The costs and wastes of official bilingualism

[Smallc]

And as I posted above, without the ability to use it in daily lives, it quickly fades away. So why spend so much time and effort teaching it to those who will not use it?

It's easy to regain your ability to speak it if you've already learned it.

[Army Guy]

I've noticed the same. Most English would rather shoot a dog than deign to learn another language. It is bizarre .

There has always been a French/ English discourse....with two standards, one for Quebec and one for the rest of Canada. perhaps if both languages were given equal billing, then maybe we would have more wiliness to learn it....In New Brunswick they had a program where students were required to do 1/2 a year in English and 1/2 year in French in all subjects. The program failed and now they have gone back to just one French class up until grade 9, where there is no requirement for any French.

[Topaz]

Look at it this way, if one is in a bar and two guys are talking French and are talking about an attack somewhere in Canada, wouldn't u be glad u learn the language? Education is never a waste, even if for some reason u don't always use it.

[Bryan]

These days, every Finn knows English when they are still children and it does them very well to learn a 2nd (or 3rd) language. In Canada, many people sneer at the concept of teaching children a 2nd language. It's a bizarre, politically driven viewpoint that wants to keep people stupid. I can't relate to that.

That's because the ROI of learning second languages (unless that language is english) is really low.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/03/05/is-learning-a-foreign-language-really-worth-it-full-transcript/

[?Impact]

That's because the ROI of learning second languages (unless that language is english) is really low.

Yet our country is full of cry baby whiners who didn't learn French and cry and cry that they can't get a federal job. Too bad they don't understand ROI.

[-TSS-]

Would bilingualism been ditched if the referendum in Quebec in 1995 had gone the other way?

[Argus]

Yet our country is full of cry baby whiners who didn't learn French and cry and cry that they can't get a federal job.

And our country is full of elitists who think that their second language makes them a better selection to do any number of jobs, even if they have no clue how to do the actual job.

You remind me of the old story of the bilingual lifeguard at a pool. When someone yells at him that someone is drowning he protests he can't swim. "But how did you get this job then?" the person demands. He smiles broadly. "Mais oui! Because I am bilingual!"

Edited July 1, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Would bilingualism been ditched if the referendum in Quebec in 1995 had gone the other way?

Without Quebec, less than 5% of Canadians would be bilingual. There is no way we would pay for official bilingualism, nor would the voters accept it.

[cannuck]

And our country if full of elitists who think that their second language makes them a better selection to do any number of jobs, even if they have no clue how to do the actual job.

You remind me of the old story of the bilingual lifeguard at a pool. When someone yells at him that someone is drowning he protests he can't swim. "But how did you get this job then?" the person demands. He smiles broadly. "Mais oui! Because I am bilingual!"

I am always impressed by Euro kids who come out of B School speaking four or five languages fluently. Without those skills, they are relegated to a very short career path in the EEC. In the world of business, when you start crossing borders, you really need to know the other language(s). Now, since Canada's myopic view of the world features only the USA, in particular Wall Street, it would seem more useful for kids to be taught Spanish or Hebrew than French, but the preponderance of business that is handed whilly nilly to Quebec from our massively bloated government really means they need to have French as well. I agree with the previous posts, though: if you raise your children with the goal of being a Walmart greeter, they can get by with English just fine.

My wife is the educator in our clan (one of several, but the leading light). When we were wee tykes, she took the trouble to explain to me what skills achieved in learning language (and music) mean to a child's future abilities with science and math. So, when we got married and had a family, our kids were raised with French as a first language and a very heavy music curriculum going back to infancy. We are genuine Anglos,.so it took a bit of effort.

To those who learned French and can't be bothered to continue to speak: ANYWHERE in Canada, there is great access to print and video in French. Our grandkids watch French TV, internet sites and read French books living in the middle of a Mennonite community. I laugh at that, since one of my Uncles who worked in Foreign Service after retiring from the military picked up new languages before his assignments by buying comic books (as most were written for kids in those days). Even a linguistic ignoramus (such as myself) can stumble through just about any language at a very basic level with not too much effort.

BTW: our kids speak: eldest - French/English/Math/Music (yes, the last two are "languages" in character), youngest fluent in French/English/Spanish/Ukrainian/music and conversant in German/Greek/Swahili. They spent a long time (21 years) studying mostly sciences and use their language skills regularly. Little kid recently applied for a super-plum position and was immediately moved to the short list - and they cited her genuine fluency in language rather than stumbling ineptitude of other applicants. It is anything but a government job. I guess the point I am trying to make is that adding a language (or more) to a child's education can be a key part in teaching them to love learning - and THAT IMHO is the ultimate goal.

So, while I may be somewhere right of Ghengis Khan in most views, I will gladly pay the bill for language instruction for other people's kids, as it makes them a far better student and contributes to making Canada a better country.

[Argus]

I am always impressed by Euro kids who come out of B School speaking four or five languages fluently. Without those skills, they are relegated to a very short career path in the EEC. In the world of business, when you start crossing borders, you really need to know the other language(s).

Perhaps true. Undoubtedly true is that 95% of the population of the EU is not IN the world of business. They are local shop clerks dealing with local customers, working in warehouses and factories, cleaning roads, building houses, looking after their kids at home, repairing broken refrigerators, polishing floors, fishing, farming, taking away garbage, treating the sick, arresting drunks, writing software, etc. etc. etc. Most have little to no regular contact with people from other countries.

That is even more true in Canada, where one can live ones whole life without ever encountering a Ukrainian - or French speaker - and probably will. If upper middle class families want to educate their kids in a second language, well, I certainly have no objection. But they should pay for it themselves.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Argus

[Bryan]

Now, since Canada's myopic view of the world features only the USA, in particular Wall Street, it would seem more useful for kids to be taught Spanish or Hebrew than French, but the preponderance of business that is handed whilly nilly to Quebec from our massively bloated government really means they need to have French as well.

French is almost useless. It's NOT needed anywhere at all, except where it's artificially imposed. English is imperative, no matter where you live.

Even spanish is not that important. I used to think it was, as I frequently travel to places where it is the dominant language. I've since discovered that my time is much better spent doing things that make me more money to travel than it is learning the language. The people I meet in those spanish speaking countries primarily WANT to practice their english and are not all that interested in having conversations with me in spanish.

I think the people who pick up multiple languages are a l to like those that read music or really get high level math -- with enough work, SOME people will get really good, but a large number of people literally never will no matter how hard they work -- they are wasting their time even trying.

[The_Squid]

Exactly the myopic view that Cannuck was talking about....

[Bryan]

Exactly the myopic view that Cannuck was talking about....

Exactly the opposite -- it's stepping back and looking at the much bigger picture.

[Peter F]

the bigger picture? That everyone else must learn English or they are fools yet you need not learn another language or you would qualify as a fool?

[Bryan]

the bigger picture? That everyone else must learn English or they are fools yet you need not learn another language or you would qualify as a fool?

Please show me where I used the word fool.

[Argus]

the bigger picture? That everyone else must learn English or they are fools yet you need not learn another language or you would qualify as a fool?

The big picture is a three hundred fifty million people around us speak English and 8 million speak french.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Argus

[The_Squid]

The big picture is a three hundred fifty million people around us speak English and 8 million speak french.

Another myopic view of the world, and of education.

[Argus]

Another myopic view of the world, and of education.

So reality is myopic?

The purpose of public education is to prepare people for the job market. Except in a few places like Ottawa bilingualism has a limited value on the job market.

If you want to learn it because it makes you feel more noble that's fine, but you pay for it.

[The_Squid]

So reality is myopic?

The purpose of public education is to prepare people for the job market. Except in a few places like Ottawa bilingualism has a limited value on the job market.

If you want to learn it because it makes you feel more noble that's fine, but you pay for it.

It should definitely be part of the public education system and paid for by everyone, which it is if you're lucky enough to have French immersion programs nearby.

It's not about feeling more noble, but about creating smarter people.

[Argus]

It should definitely be part of the public education system and paid for by everyone, which it is if you're lucky enough to have French immersion programs nearby.

It's not about feeling more noble, but about creating smarter people.

You don't 'create' smart people. That's even more ludicrous a suggestion than the government 'creating jobs'.

The truth is our educational systems are bloated with overpaid, under-skilled bureaucrats and 'education experts' and overpaid teachers, and can barely teach students the basics. Wasting so much money on teaching all those students a French language they will never use or need is stupid.

[Bryan]

Another myopic view of the world, and of education.

Concentrating on the 8 million rather than the 350 million (or the billions worldwide), THAT is myopic. Thinking that just because french is thrust in our faces that it must be important, THAT is myopic. The big picture is that french is virtually irrelevant in Canada, and literally irrelevant on the world stage.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Bryan

[Icebound]

Without Quebec, less than 5% of Canadians would be bilingual. There is no way we would pay for official bilingualism, nor would the voters accept it.

Without Quebec, lots of things would be different. As they would without Ontario, or without BC, or without the Prairies, or without the Maritimes..

But Quebec exists. It was part of the original 4 Canadian Provinces around which the rest of Canada evolved. And it still exists... meaning that over 1/5th of Canada's Population deems French as its first language.

French immersion education is popular across the country, including red-neck Alberta where enrollment keeps rising as a percentage of total students.

So whether "Canadians" without Quebec would or would not support Bilingualism is not relevant. Canada is NOT without Quebec.

Including Quebec within Canada is pretty small price to pay for a more-or-less peaceful, borderless trade, travel, and work zone sea to sea.

Where would Ottawa get its cheap beer if they couldn't get to a Quebec Costco without a visa?

Contrary to what Bryan might be saying in a later post.... French IS relevant. Its relevance may be diminishing, but that is in large part because both sides of the French-English fence see the advantages of bilingualism, and serving both sides in language-of-choice stops a lot of needless wrangling..

If we kept it up to the point where everybody in the country was bilingual, THEN you might say that it has truly become irrelevant.

[Peter F]

Contrary to what Bryan might be saying in a later post.... French IS relevant. Its relevance may be diminishing, but that is in large part because both sides of the French-English fence see the advantages of bilingualism, and serving both sides in language-of-choice stops a lot of needless wrangling..

Well said. As long as Quebec is part of this country then bilingualism at the Federal Government level is necessary - despite the inevitable examples of silliness.

[?Impact]

Talk about being myopic. Instead of acknowledging that French is spoken by 220 million people worldwide, there is this simplistic notion that it is only a part of Quebec. In Europe, French is the second most widely spoken language after German. English is today the third most spoken language in Europe, and after the Brexit will become extinct in trade deals with the European Union.

[Bryan]

French is spoken by 220 million people worldwide,

Out of 7.4 billion. When I was calling it irrelevant, I actually thought the number was higher than that. Thanks for proving my point though.