"One of the first pieces of legislation passed in the new Federal Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act. Now known as the infamous White Australia Policy it made it very difficult for Asians and Pacific Islanders to migrate to Australia. This Act stated that if a person wanted to migrate to Australia they had to be given a dictation test. The dictation test could be in any European language. So a person from China or Japan who wanted to live in Australia could be tested in one or all of French, Italian or English languages."
Granted this was well over a hundred years ago however I feel that the Australian attitude to migrants is still quite unfriendly. They're making it more and more difficult to migrate there even if you have roots in the country especially if you are from a non English speaking country.
Source: Am Irish and went through the Australian immigration process years ago.
Australia has a cap on permanent immigration per year of around 200,000. That Wikipedia page is claiming 45 per 1,000 inhabitants, which gets you closer to one million net migration. That conveniently ignores the far more important number: how many people are actually allowed to stay on a permanent basis?
Further, about half those ~200,000 allocated per year go to people already in Australia.
Back in reality, Australia is extremely restrictive when it comes to allowing permanent immigration. It has a lot of temporary work immigration.
I'd distinguish attitude of Australians to migrants (which I have found very friendly) from the strictness of the immigration department.
There have always been many more people wanting to get into the country than the quotas allowed, and so the immigration department is a gatekeeper. Getting in is a kind of game of beaurocratic chess, and the department is determined to play hard.
The UK was the same when I was living there for a few years. Germany on the other hand is more keen on attracting skilled workers and made things very easy for me. But as people, I found Germans and British to be about equally welcoming of immigrants.
In your opinion, are these policies bald attempts at keeping migrants from Asia-Pacific countries out of Australia or is there a deeper-seated historic animosity at play?
Culturally, are the psychological scars of Australia's previous status as a British penal colony still manifested in public policy?
I don't ask to be incendiary, but because I'm interested in the Second-Order Effects that stick with cultures over time, often in seemingly unrelated ways.
Reminds me of a Belgian guy who was in the papers a few years ago, who had to pass an 'integration test' before he could get Dutch citizenship. Part of that test is a language test (people from the north of Belgium, i.e. Flanders, speak Dutch - it's the same language as the one spoken in the Netherlands. So, like the woman in the OP, he had to take an exam on his mother tongue, and with much less of an accent than an Irish accent is as compared to the Queen's English). If you have a degree (even just a high school degree) from a Dutch language school, you're exempt, but this guy didn't so he wasn't (this exemption was put in to basically avoid situations like this, under the assumption that the vast majority of people would have a high school degree).
Either way, he failed the test a few times; reason being that this 'integration test' doesn't just cover language skills, but also things like 'knowledge of Dutch society'. For example, you get 3 pictures of a front yard of a house, with varying degrees of clutter on them (like a children's bike and a garbage bin with the lid open). Question being: how are you supposed to maintain your yard, like in picture A, B or C? Most (Dutch) people I've given the test failed it because the questions are so ridiculous. It's quite lulzy actually. Well not for that Belgian guy I presume.
I'm Australian and got very close to needing an English test to get Residency in Canada. I was getting residency because I was working as an Engineer and my company was sponsoring me. I have an Engineering degree from an English-speaking country (Australia), and had been working for the company for ~2 years, of course in English. Both of those things counted for nothing.
I would have had to to fly ~2500km, pay for the tests etc. (I was living in Northern Canada.. weekend trips to Alaska means driving due South)
I spoke to multiple people on the phone and in person (in English) and not a single one was able in any way to do anything to intervene. There was no possibility of me doing the test over skype video chat to avoid the expensive flight
Rules are rules, don't dare to interpret their intent. This applies doubly when dealing with Immigration.
Canada have now tightened the rules significantly, and it's my understanding if I applied now, I would be forced to take that English test.
"I live in Dublin and I can barely understand native Irish people either."
People in Dublin itself are widely regarded to have a neutral-sounding, easily understandable English. Indeed, Dubliners are conspicuously prominent in ESL teaching around the world for that reason. It is when one gets out of Dublin that accents begin to be more challenging for people accustomed only to mainstream US or UK pronunciations.
Very much depends. Some of the middle-class neighbourhoods produce a fairly neutral accent, but most dubliners speak in a very heavy accent, arguably one of the heaviest in the country.
sure, i'm also in Dublin, it's sometimes (well, often. I mean, always) difficult to understand them if they talk fast ... but it's the same case if I visit UK, or I guess any english dialect.
I'm sure she could talk more slowly and clearly and computer would say yes.
Odd, I find Irish accents generally easier to deal with than various English and Scottish accents (with the exception the mild, internationally familiar ones). This might simply mean I haven't met anyone with really interesting Irish accents.
Also I leave the Welsh off the least, because I have always found their English easy to understand -- if sometimes amusing.
I once had an English flatmate (I'm Australian) who had a Scottish friend come to stay. I could nae understand a word he said, and she had to translate everything - from English to English. He could understand me fine though.
"Pearson has categorically denied there is anything wrong with its computer-based test or the scoring engine trained to analyse candidates’ responses."
Surely that lack of self-questioning makes them categorically unsuitable to do the job. By refusing to acknowledge that there's room for process improvement, that signals that they don't care about quality.
I have no idea why this news is titled "Computer says no". For the speaking part it's humans evaluating the results. That said you are right on point about private company being the gatekeeper.
IELTS raised the fees more than 300% in the last few years. They now cost around $330 per exam and they always invariably fail you the first time around. You are allowed to take as many tests as you need.
Conveniently you pass after a few tries.
I know competent English teachers who grew up in Australia failing this test few times. And equally I know very few migrants from third world countries passing the test even if English is their first language.
It's more of a blatant money making scheme than anything else and quite obviously the department of immigration must charge IELTS for allowing it to be one of the English examiner.
Just follow the money and you have all the answers.
> it is the only one that uses voice recognition technology to test speaking ability
> Other test providers have said they use human assessors
No, the article clearly states that the test in question used voice recognition on a computer. Other companies use human evaluations, however this one didn't.
We took the test in high school (NL). From what I remember it's all about the preparation. They must be completely standardised and have no room for debate, due to the nature of the test. This means you invariably get extremely idiosyncratic question styles and formulations, a sort of secret code you have to see through to get to the meat of the question. It's standardisation on steroids. I remember thinking I wouldn't have passed a Dutch version of this test without prep.
We got very thorough, specialised prep from our teachers. Everyone passed , first try.
The UK citizenship authority accepts most major accredited english language certifications and or a university degree as proof of english language proficiency.
The only tests are for lay of the land/law/society, not language proficiency.
The issue here is that whoever drafted the rules did not think to offer an easy way to appeal the results. If the person in the article could have just said "can I have a human do this next time" there wouldn't have been a problem. This is what happens when non-technical people that have too much faith in technology draft policies.
This is a story about how voice recognition has failed and should not have been used in this situation.
I was very surprised to hear that this was even permitted a method for the outsourcing provider, but then again Australia has a poor and somehow still worsening relationship with immigration, so perhaps I'm more accurately "re-dissapointed" by this revelation (as an expat Australian).
If this was the US, an unsatisfactory vendor would almost certainly be there because of some political crony situation. Sometimes merit has no bearing on goverment procurement.
Readit News
Granted this was well over a hundred years ago however I feel that the Australian attitude to migrants is still quite unfriendly. They're making it more and more difficult to migrate there even if you have roots in the country especially if you are from a non English speaking country.
Source: Am Irish and went through the Australian immigration process years ago.
and the 8th highest immigration of all countries, regardless of population. (also [1]).
Australia has a massive, massive amount of immigration.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...
Australia has a cap on permanent immigration per year of around 200,000. That Wikipedia page is claiming 45 per 1,000 inhabitants, which gets you closer to one million net migration. That conveniently ignores the far more important number: how many people are actually allowed to stay on a permanent basis?
Further, about half those ~200,000 allocated per year go to people already in Australia.
Back in reality, Australia is extremely restrictive when it comes to allowing permanent immigration. It has a lot of temporary work immigration.
https://insidestory.org.au/how-many-migrants-come-to-austral...
Very forward thinking on the issue of partners though. If one gets the visa the other does too with little or no fuss. Don't even have to be married.
The country is, like any, full of contradictions.
There have always been many more people wanting to get into the country than the quotas allowed, and so the immigration department is a gatekeeper. Getting in is a kind of game of beaurocratic chess, and the department is determined to play hard.
The UK was the same when I was living there for a few years. Germany on the other hand is more keen on attracting skilled workers and made things very easy for me. But as people, I found Germans and British to be about equally welcoming of immigrants.
Culturally, are the psychological scars of Australia's previous status as a British penal colony still manifested in public policy?
I don't ask to be incendiary, but because I'm interested in the Second-Order Effects that stick with cultures over time, often in seemingly unrelated ways.
Either way, he failed the test a few times; reason being that this 'integration test' doesn't just cover language skills, but also things like 'knowledge of Dutch society'. For example, you get 3 pictures of a front yard of a house, with varying degrees of clutter on them (like a children's bike and a garbage bin with the lid open). Question being: how are you supposed to maintain your yard, like in picture A, B or C? Most (Dutch) people I've given the test failed it because the questions are so ridiculous. It's quite lulzy actually. Well not for that Belgian guy I presume.
I would have had to to fly ~2500km, pay for the tests etc. (I was living in Northern Canada.. weekend trips to Alaska means driving due South)
I spoke to multiple people on the phone and in person (in English) and not a single one was able in any way to do anything to intervene. There was no possibility of me doing the test over skype video chat to avoid the expensive flight
Rules are rules, don't dare to interpret their intent. This applies doubly when dealing with Immigration.
Canada have now tightened the rules significantly, and it's my understanding if I applied now, I would be forced to take that English test.
It is a ~$300 test too.
Out of curiosity, did you ace the test? I at least was hoping to do that.
People in Dublin itself are widely regarded to have a neutral-sounding, easily understandable English. Indeed, Dubliners are conspicuously prominent in ESL teaching around the world for that reason. It is when one gets out of Dublin that accents begin to be more challenging for people accustomed only to mainstream US or UK pronunciations.
I'm sure she could talk more slowly and clearly and computer would say yes.
Also I leave the Welsh off the least, because I have always found their English easy to understand -- if sometimes amusing.
I'd imagine not a single one could pass.
Surely that lack of self-questioning makes them categorically unsuitable to do the job. By refusing to acknowledge that there's room for process improvement, that signals that they don't care about quality.
IELTS raised the fees more than 300% in the last few years. They now cost around $330 per exam and they always invariably fail you the first time around. You are allowed to take as many tests as you need. Conveniently you pass after a few tries.
I know competent English teachers who grew up in Australia failing this test few times. And equally I know very few migrants from third world countries passing the test even if English is their first language.
It's more of a blatant money making scheme than anything else and quite obviously the department of immigration must charge IELTS for allowing it to be one of the English examiner.
Just follow the money and you have all the answers.
> Other test providers have said they use human assessors
No, the article clearly states that the test in question used voice recognition on a computer. Other companies use human evaluations, however this one didn't.
That's not what I understood from the article, which says
"uses voice recognition technology to test speaking ability, with audio recordings then marked by a “scoring engine”"
"Other test providers have said they use human assessors to determine if people are competent speakers of English"
Both of those imply there aren't humans evaluating the results at this test provider.
That's the entire point of the article.
We got very thorough, specialised prep from our teachers. Everyone passed , first try.
The UK citizenship authority accepts most major accredited english language certifications and or a university degree as proof of english language proficiency. The only tests are for lay of the land/law/society, not language proficiency.
I was very surprised to hear that this was even permitted a method for the outsourcing provider, but then again Australia has a poor and somehow still worsening relationship with immigration, so perhaps I'm more accurately "re-dissapointed" by this revelation (as an expat Australian).