Points based system - English language tests

[gordon]

pantaiema:

Well, there are some severe problems with your argument:

1. It is not remotely clear that an IELTS 8 is equivalent to a first or distinction at university (marked on a 100-point scale, with 70 being the cut point for a first (undergraduate) or distinction (postgraduate). Likewise, there is no discernible parallel between the scoring distribution on the IELTS and degree classes or essay marks at university.

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.

3. The IELTS 8 score was proposed in Feb 2005 but hasn't been floated since; the C1 on the CEFR framework proposed for tier 1 is thought to be equivalent to 6.5 or 7 on the IELTS scale. 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 ?

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.

AG

[pantaiema]

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.

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)

[avjones]

Right, with you now!

I'm not sure they English score and the university marks can be directly compared in this manner, however.

[egoode]

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.

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.

[Tibu]

I got a basic doubt while reading the doc
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/1 ... lusion.pdf
Is
"Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR)." and

"IELTS" SAME.

[pantaiema]

egoode
I just make this comparison to make people aware how IELTS 8.0 mean. I know quite reasonable number of people did not aware of it because they are using letter from University as evidence not IELTS. But the time will come when they change the requirement form 6.0 to 8.0 as the new proposal for tier 1.

I believe at the time U will not be able the letter form University for the Following Reasons:
- The level of English fluency U get when U finish BSc degree is still far below IELTS 8.0
- In order to be recognised the institution (in this case your university) is required to submit proposal to the HO. I wonder which university will be bother to this ????

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]

.

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.

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.

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 ?

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).

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.

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.
The system is unfair because:
- 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?
-While English fluency is necessary in order to success in highly skilled job, there is no evidence to suggest that people who get IELTS 8.0 will perform better 7.0. U might test the Japanese, Chinese, Korean professors, who are doing sabbatical in the UK (or in the US) research centre/universities in the area such as computer, engineering, science, if they are required to get IELTS of 8.0 I believe majority of them will fail. Are we going to suggest that they don’t belong to tier 1? I agree with U that IELTS of 6.0 is probably too low but I fully believe that IELTS of 8.0 is unfair and unjust.

If U already know that they belong to highly skilled people and they can not or extremely difficult to achieve IELTS of 8.0. Are we going to say this is a fair system?
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.

[avjones]

- 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.

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?

[gordon]

I don't think one could demonstrate that the majority of HSMP visaholders have IELTS 8, nor could one infer from my argument that such an assumption was, or should be, made. Indeed, my argument was quite the opposite: it would appear that some highly skilled migrants' language skills were sufficiently lacking that the BIA felt the need to add the English language requirement, based on the consultation in 2005. And once again, this goes back to the idea that having proper English-skills is integral (in the BIA's view) to being a highly-skilled migrant here. 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 aspirational.

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'. 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), I would contradict the claim that students could finish a first degree with a demonstrated English-language proficiency equivalent to less than IELTS 8.

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. The policy discriminates against those without the credentials/attributes, and in favour of those who possess them; what's so unfair about that sort of discrimination ? Of course it's hard on highly skilled would-be migrants with poor English skills, but to say that it's unfair (in the way that you've used the term) is akin to saying that it's unfair that dim people get rejected by Oxbridge.

[pantaiema]

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.

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.

The same thing if we say the more EU languages U know the better it is, to perform your job. But if U know that this impact is not too significant and majority of NHS doctors do not have this and people try to set this criteria, I believe that this is not a fair system. I think NHS realise this and therefore they did not set up this criteria.

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?

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]

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.

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.
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/i ... /paper.pdf :(footnote page p.70)

This correlation is not linear so to increase from 5.0 to 6.0 is much easier than to increase from 7.0 to 8.0. From what I have told peole need to study and live or work in an English speaking country for around 7.0 years to reach this level. You could ask any nurse who have been working in the UK for a few years (even more than 5 years), they will tell U that if they are required to acheive IELTS of 8.0 they doubt that they will reach this level nowadays. FYI, the requirement fro NHS nure is IELTS >=7.0, so that at the time thay start working in the UK they already have the bottom line of 7.0.

U will never know how IELTS 8.0 mean if You have not sit for IELTS yet. Only people who have tried this could testify this. Also, as I have menetioned before, there is no evidence that the all people (or say the fast majority) who have been working in the tier 1 job have achieved this standard.

We know quite a few number of Japanese professors from universities such as Kyoto, University of Tokyo have won Noble prize in science. If they are tested in IELTS, are they going to pass IELTS of 8.0? I seriously doubt it. Are we going to say that they can not perform their job in the UK well in case they decide to work as a professor in the UK? Are we going to say that they do not belongs to tier 1 just because they have not reach 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),.

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 would contradict the claim that students could finish a first degree with a demonstrated English-language proficiency equivalent to less than IELTS 8.0

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.

But do not be mistaken with those who did GCSE, A level and Bachelor degree in the UK or any other English speaking countries and are currently taking PG course. If this is what U mean than it is probably true. But count how many years they need to spend to reach this level ?.

[gordon]

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

[pantaiema]

We know quite a few number of Japanese professors from universities such as Kyoto, University of Tokyo have won Noble prize in science. If they are tested in IELTS, are they going to pass IELTS of 8.0? I seriously doubt it. Are we going to say that they can not perform their job in the UK well in case they decide to work as a professor in the UK? Are we going to say that they do not belongs to tier 1 just because they have not reached IELTS of 8.0?

Noble Price Japanese Professor:
higher standard: Yes
To compel current visaholders to meet that higher standard: They vene have met the highest standard.

And to allay employers' concerns about the English-language proficiency levels of the migrant workforce !. The standard must be the meet requirement to perform their job well not to ber set as a barrier.
In science, engineering, IT , finance Job have U ever seen that there is a Job sepecifications specifically mention IELTS of 8.0, do they require the profiency of english in this level ?? U will wonder that there are quire reasonable number of foreigner non english speaking working in Financical Banking, they earn much more than any other profession, the fast majority will not achieve the If IELTS of 8.0. FYI, many of people working in fincancial banking have PhD degree.

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

[pantaiema]

FACT:

Australia Skilled Immigration Points Calculator
Minimum Requirement:
“You must be at least at "competent" English to be eligible to apply for occupations other than trade occupations. You should have a high enough level of English that would enable you to score at least a "6" on all four components of the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) examination. However, if your nominated occupations is a trade occupation, a score of "5" (vocational) will suffice.
Source: http://www.workpermit.com/australia/poi ... ulator.htm

New Zealand Visa Requirements: Skilled Migrant
Proof of English language ability must be shown where English is not the primary language of the applicant, including:
Applicants must be able to reach an overall band score of at least 6.5 in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) General or Academic Module
Source: http://www.spammer.com/newzealand/sk ... grant.aspx

COULS U SHOW ANY COUNTRY IN THIS WORLD WHICH REQUIRE ITHE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR IELTS OF 8.0 FOR SKILLED MIGRATION?

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

[pantaiema]

deleted

[pantaiema]

They do the discrimation on fair basis in the current HSMP system do not they?
U earn the same amount of salary in India and in the UK will give U different point. This is a very good example of fair discriminaion system.

If U already know that even a Noble prize winner can not reach that level and U know that They could perfrom their duties without the need to reach that level and U set up that level, r u goint to say it is a fair system ?.

I repeat again the IELTS requirement for skilled migration in other countries (refere to my previous post)

Australia Skilled Immigration to score at least a "6"

New Zealand Visa Requirements: Skilled Migrant
overall band score of at least 6.5

COULS U show any other countries where the score of IELTS minimum of 8.0 is required for skilled migration ?

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. .

[pantaiema]

If U apply for Immigration U need an IELTS SCORE in this case U need to sit for IELTS test, U can not say my English is discernable by Mr G to be equivalent to IELTS 8.0 do not U?

Native English-speaking teacher is not the same with an IELTS examiner, this is what I know for sure. They need to take a certain qualification/test to become an IELTS examiner. How come the person who has not been trained to become an IELTS examiner or has not taken IELTS test could appriciate how IELTS score 8.0 means ?.

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]

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.

1) I never said that the basic requirement was IELTS 8 anywhere, although I did point out, given the characterisation of the facility with the language evinced at that level, that that level could reasonably be considered aspirational (not 'inspirational' as you incorrectly quoted earlier). So I'm not sure what's up with your hysterical demand that I show where IELTS 8 has been required elsewhere for skilled migration.

2) Discrimination in earnings is perfectly legitimate given differences in purchasing power and equivalencies in the earnings bands to what earnings might indicate in the way of skill level in the UK. Having gradations in language ability would do nothing to promote migration of people who, on arrival in the UK, would demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency on entry into the UK labour market, so that's hardly comparable. Would you have New Zealanders required to have an IELTS 8 while the Chinese would have IELTS 6 ? Would that be a 'fair' mechanism to adjust for the New Zealanders' unfair language advantage ? All other things held equal, how would those two cohorts fare in the labour market ? It's a safe bet that they would have differential labour market outcomes.

3) Most employers are not IELTS examiners either, but nonetheless can discern differences in facility in reading comprehension, speaking, or writing in English among their employees. Poor English skills, to say nothing of poor analytical skills, are quite obvious, really. And if you'd read my post carefully, you'd have noted that I'd written that one could discern functional differences.

At any rate, discrimination and inequity abound in this process, and your fixation with language in the context of discrimination is grossly disproportionate. I'd sooner argue that alternate gradients for education and earnings be introduced for women and ethnic minorities, than for English proficiency for people who happen to come from countries where English is not an official language.

[pantaiema]

It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.

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.
.

[gordon]

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 ?

It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.

[pantaiema]

U r confusing Highly skilled Migrant and Investor related migrants.

Here we are discussing higly skilled migrant not investo related migrant.

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 ?

It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.

[pantaiema]

Australia Skilled Immigration Points Calculator
Minimum Requirement:
“You must be at least at "competent" English to be eligible to apply for occupations other than trade occupations. You should have a high enough level of English that would enable you to score at least a "6" on all four components of the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) examination. However, if your nominated occupations is a trade occupation, a score of "5" (vocational) will suffice.
Source: http://www.workpermit.com/australia/poi ... ulator.htm

New Zealand Visa Requirements: Skilled Migrant
Proof of English language ability must be shown where English is not the primary language of the applicant, including:
Applicants must be able to reach an overall band score of at least 6.5 in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) General or Academic Module
Source: http://www.spammer.com/newzealand/sk ... grant.aspx

COULD U SHOW ANY COUNTRY IN THIS WORLD WHICH REQUIRE ITHE BASIC REQUIREMENT IELTS OF 8.0 FOR SKILLED MIGRATION?

[gordon]

Hardly irrelevant, if you are making the argument that any and all highly skilled persons should be able to come into this country via HSMP. In such an argument, it is immaterial that there might be alternate mechanisms for entry. By your logic, the education requirement might also be eliminated to allow someone as highly skilled as Bill Gates to enter by this avenue. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, what would you say about the earnings criteria if Mother Teresa had wanted to come into the UK via HSMP ? With little or no income, she would not qualify, even though her work clearly was highly skilled. Should HSMP do away with earnings thresholds as well ?

And as for other countries that have IELTS requirements less than 8, can you think of any compelling reason why the UK should restrict itself only to conditions that have been implemented elsewhere ? Do departures from precedent de-legitimise those departures ? I had said that potentially setting IELTS at 8 might be aspirational, not that it had been tried and found successful in other skilled migration programmes.

But raising the IELTS bar seems to be one way in which the policy would address the language-related concerns expressed by employers in the 2005 consultation. One can debate which level would suit the employer base, but arguing that the requirements should be watered down to accommodate anomalies (like the one you've suggested), seems impractical in a broad-based policy framework. The policy has to work for a majority of the cases that conform to the Government's objectives, but taking your approach would be something of a slippery slope.

U r confusing Highly skilled Migrant and Investor related migrants.

Here we are discussing higly skilled migrant not investo related migrant.

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 ?

It is very relevant to show how a highly skilled person cannot meet the criteria if this criteria is beeing set up.

[VictoriaS]

While there is no evidence that the IELTS requirement will be raised to 8, I agree that to do so would be unfair.

The point of addressing an employers concern is, in my opinion, rubbish. If the government were that worried about employers, the work permit scheme would be relaxed so that employers could employ whomsoever they wanted. Actually, they don't allow this at all. At the moment, an employer can refuse to employ a person if his English is not good enough, and I think that this is all the test that should be needed.

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.

I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, I think that is why.

Victoria

[gordon]

Well, that may be closer to the truth than the Government would wish to admit. Quite apart from the English requirement, it's worth noting that, of all the business schools in the MBA provision, only one is in a developing country, and that is neither in India nor in Pakistan. I think one can take the MBA provision as a less-than-subtle indication of the sort of people they might seek to attract.

(And as an aside, literacy tests were used for voting in the US from the late 19th c into the 1960s, not just in the 30s. Literacy tests were also used for immigration into the US in the early 20th c as well.)

But on your earlier point, if one were simply to leave it to the labour market entirely, that seems to suggest that there's little point in having a skilled migration scheme (a government-arranged vetting scheme, as it were), because the employment viability of would-be migrants would be determined at the local level.

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.