IHE: Foreign Language Enrollment Declines 16% Since 2016

[Kron3007]

2) Now we come to the tricky part-- exactly what does it mean to be/ become 'fluent' in a second language one starts to learn *after puberty*, esp if such fluency is to be gained primarily or exclusively via classroom instruction, and no immersive opportunities exist?  This is a very nebulous concept to define, and it is often true that job applications, etc., which ask the applicant/ candidate to list his level of 'fluency' in any given second tongue really give almost no criteria upon which said candidate can/ is supposed to judge his level of fluency, something which is especially problematic when John Q. GenXer or Mary P. Boomer tries to ascertain how much 'fluency' remains after 30+ years since the last vocab quiz was aced...

This is a good point. One of my daughters took French immersion in elementary school, and after French the rest of the way through high school did a residential program in French for a few weeks. When she was doing a co-op job working for the government, when they found out her French background they directed incoming calls from French-speaking people to her.

Even with all of that, she'd be hesitant to take a job where she had to operate primarily in French.

Fluency is HARD.

The people I know who went through the FI program are pretty fluent.  Sure, they may not love the idea of working a phone job dealing with native Francophones right away, but that is pretty much the worst case scenario.  I lived in the deep south USA (from Canada) for a while and there were times I had difficulty communicating with locals on the phone even though we are both native English speakers, at least of sorts. 

When I was in school, French started in grade 4, and we could opt out in grade 9 (which I did).  My kids are in FI, and already speak more French than I ever have.  Just because Canada sucks at implementing second language education outside of the FI program, dosnt mean it cant be effectively done.

[dismalist]

Fluency, schmooency! Why?

I'm bilingual and have well more than casual knowledge of two other languages. I've had chores and fun and profit with this stuff.

But why force kids to do this? It can only be in the self-interest of the instructors, not the students.

Just learn English and get along in this world.

[Hegemony]

Why learn anything? If you can't monetize it — away with it!

[dismalist]

Why learn anything? If you can't monetize it — away with it!

Monetise, schmonetise! No, I'm concerned with who decides, for their own ends, not somebody else's ends.

[Wahoo Redux]

Just learn English and get along in this world.

Sheesh, folks, let's just reduce "higher education" to job training with two year bachelor's degrees. 

Two years of insurance.  Two years of stock brokering.  Two years of K-12 teacher training (although they may need to know basic Spanish...).  One year for real estate (although it might help if they spoke Spanish).  Two years for a general business degree for those who do not know what they want to do.

Engineers and doctors will have their own rigorous training in specialized schools.  Classical musicians and Shakespearean actors will have conservatories. 

America will continue to diversify, but we will not worry about that. 

Specialized industries will simply train their workers on-the-job in a series of internships.

Why would we resist this?

[marshwiggle]

Just learn English and get along in this world.

Sheesh, folks, let's just reduce "higher education" to job training with two year bachelor's degrees. 

Two years of insurance.  Two years of stock brokering.  Two years of K-12 teacher training (although they may need to know basic Spanish...).  One year for real estate (although it might help if they spoke Spanish).  Two years for a general business degree for those who do not know what they want to do.

The issue of "job training" versus "personal enrichment" often comes down to an issue of depth versus breadth. The examples above show a lack of understanding of the importance of depth.

The most valuable "job training" will be that which takes a long period of sustained focus on developing skills and expertise that cannot be developed otherwise. The examples of "insurance" and "real estate" are specific cases where there are short courses and certification programs. They don't need a degree.

Engineers and doctors will have their own rigorous training in specialized schools.  Classical musicians and Shakespearean actors will have conservatories. 

Whether these specialized programs are in the same or different institutions doesn't matter; the point is that the investment is prolonged and intense. The training isn't just a box-checking exercise.

America will continue to diversify, but we will not worry about that. 

Specialized industries will simply train their workers on-the-job in a series of internships.

Why would we resist this?

I don't know. Why should we?

The people looking for personal enrichment will be the ones most interested in, (and potentially most likely to benefit from), lots of breadth. If their goal is personal enrichment, and they're not looking for it to be some kind of golden ticket to employment, then they should be free to choose that kind of education.

Question: Is a PhD program "job training" for wannabee faculty, especially in fields where there are few places outside academia where a PhD is required? If it's not, why is there so much "adjunct porn" about PhDs without jobs, as if the PhD was assumed to have been automatically followed by solid employment?

[kaysixteen]

Random thoughts:

1) Of course a well-run FI program can achive something pretty close to fluency.... if it is done in elementary school.  Pre-pubescent children simply learn FLS better.  You cannot however do this sort of thing with college kids (or even hs kids, for that matter).

2) The USA is in an almost unique linguistic and geographic position, where it might even be possible to say 'our kids need to learn English only'.  And this situation is fading.   As it should.

3) Humanities PhDs are indeed more or less just 'job training' for academic positions, or at least traditionally have been conceived and run as such.  Of course, as has also been pointed out regularly here and in the old fora over the years, up through the 90s there was the stated (by academics, administrators, etc) *expectation* that there would in fact be academic work for those completing these degrees.

[Wahoo Redux]

The issue of "job training" versus "personal enrichment" often comes down to an issue of depth versus breadth. The examples above show a lack of understanding of the importance of depth.

The most valuable "job training" will be that which takes a long period of sustained focus on developing skills and expertise that cannot be developed otherwise. The examples of "insurance" and "real estate" are specific cases where there are short courses and certification programs. They don't need a degree.

I don't know what you are saying there, buddy.  Why do we need "depth?"  "Depth" in what, exactly?  How much depth do you need to be trained for any job not in the sciences?

You are correct that real estate does not require a great deal of knowledge, although insurance is much more complex than most people realize----still, we could have people job ready with two solid years of schooling for virtually any corporate job.  Maybe we should just have a "general business degree" instead of specialization.
 

Whether these specialized programs are in the same or different institutions doesn't matter; the point is that the investment is prolonged and intense. The training isn't just a box-checking exercise.

Exactly.  Why both with "box checking" at all?  The acquisition of knowledge is now "box checking" to some.  Why bother?

The people looking for personal enrichment will be the ones most interested in, (and potentially most likely to benefit from), lots of breadth. If their goal is personal enrichment, and they're not looking for it to be some kind of golden ticket to employment, then they should be free to choose that kind of education.

Exactly.  We will have the elite institutions and a smattering of SLACs for those students who still want to check boxes on knowledge.

Question: Is a PhD program "job training" for wannabee faculty, especially in fields where there are few places outside academia where a PhD is required? If it's not, why is there so much "adjunct porn" about PhDs without jobs, as if the PhD was assumed to have been automatically followed by solid employment?

For years the adjunct situation has flummoxed and confused you, Marshy.  It has been explained numerous times.  This is very strange.

As for all those wanna be academics, the PhD programs would be shut down, obviously, because there will be no need for them and we will save a lot of money----except for 2 or 3 in each discipline at the Ivies which will supply the box checking schools.

[Wahoo Redux]

Random thoughts:

3) Humanities PhDs are indeed more or less just 'job training' for academic positions, or at least traditionally have been conceived and run as such.  Of course, as has also been pointed out regularly here and in the old fora over the years, up through the 90s there was the stated (by academics, administrators, etc) *expectation* that there would in fact be academic work for those completing these degrees.

Kind of, as long as we consider the production of scholarship as part of the job training.

[marshwiggle]

The issue of "job training" versus "personal enrichment" often comes down to an issue of depth versus breadth. The examples above show a lack of understanding of the importance of depth.

The most valuable "job training" will be that which takes a long period of sustained focus on developing skills and expertise that cannot be developed otherwise. The examples of "insurance" and "real estate" are specific cases where there are short courses and certification programs. They don't need a degree.

I don't know what you are saying there, buddy.  Why do we need "depth?"  "Depth" in what, exactly?  How much depth do you need to be trained for any job not in the sciences?

There don't seem to be a lot of graduates complaining that they didn't get enough "personal enrichment" out of their degrees. On the other hand, there seems to be quite a few complaining that their job prospects aren't what they expected. So there seems to be more of a mismatch between what students expected regarding employment than regarding personal enrichment.

So, either institutions need to do more "job training" or prospective students need to have a much more blunt message that their degree should not be relied on for employment prospects, but rather for personal enrichment. The problem is that administators don't want to give that message; instead, they keep pointing to statistics that everyone with a degree is better off in employment. (The unsatisfied grads would beg to differ, it seems.)

It should be appreciated that even people who went for "job training" don't seem to be complaining about a lack of personal enrichment, so that goal of PSE actually seems to
be being met.

You are correct that real estate does not require a great deal of knowledge, although insurance is much more complex than most people realize----still, we could have people job ready with two solid years of schooling for virtually any corporate job.  Maybe we should just have a "general business degree" instead of specialization.
 

Whether these specialized programs are in the same or different institutions doesn't matter; the point is that the investment is prolonged and intense. The training isn't just a box-checking exercise.

Exactly.  Why both with "box checking" at all?  The acquisition of knowledge is now "box checking" to some.  Why bother?

It's "box-checking" if people, after having completed it, don't think it had any benefit.

The people looking for personal enrichment will be the ones most interested in, (and potentially most likely to benefit from), lots of breadth. If their goal is personal enrichment, and they're not looking for it to be some kind of golden ticket to employment, then they should be free to choose that kind of education.

Exactly.  We will have the elite institutions and a smattering of SLACs for those students who still want to check boxes on knowledge.

Question: Is a PhD program "job training" for wannabee faculty, especially in fields where there are few places outside academia where a PhD is required? If it's not, why is there so much "adjunct porn" about PhDs without jobs, as if the PhD was assumed to have been automatically followed by solid employment?

For years the adjunct situation has flummoxed and confused you, Marshy.  It has been explained numerous times.  This is very strange.

As for all those wanna be academics, the PhD programs would be shut down, obviously, because there will be no need for them and we will save a lot of money----except for 2 or 3 in each discipline at the Ivies which will supply the box checking schools.

The question about PhD programs is how many people who completed them are dissatisfied with the resulting outcomes. That's no different than any other programs, "job training" or otherwise.

[Wahoo Redux]

There don't seem to be a lot of graduates complaining that they didn't get enough "personal enrichment" out of their degrees. On the other hand, there seems to be quite a few complaining that their job prospects aren't what they expected. So there seems to be more of a mismatch between what students expected regarding employment than regarding personal enrichment.

So, either institutions need to do more "job training" or prospective students need to have a much more blunt message that their degree should not be relied on for employment prospects, but rather for personal enrichment. The problem is that administators don't want to give that message; instead, they keep pointing to statistics that everyone with a degree is better off in employment. (The unsatisfied grads would beg to differ, it seems.)

It should be appreciated that even people who went for "job training" don't seem to be complaining about a lack of personal enrichment, so that goal of PSE actually seems to
be being met.

It's "box-checking" if people, after having completed it, don't think it had any benefit.

Exactly.  So, let's simply get rid of all the box checking.  It serves no purpose.

College should be job training.

The question about PhD programs is how many people who completed them are dissatisfied with the resulting outcomes. That's no different than any other programs, "job training" or otherwise.

Is PhD regret a thing?

A PhD ruined my life

Is PhD regret a thing?