Thread: Linguist training

I too am on a DJC course and have been following this thread. Never posted before but I'm feeling so cantankerous I just can't resist.

The shortcomings of this place have been described at length – the syllabus, its delivery, the facilities, ETS administration, but all this dwindles into insignificance compared to the awfulness of the Portuguese cuisine which no-one has slated yet . In all fairness though, DSL probably isn’t worse than some mediocre unis. Given money and initiative, the grownups can turn it round. There is however one symptom of these problems that bothers me:

Whatever people say, these are attendance courses. No real expectations are placed on students. The threat of being binned would do wonders for motivation. The actual binning of wasters would not only focus the remaining students but also increase the effectiveness of in-class learning. You could chuck more muck, and more would stick.

The other day I looked at the website of a foreign military language school whose policy is to load an excessive number of pre-selected students onto its courses, then at the 12-week point re-select by testing them, binning the majority and keeping the best on for full training. This works because they have incentives that induce people to fight tooth and nail for places. In our case we have no incentives and selection is done by MLAT which isn’t relevant to DJC courses anyway.

We have one job here; learning a language. And to be fair to DSL, other than segregating us into messes (which is obviously counterproductive in such a small place), nobody tries to distract us with military stuff. It’s a cushy number. This cushiness frees us up to grapple with the task at hand. Some treat their time at DSL as a nine-to-five job, refusing to do anything language-related out-of-hours. This strikes me as unprofessional in view of where we’re off to. And there’s those who are new to studying languages, or to studying anything at all, who become apathetic, lethargic and don’t make good use of their time. I suspect they just need to be encouraged (or bounced) into a study routine, with new priorities. These people might require more support in adjusting to school routine than a graduate. To succeed in mastering a language you need to subordinate various aspects of your life to its study, which for some is easier said than done.

Charlie Cong mentioned integration of our foreign guests into the lessons. Great idea. They are an untapped resource, but the fact that so few students take the trouble to interact with them defies belief. This is not a failing of the school but of individuals who don’t get their xenophobic, antisocial thumbs out and fraternise. What does this tell you about the kind of person undergoing expensive training, preparing to communicate (or not as the case may be) with locals in theatre?

If a fraction of the energy spent bitching was directed towards study we’d have no shortage of ace terps. I enjoy the course. Of course it could be better. But it works for me because I work. I look forward to going on tour as a linguist. And I reckon I’m on a winner, getting free education and getting paid at the same time. I have even recovered from the shock of finding that others don’t share my enthusiasm. But enthusing others is not impossible. If being a linguist were a viable career stream, keen people would be queuing up to transfer or even join up.

Bolshy,

while I agree with you (as I have said above) about much of this, I'm not totally sold by your criticism of the students.

I think we all get through life working slightly less hard than we might (can you really claim to have nailed 12 hours/day throughout your degree course? - not if you're an Int Corps NCO, obviously, as you'd have left half way through, but otherwise?) and to suggest that DSL would be successful if students just bent their backs and did 15 hour days is disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating.

You can get through a 10-week course with hard work and absolutely no talent. It really is just learning. But you, as a DJC student, should be aware that the only way you'll be an operational interpreter is by using every short cut in the book to learn the language if not the words. And if you can keep nailing 15-hour days for 15 months, then good for you. But I can't see that being a billet people volunteer for. Hard work is a given, but it shouldn't be a substitute for good teaching, good materials, a good course and a structured approach.

But yes, you have a valid point that if we took 15 people onto a course form which we needed six, we might motivate people in the initial stage. Unfortunately, as a I'm sure you're aware, we can't get even the six, hence the rapid reduction in the MLAT standard over the last two years. Maybe recent developments in Iraq will lead to an improvement in the standard of recruits for HERRICK?

Students are always the vital cog in language-learning success - I'm sure Teech will back me up in saying commitment is far more important than an MLAT score - but you can't expect people to put in 15-months of work far beyond the average for the privilege of a high-stress, high-workload Op tour that retards their professional options.

Everyone could do more to learn linguistically and culturally. One's work is never done. But there has to be an accepted standard. You are right that increased interaction with the foreign students would be beneficial - but only the Officers have regular social contact with our foreign guests, so how do you avoid retarding everyone else's chances?

As Linguists we should use every resource available to us, and a motivated linguist is critical to achieving a successful linguist. But fundamentally, the training provider must take the primary responsibility for providing an appropriate training environment. Obviously, no Officer, Senior NCO or self-respecting JNCO will deliberately accept failure through lack of effort but...

:D

Originally Posted by Come_fly_With_Me

Students are always the vital cog in language-learning success - I'm sure Teech will back me up in saying commitment is far more important than an MLAT score - but you can't expect people to put in 15-months of work far beyond the average for the privilege of a high-stress, high-workload Op tour that retards their professional options.

Much as I detest selectively quoting, I will here.

That is the most sensible thing I've heard in this debate for some time. Not only is it absolutely true, particularly for those on the Darkside, but it shows in stark relief the utter nonsense that is current policy. Volunteering to fulfill a vital role, which is hugely under-manned and requires an enormous amount of hard work and dedication can damage your career. Until that is changed, you won't need to worry about the quality of linguist training.

Originally Posted by Glad_its_all_over

Originally Posted by Perevodchik

We appear to be using the term 'linguist' to cover all sorts of sins and sinners. What do we mean by linguist? A chap who does a fairly long course with the intention of acting as an INTERPRETER, or the sort of chap who used to be fairly highly regarded in the Royal Corps and in ours? The two are very different fish, and I am slightly concerned that the Corps is deluding itself into the belief that because a few chaps are attending language courses for a specific and ultimately temporary role, that they have suddenly solved the linguist problem.

The old perevodchik hits the nail on the head when he distinguishes between the various linguist roles and the knowledge and skills needed for those. Broadly speaking, roles may involve a requirement for a high degree of passive knowledge, including technical and colloquial vocabulary or a high degree of active knowledge, which will also include a lot of "soft" inter-personal stuff as well, for purposes of either interpreting or, um, interviewing.

These are fundamentally different skill sets and, counter-intuitively, not necessarily easily transferable - fresh from a course, a good listener may not be a good speaker and vice versa. I sense that this is still not fully understood in the current set up, except at the extreme left and right of arc - in the middle, there seems to be a broadly undifferentiated skill set which is expected to fall into a directed role using a common training background - is this correct?

"Glad_its_all_over", and “Perevodchik", touch on the useful distinction, differentiation, between Military Colloquial Speakers (MCS), the course for which is measured in weeks; and Interpreter, the course for which is measured in months.

Originally Posted by CRmeansCeilingReached

Originally Posted by Bound_Apprentice

Many thanks too for introducing me to the noun "terp" and the verb "to terp".

quite! i always thought the correct noun was "interrupter"

"Interrupter" is how the LEC liked to refer to themselves in the BLMF !!

Originally Posted by "Perevodchik

Until that is changed, you won't need to worry about the quality of linguist training.

Couldn't agree more, but you're not expecting it to change anytime this century, are you? It's been the cry of ages for anyone in this line of work attending a long language course at DSL (and elsewhere), even in the dim and distant days of fully-loaded Russian interpreter courses; essentially, you were taking up to 18 months out of your career to do a non-career, degree-equivalent course, which given the level of demand for skilled linguists down the years was utterly ridiculous. That's even more the case now. Contrast that with courses of much shorter duration that did advance careers - let me pick one entirely at random - oh, I know - the old Supvr (R) course! - which was four months long (if that) and from which a lot of sproggy spec ops got their staffy and advanced their careers significantly.

These days, when you have people who are expected to be extremely competent in all aspects of the linguistic "trade" in two languages minimum, it's utterly absurd that these long courses don't carry some kind of formal career recognition. In the past, I held the opinion that this was the result of no one in senior management ever having to endure the rigours of attending a long language course. Hardly surprising though, as some of them spoke English no better than the average football player; hardly the ideal people you'd want in ultimate control of linguists' careers.

:D

Originally Posted by Come_fly_With_Me

I think we all get through life working slightly less hard than we might (can you really claim to have nailed 12 hours/day throughout your degree course? - not if you're an Int Corps NCO, obviously, as you'd have left half way through, but otherwise?[i]) and to suggest that DSL would be successful if students just bent their backs and did 15 hour days is disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating.

Laughed quite a bit - so true, myself included.

I still believe that Arabic is slightly better to learn than Pashto as the diaspora is larger and richer (even though dialect training will be required on top of MSA) and should one become very good there are opportunities after service life. With Pashto or Dari ... quite possibly not.

Why has the option of in-service degrees not been pushed for ORs or very young Officers - didnt Mike Jackson join the Corps after spending three years at Birmingham Uni sponsored by the Army learning Russian to which he put to good use in Pristina several decades later?

The average or potential JNCO is likely to be motivated by three years at a decent Uni (snob factor and or totty would have to be factored in!) to learn the language with a return of service committment or requirement to buyout IF manning allowed. At least one year after Phase 2 training in a Unit with satisfactory performance - no warning orders, no alcohol or money problems required to be considered. This would allow it to be used as a carrot for recruits without promises - without leaving the Corps open to the charge of 'I only joined to do XXX' if not selected.

After successful degree and further mil training in breaks, most students would still be in 20s (it would be extremely stupid to restrict such a scheme to 18-21 year olds - any age, and possibly up to and including Sgt if prepared for RoS) with a degree in their backpocket and hopefully (if selected right) a desire to put language into practice and no student debts as all would have been paid for by HMG but with the prospect of a public debt of 20k to be repaid if leaving before a 5 year return of service after graduation.

For Graduates a post graduate language qualification recognised by industry/teaching/other government departments again with return of service.

For those that fail the course or cannot continue then a return to normal units. Hmm Bulford or Uni ? Let me think.

Oh yes - nearly forgot - wasnt it the aspiration of the last Corps Colonel but one and the previous Director but one, that all OPMIs would be trained to colloquial level in a language of some sort ?

Hmm not much going on there. Perhaps the 2 year Staff Officer cycle and over preponderence of Officer DEs of the transferee variety has scuppered this.

Hopefully one day we can have Staff Officers who understand Intelligence, Security, Languages and other specialisations, have YEARS of experience and not DEs who have crossed over because they couldnt get Company Command in the Inf !

Originally Posted by hoohenners

Hmm not much going on there. Perhaps the 2 year Staff Officer cycle and over preponderence of Officer DEs of the transferee variety has scuppered this.

Hopefully one day we can have Staff Officers who understand Intelligence, Security, Languages and other specialisations, have YEARS of experience and not DEs who have crossed over because they couldnt get Company Command in the Inf !

Ouch , thats a bit sharp for a 4th post. I don't suppose you thought about what you were going to put in their Christmas Boxes then?

Originally Posted by hoohenners

Oh yes - nearly forgot - wasnt it the aspiration of the last Corps Colonel but one and the previous Director but one, that all OPMIs would be trained to colloquial level in a language of some sort ?

Hmm not much going on there. Perhaps the 2 year Staff Officer cycle and over preponderence of Officer DEs of the transferee variety has scuppered this.

Hopefully one day we can have Staff Officers who understand Intelligence, Security, Languages and other specialisations, have YEARS of experience and not DEs who have crossed over because they couldnt get Company Command in the Inf !

I'm reliably informed that D INT briefed this years WOs convention that our officer recruiting was to be 50% DE, 25% LE and 25% transferee.

I nearly smashed my monitor when I read this. I can only assume this is because he himself is a transferee that this sort of bollocks has been allowed to occur.

Apparently we can pick and choose who we want to commission as well as those we enlist. That a decision has been made that 25% must come from transferees is baffling. Perhaps the Corps wouldn't have such a shortfall at Capt/Maj level if that 25% went to LE commissions.

Just a thought. We need to stop taking on majs from other capbadges and I'd also put an end to SNCO transferees except those that have skill sets we want (AHs usually).

Excellent read so far and allow me to dip my toes into the waters once more.

Becuase we (the royal we as in the Army) dont have a career stream for linguists the Org (and those within it) continue to suffer. As much as DInt and the SOinC smile and say "splendid" they return back to do Corps buisness, afterall they only supply manpower, its the Org that provides skillsets.

Our said volunteer does thier first few months within the Org and feels "hey this is good stuff, I fancy getting into it a bit more" and bags a language course. 18 - 24 months later they return to either find a quick tour then out or worse arrive back to find an assignment order sending them back to the Corps.

The result is the Org has to appease the Corps into letting it retain these volunteers for at least another tour. The Corps get uppity becuase suddenly career profiles are getting skewed. Another problem is our volunteer promotes and becuase their is no rank range within JPA billets he has to leave the Org unless the unit cmd cannot do some jiggery pokery to retain them.

Lets look at the same model but used differently. SF, it takes manpower from the Corps but look at the postings and financial rewards. 7 year posting minimum, look at the SFC 16k a year more. Glasgow cannot bend backwards enough for this lot and rigthly so BUT why the debacle we have here over linguist volunteers?

The Org should be fighting to maximise retention and see a return. Same for the volunteer they should see a return for their time also, a longer posting (they will deploy multiple times so no worries of stagnating in Lincolnshire). Let them promote and stay in post, a long course should carry a financial bonus with further incentives to attain higher levels.

Maybe the Org isnt fighting its corner? well it should bring in its bigger sponsor to support it after all no man is an island as they say.

So lets say the hint is taken who in the Army gets the linguist as a structured trade with the potential for a supervisory route?

DInt would say this is Int based this is my bag, lets recruit 500 bods.

SOinC would say this is Sigs based this is my bag, , lets recruit 500 bods.

Or maybe it should remain within the Org and run the same structure such as the SF example before. A structured focused unit of volunteers all going through a hard selection process who reap the rewards of such. Within the Org it runs its own rank structure with pay incentives to keep them in. Yes its a little too army for Org but I reckon as an idea it has some legs in it.


Again this carries the caveat of me being an outsider adding flavour (or petrol) to the debate

Originally Posted by Disco

SOinC would say this is Sigs based this is my bag, , lets recruit 500 bods.

Now that would be pouring petrol onto the debate if the SOinC were to express that opinion!

Seeing as the regular army is having these issues, why not take a different approach:

If you are studying a certain language (or indeed anything the army seems to have trouble recruiting / retaining / training) then offer these people the cost of their University fees paid in exchange for serving in the OTC and then staying in the TA for 1 Operational Tour or 5 years?

MSR

Point taken I mean could/maybe/suggest/postulate rather than would!!

The point is, can the Corps run a Linguist trade successfully to 1 customer or should this be a career you can volunteer into and stay in for the duration of your career.