Only 7% of College Students Enrolled in a Language?

[aokoye]

Another point that hasn't been addressed is international students as well as any other student whose L1 isn't English. It isn't uncommon for students in the US whose L1 isn't English to be able to either test out of a foreign language requirement or otherwise prove that they have competency of a language other than English (by way of say, completing high school in a country where English isn't the primary medium of instruction).

[Dylan95]

Approximately one-third of the responses came from two-year colleges, and two-thirds from four-year institutions. No language courses were offered in 7.5% of responding two-year colleges and in 6.7% of responding four-year institutions.

For a college not to offer any foreign language at all is surprising to me, even at 6-7%.

They are probably low-cost trade schools.

[Decidida]

Thanks everyone! When I see numbers like this thrown out, I don't yet have the context to fully understand what they REALLY mean.

[Cavesa]

7% seems a bit weird, but I wouldn't be surprised. The US universities are known to be bad at languages. I remember seeing a nice example in France: a young woman preparing for a career of a maths and French teacher, who definitely wouldn't even get accepted to such a degree in my country (and the standards for teaching degrees are pretty low). And we hear of it pretty often.

On the other hand, the US universities excel at many other subjects. And the are very expensive. I am not surprised people want to actually learn something really well for their money, instead of getting mediocre classes of a language, unless it is obligatory.

Let's not forget, that it is not unusual to consider the relative ease of learning a language elsewhere (even for a mainstream learner considering only classes and tutors, not self-teaching) and getting a certificate of your skill for your CV (language exams) and compare it to absolute impossibility of acquiring education and certificate in another subject.

Were I an american student, I would consider spending my money carefully too.

[Dylan95]

7% seems a bit weird, but I wouldn't be surprised. The US universities are known to be bad at languages. I remember seeing a nice example in France: a young woman preparing for a career of a maths and French teacher, who definitely wouldn't even get accepted to such a degree in my country (and the standards for teaching degrees are pretty low). And we hear of it pretty often.

On the other hand, the US universities excel at many other subjects. And the are very expensive. I am not surprised people want to actually learn something really well for their money, instead of getting mediocre classes of a language, unless it is obligatory.

Let's not forget, that it is not unusual to consider the relative ease of learning a language elsewhere (even for a mainstream learner considering only classes and tutors, not self-teaching) and getting a certificate of your skill for your CV (language exams) and compare it to absolute impossibility of acquiring education and certificate in another subject.

Were I an american student, I would consider spending my money carefully too.

There's a pretty wide range in quality at American universities. Most of the top ranked universities in the world are in the United States. Harvard, Yale, and Middlebury language schoosl are all in the US after all. On the other, there are hundreds, and probably over a 1000 for-profit schools of low quality.

Foreign languages are not prioritized in the US because for most people its completely unnecessary. We already speak English, the world's lingua franca, and English is the only significant language in the American mainland. Plus, we have tons of diaspora speakers, who as native speakers of english and their heritage language, are basically born with the necessary qualifications for the few jobs that do require knowledge of a foreign language.

What I'm curious about, is how the US fairs in comparison to other "English-speaking" countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK in terms of foreign language learning. I have a feeling that when English is the native language of most speakers, people in that country are unlikely to try, or at least succeed in foreign language learning. Probably because knowing another language is of such little value for most ordinary people in our countries, and because English doesn't have any extremely closely related languages that people would actually want to learn. (Dutch and Norwegian might have a lot in common with English, but few would want to speak them). Spanish is pretty "easy" for English speakers, but I'm sure its much more difficult than it is for speakers of romance languages.

[aokoye]

Approximately one-third of the responses came from two-year colleges, and two-thirds from four-year institutions. No language courses were offered in 7.5% of responding two-year colleges and in 6.7% of responding four-year institutions.

For a college not to offer any foreign language at all is surprising to me, even at 6-7%.

They are probably low-cost trade schools.

Looking at the dataset it looks like a lot of them are bible colleges, some are community colleges, and some are schools that are solely focusing on specific disciplines but what I wouldn't necessarily call trade schools. Music schools (well ok I think I only spotted one and it is most definitely not low cost), for instance, but also schools that focus on medicine and a technology.

[Cavesa]

7% seems a bit weird, but I wouldn't be surprised. The US universities are known to be bad at languages. I remember seeing a nice example in France: a young woman preparing for a career of a maths and French teacher, who definitely wouldn't even get accepted to such a degree in my country (and the standards for teaching degrees are pretty low). And we hear of it pretty often.

On the other hand, the US universities excel at many other subjects. And the are very expensive. I am not surprised people want to actually learn something really well for their money, instead of getting mediocre classes of a language, unless it is obligatory.

Let's not forget, that it is not unusual to consider the relative ease of learning a language elsewhere (even for a mainstream learner considering only classes and tutors, not self-teaching) and getting a certificate of your skill for your CV (language exams) and compare it to absolute impossibility of acquiring education and certificate in another subject.

Were I an american student, I would consider spending my money carefully too.

There's a pretty wide range in quality at American universities. Most of the top ranked universities in the world are in the United States. Harvard, Yale, and Middlebury language schoosl are all in the US after all. On the other, there are hundreds, and probably over a 1000 for-profit schools of low quality.

Foreign languages are not prioritized in the US because for most people its completely unnecessary. We already speak English, the world's lingua franca, and English is the only significant language in the American mainland. Plus, we have tons of diaspora speakers, who as native speakers of english and their heritage language, are basically born with the necessary qualifications for the few jobs that do require knowledge of a foreign language.

What I'm curious about, is how the US fairs in comparison to other "English-speaking" countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK in terms of foreign language learning. I have a feeling that when English is the native language of most speakers, people in that country are unlikely to try, or at least succeed in foreign language learning. Probably because knowing another language is of such little value for most ordinary people in our countries, and because English doesn't have any extremely closely related languages that people would actually want to learn. (Dutch and Norwegian might have a lot in common with English, but few would want to speak them). Spanish is pretty "easy" for English speakers, but I'm sure its much more difficult than it is for speakers of romance languages.

I can see nothing in disagreement between the two posts. All those reasons add up to the result.

[Dylan95]

7% seems a bit weird, but I wouldn't be surprised. The US universities are known to be bad at languages. I remember seeing a nice example in France: a young woman preparing for a career of a maths and French teacher, who definitely wouldn't even get accepted to such a degree in my country (and the standards for teaching degrees are pretty low). And we hear of it pretty often.

On the other hand, the US universities excel at many other subjects. And the are very expensive. I am not surprised people want to actually learn something really well for their money, instead of getting mediocre classes of a language, unless it is obligatory.

Let's not forget, that it is not unusual to consider the relative ease of learning a language elsewhere (even for a mainstream learner considering only classes and tutors, not self-teaching) and getting a certificate of your skill for your CV (language exams) and compare it to absolute impossibility of acquiring education and certificate in another subject.

Were I an american student, I would consider spending my money carefully too.

There's a pretty wide range in quality at American universities. Most of the top ranked universities in the world are in the United States. Harvard, Yale, and Middlebury language schoosl are all in the US after all. On the other, there are hundreds, and probably over a 1000 for-profit schools of low quality.

Foreign languages are not prioritized in the US because for most people its completely unnecessary. We already speak English, the world's lingua franca, and English is the only significant language in the American mainland. Plus, we have tons of diaspora speakers, who as native speakers of english and their heritage language, are basically born with the necessary qualifications for the few jobs that do require knowledge of a foreign language.

What I'm curious about, is how the US fairs in comparison to other "English-speaking" countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK in terms of foreign language learning. I have a feeling that when English is the native language of most speakers, people in that country are unlikely to try, or at least succeed in foreign language learning. Probably because knowing another language is of such little value for most ordinary people in our countries, and because English doesn't have any extremely closely related languages that people would actually want to learn. (Dutch and Norwegian might have a lot in common with English, but few would want to speak them). Spanish is pretty "easy" for English speakers, but I'm sure its much more difficult than it is for speakers of romance languages.

I can see nothing in disagreement between the two posts. All those reasons add up to the result.

I wasn't expressing disagreement. I was just commenting on some of your points and pondering some similar questions.

[aokoye]

I will say that it looks like the language with the highest increase in the data that was used is ASL with I want to say an increase in over 40%. If I remember correctly, the rates of enrollment in ASL classes in the US had been continuously increasing from for X number of years as well (I'm not near my laptop and can't look at the study). There was also an increase in students taking Korean.

[Sarafina]

7% seems a bit weird, but I wouldn't be surprised. The US universities are known to be bad at languages. I remember seeing a nice example in France: a young woman preparing for a career of a maths and French teacher, who definitely wouldn't even get accepted to such a degree in my country (and the standards for teaching degrees are pretty low). And we hear of it pretty often.

Why wouldn't she have been able to get such a degree your country? Was it that her French and Maths skills were so poor?