- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
avjones wrote:I don't know what you mean by getting 8.0 in an essay - as far as I'm aware, British universities tend to give either percentages, or grades (1st, 2:i, etc)
There is no way can compare scores in this manner as they are essentially looking a 2 different things. For a Uni essay they are marking you on the strength of your analysis, arguements and conclusions for a set question. For IELTS they are looking at how you structure your sentences, your comprehension skills and the level of your vocabulary. While assignments in Uni may be marked down because of this it would usually only be worth 5% of the overall score.pantaiema wrote:Amanda
What I mean with 7.0 or 8.0 is that a student gets 70 % or 80% respectively on his essay. If a student submit his essay on certain module/subject the professor will mark his essay and he will give the mark such as 50%, 60%, 70 %, etc. If U get >= 70 it means that student pass this subject with commendation/distinction.
I deliberately compare this with IELTS for simplification so people who do not know or have not tried IELTS yet know how the magic number 8.0 mean, of course this is over simplification.
egoode wrote:
There is no way can compare scores in this manner as they are essentially looking a 2 different things. For a Uni essay they are marking you on the strength of your analysis, arguements and conclusions for a set question. For IELTS they are looking at how you structure your sentences, your comprehension skills and the level of your vocabulary. While assignments in Uni may be marked down because of this it would usually only be worth 5% of the overall score.
The case that I am talking about is about the Chinese students in postgraduate education not is undergraduate. FYI, Majority of Chinese students who are studying in the UK is in PG education not UG.2 there's no point talking about the IELTS requirements to get into an undergraduate programme, because the HSMP requirements are set implicitly for those who have a completed the first degree. So technically, we should be looking at IELTS requirements for postgraduate study, that which is required to be considered for a programme that presumes completion of the first degree.
Yes it is too much and unfair if U could not prove that the majority of people in highly skilled job in the UK have achieved IELTS of 8.0. Do U have any evidence to prove it otherwise? FYI, to some extents There is also subjective elements on IELTS test, because the speaking and writing test will open to interpretation of the examiners. Ie means If U r tested today by one examiners and U get 8.0 in speaking and writing, there is nor guarantee that U will get the same point If U r tested by another examiner (even at the same day).3. You can't make the argument that IELTS 8 is ridiculously high, arguing (erroneously) as you've done that it's equivalent to a first; therefore, the requirement should be much lower, even at 6 -- blithely ignoring that the IELTS scores exist on a continuum with three options in between. That said, one university characterised an IELTS 8 score as indicative of 'fully operational command of the language' with the ability to handle 'complex detailed arguments well'; is that too much to ask of someone highly skilled ?
I fully agree with your argument HSMP tier 1 is all about discrimination but for the system to be sustainable it should be based on fair discrimination.4. It has never been that HSMP requirements are meant to be intrinsically fair (non-discriminatory). They have always been meant to discriminate, by skills, by education, by actual or potential earnings, and (formerly) by years of experience. So what's so unreasonable about discriminating on the basis of English-language proficiency ? You're talking as if one can separate being highly-skilled from being proficient in the English language, which completely misses the critical point that being proficient in the language constitutes part of what the BIA (and employers) define as being highly-skilled. Being highly skilled is not terribly useful if the migrant can't communicate adequately, or if the rest of us can't otherwise understand him well enough.
Bad example - it appears to me (and many others) that foreign doctors in the NHS don't always speak good enough English.pantaiema wrote:
- It has been proven that the majority of the NHS doctor working did not get 8.0. NHS doctors is in tier according to new proposal, are not they?
Isn't that true for ANY language test?pantaiema wrote: Not to mention it offers unfair advantage to people come from the countries where English is one of the official language such as US, Aust, NZ, CN.
Amanda, you probably compare yourselves with the foreign NHS doctors. You are barrister and native speaker therefore I think you should not compare it with foreign NHS doctor. The requirement to become NHS doctor have been set up and sofar they have not been changed, and there is no serious complain abaout this, which mean that at this level it is satisfactory to conduct their job. Of course the higher of english knowledge U have reached the better it is but this should be balanced with their other medical knowledge.pantaiema
It has been proven that the majority of the NHS doctor working did not get 8.0. NHS doctors is in tier according to new proposal, are not they
Bad example - it appears to me (and many others) that foreign doctors in the NHS don't always speak good enough English.
I agree with U however if you know that many highly skilled people from non English speaking countries could not achieve this level within reasonable time, and you have evidence that this people could perform their job satisfactory are you going to say this is a fair system.pantaiema
Not to mention it offers unfair advantage to people come from the countries where English is one of the official language such as US, Aust, NZ, CN.
Isn't that true for ANY language test?
Yes it is really matter. Increasing the score from 5.0 to 6.0 needs 30 weeks course from the Australian journal that You have mentioned before.Does it matter whether the requirement is IELTS 7 versus IELTS 8 ? Probably not, if one assumes that there is no functional difference between the two scores. For those who do discern a difference, then setting the requirement at IELTS 8 would likely be inspirational.
As far as I have seen it is true. A know quite reasonable number of students who finished their BSc degree in English speaking countries such as US, NZ, UK, CN, AUT. If they want to apply for foreign scholarship they normally required to sit for IELTS again, to meet the requirement of the scholarship. Normally it is required >=6.5. I have not heard any of them have got 8.0. If U want to prove this U could also ask any of your PG students if any of them have got IELTS of 8.0.I'm not sure how categorically true it would be for one to claim that English fluency at the end of a first degree is 'still far below IELTS 8.0'. That may well be true in countries where English is not an official language, but false where English is. Based on my experience in US and UK universities (studying and teaching),.
Ask any of your students who finished their Bachelor degree in english speaking country and currently taking PG course in your subjects. Are there any of them have got 8.0. U might want to tell us any of your finding in this forum.I would contradict the claim that students could finish a first degree with a demonstrated English-language proficiency equivalent to less than IELTS 8.0
gordon wrote: And it's a bit silly to argue that a higher IELTS requirement would be inappropriate because the vast majority of those currently on HSMP would not meet it - the point of raising the requirement is to attract applicants who perform at a higher standard, to compel current visaholders to meet that higher standard, and to allay employers' concerns about the English-language proficiency levels of the migrant workforce !
AG
gordon wrote:I'm not sure how your argument is meant to advance the debate. One can scarcely say that a raising of the standard for highly skilled migrants is a bad thing, let alone that making a requirement more difficult to meet constitutes unfairness. And it's a bit silly to argue that a higher IELTS requirement would be inappropriate because the vast majority of those currently on HSMP would not meet it - the point of raising the requirement is to attract applicants who perform at a higher standard, to compel current visaholders to meet that higher standard, and to allay employers' concerns about the English-language proficiency levels of the migrant workforce !
Your posts are consistently devoid of any awareness of the implicit abstraction you make between being highly skilled and having adequate language proficiency, a fallacious abstraction that utterly ignores the indispensible nature of language proficiency even in the HSMP application assessment. After all, out of all the areas in the application in which one can garner points or satisfy criteria, in which two would the absence of credit guarantee a refusal ? Education and language proficiency -- together the two necessary (but not sufficient) elements of being highly skilled.
And it does your argument no favours to say that one cannot appreciate IELTS 8 without sitting the examination. If you don't think that a native English-speaking teacher cannot discern the functional difference between IELTS 6 and 7 and 8, then I would wonder what you think actually goes on in a university course. And this same ability to discern is scarcely limited to those in university settings.
AG
gordon wrote: As for the plea for 'fair discrimination': I fail to see why policy discrimination on the basis of language ability is any less acceptable (or fair) than discrimination on the basis of earnings or education. .
gordon wrote: And it does your argument no favours to say that one cannot appreciate IELTS 8 without sitting the examination. If you don't think that a native English-speaking teacher cannot discern the functional difference between IELTS 6 and 7 and 8, then I would wonder what you think actually goes on in a university course. And this same ability to discern is scarcely limited to those in university settings.
AG
gordon wrote:Your arguments make no sense. And I can't even be bothered to discuss your ridiculous hypothetical of the random Nobel Prize winner applying for HSMP.
.
pantaiema wrote:It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.
gordon wrote:And yet in an earlier thread you yourself had been keen to deride someone else's argument that Bill Gates would not qualify for HSMP; suddenly a hypothetical of equal absurdity merits discussion ?pantaiema wrote:It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.
pantaiema wrote:U r confusing Highly skilled Migrant and Investor related migrants.
Here we are discussing higly skilled migrant not investo related migrant.
gordon wrote:And yet in an earlier thread you yourself had been keen to deride someone else's argument that Bill Gates would not qualify for HSMP; suddenly a hypothetical of equal absurdity merits discussion ?pantaiema wrote:It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.
VictoriaS wrote:As for level 8, well, this seems to me to be a rather transparant way to discourage all but native English speakers to apply. It is a way of saying "we want all the Yanks, Aussies, Kiwi, Canuks, but we didn't expect the HSMP to bring in all these Indians and Pakistanis, so lets put in a language test so harsh that all but a small few will pass". Kinda like literacy tests for voting in the US back in the 30's.