Poor English -foreign students

[mids2019]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mzdejg1d3o

I have to confess I am seeing the end result of this problem with M.Sc. students entering the workforce with a level of English such that academic reports require significant edits to make them acceptable.

The employees are incredibly intelligent especially mathematically but the poor English is something that requires resource to address and you simply can't bring the subject up in a PDR without accusations of racism. I can't simply say as a development objective to improve Englsih as there isn't time in a demanding career and it becomes increasingly difficult to learn foreign languages as you age.

I am glad this subject is being raised as it does undermine HE institutions in my opinion.

Reducing the whole university sector. And a strong mechanism to uphold standards of degrees so universities can’t dumb down to recruit more students.

Bilingualism normally isn't a problem.

Dad was from Eastern Europe and insisted on speaking only English to me, for fear that I wouldn't be fluent in English. This was well-meaning, but misguided.

I later studied another Eastern European language at university level. I still grieve the missed opportunity to be bilingual. I've since picked up some of Dad's language and have taken lessons, but I'll never be fluent now.

The only way that being immersed in a non-English speaking environment could harm someone's ability to speak English would be if there was no equal exposure to English through school and the wider community.

Part of my responsibility in my old teaching job was ESOL. The only ESOL children who had difficulty picking up English were those who were not attending school regularly.

Our Eastern European pupils in particular used to get top marks in English and other subjects. In a previous school, a young woman from a South Asian background gained a place at a prestigious university in spite of the obstacles placed in her way by her parents. (She was "too western" so they packed her off to a boarding school in their home country. She quickly returned to Scotland: she wasn't daft - she made sure that she was expelled from boarding school within the first week.)

What I did see a lot of would be mothers from certain backgrounds who had learned no English whatsoever - in spite of living in the UK for years - and who had to bring their children to parents' evening to interpret. (Strictly speaking, they were entitled to an interpreter to be paid for by the council, but this seldom happened apart from admissions meetings and meetings concerning behaviour.)

However, I'm aware that certain communities used to try to game the system by insisting that their children born in this country were entitled to extra time in exams because they supposedly had English as a Second Language.

I don't know what rules apply in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, but when I was still responsible for ESOL in a Scottish school, you got an extra 15 minutes per hour (I recall) in order to give you time to access a dictionary in your "native" language. No dictionaries were allowed for English or MFL exams, so no extra time was available there.

I recall one pupil in particular who - every single ruddy exam diet from S4/Y11 to S6 - used to complain to the Chief Invigilator that they were entitled to extra time.

I'd be teaching a class (having already provided any dictionaries as required at the beginning of the school day) and the CI would be at my door asking for a dictionary for X. Every time I'd have to say "No. There is no entitlement. Yes, X is fluent in the parents' language. However, the pupil was born in Scotland, is fluent in English and cannot actually read their parents' language. Therefore, a bilingual dictionary would be of no use to them and they have no entitlement to extra time."

I also had a case where staff kept insisting that a brother and sister had difficulty accessing the curriculum because they had ESOL. They wouldn't believe me when I said "No...They were born here...They simply have difficulties of a global nature..."

In the end, I asked a TA who spoke their other language to hold a conversation with them. Her verdict: "They're just badly brought up. They haven't been taught to use respectful forms of the language when speaking to an adult. It's bad parenting."

I agree the HE sector is somewhat bloated. A number of graduates don’t get value for money in that their degrees may not be hugely stimulating intellectually, and they end up in jobs that don’t require higher level skills.

However in this most class conscious if countries, a degree is seen as a pathway to, loosely speaking, the middle class. We cannot reduce the HE sector without providing genuinely respectable alternative pathways to the middle class or we go backwards as a society.

My post above is for @WarmingClothesontheRadiator and anyone else who would like to respond

That's my experience too. DS had an indian student in his student flat who was there for a Masters. Her English was impeccable with a very, what i would call 'polished Indian accent' so i don't think it's always about them just being foreign but more about the individual's background. Just like in U.K. we have various social classes who all speak differently it's the same for international students.

I disagree.

First, there really are different pathways and differences of opinion on what defines class and its relevance depending who you ask.

Second, the purpose of universities is education and furthering knowledge, surely. Focussing on anything else will degrade our universities and our long term prospects as a country.

Education hasn’t always been the key indicator of class. It doesn’t need to remain so.

Paying bloated tuition fees, for useless degrees as some sort of class gating is gross.

The standard of English in ethnic students who grew up in Britain is generally higher than than of white British students.

A 2024 report from the Education Policy Institute compared white British pupils’ attainment against other ethnic groups across education. By the end of secondary school, most ethnic groups achieved higher GCSE grades than white British pupils.

The stated aim is for 70% of school leavers to take up tertiary education by 2040. (Report of 09/2024)

The shape of the TE is TBD. I would love to see people’s talents and ambitions in harmony and many pathways to a good income and the respect of society.

We will have got somewhere when doctors and lawyers are happy to have DC train as electricians and plumbers - both professions admitting the potential for excellent pay - as well as the other way round.

When education hasn’t been a class indicator, background has. Hardly better for the promotion of an equitable society.

None of this means that I agree with bloat, BTW, in fees or inflated degree courses. Only that the question is subtle with far reaching consequences.

Thanks for your informative, data driven post of 13.36, @AquaLeader

If 70% go to university, it won’t be a class marker anymore. People will look at different indicators.

I think they will continue to look at education, @Sibilantseamstress The gradations amongst universities, and between universities and other types of TE, will take on more significance to those who care about these things.

I hope more, and more useful, pathways will be designed. Within a generation or two of its creation, money speaks as authoritatively in the UK as anywhere else. So pathways to successful careers will be pathways to the middle class as it is commonly understood, and using most MumsNetters’ markers.

One hopes that such an outcome is to be welcomed.

It’s not just lawyers and doctors who want an academic route for their dc, so do plumbers and electricians! And - they always did! University should be for the better qualified academic dc. It is bloated because there are too many universities. I would look at mergers and go back to employment with suitable day release at below degree level. Build up to a degree if A levels are below, say, BBB. We need dc to undertake training and HE but as we only get 61% meeting expectations in ks2 sats in maths, reading and writing, 70% undertaking HE is a stretch. We might be better with 30% of 18 year olds going to university and 30% taking alternative HE.

DH and me went to grammar schools. When we left school, around 33% of the 6th form went to uni. Not 33% plus of all 18 year olds. Others went into the civil service, accountancy, local government, nursing, planning, teaching, surveying, etc and qualified in those professions by working and studying. Now it must be a degree. There needs to be more alternative routes that are rigorous and respected. Use the unis for study. I went on day release to a poly and a college of HE. Why not offer this route again in much larger numbers?

Build up to a degree if A levels are below, say, BBB

There is though an issue as a number of DC are one trick ponies and will scoreless than this at A level but come out of uni with a first in their subject.

And Australians! One of my colleagues had to sit IELTS as part of her visa/GMC registration, despite speaking English as her first and only language.

That's veru often case around the world because "ee did not move all that way for betterlife so you would do bad at school!". Plus, there is the overdoing things because you feel like if you don't know enough you won't fit. So some go into override

Not only that but it will simply become base for jobs. Which unfortunately has to some extent happened.
"Office admin - entry level, 24k, 3 years experience and graduate from x or similar field"

Edited because I realised 26k was too generous🤦

Nail on the head. Up to the 90s people had a much broader choice of professions they could qualify for via evening classes, day release or self study, the local colleges and polytechnics offered a broad range of adult education courses. Now it’s ALL about unis and degrees. We really need to dial back the clock and get back to having alternative entry routes for more professions that don’t involve spending years of your life in uni and spending tens of thousands. We need options for those unable or unwilling to go to uni.

Yes - for example DS has ADHD and does poorly in formal exams, got CCC A levels but is one of the top 5 students in his cohort in his technical and creative vocational, continuously assessed degree which will be highly relevant for his future job.

One thing with making professions like nursing degree based is that there will be occasionally very good nurses who hate writing essays and course administrators aren't going to deprive the NHS of a nurse because of a portly written essay.

The problem then is that there is a more generalised culture that degrees can be awarded despite poor written or spoken English skills. Those lecturers that do mark down are accused of elitism in their approach to grading students .

I have marked work as part of vocational qualification where the English is poor but you are heavily advised not to pick up on these points. However if English ability is not a key criterion then really should the education/training be at degree level?

I think this feeds in with foreign students getting degrees with poor English as this is now an areas where it is becoming increasingly unacceptable to criticise people. We can criticise poor maths as it is quite binary i.e. right or wrong but if we criticise English then we are told people's use of language is reflective of their community and so is beyond reproach.

@mids2019 If a degree was for the top performers only, there would be another qualification where English was less important. Then the employee had time to improve to the higher level of English required by the degree. Engineering has several levels of professional qualification. Nursing could do exactly the same but standards are upheld when moving up to a higher level. I still don’t agree standards should be compromised to accommodate lesser qualified people and English is qualification. So it’s required. It’s not discriminatory to say it’s not.

Also CCC or lower would not prevent a degree. It would just be another route. We tend to know firsts are a bit ? from some unis. Employers don’t trust them. If employers don’t care about English and only look at a degree with no other assessment or tests, that’s up to them, but I don’t recommend it.

I agree completely that we need more pathways to good careers and I broadly like the model @TizerorFizz refers to.

My comment yesterday was somewhat, but only somewhat, facetious. The prestige attached to certain professions is a bit mysterious. Doctors have powers of life and death so that’s understandable, but the popular reputation of lawyers is a rather stark dichotomy.

@TizerorFizz and I have discussed on this board how (degreed) engineers are held in much higher prestige in countries with a stronger manufacturing base than the UK has. Here, a number of our strongest STEM students want to go into finance. That’s fine, and I have a lot of respect for Economics as a profession. But they form this goal with little understanding of the work. Furthermore, subject to the same level of intense competition they might well be able to land tech jobs at some of the companies offering similar compensation (when stock options are taken into account), which might suit their talents better.

Currently formal education levels and the degree dichotomy are intertwined with the rigid British class system. It is plausible that the 70% goal has an aim of relaxing this rigidity. That may be its only merit but that is not insignificant.

@poetryandwine Law, for the highest paid, is usually about business, eg mergers and acquisitions. Law is the backbone of a civilised society in so many ways and separate from government. Lawyers at a basic level, resolve disputes. Often when other professionals cannot agree. DD is a family law barrister and clients often feel their cases are the most important aspects of their lives. They would not be going to court if it wasn’t vital. I don’t agree all of medicine is about life and death either. It’s about improving life in many cases. Employers pay what they need to pay whilst making a profit, but the government pays what tax income allows.

If you look at income for various degrees post graduation, (from IFS) medical doctors do best. Law is several rungs down because few get the high paid jobs MN parents expect! The vast majority of law grads earn less than doctors because they don’t get to qualify as solicitors or barristers. It’s like saying all economists get to work at the high paying firms in London. They don’t. As you might expect, pay is regionally driven.

"Also CCC or lower would not prevent a degree. It would just be another route. We tend to know firsts are a bit ? from some unis. Employers don’t trust them."

That might be true about a traditional academic degree. A first from Oxford in English literature is probably a different caliber than a first from, say, Northampton uni in English literature, I accept that. But you appear to be missing my point that a degree in fine art, or film and TV production, or textiles are for creative and talented individuals whose particular talents may well not be reflected in A level results. It would also disbarr anyone who found learning late or went to a rubbish school or is neurodivergent or had severe anxiety during A levels or any number of reasons why a person might get lower than BBB on the day.

My personal view on this is that someone from a working class background who left school with limited qualifications but puts themselves through classes and gains entry to a minor local uni with a D and a C and some life experience, and gets a degree while working part time and bringing up 2 small kids is every bit as worthy as a middle class kid from a supportive family who got 3 As at A level at an indie and sailed off to Edinburgh to read psychology. In fact I find the former rather more impressive.

Very few employers care much which uni your first class degree is from, beyond a few City firms and a few professions, and particularly after your first job it matters very little. My DH employs people in his field and pays no need at all. Technical skills much more important in his work.

Your DH sounds very sensible, @Teenylittlefella

A question: does TV production need to be a degree? It seems to me that with experience this job clearly ought to confer middle class wages, lifestyle and respect. A non-degreed training pathway would be a good test case for decoupling class status from degree status whilst presumably offering less expensive training.

I agree that someone putting themselves through university in difficult circumstances is showing many characteristics desired by employers. This is a separate question from the role of the degree in society.

@TizerorFizz barristers in particular have captured the public imagination. Of course many lawyers play a vital role in society. But that is because of the jobs they choose.

A friend in a ‘genteel’ medical specialism once told me how irritating the jokes about not doing ‘sad medicine’ get, because all of them regularly find evidence of life threatening and terminal illnesses while treating seemingly unrelated phenomena. In that sense they all hold powers of life and death.

@Teenylittlefella There are jobs that require a degree. They might also require the job holder has command of English to enable them to do the job properly. As my DD2 is creative I would say a degree is not necessary. She has one but since then took an intensive diploma course and didn’t need the degree for anything. If only she had realised that at 18.

The point of saying BBB was for 18 year olds. My whole argument is that others can do degrees alongside work and after work experience. So everyone suitable can work towards one. Plus I think degrees should be academic. I’m not convinced my DD is any less good at what she does because she has a diploma. Working and studying is so difficult now, especially for 18 year olds, and that’s so wrong.