These are tough questions for experienced educators and legislators to grapple with, to say nothing of the lowly neophyte grad student. The questions might be summed up in a question apropos to the filling of the Titanic's lifeboats: "Who gets in?"
Key to the filling of the college "lifeboat" is whether the student brings the requisite skills to row his own boat. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be an infinite supply of lifeboats and endless space in each one. That is, if we place the highest premium on inclusivity. But certainly there is a point of diminishing returns on most things, and college education inclusivity might be one of them. Just as I-Pads are esteemed in part because of their price and partly for their utilitarian value, graduation from an academic institution carries weight because of a) the difficulty to get in and b) the usefulness of the education it offers. If I-Pads suddenly dropped in price to $1 each, no doubt their esteem would drop with the price. Similarly, if unqualified students are permitted to enter college, or, more problematic, continue through normal coursework after failing Subject A, the general standards of that school's education stands to diminish, devaluing the school's reputation. In a short time, while more students might be entering that school, their diplomas would become a devalued currency.
This said, when it comes to English skills, what's fair for a college to expect of students who enter? Indeed, why, one might ask, should students be held responsible for any mastery of the language at all, whether it be listening, speaking, reading, writing or grammar? Certainly a good number of students enter with a great proficiency in their first languages. Why bother with English if they plan to return, as some do, to their first language neighborhoods, to their native countries to build their careers?
Fair enough, but how shall we instruct them? SFSU, for example, has dozens of foreign languages spoken on campus. Would it be feasible to teach each student in his own first language? Actually, as it stands, no, but eventually, if all classes went online for example, yes. But then, that SFSU would be a very different institution. If students want online programs, they can be found. Rather, it seems probable that a college like SFSU is popular today in part because it's a solid education in, among other things, English skills. Indeed, students come to American universities to develop those English skills because such skills, in themselves, are highly marketable in today's job search.
But first students need a minimum level of English proficiency in order to function in courses across the curriculum. This is why students are tested on SAT English abilities, and why foreign students are tested in the TOEFL. (As to whether these tests are sufficient for measuring a student's capacity to succeed at the college level, those are questions for another forum.) Bottom line, I believe we must agree that each student ought to arrive with skills that equip him to study (if not excel) at the college level. These skills include ample vocabulary, grammar, listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. They need to understand their professors and they need to be able to converse in discussion sections. If there are borderline students whose skills need fine tuning, then they ought to be given the chance to catch up to speed, so to speak. As it is, such students are now given a full year to do so with the assistance of tutors provided free by the school itself. Some might argue that this is too much time, others might say it's not nearly enough.
Certainly it might be said that there is an undue amount of consideration placed on reading and writing at the college level, and that this gives foreign students an edge over many students raised in this country who grew up in homes where English was not the first language. This group, sometimes called Generation 1.5, tends to come from lower income neighborhoods with poorer schools where language skills like writing (indeed, some would say, education as a whole) is not emphasized. Generation1.5, some say, represents the new America and, as such, deserves every chance to succeed, both for their sake and for the benefit of the country as a whole.
As far as English skills, Generation 1.5 brings a knowledge of spoken English which foreign students can hardly match. Yet these skills are scarcely rewarded; indeed, some would say they're ignored in favor of focusing, instead, on what they lack, namely writing proficiency. Ironically, as a useful skill beyond graduation, how many students will be constructing meaningful essays? On the other hand, according to the Liberal Arts tradition, writing and the language arts as a whole are vital because they develop the student's intellectual depth and permit him to enter into the the intellectual conversation. More importantly, such skills, it's said, develop not mere rhetors but independent thinkers, the cornerstone of democracy both here and abroad.
Ultimately, to admit students lacking college level English proficiency does the greatest disservice, not to the institution, nor to native English speaking colleagues, but to those struggling students themselves. A college education is an expensive gift these days, both in terms of time and finance. How just is it to admit students who show insufficient skills to keep up with the regimen? To offer remedial students a full year to come up to speed seems fair enough, if not generous.
No comments:
Post a Comment