Yes, it is a fact that majority of scientists are not native English Speakers. However, majority of desired research logistics and destination outlets are found in Anglo-America. I would say, basic standard English (eg. tense, concord, structure, comprehension, summary) that affords everyone else (even the native English speaker) the opportunity to do effective scientific/technical communication in the most accurate and concise English language is what ought to be assessed/ascertained. High verbal aptitude by native English standards as predominates our current aptitude tests (GRE, TOEFL, IELTS), in my opinion, does very little in attempting to assess adequate skills in scientific/technical communication which frequently come already acquired in other native languages. This would allow non-native English speakers (who happen to be the majority of scientists and engineers) to use time which would otherwise have been spent learning verbiage to learn other very important skills like math, modelling and programming language.
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:05:49 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] language exam for Ph.D. students? > To: [email protected] > > This is all interesting to me. I need to ask which is more beneficial: > taking the time to learn english well or taking the time to learn and add a > skill to your analytical toolbox? Also if is science is to become a greater > part of society shouldn't english speaking scientists take the time to learn > a second language? The majority of humans and don't speak english. I'm also > willing to bet that most scientists don't speak english. Just some thoughts > to stir the pot. > Cheers. > Daniel > ________________________________________ > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Akwasi Asamoah > [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] language exam for Ph.D. students? > > Dear Ash, > Yes, math and computer skills are more critical requirements for science but > some reasonable level of basic standard English is also very crucial. Often > poor, inappropriate or complex language hugely drain comprehension out of our > science and engineering. I do believe that though GRE, TOEFL, IELTS and their > like can be an efficient mens of assessing English Proficiency, they do not > in themselves constitute effective means of testing proficiency in scientific > or technical communication. Thus, why communication requirements like english > translation of and/or quizzing on peer-reviewed publications may come in > handy as addition means of further ascertaining true technical or scientific > proficiency. > I mean if we are to be truly honest with ourselves, one does not have to have > such high verbal aptitude to read, critique and communicate scientific and > technical facts. it may be agreed that sometimes high verbal aptitude breeds > costly liberties with the English language (as is often with inexperienced > so-called 'native speakers'). The more they try to prove their nativeness in > language, the more they are likely to be needlessly verbose to the erosion of > understanding. Often, scientific and technical papers are rejected purely on > the basis of strange English language, as though the the non-native author > (s) suddenly invented their own English language for their paper. > Thus, I think our English proficiency tests should aim to test more of > reliable indicators of adequate knowledge of standard basic English by way of > basic english grammar (concord), lexis and structures, and comprehension than > the testing of high verbal aptitude which often throws science and > engineering in ambiguity and haywire. > Scientific and/or technical communication is not exactly the same as the > English literature as is known or approved by native speakers. Thus, > prospective recruiters would need to find a more effective way of assessing > proficiency in technical and/or scientific communication for successful > completion of early career research work. > Akwasi > > Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:50:45 +0000 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] language exam for Ph.D. students? > > To: [email protected] > > > > Just to be fair we should implement an exam to ensure that all graduate > > students are fluent in at least one computer language- regardless of native > > language! I would argue that logical computer syntax is more critical than > > illogical English syntax to one's future success in science. > > > > ash > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Inouye > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 4:38 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] language exam for Ph.D. students? > > > > I know Univ. of NC still had a requirement in mid-1970s as I had to take an > > exam then, and my son had to take one at Duke in the 1990s. > > Are there still any Ph.D. programs that require students take a language > > exam? Typically students had to read a paper in the chosen language, and > > then answer questions about it posed by a faculty member or committee to > > confirm comprehension. So just a reading requirement, not spoken. > > > > David Inouye
