New job wanting proof she can speak her first language

[Scoras]

DD is 22, she graduated uni this summer and has been offered a job with conditions. Until DD was 15 we lived in France, her dad is French-English and I’m Italian. DD went to an international school and was taught in French, English and had “additional language classes” in Italian. She is fully fluent in all 3. Did her French and Italian GCSEs here without studying them in school, same again for A-level.
DD then studied business management and Spanish. She’d never done Spanish before but the course allowed them to pick a language from beginning or continue with a Language already spoken. As she was fluent in all 3 languages she spoke she picked a new one.

Her new job is at an international company in a client facing role, one of the big requirements is being bilingual. The job advert was for French or Spanish speakers, she obviously mentioned she has both.

Now DD still speaks with a French accent, it’s not as strong as it once was but it’s definitely not missable, her phone is set to French, she thinks in French etc. She speaks to her dad and grandparents in French and to me and my family in Italian. By all means it’s her first language - but the workplace is requiring evidence of her fluency, such as an exam or something? They’ve also said it would be beneficial to prove her fluency in Italian but English and Spanish are fine because she studied at uni in those languages.

AIBU to think this is crazy? Obviously she’s probably going to have to let this job go as she doesn’t have any certificate to prove she can speak her first language past A-level, who does??

If someone who does not speak English as their native language came to me for a job, I would know from talking to them whether their English was likely to meet the standard. I could also ask them to do a business task that showed their English level.

I work with quite a few people who are not native speakers of English and they function very effectively in my organisation.

I can tell that without being an English teacher.

Therefore I would expect a French native speaker to be as capable as I am without needing to be a French teacher.

There will also be different levels for different jobs. For example, you might potentially (I say potentially) get away with a slightly lower level for an IT role than you would need to be a lawyer.

But there was no risk to that person if you'd turned out to be a bit less good than that first impression and had to move down to C1? Whereas there are probably compelling reasons that the employer needs to be certain that their employees meet a certain standard.

It IS a requirement. I don't know why this isn't clear. As others have pointed out, the base level requires English PLUS french OR Spanish. French AND Spanish is a bonus. She has got the job on the basis that she has both French AND Spanish - ie she is the more compelling candidate because she has 3 languages, not 2. Now she has to provide formal, verifiable proof of both.

As she also speaks Italian, if I was her I'd be getting a certificate for that too - will make it a lot easier if they ever want to put her on a desk where Italian is a requirement.

It was within the first couple of minutes.

Interviews routinely last an hour, can involve tasks and more than one person.

Anyway it sounds like it is easy to get the test done and have the bit of paper to wave under their noses, so the OP's DD should just get it done.

Heaven forbid that actual experience and ability matters more than a bit of paper, but you know.

The issue is that being born somewhere or having a parent from a country doesn't mean you are fluent plus if you leave as a child sometimes you haven't picked up the more formal less familial language, the competency exams are designed for this situation. I'm sure your dd has excellent language skills but not all dc do, my friend's ds has only rudimentary language skills despite 2 parents speaking that language at home, he simply refuses to speak it, he replies in English.

I have a level French and nobody in their right mind would hire me to speak it!

Why are you assuming she's being interviewed by a French native speaker?

I really don't think your understanding of all this stuff is as good as you are claiming it is.

Anyway, as I've said multiple times, all she needs to do is ask them which qualification they would like her to take to demonstrate that her French is as fluent as she says it is, and agree a timescale in which to do that.

Heaven forbid that actual experience and ability matters more than a bit of paper, but you know.

It doesn't. But from a regulatory and compliance perspective, some employers will require this objective, verifiable proof to protect themselves. Just like you could give me a first aid test and I would probably pass because I have done loads of first aid over the years etc etc, but it's very unlikely I could become an organisation's official "first aider" unless I have either got an actual certificate to say I am qualified, or agree to attend a first aid course. I have the skills, but they wouldn't let me do first aid in their name if they don't have a certificate that confirms I meet some objective, regulated, standard.

And I 100% am confident that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I work in language certification. C1 and C2 level exams usually take nearly half an hour and have a number of different tasks, although there are providers who conduct shorter exams. An untrained individual really cannot tell if a person is C2 within a few minutes, even if they think they can.

Also, if this employer is a major international organisation, and even if they're not, they need to have formal, objective assessments for language proficiency. Not just 'Oh I had a quick chat with her and she's great.'

I’m fluent enough to know the word pedantic.

Confident does not equal correct.

Can she ask to come in for an interview conducted in French? Can she ask them to provide a test? Can she ask for a reference from her internship in Nice (where presumably they spoke French the whole time!)

So frustrating but UK institutions also request specific proof of English language skills from Nigerian and Indian students who learn / think in English because English is one of their national languages. It’s driven by racism - a belief that these roles can only be fulfilled by people born in a specific country.

Your dd needs to make it clear that it isn’t possible for her to evidence her fluency using the exams provided but that as she is fluent, she’d be happy to demonstrate it by talking to someone already doing the job.

I am not assuming anything, but I would have thought it was a good idea!

As for having to certify the Italian as well, if I worked with someone who I knew was multilingual and they told me they spoke good Italian, I'd believe them until proven otherwise. I wouldn't tell them to go off and take another test if I needed someone to call an Italian client today!

That made me laugh, thank you.

At the end of the day, I have worked in financial services for a long time. In international organisations. With international people. I have been hired by these organisations and I have hired for these organisations. I have been through this sort of thing multiple times. Client-facing employees have to meet certain standards. These are almost always assessed not just by whether they are meeting their objectives/getting the work done, but also by formal processes that can be tracked and reviewed by compliance, regulators etc. this is a key part of risk management for any financial services organisation. Being able to "prove" something, using data (not informally) is absolutely essential.

Similarly, all financial services employees are mandated to take certain courses eg anti-money-laundering courses. Usually these have to be certified on a regular basis - every 12 months I think. In every case, whether you're the chief executive or a back office support person, part of this process is completing some kind of test to "prove" that you have this knowledge that the company can hold on file. I did not work front office, but I nonetheless had to do the same anti money-laundering training for compliance purposes. It's a bit ridiculous but it is what it is.

DH works in the fitness sector. He has to complete mandatory refresher "training" courses on ridiculous things every year, and pass the test. The fact that he successfully does these things day in and day out as part of his job is irrelevant, it needs to be certified as up to date for the purposes of insurance and safeguarding.

An interview is not a a "quick chat".

And if you give native speakers a task to do to prove they are up to the job, you can give non-native speakers a task to prove they are up to the job.

About a decade ago I worked for an organisation that used to give interviewees a writing test to check they could write a sensible article about a topic that was given to them. If I had a French national who claimed to be fluent in English, I could use that test to decide if they were up to the job in exactly the same way that I could use it for a native speaker. In fact, there was a French native speaker working for us doing the same job as I did.

They take longer than half an hour!

I did the French DELF B2, and the exam took place over 2 days. From memory the writing part was 90 minutes.

Also agree, having just had to do a load of compliance training, that it is useless and tick-boxing as well.

But I still think language knowledge is very different to anti-money laundering knowledge.

DH works in the fitness sector. He has to complete mandatory refresher "training" courses on ridiculous things every year, and pass the test. The fact that he successfully does these things day in and day out as part of his job is irrelevant, it needs to be certified as up to date for the purposes of insurance and safeguarding

Again, very different to language knowledge. Nobody is going to die because someone made a grammatical error in an article or forgets a word when speaking to a client (which they might do test or no test). They might die if eg a lifeguard forgets their first aid skills or a leisure assistant forgets what sort of fire extinguisher to use on what sort of fire.

You said it was clear someone was C1 'in a few minutes'. What I'm saying is that it really can't be. There are certain linguistic functions you have to demonstrate to be C1, and you can't possibly cover all those 'in a few minutes', especially if the interviewer is not trained in language certification.

And what happens when the Italian client claims that DD did not explain a product properly and as a result missold something. When challenged, the client says that clearly DD did not understand enough of the language and reports the firm to the regulator. The regulator asks for proof that DD can speak Italian. The only proof that can be generated is a coinversation with DD. In a sensible, normal world, the regulator would have that conversation. But that's NOT how it works. INstead, the bank would need to produce a certification that proves she can speak Italian and is therefore suitably qualified to advise clients in that language. Without it, the firm is liable to a fine or other sanctions.

I did NOT have to speak to clients. Therefore, while I had to prove I spoke English as it was an English speaking role so I did this with my degree in English, I did not have to prove that I speak any other languages, nor did my colleagues. However, if any of us had required a second language to do the job, we would have been required to prove that. That does not stop us speaking informally in other languages to colleagues or other people we came across during the workday eg my French colleagues spoke English to me because I don't speak French, but the woman on my team who did speak french would often speak to them in French. But that is an informal work process, not a formal one, so did not require any certification.

I was referring solely to the speaking section.

But you're correct. If the requirement is to prove proficiency in all 4 skills, there would be at least two separate exams which will take several hours in total.

Again, very different to language knowledge. Nobody is going to die because someone made a grammatical error in an article or forgets a word when speaking to a client (which they might do test or no test). They might die if eg a lifeguard forgets their first aid skills or a leisure assistant forgets what sort of fire extinguisher to use on what sort of fire.

In financial services, losing money IS considered life or death.

And while DH does not complain about the courses he has to do, the reality is that he is doing them all day every day as part of his job so his manager can tell, just from his ability to do his job, that he genuinely knows all this stuff. It's not like he's been out of the industry for a few years and coming back. At the end of the day, no one who employs him has any doubt whatsoever about his skills. He still needs to do the recertification.

Nobody asked for your CV.

Nobody asked for your CV.