I'm amazed that there isn't more discussion about the huge downsides of this system.
I see quite a bit of discussion about it in the UK, perhaps because the average British person is for all intents and purposes as monolingual as the average American...except that multilingual Europe is only a couple of hours away from the UK. The problem that's often cited is that for "everybody else," the obvious second language is English...but if your first language is already English, there's no consensus about what the second language ought to be.
When I was in high school, I put a lot of work into becoming fluent in Spanish--thinking, given number of Spanish speakers in the US, that it would be a useful language to master. Well, guess what? I never kept the language up because I never *had* to use it, and now all that's left of all those years of work is pretty high level reading comprehension in Spanish. Which I don't need, either. T_T
What *is* rarely talked about, though, is how the American academy is so supremely insular and self-supplying. Almost certainly moreso in that sense than the UK. I know this intellectually, but I admit it's hard for me to *really* understand that because my linguistic and cultural competency makes it "native terrain." I was warned back home, in not so many words, that while a year of two of experience abroad is viewed as a plus, actually getting your PhD abroad is just too damn much experience abroad from the American academy's perspective! (It sounds like a joke...but it isn't.)
Learning a language that is totally unrelated to your own and that's of no use to you in daily life is difficult and time-consuming, and learning to express yourself in that language on an academic level is fiendishly hard.
Yup.
Anyone who has to jump through all those hoops before being 'allowed' onto the international academic scene in any field is at huge disadvantage compared to native English speakers.
Alas. More evidence that it's not a meritocracy out there, that's for sure.
You're nearing the end of your program, right? Four years?
WHUT?! Where did you get that idea?! >_< I did a master's degree at NYU, which might be what you're thinking of. Nope, I just started the PhD program in Cambridge this past October. It's supposed to be three years long (Year One: Research Design, Year Two: Research Execution, Year Three: Writeup), and that's what I've got funding for, but new rule instituted just a couple of years ago says that I'm allowed up to a maximum of four years. Needless to say, I'm in a race against time with my funding, not with the four year maximum, which is why I'm starting to write *now*. >_<
Another one for the mile-long 'to read' list... Yey? I really need three months off from absolutely everything so I can just read some bloody books :)
*laughs* I know how you feel! One of the other PhD students in my department calls it "The Good Student Would Read This" list.
no subject
I see quite a bit of discussion about it in the UK, perhaps because the average British person is for all intents and purposes as monolingual as the average American...except that multilingual Europe is only a couple of hours away from the UK. The problem that's often cited is that for "everybody else," the obvious second language is English...but if your first language is already English, there's no consensus about what the second language ought to be.
When I was in high school, I put a lot of work into becoming fluent in Spanish--thinking, given number of Spanish speakers in the US, that it would be a useful language to master. Well, guess what? I never kept the language up because I never *had* to use it, and now all that's left of all those years of work is pretty high level reading comprehension in Spanish. Which I don't need, either. T_T
What *is* rarely talked about, though, is how the American academy is so supremely insular and self-supplying. Almost certainly moreso in that sense than the UK. I know this intellectually, but I admit it's hard for me to *really* understand that because my linguistic and cultural competency makes it "native terrain." I was warned back home, in not so many words, that while a year of two of experience abroad is viewed as a plus, actually getting your PhD abroad is just too damn much experience abroad from the American academy's perspective! (It sounds like a joke...but it isn't.)
Learning a language that is totally unrelated to your own and that's of no use to you in daily life is difficult and time-consuming, and learning to express yourself in that language on an academic level is fiendishly hard.
Yup.
Anyone who has to jump through all those hoops before being 'allowed' onto the international academic scene in any field is at huge disadvantage compared to native English speakers.
Alas. More evidence that it's not a meritocracy out there, that's for sure.
You're nearing the end of your program, right? Four years?
WHUT?! Where did you get that idea?! >_< I did a master's degree at NYU, which might be what you're thinking of. Nope, I just started the PhD program in Cambridge this past October. It's supposed to be three years long (Year One: Research Design, Year Two: Research Execution, Year Three: Writeup), and that's what I've got funding for, but new rule instituted just a couple of years ago says that I'm allowed up to a maximum of four years. Needless to say, I'm in a race against time with my funding, not with the four year maximum, which is why I'm starting to write *now*. >_<
Another one for the mile-long 'to read' list... Yey? I really need three months off from absolutely everything so I can just read some bloody books :)
*laughs* I know how you feel! One of the other PhD students in my department calls it "The Good Student Would Read This" list.