The Economist says learning Chinese is "a fad for misguided fools"

[muyongshi]

For those of us who have spent a lot of time learning Chinese that article was harsh but true. The fact is that fluency in Chinese has little to no effect on your ability to get a job inside or outside of China.

But that is only true if you are studying Chinese for a job (or a job in a large company). I am studying it so that no matter where my job is in the country I can live comfortably and not have to rely on others for taking care of my daily life and that includes friends. Also if you plan to open your own business (depending on what sector) a thorough knowledge of the language is an absolute benefit!

[Stefani]

I think to strictly study a language just of economic reasons will be too frustrating. It is seldom very clear that if you study X that will allow you to earn Y more dollars (or whatever currency).

I study it for the love of the language, and the fact that it is the language of my ancestors. I hope to some day travel around China, visit the area where my ancestors were from, etc. I think it will be wonderful to be able to speak with those Chinese, here in the US, elsewhere, and in China.

[mpallard]

muyongshi:

You say that you are studying Chinese so that no matter where you live in the country you are able to get around comfortably. I agree, if you are actually living in China being able to speak the language make your life alot easier.

But how are you managing to live in China? From what I've seen 90% of the foreigners living in China are either students or English teachers, neither of which is sustainable for anyone with carreer aspirations.

What kind of business are you planning to open that you feel a knowledge of Chinese is a benefit? I argue, that from a business perspective, your chances of success are no better if you speak Chinese. If you've found one though let me know, I may be interested in investing.

The fact is that China is a poor country and by the time it's half decently wealthy most of the population will be able to speak decent enough English that your Chinese skills will be of marginal value at best.

The article was also talking about British school children learning Chinese and if someone living and working in China doesn't use their Chinese then for your average English middle-schooler the language is absolutely worthless.

Actually, now that I think about it, if you live in China it may be better if you don't speak Chinese. Maybe then being constantly hastled for English practice and having HELLO shouted at you wouldn't be so irritating.

[muyongshi]

What kind of business are you planning to open that you feel a knowledge of Chinese is a benefit? I argue, that from a business perspective, your chances of success are no better if you speak Chinese. If you've found one though let me know, I may be interested in investing.

My secret for now!

But think of it this way. If your business has nothing to do with English, then you are not limited to just having employees that speak English. So, they ability to communicate with your employees is vital. If your business has nothing to do with English, in marketing you are not solely marketing to those that speak English, and you yourself then have the ability to communicate with your clients. Yes for contracts and what not you will always want someone with a higher level than yourself (unless you are perfect) but you remove an entire level of blockage and open up your entire target group.

[NickyR]

Sure, if you want to be a lawyer then by all means study law, but I suspect anyone who graduates from high school and already knows what they're going to be when they graduate university is suffering from a bit of a lack of imagination

Actually, this isn't even true. I'm a lawyer (don't judge me!) and I studied history for 7 years at university. About 40-50% of lawyers at the top British law firms don't have a law degree. Their background could be anything from electrical engineering to old norse. We only have to spend 9 months converting into law.

The reason for this is because law firms don;t just want experts in law, they also need scientists to understand the patent laws they're working on, engineers to understand the construction projects to work on, historians to understand the .... well, actually, they don't really need me. !!

Language graduates are always a plus because there is so much cross border work nowadays. Having perfect Chinese skills will get you a job in translating and interpreting, but having decent mandarin skills (plus other abilities!) could help to get you a job doing something else. It probably won't be the be all and end all of a job application, but it may well put you ahead of someone who can't speak a language.

And even thoughlaw firms currently have little scope for major work in China (market too closed), I'm sure they are all chomping at the bit to get going once it opens up. They are already doing work for big Chinese companies who are buying out western companies. All this work requires language skills on both sides, not just the CHinese side.

I know that was a bit industry specific, but I still think there can be economic benefits in learning chinese.

Anyway, I learn it because I enjoy it. And I don't think it needs to be as hard as it is sometimes presented.

So I reckon we should all stick two fingers up at the Economist, and keep plodding on with it. Jiayou laowai!!

[muyongshi]

I'm a lawyer (don't judge me!)

You need to say don't judge me, I'm a lawyer because as soon as I saw those 3 words it was too late and I hadn't seen your warning about not judging you.

[shibole]

From the perspective of "general education" it seems like learning Chinese as opposed to some other language makes a lot of sense specifically because it is so different. Especially in something like k-12, it seems to me that introducing kids to the concept of tonal languages and languages that are just much different from English and other western languages is a huge benefit even if they don't become fluent in Chinese or something. At least you gain good insight into language when learning something as different as Chinese whereas an English-speaking person gains rather little insight learning Spanish.

By the same token you could probably say that learning history is for "misguided fools" since you're not likely to get hired anywhere due to your amazing knowledge of history. Oh well, whatever.....

[owshawng]

Learning Chinese because you think it might help you financially is silly. You could get a masters degree or 2 in the same amount of time.

Learning Chinese because you want to and enjoy it is a different matter. So is getting a minor in Chinese if you enjoy studying the language and you might be able to pair it with your major degree.

[Colossus]

The article does not say anything about 'fools'.

I got that blurb from another website.

The one with 'General' in the title might fit . . .

I didn't think this was a study issue per se, but as I said, feel free to move it wherever.

Some of the article sounds like sour grapes. Because Chinese is so hard to learn, and takes awhile it is not worth learning. That seems like a circular argument.

I wouldn't say circular. The articles position is that the length of time and difficulty of the language would make some other study (the article suggests law) a more viable economic option.

I do agree that it goes off on some issues that are not particularly relevant, like how many students drop out.

I love how these things only ever look at one side of the issue. Is it really much easier for a Chinese person to learn English. I doubt it. With the complex grammar and over use of prepositions....ok you get my point. There may never be a "reward" for learning it but that does not negate the usefulness or experience of putting in the effort. We live too much in a microwave society. Am I misguided? Maybe. But I live in China so how am I misguided in trying to speak the language that is spoken around me everyday?

I'm not sure that these criticisms are on-point. First, the focus of the article is on English speakers learning Chinese. Whether other Asians can learn Chinese more easily or find English more difficult is not relevant. Also, the issue of a "microwave society" is not an issue either. They are looking at this as an economic investment, nothing more. From an economic perspective their points are worthy of consideration. If Chinese will not improve marketability, it might be more worthwhile to spend your time learning a more useful skill.

As a side note, while this is only one example, I have a good Thai friend who finds learning Chinese much more difficult that English, and tells me that Chinese is well-known to be one of the most difficult languages to learn.

For those of us who don't learn Chinese as a way to get rich or increase our selling price, there are plenty of reasons to learn Chinese.

The fact that the people who write for The Economist cannot fathom that there could be a reason short of increasing your bank account balance is something for a different discussion.

No, the Economist just happens to focus on that goal. In fact, I believe that at the end they say that many people are learning Chinese not because it is economically useful, but that there is a growing interest in China.

From the perspective of "general education" it seems like learning Chinese as opposed to some other language makes a lot of sense specifically because it is so different.

I think this is an excellent point and something that has been on my mind as well. The importance is that it should be taught at a young age.

[wushijiao]

No, the Economist just happens to focus on that goal. In fact, I believe that at the end they say that many people are learning Chinese not because it is economically useful, but that there is a growing interest in China

.

I agree with that. It's worth looking at which languages can be useful to learn economically.

You can use a language, job-wise, in a few major contexts:

1) In business

2) For the government (CIA, FBI, Foreign Service..)

3) In academia ( teaching at colleges, high schools....)

4) Translating

If you look at, say, Spanish, for Americans it is very useful for business, as the United States has over 30 million Spanish-speakers, many of which can't speak English. I have worked at jobs in which being able to communicate with customers and Spanish-speaking employees made knowing Spanish a clear asset in getting the job, or getting promoted. Spanish is also good as far as teaching, but less important for government and translating, as there is already a huge supply of people who can speak Spanish and those jobs are more limited anyway.

If you live in certain parts of Canada, I assume that there are similar reasons that make knowing French an asset.

Similarly, I met a guy who graduated from Harvard with a BA in Arabic, and he had been living in Syria for the last two years working for an NGO. According to him, there was a huge dearth of Arabic speakers in the US government, and also in the non-profit sector and business community. Therefore, knowing Arabic to a very high degree of competence would be economically useful.

The point is, you can always try to analyze whether or not learning a certain language will be a good idea from a practical point of view.

If you object to the article because you think that there are other reasons to learn a language, well, of course there are. There's really nothing to discuss, in that case. If you want to learn a language because you like its history, culture, or for your personal satisfaction, then that really isn't an argument that can be refuted. I met some people in Boulder, CO that had an "Old English" club, in which they would get together and practice their English, as it was apparently spoken in medieval times. They seemed to be having a great time, regardless of whatever I thought about that. But there's nothing I could say. Whatever floats your boat.

But does it make sense for millions of kids in many countries to be learning a particular language? As far as Chinese, I doubt it. I told Gato this once, I really think a lot of people are just wasting their time. Either school systems should get serious about creating proficency, by, say, having kids start really young and studying rigorously through college, or else they're just wasting resources, unfortunately.

[gato]

But does it make sense for millions of kids in many countries to be learning a particular language? As far as Chinese, I doubt it. I told Gato this once, I really think a lot of people are just wasting their time. Either school systems should get serious about creating proficency, by, say, having kids start really young and studying rigorously through college, or else they're just wasting resources, unfortunately.

From the perspective of "general education" it seems like learning Chinese as opposed to some other language makes a lot of sense specifically because it is so different.

I think this is an excellent point and something that has been on my mind as well. The importance is that it should be taught at a young age.

In the ideal world, yes, kids should Chinese, Arabic, and ballet, among other things. But kids, in the U.S. at least, are having a hard enough time mastering basic English and arithmetic, without spreading their energy further with the learning of Chinese. Chinese as a foreign language for Sinophiles and those who need it, yes; for the masses, no, whether it's for enlightenment or riches.

[Lu]

Unless you are doing business with Chinese on a regular basis, it almost always makes more economical sense to hire an interpreter instead of learning Chinese yourself. So the Economist, whose point of view is clear from the very title of the magazine, has a point there. Learning Chinese in order to cash in is in almost all cases misguide, studying law will often make more economical sense.

That being said, there are other reasons to learn Chinese, and those reasons are often not misguided.

And I think it is important to learn children at least one foreign language, even if they don't become totally fluent (although I don't see why they shouldn't become at least operational). Even if they don't end up using that particular language a whole lot, it will open their eyes to the fact that there are more languages around than the one they speak at home, and that it is not beyond their ability to learn one or two of those if they would feel so inclined.

I never use the math, science, physics, French etc that I learned in high school, but I don't regret it for a minute that I did learn it all at one point.

[Colossus]

In the ideal world, yes, kids should Chinese, Arabic, and ballet, among other things. But kids, in the U.S. at least, are having a hard enough time mastering basic English and arithmetic, without spreading their energy further with the learning of Chinese.

Huh? Since when were kids having trouble mastering the basics? And assuming they are--are you sure that that is the result of inherent ineptitude on the part of the child or might it be poor teaching on the part of the school/teachers?

[geraldc]

If they were being smart they should just teach kids across the world latin and classical chinese. Then everyone could communicate with everyone else. In writing at least

[wushijiao]

And I think it is important to learn children at least one foreign language, even if they don't become totally fluent (although I don't see why they shouldn't become at least operational). Even if they don't end up using that particular language a whole lot, it will open their eyes to the fact that there are more languages around than the one they speak at home, and that it is not beyond their ability to learn one or two of those if they would feel so inclined.

I see what you are saying, but I'd have to slightly disagree with the idea that after studying for a while they might feel that they have the ability to learn another language or two.

Perhaps that is because of the way language teaching is usually done throughout the US, and other English-speaking countries. People tend to start at 7th grade (around 12 years old). They might continue for a few years with a language, but there are often no official requirements to do so. Therefore most students never become proficient in a foreign language, and thus are not exposed to the other culture's way of thinking, nor do they learn the skills that they would need to teach themselves a new language.

I guess what I am saying is the idea that, "China is the next big thing! Let's all learn a bit of Chinese so we don't miss out!" that sort of idea seems good at first look, but it has a lot of problems when you look at it closely.

However, I do think that it is possible to create a system in which kids can learn languages like Chinese, or any language for that matter.

Lu, I hope you wouldn't mind my asking, but at what age did you start to learn English? You are from the Netherlands, right? I am sure that your solid English skills have a lot to do with your own hard work, writing, and reading, but they must also, at least in part, be due to the school system. It is my understanding that kids in Europe generally start to learn foreign languages at a much earlier age than kids on English-speaking countries, and kids in Europe often study that foreign language for many years in a row, not just for a few token years or semesters.

[gato]

It is my understanding that kids in Europe generally start to learn foreign languages at a much earlier age than kids on English-speaking countries, and kids in Europe often study that foreign language for many years in a row, not just for a few token years or semesters.

I think they also show lots of non-dubbed American TV shows in the Netherlands, which makes it natural for kids to learn English.

In the US, you have those racy Spanish soap operas in markets like SF and LA with large numbers Spanish speakers, but they are targeted towards the immigrant population rather than the locals.

[bhchao]

my job requires me to work with the government on a daily basis, and if you guessed their english sucks, so in and out of the office its 80% Chinese. If I didn't speak or read Chinese there is now way I could do this job. But then again, I am in a field with limited career openings

Typically, employers (outside of teaching profession) seeking to fill a position requiring translation or interpretation will select the local native who is fluent in both English and Mandarin, over the foreigner whose first language is not Mandarin.

When having to choose between the bilingual Mandarin-speaking local vs. the bilingual Mandarin-speaking foreigner, the locals always are given first priority.

Why would they hire a foreigner when they can easily select a bilingual among the natives?

During the Korean War 99% of the UN interpreters who intercepted and translated PVA communications were born on the Mainland. They had to speak and understand English fluently, in addition to their native Mandarin tongue.

[gato]

And even thoughlaw firms currently have little scope for major work in China (market too closed), I'm sure they are all chomping at the bit to get going once it opens up. They are already doing work for big Chinese companies who are buying out western companies. All this work requires language skills on both sides, not just the CHinese side.

There are already many foreign law firms and lawyers working in China. See this article

http://www.legalweek.com/Company/476/Navigation/18/Articles/1047613/Asia+Three%E2%80%99s+the+charm.html

Asia: Three’s the charm

Author: Dominic Carman

Published: 30/08/2007 01:00

[Colossus]

^^^

Link is broken for me.

[Lu]

Lu, I hope you wouldn't mind my asking, but at what age did you start to learn English? You are from the Netherlands, right? I am sure that your solid English skills have a lot to do with your own hard work, writing, and reading, but they must also, at least in part, be due to the school system. It is my understanding that kids in Europe generally start to learn foreign languages at a much earlier age than kids on English-speaking countries, and kids in Europe often study that foreign language for many years in a row, not just for a few token years or semesters.

Of course I don't mind you asking.

I started learning English at 12, and only really studied it during the six years of middle school. I don't feel I put a lot of hard work into it, I just did my homework. So for a good part, it must have been the school system, telling me to learn grammar here and vocab there and giving me a lot of tests and practice tests, with the result that in the end, I knew English.

It's true that there is a lot of English on tv and the radio as well, and that must have been a great help. Also, I read a lot, but then, the school also made me read a lot. I had to read something like 12 or 15 English books in the last three years of high school.

And I think that I'm also just rather good at languages, so I'm not really a typical case. I never really watched French or German movies, or read a lot of French books, but after six and five years of learning respectively I spoke fine French (despite having rarely practiced speaking in school) and my German was even better than my English.

I'd have to slightly disagree with the idea that after studying for a while they might feel that they have the ability to learn another language or two.

I often get the impression that to, for example, Americans, the thought of learning another language is rather like the thought of running a marathon, or climbing the Mount Everest: something that is possible in theory, but that in practice only a few very outstanding and persevering people can do. And so they are very impressed when someone knows three or four languages, while that is really not that hard.

What I think is that if you teach children at least one foreign language, they will feel that it's not that impossible a task. And I think they would learn some language-learning skills, even if they only study a language for a few semesters.

I guess a problem for the US is that everyone there already speaks the most obvious language for one to learn, English. So then students get stuck with French, or even more useless, German. (Useless as in, what are the odds they're ever going to need it.)