Type of Language Proficiency Required

[kdavid]

I'll be applying for PhD admissions this fall.

 

I'm already proficient in modern Chinese, and have a working knowledge of classical Chinese.

 

In order to make myself more competitive, I've also started learning Japanese, which I'll need to learn sooner or later anyway.

 

My question:

 

Is literacy enough not only for admissions, but also for graduation? I ask because I can learn twice as fast if I only have to worry about reading, and not also speaking, listening, and writing.

Edited January 31, 2013 by kdavid

[jogatoronto]

You only need to prove reading comprehension to graduate from a PhD program. Speaking, listening and writing are generally not tested.

[PaulZ]

I am also curious what the language proficiency test is about? Does it mainly consist of some sections of reading comprehension? Will writing in the language be a must?

[AKACaz]

It probably depends on the school, but my experience in doing research is that it's about being able to accurately translate from one language to another. Columbia, for example, sets exams where you have to translate a 300-word passage in 2 hours, with the use of a dictionary. They have some samples of their exams up here if you want to have a look: http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/doctoral/language-exams.html

[Sparky]

To pass your program's graduation requirements, reading is most likely all that is required, though it varies from school to school. However, you should keep in mind the difference between "learning a language for research" and "learning a language to pass the proficiency test." If you are planning to use the language, hardcore, in your research, you will genuinely have to know it. In such cases, one of the best ways to get better at reading? Is to practice writing.

 

Whether you need to know a language for real or just for the test, of course, depends on your research, era-area, and the availability of translations.

 

If you plan to do research in a foreign country, ability to speak can be invaluable. Basic writing literacy is useful for communicating with foreign scholars whose English is shaky or nonexistent. Listening comprehension is probably the hardest for me, personally, but if you go to international conferences it can be useful or requisite.

 

300-ish word passage in 2 hrs, with a dictionary, sounds about right for the modern language tests at my PhD school. Our Latin test is its own monster (involving prose, poetry, dictionary-less passages, untwisting complicated metaphors to determine what they actually mean, all sorts of torture).

 

My MA school required longer passages, also in 2 hrs, but you got to choose your own text in advance.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Sparky

[benedicite]

If you're doing U.S. history, do you just get the pick of a modern language? Any idea what's the norm?

[kyjin]

For graduation, reading proficiency is really all you need.  You need to prove that you can do research in that language.  I'm assuming you're doing Chinese history?  In your case, spoken fluency in Chinese is also important so you can speak with scholars in your field in China as well as North America.  I've noticed that for a lot of programs China specialists should also have reading proficiency in Japanese, so it's good you're starting now.

[golfinggurl815]

Any suggestions on how to prep for a language exam?

[New England Nat]

Language requirements for americanists depends on the program.  Many schools have eliminated them completely. 

 

The modern langauge requirements for Americanists at my program are French, German, or Spanish.  Two passages of longer than 500 words, one with and one without a dictionary, 45minutes each passage.  Test may be taken as many times as you need to pass, but must pass before your comprehensive exams.  No one can remember anyone being sent packing for failing this requirement.

 

The bitch in my program is that everyone needs to pass in either French or German, even those who have to pass in both modern and classical chinese. 

[benedicite]

Language requirements for americanists depends on the program.  Many schools have eliminated them completely. 

 

The modern langauge requirements for Americanists at my program are French, German, or Spanish.  Two passages of longer than 500 words, one with and one without a dictionary, 45minutes each passage.  Test may be taken as many times as you need to pass, but must pass before your comprehensive exams.  No one can remember anyone being sent packing for failing this requirement.

 

The bitch in my program is that everyone needs to pass in either French or German, even those who have to pass in both modern and classical chinese. 

 

Well, that doesn't sound too bad. Getting a reading handle on French isn't the hardest. But yeah, sucks for the non-Americanists.

[New England Nat]

It's just one of those old fashioned things that assumes everyone needs either french or german. 

[thedig13]

I am also curious what the language proficiency test is about? Does it mainly consist of some sections of reading comprehension? Will writing in the language be a must?

 

Essentially, for all of the language exams I've heard of, they just hand you academic texts (possibly sometimes literature?) written in said languages and expect you to be able to translate it with reasonable accuracy. As far as I know, virtually all departments offer a testing as one of the options to demonstrate proficiency. If I recall correctly, some schools let you bypass the requirement through coursework, but many others will require you to actually take their language exams, regardless of what coursework you've done to prepare.

 

Obviously, if you want to know the specifics of a particular school's foreign language requirements, you'll have to contact them directly and/or find a copy of their Graduate Handbook.

 

 

That being said, Harvard University and Columbia University's History Departments both have sample language exams and/or copies of previous years' exams on their respective web pages. They're a great way to decide if you're adequately-familiar with the language to pass the real deal, and, if not, to gauge how much more training you'll need before you're ready. For instance, I recently printed out a few of these sample exams and showed them to a Spanish professor at my university, who estimated how much further into Spanish I'd need to go before I'd have a strong chance of passing.

 - http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/language.exams.php

 - http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/doctoral/language-exams.html

 

I believe UChicago used to have samples as well, but I can't seem to find them anymore.

[BerenErchamion]

I'll be applying for PhD admissions this fall.

 

I'm already proficient in modern Chinese, and have a working knowledge of classical Chinese.

 

In order to make myself more competitive, I've also started learning Japanese, which I'll need to learn sooner or later anyway.

 

My question:

 

Is literacy enough not only for admissions, but also for graduation? I ask because I can learn twice as fast if I only have to worry about reading, and not also speaking, listening, and writing.

 

It's often not necessary for being admitted, at least not officially.

 

It may make you less competitive (I suspect that's the case with me: my undergrad school didn't offer any language relevant to my field, and my financial situation was such that at I simply could not afford to spend a summer at a language workshop--even if I could get the workshop paid for, I'd still be out the cash I'd get from working which I absolutely needed), but it's not an absolute bar as I've already received one admission with the understanding that I'd learn the required languages while I'm working on the Ph.D.

 

It probably helps that I had a rather strong record in the language I did take as an undergrad (Latin).

[CageFree]

I just took my language exam (Spanish). I had two hours to translate a page from a scholarly piece, and then answer a number of comprehension questions (in English). I was allowed to use a dictionary if I needed it.

[kdavid]

It may make you less competitive

 

How so?

 

I'll be applying to MA and PhD programs for Chinese history. I've been living in China for close to seven years, and have completed an MA (in Chinese history) in Chinese at a mainland university.

 

I've been told my language background should give me an advantage....

 

Have I been given bad information?

[pudewen]

How so?

 

I'll be applying to MA and PhD programs for Chinese history. I've been living in China for close to seven years, and have completed an MA (in Chinese history) in Chinese at a mainland university.

 

I've been told my language background should give me an advantage....

 

Have I been given bad information?

I think people were assuming that your question applied to your Chinese ability rather than to Japanese, which seems to be the language you meant.

 

I can't speak for all universities, as I'm sure it works differently elsewhere, but in my program, you need to have a reasonable level in all speaking, listening and writing Japanese as well as reading in order to take generals (and thus in order to graduate). My department requires the equivalent of three full years of Japanese instruction - for the final year, there is a special course dedicated to reading Japanese for grad students studying China or Korea, but the only option for the first two years are normal Japanese language classes, and the only way to place into the third year (or to place out of the entire requirement) is the placement exam administered by the Japanese program, which of course tests all 4 skills. It's possible that at other schools you can pass a Japanese requirement via translation exam, but I think it's relatively common for universities not to give exams of that sort in East Asian languages, but rather to rely on regular language placement exams.

 

Also, obviously, whatever Japanese you do learn will only be a bonus toward your admission, you can certainly be admitted at top programs knowing none (I was, as were most students working here on parts of East Asia other than Japan).

 

Finally, just want to caution you (though you may already realize this) that, contrary to what a lot of people who are fluent in Chinese think, you cannot read Japanese simply because you know the characters (at least, the ones that weren't made up by the Japanese) already. Japanese grammar is complex and difficult, and you will really need formal instruction to learn Japanese well enough. Self-teaching can give you a bit of a head start, but it's not close to being sufficient.

Edited February 2, 2013 by pudewen

[This is my Screen Name]

Thanks for posting those sample tests.  Very helpful in the study process.

[thedig13]

It's often not necessary for being admitted, at least not officially.

 

It may make you less competitive (I suspect that's the case with me: my undergrad school didn't offer any language relevant to my field, and my financial situation was such that at I simply could not afford to spend a summer at a language workshop--even if I could get the workshop paid for, I'd still be out the cash I'd get from working which I absolutely needed), but it's not an absolute bar as I've already received one admission with the understanding that I'd learn the required languages while I'm working on the Ph.D.

 

It probably helps that I had a rather strong record in the language I did take as an undergrad (Latin).

 

[bolded text in quotation for emphasis]

 

With respect, the idea that being better-qualified might actually hurt your chances is maybe the most ridiculous thing I've heard on this forum. Certainly, you may not have had the opportunity to study your language thus far simply due to poor access to the right resources, and maybe a school might take this into account when choosing to admit you, but a single acceptance letter does not a tidal wave of evidence make.

 

Some programs, such as UCLA (under "Foreign Language Traiing" at http://www.history.ucla.edu/academics/graduate/admission-information) or UC Berkeley (under "PhD Foreign Language Requirements" at http://history.berkeley.edu/graduate/guide-graduate-program), openly state that, within certain fields, students who don't already have extensive language training from Day 1 have an unrealistic chance of completing the program. Harvard University's History Department (http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/languages.php) expects every single grad student to be able to ace at least one foreign language proficiency exam before classes even start, and Columbia's (http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/doctoral/admissions.html) "strongly encourages" applicants to know how to read all relevant foreign languages before even enrolling.

 

To be fair, I will admit that I've run into the occasional historian who didn't think that I needed any foreign languages, but they made it very clear that, as an Americanist, I stand as the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, I've had other professors adamantly insist that all prospects lacking foreign languages get shredded during application season.

 

Most programs won't let you advance to PhD candidacy (if that) until you've passed all your language exams, so, unless you're an Americanist or a British Europeanist, which are the only fields where any school will let you graduate with less than 2 foreign languages, that means that somebody entering with 0 relevant foreign languages will have to pick up two languages in the span of 3-4 years. So, unless you think that (either 1) students -- who are already pushed to the limits through a combination of graduate-level coursework, TA/RAing duties, and obscene amounts of reading -- can realistically expect to, within 3-4 years, learn 2-4 languages well enough to successfully translate academic texts (or 2) History Departments can afford to hand out acceptances to applicants who lack a realistic chance of completing the program, since they're practically OVER-funded and their professors have tons of free time...

Edited February 4, 2013 by thedig13

[thedig13]

How so?

 

I'll be applying to MA and PhD programs for Chinese history. I've been living in China for close to seven years, and have completed an MA (in Chinese history) in Chinese at a mainland university.

 

I've been told my language background should give me an advantage....

 

Have I been given bad information?

You're fine. See my post above.

[kdavid]

Thanks to everyone for your responses thus far.

 

I possess a native-level of modern Chinese; speaking, reading, and (computer-assisted) writing--i.e. I can write essays and papers fine with a computer, but struggle writing characters by hand. I'm confident I'd have no problem translating academic texts.

 

I have a working knowledge of classical Chinese--i.e. I can read texts with a bit of effort and a dictionary.

 

I'm learning Japanese now as I know it will be necessary sooner or later. I'm currently only focusing on reading as I know that's key for research. I have no misapprehensions about how prior knowledge of Chinese translates to success in modern Japanese. I'm very aware they're too completely different languages.

 

My intention in raising the original question was to see whether or not I also need to be focusing on speaking, listening, and writing. While I'd love to be a true polyglot, I understand that my time is very limited, and setting unrealistic expectations will only cause other areas of my current projects to suffer.

 

I'd love to develop oral fluency in Japanese at a later point, when I have the time.

 

Thanks again for all your help!

[ReallyNiceGuy]

the dig- thanks a lot for those links- they're really helpful.

 

I have a question and I hope someone on here could maybe offer an answer?

Some of the schools that the dig listed considered a B in the second semester of the second year of a language to be sufficient for entry.

Do you think that someone with near fluency in their primary language and one academic year and a summer intensive (say, Middlebury) in their secondary language would meet that qualification? I'm just curious if one academic year plus one intensive summer= 4 semesters.

 

Thanks everyone and good luck if you're applying this season.

[New England Nat]

RNG,

 

I think you really need to understand that language requirements are different in every department and no one is going to be able to answer your question in general.  Some would accept it, others wouldn't, some would require a test and the actual training is irrelevent to them.

[CageFree]

My program requires a department-administered test and will not accept grades as "proof," but like NEN said, policies vary by department.

[New England Nat]

Exactly.  And mine wont even accept the language exams administered by the university's own foreign language department.

[thedig13]

the dig- thanks a lot for those links- they're really helpful.

 

I have a question and I hope someone on here could maybe offer an answer?

Some of the schools that the dig listed considered a B in the second semester of the second year of a language to be sufficient for entry.

Do you think that someone with near fluency in their primary language and one academic year and a summer intensive (say, Middlebury) in their secondary language would meet that qualification? I'm just curious if one academic year plus one intensive summer= 4 semesters.

 

Thanks everyone and good luck if you're applying this season.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sufficient for entry."

 

If you mean, will they accept you as a first-year graduate student? Maybe. But obviously, more is better, it shouldn't be the biggest strength of your application, as plenty of those you'll be competing against will have more than 2 years.

 

On the other hand, if what you mean is "will I finish a PhD program," then, as others have pointed out, it depends. Most schools will expect you to take a language exam once you're there, regardless of how much coursework you did as an undergrad -- you can say whatever you want on an application, but actually proving it is another matter entirely.