 12 and 22 and he committed adultery? All by looking at the lips and the face and hand gestures? I suppose you could get the adultery one if you tried ...

Would you work as an accountant or whatever if you knew you couldnt do your job properly? If you knew you are up to it then why not? Over time your communication skills improve.

You wouldn't. That is the entire point. Your qualifications and skills mean nothing if you cannot communicate. i.e You can't do your job. And over time they would improve, they'd improve far more quickly if you had previous experience.

Wrong, as babies we observed things, we observed changes, we observed what your parents - WE OBSERVED noises, actions. This is how we learnt through observation - nobody taught us anything as such. Our basic communication came through observation and using this form of communication we were able to be taught.

That isn't the point I made at all.

As babies we had to yell and scream at our parents so that they knew we wanted something. They then had to guess what we wanted by where we were looking, where we were waving your hands or how we smelled. They then used their skills to obtain things for us like asking the cashier for food, toiletries, medications and so on. We won't have the benefit of someone acting as a constant interface with the outside world if we go to work somewhere else.

 

[Tulipa]

Depends on how 'fluent' - your defintion. Would you say her english level is the same spanish?

Pretty much, there's a woman who lives down the street who is from Peru and they have full blown conversations over coffee that I don't understand at all. She doesn't have a problem slipping back into it.

Making it compulsory to learn language (however many) doesnt necessarily mean they will be fluent at it. In India you are requied to learn State language, national language and another language + english. I can guarantee you there are very few, that will be fluent in more than one.

Trust me, even a diplomat - a former of diplomat for Australia said this. Diplomate are required to know a few languages - he said although he knows a quite a few languages he is only fluent in one -english.

He can maybe understand other languages, maybe talk as well - but that doesnt make you fluent.

Fluency perhaps may not even be the issue. Understanding another language and having a grasp of it will help you if you go to a country where it's spoken.

 

[circusmind]

Of course people who've studied another language will be supportive of it. For one it feels silly to say you've wasted your time, for another it's a neat piece of knowledge that separates you from the herd etc. The interesting question IMO is how they feel their employer(s) have/will value their language skills.

Not really. I think learning a foreign language to some fluency just opens your eyes to how dull and restrictive monolingualism is. Of course, the specific language you learn may never be that useful in your career, but I'd say the benefits of multlingualism far exceed simply getting an edge on the job market.

Yea but I'm saying it's outside influences (neighbouring countries, migrant populations, prospective business opportunities) etc which drive their culture to be multilingual. We really don't have that yet, but I suppose you could argue in 10-20 years we may and we should get in early.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

So we should institute mandatory language classes so when people decide to travel to another country they can interact with the regular population?

Of course not. I'm just refuting the idea that you can survive anywhere with just English and a fistful of American dollars....and I speak from the experience of being totally inadequate in the CBD of a major western European city populated by the highly educated, wealthy and urbane...

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Fluency perhaps may not even be the issue. Understanding another language and having a grasp of it will help you if you go to a country where it's spoken.

If the purpose isn't to become fluent then the whole exercise is a waste of time.

Only knowing enough to help you a little if you go to a country where it is spoken is hardly worth the trouble.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Not really. I think learning a foreign language to some fluency just opens your eyes to how dull monolingualism is. Of course, the specific language you learn may never be that useful in your career, but I'd say the benefits of multlingualism far exceed simply getting an edge on the job market.

But see if most australian's aren't even regularly having to interact with other cultures, it becomes little more than a novelty. I am sure there are associated benefits of learning another language merely for the languistic skills you pick up, but I can't imagine these being any greater than mathematical/scientific skills... so would you also desire them to become mandatory? What about skills reguarding banking/investment/super etc, that's becomming such a big part of people's lives? What about theory of knowledge type courses to get our population thinking?

 

[_dhj_]

And again you're wrong about not many people being fluent in multiple languages. As has been pointed out in this thread European schools make it compulsory to know two languages. Switzerland for one has five official languages and most people will know at least two or three of those.

In a perfect world all Europeans ought to speak one common language, just as they ought to share their currency. If they shared a language, there would be less misunderstanding among them; from the perspective of education (relevant to this thread), students would only have to spend time learning one language, allowing more time to learn substantive subjects like maths and science. In that sense the existence of many languages is an imperfection arising from historical factors and most significantly, from the historical and ongoing nationalism. It follows that countries teach more than one language out of necessity. The fact the Europeans speak more than one language give them a sense of intellectual and cultural superiority. They are right - they are culturally superior because of their history. It is history that confers its citizens with many languages, not government initiatives to educate students in some arbitrary language to make them seem more 'cultured'.

I don't doubt that diversity for diversity sake has some advantages. Each language, each vernacular and dialect possess its own nuances, and exudes beauty by its own right. Personally I'm fond of the sound of several foreign languages, and of listening to languages alien to my understanding. However, I don't believe that we ought to teach several foreign languages without real necessity to do so.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Not really. I think learning a foreign language to some fluency just opens your eyes to how dull and restrictive monolingualism is. Of course, the specific language you learn may never be that useful in your career, but I'd say the benefits of multlingualism far exceed simply getting an edge on the job market.

Only speaking one language is not restrictive at all, and if you think it is the same argument could also be used for not knowing 5 languages.

Unless you are actually going to use another language knowing one is nothing but a novelty.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It is history that confers its citizens with many languages, not government initiatives to educate students in some arbitrary language to make them seem more 'cultured'.

Yea, personally I'm interested in examples of countries which have just say... decided to make french mandatory for all their citizens, even with almost 0 french trade/culture/population/etc influence.

 

[kami]

But see if most australian's aren't even regularly having to interact with other cultures, it becomes little more than a novelty. I am sure there are associated benefits of learning another language merely for the languistic skills you pick up, but I can't imagine these being any greater than mathematical/scientific skills... so would you also desire them to become mandatory? What about skills reguarding banking/investment/super etc, that's becomming such a big part of people's lives? What about theory of knowledge type courses to get our population thinking?

Why not have both? The International Baccaularate(sp?) holds English, LOTE, Maths, Science, HSS as compulsory so that you study them all to some level (whether it be general, advanced or 'honours') with an elective as bonus. It also includes a theory of knowledge type thing plus some mandated community service. That seems to be the ideal model IMO as it produces well rounded individuals in ways the HSC often fails to do.

 

[Sparcod]

In a perfect world all Europeans ought to speak one common language, just as they ought to share their currency. If they shared a language, there would be less misunderstanding among them; countries teach more than one language out of necessity.

That was an idea of the former immigration minister, Amanda Vanstone - to learn an Asian language if you're at school because we're 'part' of Asia.

'Learn an Asian language or flunk school: Vanstone'
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/learn-an-asian-language-or-flunk-school-vanstone/2007/03/08/1173166897964.html

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I am sure there are associated benefits of learning another language merely for the languistic skills you pick up, but I can't imagine these being any greater than mathematical/scientific skills... so would you also desire them to become mandatory? What about skills reguarding banking/investment/super etc, that's becomming such a big part of people's lives? What about theory of knowledge type courses to get our population thinking?

If I was to replace any one of the subjects I did in the last 4 years of school with a language I may be able to basically understand that language but I would consider myself to be generally a less intelligent person. I don't think the trade off is worth it.