By Philip Yeung
Dear IELTS designer,
I am writing to register my bitter disappointment with IELTS. Across Asia and much of the world, it is the gateway foreign students must pass through to higher education. But universities, both local and overseas, are complaining that students who are admitted on high IELTS scores are unable to write essays and articulate themselves in class. University gatekeepers can be forgiven for taking the IELTS results with a large pinch of salt.
IELTS may be waging a war against cram schools who try to predict and reverse-engineer IELTS test questions, giving their clients templates and memorized answers. The test-maker, in an attempt to outwit them, makes the test content niche and unpredictable.
Sadly, smart test-taking strategies do not translate into linguistic improvement. I know because I have been invited to provide writing workshops by universities in the Greater Bay Area where students are admitted with high IELTS scores but struggle academically with speaking and writing. IELTS is a poor predictor of their linguistic competence. Universities want genuine language proficiency, not clever test-takers.
IELTS is flawed. But because it is designed by Cambridge, it remains unchallenged as a tool for measuring English language ability. No one has yet openly called into question the validity and suitability of these tests.
IELTS is now everywhere. The British empire might have collapsed, but its linguistic dominance is alive and kicking. The China market alone contributes some RMB 17 billion per year to the IELTS coffers. The average Chinese test-taker being "third-time lucky" at two grand a pop, is kissing goodbye to six grand of their hard-earned money. This is a cash cow for Cambridge and its partners, but it is not doing a good job predicting the linguistic preparedness of the applicants.
For MBA applicants, the test is seriously misaligned with their business education given its down-to-earth communication style. IELTS cannot be a one-size-fits-all test for all disciplines. Business applicants are a special breed with their own needs.
The Listening paper comes with a long, recorded passage followed by multiple-choice questions. The key skill required here is shorthand or notetaking. It is a memory test and a race against the clock. In the old days, test-takers were given 10 minutes to transcribe their answers. Now they must do real-time answering.
Many MBA applicants are business executives with adequate functional knowledge of English. They are not seeking another academic degree. They want to boost their business, managerial and practical communicative skills. Instead, they are forced into months of hard-boning exam skills. This is an uneconomical use of their precious time. It is anti-educational.
To outsmart cram schools, IELTS designers are constantly searching for unfamiliar materials to deny cram school clients any unfair advantage. Consequently, the Reading paper, for one, is becoming esoteric, alien and more abstract, thus raising the anxiety level of Asian test-takers and adversely affecting their test performance. This is a vicious circle. The harder IELTS designer tries to win this cat-and-mouse game, the more intimidating the test becomes.
Even native English speakers are uncomfortable processing the reading material.
Here is a sample of the topics in recent IELTS Reading tests: 1. "The Kakapo"—a nocturnal, flightless parrot that is critically endangered and native to New Zealand. 2. "Manatees"—known as sea cows which are aquatic mammals that belong to a group of animals called Sirenia that include dugongs". 3. "Mapungubwe"—an ancient kingdom located in southern Africa just below the Limpopo River that flourished in the 11th and 13th centuries.
These topics, alienated from the everyday world, leave Chinese test-takers feeling disoriented and intimidated.
Content unfamiliarity conspires with strict time limits, high anxiety and high stakes to contribute to poor test performance.
As for the Writing paper, Part 1 calls for describing or otherwise making sense of a pie chart, diagram or graph. I question why this is considered an essential skill, especially for MBA students. With only 20 minutes for the task, the unfamiliar format becomes a challenge and a test of time management skills which are unrelated to language proficiency. As for essay-writing, it is all about meeting rubrics that don't really sharpen writing skills.
The key to IELTS success lies in doing tedious rounds of practice--with little noticeable impact on improving practical language skills.
Then comes the examiner factor. It is believed that examiners in the China region are more intimidating. After multiple failures, many test-takers began "shopping around" for an easier test center in south-east Asia. Thankfully, cross-border "shopping around" is now banned. But does this forecast even higher IELTS failure rate in China?
So, what are the alternatives? Duolingo is one. This test only costs 70 US dollars. Its score of 110 is equivalent to 6.5 in IELTS. Duolingo test results are now accepted by elite universities including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford and the Imperial College of London. But the test-preparation industry is hooked on IELTS. Now more than just a cottage industry, these tutorial centers number in the thousands across China. They are a big business with deep roots.
Undoubtedly, test questions drive the direction of student learning. I wonder why designers do not focus on alphabetical literacy, creative wordplay, idiomatic usage and rhetorical techniques in writing and speaking—the bread-and-butter skills in both academic and non-academic communication. Why waste time on honing exam skills that add little value.
The University of Hong Kong is beginning to come to terms with reality, giving its MBA applicants an IELTS waiver with just a band 6, provided that no paper is scored below 5.5.
Other options beckon. Universities can charge applicants a fee that includes a three-day fundamental language training where applicants can be accurately assessed on their linguistic readiness for their studies. Universities get extra revenue while getting linguistically qualified applicants. This is killing two birds with one stone. It beats imposing a blanket score from a test that is light on language proficiency but heavy on exam tactics.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Philip Yeung:
Opinion | Nobel Peace Prize—Denied twice, will Trump start another war?
Opinion | Remaking the UK—Is broken Britain fixable?
Opinion | The deeper meaning of President Xi's visit to Washington
Comment