The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/288462
Vol/53 No/2 2014 APRIL/MAY The Linguist 15 FEATURES teaching units, staffed by professional language teachers, many of whom were native speakers and were employed to teach, not to do research. Even more significant was the rise of credit- bearing language modules, which became a compulsory component of all degree programmes at a few ground-breaking universities, such as Westminster. It was a period of great optimism, when an increasing number of students wanted to learn languages and universities were willing to finance and support language courses. Language centres became a marker of marketable quality, and were often highlighted in university publicity material. In this period of expansion, language centres had two roles: they could provide a range of applied language courses to supplement traditional language degrees, and they could operate as independent providers in their own right. They could offer a wider range of languages than degree programmes, and they were able to charge for these courses to generate extra income for the host institution. From the outset, language centres had to operate and think like business units, and they both profited and suffered from their status as service units. They had a cheaper cost base than language faculties, which looked down on their portfolio of practical language courses but envied their growing financial clout. Responding to demand It is at this point, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that professional language organisations, such the University Council of Modern Languages (UCML) and AULC, started to take sometimes opposing views of the increase in non-specialist language provision. UCML recognised the importance of this growth but worried that language modules, no matter how well-taught, could never replace the breadth and depth of a three-year degree. Furthermore, they were concerned about issues ranging from the danger of 'dumbing down' content to a drift towards employing lower-paid, non-research staff, which could lead to redundancies. AULC placed a positive spin on the situation, pointing out that any sort of language study could contribute to an important, employability-focused skills set, and that both credit-bearing and not-for- credit courses broadened the language offer of a university. The business-case argument was simple: if a university was able to attract enough students to a language degree programme, there was no problem; if not, it had to recognise that there was an emerging market of students who wanted to study languages, but not as a full degree. In the market-led world of Higher Education in the last two decades, students are acutely aware of what an institution has to offer in addition to its core degree programmes. The National Student Survey highlights the need for universities to offer a wide range of support services that aim to improve the student experience and maximise their potential. So there is definite value attached to tangible items provided on campus: the architect-designed library, the high-tech sports centre, the luxury canteen, an excellent language centre. Students ask for these, students want these and students prefer universities that offer these. The stellar growth in students taking a credit-bearing degree option or a not-for- credit extracurricular language course in recent years should, therefore, come as no surprise (see chart, below). The trend has shown no signs of abating, with the number of students taking a non-specialist language class rising to 49,637 (in 62 institutions) in 2012/13, and to 53,971 (in 64 institutions) in the current academic year. The split between credit-bearing and not-for-credit courses is currently 60:40 (for details, see www.ucml.ac.uk/news/210.) The picture is clear: the market is still strong and buoyant for languages at universities, but measured in a different way than it used to be. Success – or failure – should not be measured solely by looking at the number of students taking language degrees. It should be balanced by looking at the bigger picture. The market cannot be ignored. A pragmatic attitude must take into account the growth and success of a more generalised market, and recognise that non-specialist language learners are now the norm. They even overtook language undergraduates in 2004/05, which saw uptake for language degrees fall to an all-time low. The good news is that the worst of the decline in specialist programmes is probably over and that surviving language departments will hopefully now get stronger. The quickest route to strength is to put together a realistic portfolio of high-quality courses that combine a financially viable mix of specialist and non- specialist provision, the latter subsidising the high cost of specialist programmes. Real progress can only be made through this holistic approach, and a recognition of the potential that a broad definition of language provision can offer. Universities have been developing language policies that underline the importance of languages as a marketable dimension to their offer. The willingness and readiness of senior management to support languages is generally there, but only if we, as language professionals, maintain a clear vision of what the market requires and what it costs to provide what we want to offer. 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Degree Extracurricular Total Figures for languages degrees and courses in UK universities