The costs and wastes of official bilingualism

[?Impact]

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.

So you are going out and learning Mandarin then? Of course don't expect to sell a plug nickel worth of stuff to the European market.

[Argus]

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

Yes, because of the low quality of our schools, and the fact upper middle class parents have cottoned onto the fact that if they can get their kid into the immersion stream he or she will wind up leaving behind minorities, natives, poor people, and all those with learning disabilities or behavioural problems.

[Argus]

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.

I don't question that bilingualism is necessary in that citizens have the right to deal with the government in French and English. What I question is the wisdom of requiring ALL senior managers and executives to be fluently bilingual, despite the fact virtually none have any contact with the public at all.

[Argus]

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.

You are wrong on all counts.

The study found that English is the first foreign language studied in secondary schools in every country outside Britain and Ireland.

The results of the survey are a particular blow to the French, who recently launched a failed bid for their language to be made the sole official language of the EU headquarters in Brussels, claiming their mother tongue was "more precise".

However the report by Eurostat, the EU's statistics body found that only 12 per cent of people wanted to be French speakers, compared to 66 per cent for English and 20 per cent for German.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/8041916/English-becomes-Europes-second-language.html

[Bryan]

So you are going out and learning Mandarin then? Of course don't expect to sell a plug nickel worth of stuff to the European market.

Learning Mandarin would be a much more productive use of the time, for sure.

[overthere]

The real bonus is you get a job that 95% of the competition can't apply for. You get a job that, if those people were competing for it, you probably would not get. And you get promoted where you probably wouldn't otherwise. Of course, the cost to the organization is hard to quantify since there are no budget items under "Bad management decisions made because of low quality executives."

In reality, pretty much everybody at EX level and above is a 'low quality executive'. Nobody that is really good in the private sector in similar levels of authority would work for that money,, in the $100k to $150k range. It attracts people that have superior talent in moving up the civil service ladder, with little relationship to 'real world' skills and abilities. Profit? Who cares about stinking profits?

[cybercoma]

Another myopic view of the world, and of education.

Look at the big picture! We should be speaking Mandarin and Spanish. English is a lousy third in terms of number of native speakers.

But I guess that's not the "big picture" they're teferring to here.

[cybercoma]

Yes, because of the low quality of our schools, and the fact upper middle class parents have cottoned onto the fact that if they can get their kid into the immersion stream he or she will wind up leaving behind minorities, natives, poor people, and all those with learning disabilities or behavioural problems.

The low quality of whose schools? They're provincial jurisdiction.

[Peter F]

I don't question that bilingualism is necessary in that citizens have the right to deal with the government in French and English. What I question is the wisdom of requiring ALL senior managers and executives to be fluently bilingual, despite the fact virtually none have any contact with the public at all.

But most, if not all, of those big shots have francophone employees somewhere - and even Anglo employees - that they must also deal with in regards to

oversight; communications; Grievances etc etc. employees as much as citizens get to deal with the federal government in their preferred language.

[Peter F]

Profit? Who cares about stinking profits?

Exactly. Keeping costs within budgets certainly. But profit? in the civil service? Not a priority.

[Big Guy]

Vous voulez un emploi , alors vous apprendre le français.

[Argus]

But most, if not all, of those big shots have francophone employees somewhere - and even Anglo employees - that they must also deal with in regards to

oversight; communications; Grievances etc etc. employees as much as citizens get to deal with the federal government in their preferred language.

There is no reason for all senior managers and executives to be bilingual just to deal with internal employees who only got their jobs because of their bilingualism. I cannot imagine a private sector company hiring bilingual customer service staff then deciding that all their senior executives had to be bilingual in order to accommodate the linguistic wishes of that staff. Even suggesting it would get you treated as though you were insane.

[Peter F]

There is no reason for all senior managers and executives to be bilingual just to deal with internal employees who only got their jobs because of their bilingualism. I cannot imagine a private sector company hiring bilingual customer service staff then deciding that all their senior executives had to be bilingual in order to accommodate the linguistic wishes of that staff. Even suggesting it would get you treated as though you were insane.

There are levels of bilingualism. Those at the lowest level do not speak the other language perfectly. This is important to the employee when their non-bilingual manager is trying to communicate important things to them.

[Argus]

There are levels of bilingualism. Those at the lowest level do not speak the other language perfectly. This is important to the employee when their non-bilingual manager is trying to communicate important things to them.

Almost all important information I ever got while working for the federal government came in bilingual emailed documents. Yes, I could deal with my manager in English, but since their own English was often significantly imperfect, well, I preferred the emails. As for higher level executive types, I never spoke with them much until I got higher level myself. And none ever communicated anything to me that was worth hearing.

People hired for customer service positions are expected to have a high enough level of fluency to discuss complicated tax and benefit issues with people of either official language. Are you suggesting that they are then incapable of talking about their desire for overtime or a transfer, or complaining their chair is broken or their pay is off in either official language? That doesn't make sense to me, and I rarely met anyone I couldn't communicate with with a little extra effort.

And frankly, even the customer service positions don't have to be bilingual. Most communication with the government now comes in the form of emails and phone calls. It is trivially easy to have two streams (select 1 for English, 2 for French), and thus hire uni-lingual staff. The unilingual Francophone would be in Quebec (where the language of work is French) and the Anglos everywhere else (where the language of work is English). That would clearly require certain people to be bilingual at higher levels, but I've never argued nobody should be bilingual, just that not everyone needs to be.

[cannuck]

but I've never argued nobody should be bilingual, just that not everyone needs to be.

Nor do they "NEED" to learn science, history, music, etc.

Contrary to a much earlier post in this thread, education is NOT about being employable, it is about making a person well rounded individual who may appreciate being able to learn further. Language skills just happen to contribute a great deal to that process.

Vocational education is all about employment, and that is why we tend to have very narrowly focused (or unfocused) professionals in our lives. Universities have deteriorated to the point where many faculties have become mere extensions of the community college system. People with professional degrees who went there just to pass the tests and be graduated as an "xx" professional tend to be pretty much useless in the real world because they lack the understanding of the scientific concepts of the technology that they use in their profession. This is something I have heard time and again from academia - 99% of the class just want to get to the end of the course, not learn the actual material and I see in the field when some academic whiz kid in one discipline hasn't got a clue how all of the rest of the science and technology in the equipment we support works - and when it is deeply needed to understand what problem we are chasing.

One of my kids stopped teaching at nearby U as soon as her research was complete. Reason? You guessed it: sick of kids in her classes who had no interest in learning. My experience is that European schools do better at this, and Asian schools lag behind even North America.

[TimG]

Contrary to a much earlier post in this thread, education is NOT about being employable, it is about making a person well rounded individual who may appreciate being able to learn further.

Ironically the PC infested arts programs can't really argue they provide this any more since they have become to narrowly focused on a single ideology. At this point a vocational training is the only way to get something useful out of a university.

[Bryan]

Look at the big picture! We should be speaking Mandarin and Spanish. English is a lousy third in terms of number of native speakers.

But I guess that's not the "big picture" they're teferring to here.

No, that definitely would be looking at the bigger picture in a much more rational way. Having Mandarin and Spanish as available educational programs is a very good idea. Having Fench as mandatory in any capacity is a terrible one.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Bryan

[cybercoma]

No, that definitely would be looking at the bigger picture in a much more rational way. Having Mandarin and Spanish as available educational programs is a very good idea. Having Fench as mandatory in any capacity is a terrible one.

Only because you're not French and don't recognize the fact that they have legal rights as the original settlers of this country.

[Bryan]

Only because you're not French and don't recognize the fact that they have legal rights as the original settlers of this country.

When have I said I don't recognize the legality of it? I've been talking about the effects of that legality in this thread.

[poochy]

In my profession English is in fact the official, and only language operations is allowed to use out side of Quebec, that includes internationally, but if you want a Job at head office, which happens to be in Ottawa, o you had best speak french, as a former crown corporation it still mirrors the absolutely ridiculous policy of the federal government.

[cannuck]

Only because you're not French and don't recognize the fact that they have legal rights as the original settlers of this country.

Uh...the first settlers followed the receding glaciers over 15,000 years ago. Nordic settlers predated froggy by quite a bit. By your standard, our official second language should be Inuktitut.

[cannuck]

Ironically the PC infested arts programs can't really argue they provide this any more since they have become to narrowly focused on a single ideology. At this point a vocational training is the only way to get something useful out of a university.

I don't care how much PC crap an arts course spins, what is important is that the student learn enough about the thought process to be able to evaluate the material presented and either accept or reject it based upon understanding the concepts. When a student (the vast majority) arrives for the purpose of graduating instead of learning, their minds are sufficiently closed to be able to swallow the BS without question. What was the point of this "universal education" if they don't learn to learn, evaluate, analyse? It is not just the institution, but the culture we have created that worships ignorance without question - in fact celebrates it (notice: I said that without once mentioning religion or stick-and-ball sports? - proud of my restraint).

Want a perfect example? How incredibly ignorant would one have to be to design and build infrastructure in a manner that 100% guarantees that it will fail prematurely? Well, civil engineers are just those ignorami. They spend four years playing bridge and getting stoned only to take away without question the moronic practice of placing steel rebar into concrete - thus causing premature failure of virtually ever bridge, edifice, etc. built over the last century or so. Had they been taught to think, one quick recollection of high school history would make it dawn on them that intelligently designed concrete structures have been standing just fine for more than two millenia.

[Argus]

Nor do they "NEED" to learn science, history, music, etc.

I think we need to differentiate between core courses, like Science and History, and add-ons, like Music and French.

Contrary to a much earlier post in this thread, education is NOT about being employable, it is about making a person well rounded individual who may appreciate being able to learn further.

That is a nice philosophical concept but it's wrong. Education is about producing workers for the economy so society can function. This is once again differentiating between 'core' and 'add-on'.

Language skills just happen to contribute a great deal to that process.

Really? How many of the great scientific advances of the past twenty five years have been made by 'bilingual' people with 'well rounded' educations? Was Bill Gates bilingual? Steve Jobs? Elon Musk?

Universities have deteriorated to the point where many faculties have become mere extensions of the community college system. People with professional degrees who went there just to pass the tests and be graduated as an "xx" professional tend to be pretty much useless in the real world because they lack the understanding of the scientific concepts of the technology that they use in their profession.

No, they're not useless. They serve a function in filling all those job vacancies. Most people are just workers. It doesn't matter what education they have. Only the rare few are inspired outside-the-box thinkers. These are the ones with the knack, with the drive, with the ideas, and it really doesn't matter if they have a wide grounding in the arts, music and law while they were attending computer engineering courses. They'll be constantly thinking of ways to improve things because that's the way they're made.

[Argus]

I don't care how much PC crap an arts course spins, what is important is that the student learn enough about the thought process to be able to evaluate the material presented and either accept or reject it based upon understanding the concepts.

But that doesn't seem to be the intent. The intent seems to be to teach them that there is ONE and only ONE way to look at issues, and any other way is heresy.

When a student (the vast majority) arrives for the purpose of graduating instead of learning, their minds are sufficiently closed to be able to swallow the BS without question. What was the point of this "universal education" if they don't learn to learn, evaluate, analyse?

I'm not disagreeing with you, except that I don't believe a French course is going to do that. I'd substitute a Logic course. And btw, from what I understand, a bigger problem with students arriving at university is their lack of functional English, not French, and the need to put them into remedial courses just so they'll be able to read and write papers to something approaching a university level.

Want a perfect example? How incredibly ignorant would one have to be to design and build infrastructure in a manner that 100% guarantees that it will fail prematurely?

Or is it that the politicians want the quick and cheap method instead? I understand that we can pave roads in such a way that they will last a lot longer without breaking up under the stresses of sand, salt, freezing and thawing. We don't because it's cheaper this way. Well... it's cheaper for the short term. It's cheaper if you ignore the cost to society of all the road damage caused to people's vehicles. But politicians are short-term thinkers, and seldom care about what's best for society as compared to what's best for themselves.

[-TSS-]

For native English-speakers, especially Americans and British, it is a question of not bothering because they see learning a foreign language as a waste of time and they are more or less right about that.

For speakers of other big languages such as French, Spanish, Russian speaking only your language is often regarded as patriotic. I know it is a stupi idea but that is genuinely what some people in those countries say.

If a Finn in Finland was boasting about speaking Finnish only people would laugh at him and ask why didn't he go to school when he was young.