Economist article about learning Chinese

The Economist is, IMO, of a consistently high standard, but they certainly have their share of bloopers (e.g. Iraq war intelligence); understandable I suppose for any publication dealing with the dismal science. That said, there's an obvious contradiction in stating that Chinese learning English gain an advantage, but English learning Chinese don't. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the bottom line is that in International Business foreign language skills can only be a plus!

Hi Ken Having said the above, i read your reaction once more. It is no use sending them text criticism, but some non-anecdotal evidence can be given. A few weeks ago I heard on the radio that a Dutch secondary school had Chinese as an option, and other schools planned to follow this example. I don't know about other countries, but maybe you can find out on the internet. And I think it is a mistake to treat this whole question in terms of "business" and "ïnvestment". As China has its renaissance the language will be of interest to diplomats, artists, scholars (and, unfortunately, the military). The very vastness of the country will force the outside world to take notice of it. This you could point out at the beginning, then some hard facts about Chinese in Western schools and universities, and finally your own enrollment. Don't be angry (or at least, don't show that you are). At most, you could start by saying that after their anonymous anecdotal evidence you would like to give some non-anecdotal information such as the vastness of China, its 4000 year history, etc., but perhaps better not, they'll shorten it anyhow. Many years ago I pointed out an error in a real anecdote they used in an article on endangered languages, mentioning me by name, and as I knew the inside story I gave them that. To my surprise, they did publish the letter, slightly abbreviated (under the title "tongue lashing"). Over the years, that title cropped up two or three times again when a question of linguistics was at issue. I hope you'll be the next one.

I think that in general there is a nugget of truth in the idea that Chinese have a better advantage in learning English. Many, many years ago I underwent Chinese language training while in the U.S. Military. My fellow students and I had vague notions of going to work for the UN as translators after our military service. This was in the days of Mao and the bamboo curtain. Keep in mind that we were very young and very naive. We soon realized that the UN had all the Chinese translators and interpreters that they needed. All were native Chinese who spoke perfect English and had masters and doctors degrees from major universities, and on top of that the were willing to work at rather low salaries. I now live and work in Mexico and am gradually becoming fluent in Spanish. It is very rewarding to be able to mix in with the native population. However, there is a saying among American businessmen who come to Mexico that if you need to speak Spanish in Mexico in order to accomplish your goals then you are speaking to the wrong people. I am sure that there is a similar saying in regard to China and speaking Chinese. The real benefit of learning another language and the culture that goes along with it is learning about how other people think and feel. If people go into language study with that goal in mind they will have a lot more fun than thinking they will have a superior advantage after investing the five to ten years that it takes to become really and truly fluent. I continue with my Chinese studies for the joy of learning about other people. Now and then I even get to show off a bit to amaze my friends and terrify my enemies. I encourage everyone to study another language or two or three but also to relax and enjoy it and benefit more from the personal growth and enjoyment that it brings rather than seeking some great advantage over ones peers.

If you take Chinese out if the equation, there is a certain logic to the article: the truth is, there is no need for native English speakers to learn *any* other language. There is a clear imbalance in the world, where English speakers can get job pretty much anywhere in the world the minute they land in a country, teaching obviously, but other jobs too, by virtue of having the right passport. This is obvious even working for a multinational company. Conversely, there is no doubt that everybody else needs to learn English to a reasonable level of fluency, functional business fluency that is (incidentally, I think that regular language survival skills are more than enough in business, no need for business-specific language, better concentrate on standard communication, business skills proper being a different matter). Getting full language fluency in any language is probably not the most cost-effective investment, very few of the non-native senior managers I know have remarkable language skills, while most of those who speak 3-6 languages (of which there are quite a few in Switzerland) are in entry-level admin positions - apart from the obvious German, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, English but lots of others, slavic etc. I don't like the tone of the article either, the 'horribly complicated writing system and all' but it is true that learning a language is quite an endeavour, and there is no doubt that few people can carry a conversation in any 'foreign' / 2nd language they learnt at school. Chinese in particular, though not because it's inherently more complicated but because the combined distance is greater (how does that sound?) And sure, most people learning *any* extra-curricular skill give up after a few months or years, or linger on just to enjoy the classroom, the culture, the experience, the community. I'm sure the same holds true here. So what? And if it means we should stop thinking of China as the gold rush where companies are going to ship us as expats at the drop of a hat, so much the better. That leaves the motivated rest of us, of which I'm sure there's enough to keep this boat afloat. Plus Ken, aren't you clear that your core business is not teaching Chinese as such, but something a lot bigger and smarter than that?

apologies for the rant and stuttering above, should have reviewed it before posting

Bob, Goulnik, very good points. I would discourage anybody from learning a language because it is supposedly the "(business) language of the future". In my eyes, you should never learn a language for its future. Learn it for its past and present. A good student here is married to a girl from Ghana. He learns "Twi" now. I have high respect for him doing so and strongly encouraged him to hold on - although there is no Twi-Pod yet. Certainly not much "business value" in learning Twi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twi

"Let’s all study law - no let’s all just study easy things, not hard things." I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Ken. I don't have any hard data to back it up, but I feel that the West, for the most part, is steadily becoming a culture of mediocrity. We have more resources available to us now, like education and technology, than any other time in history; yet we have almost no motivation to use them. I could go on for hours, but suffice it to say I think this mentality is reflected throughout the article.

I我承认我就是一个怪人。 I don't expect any economic advantage from studying Chinese. There are probably other things that I could study that are more likely benefit my career more. It does give me a better understanding of what people in the rest of the world have to go through to learn English. It is a challenge, but I think that is a good thing. I have made some friends I wouldn't have otherwise. And, it is very satisfying when all the hard work pays off and I succeed in communicating with someone in Chinese. I'm not planning to stop, Economist article, or not, fad, or not. This is the annecdotal evidence I have to give.

I just want to mention an essay by Umberto Eco I happened to read earlier tonight. I don't know how many of you are able to read Italian but if you can, go read it: http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/Ma-che-capira-il-cinese/1866107 The sentiment of it is completely different from the article Ken is criticizing. Eco is using the translation of some of his essays into Chinese to discuss how etnocentrism in the past has put up impenetrable barriers between different cultures but now people at least are willing to try to understand each other. He uses the example of the French mathematician Chasles who was fooled into buying letters supposedly written by Pascal in French to Galileo and Newton. The letters were of course false but Chasles was unable to imagine that brilliant scholars of the past would communicate in any other language than French. Unfortunately articles like this one from The Economist shows us that this sentiment is still at work.

There is a kernel of truth to the Economist article, despite the occasionally silly tone. For a corporate career, knowing a non-English foreign language can be the icing on the cake, but it's not the cake. Cushy expat jobs are increasingly rare, and a job that requires Chinese fluency will probably be filled by a native Chinese speaker who also has excellent English skills. Knowledge of foreign languages can even be a hindrance to your career in some situations, leading to a person being pigeonholed or typecast as "the guy who knows languages". Few companies will pay you any kind of salary premium for language skills (unless you work as a translator or interpreter or something of that nature). In that sense, to the extent that some of the recent worldwide interest in Chinese is driven by mercenary considerations -- people thinking "this will help me get ahead in my salaryman career" -- the financial return on investment will be less than many people anticipate. That's the point the Economist was trying to make. Instead, the benefits are indirect. For instance, a lot of economic activity results from networking and contacts and personal relationships. A lot of job opportunities or investment opportunities aren't advertised. Language skills can break the ice and reduce misunderstandings. Also, the ability to read blogs, websites, and message forums can be very useful in spotting economic and business trends. Making sense of the global credit crunch, for example, almost requires reading commentary and analysis on reputable economics blogs -- it's just too specialized and too recent for books and mainstream publications. Publications like the Financial Times and to a lesser extent the Wall Street Journal are a good starting point but not sufficient. A key skill in today's Internet world is datamining: picking through trivia, useless factoids, nutjob conspiracy theories and tons of just plain irrelevant material in search of a few good actionable insights and trends. Very often, all the information you need is hiding in plain sight, you just have to find it and recognize it for what it is. Figuring something out a year or two before it makes the mainstream headlines can be very advantageous (and it doesn't matter if it's someone else's idea rather than your own original thought... in fact, if your idea has never occurred to a single other person, then you're probably wrong). To the extent that future economic activity increasingly concentrates in places like China, being able to read suitable Internet information resources in Chinese in a timely way is likely to become quite useful. But then again, the above only applies if you have a bit of a restless speculative mentality, or if you're an independent investor or entrepreneur. For many if not most people, who rely on a salary for their income, I don't think Chinese will pay off in purely dollars and cents terms. You have to simply enjoy the language and like the people who speak it, and all the intangible cultural and intellectual benefits and friendships you get from it, and that makes it worthwhile. It's also cool to be able to babble a few words of Chinese with, say, a Korean who doesn't speak English. Chinese is the new Esperanto :)

You're right, Ken, the writing is very poor. It takes a few assertions found through surface scratching, then supports with bogus statistics and leads no meaning. There are many opportunities in China for Westerners, but for the very exclusive group of students on the corporate track, learning Chinese is not good payback. But for those who decide to go back to school for law, for example, would likely find themselves only moderately better paid (maybe) likely doing tedious work. Learn that Western business methodology has some shortcomings in China and combine that with a entrepreneur spirit, then you have a pretty good chance. The days of the mid-nineties posh, corporate ex-pat are indeed going away, but that was a short-term bubble. The opportunities are for those who are independent, creative, and perhaps most importantly, willing to wade through the Chinese business culture that can be very different than that of Western culture. I only write this to invite Ken to critique a novice in this area. I'd love to read his take on a Westerner establishing business in China.

All of the above points are well and good. However, 15 years ago I went in with a Taiwanese friend and a mainland partner (de rigeur in those days) on a large (for us), yet small (for China) residential real estate project. Now, admittedly, when it came down to the nitty gritty, I relied heavily upon my Taiwanese partner's language skills. That said, the locals (truthfully, I think) told me time and time again how much they appreciated the fact that I could talk, argue, curse etc. with/at them in Chinese. Given my meager language skills, it is most likely that the accompanying cultural sensitivities remarked on above came into play as well. Also, maybe it isn't a worthwhile return (on average) in terms of dollars and cents, time, etc. My reasons were certainly personal. That said, the notion that the advantages of knowing the local language are minimal in business don't jive with my experience. As for the idea that if you talk to somebody who doesn't speak English, then you aren't talking to the "right person"? I thought it was only us "Ugly Americans" that thought like that. Anyway, the idea that you should only learn a language for the love of learning is a very worthwhile concept; it is also, IMO, very, very Ivory Tower. So, while I agree with many of the points raised above, I also feel that the advantages of learning a foreign language go beyond just personal.

There is a quotation I read awhile ago, and though I forget both exactly how it went and who wrote it, the meaning was something along the lines of "Make a man comfortable and he'll never change." I feel that human beings in general are prone to falling into routines and sticking with them. If we make decent money, eat decent food and live a normal happy life, why change? Along the same line of thought, if native-English speakers are not forced to speak another language in order to compete or succeed, why do it? Many Chinese aren't learning English for fun, they're learning it to survive. This is the attitude that many westerns, particularly English-speaking westerns, have: Let them change to suit "our" world. This, I believe, creates a tremendous handicap in any relationship (business, personal, political, etc), and in some cases can hinder the way in which the adapting party (the Chinese, for example) views the one their to which their adapating (the West). Simply put, the West needs native-English speakers that have experience in China. With the culture, the people, business, economics, academia, etc. Most importantly, a thorough knowledge of these aspects of a culture cannot fully be mastered without a fluency in the language. Why do I learn Chinese? I want to promote undertstanding.

Sorry, I hastily posted that without reviewing or finishing it. Regarding the job-potential aspect of the article and above posters, I'm afraid I have to agree. Solely having knowledge of Chinese will not get you the job you covet, though experience and credentials, alongside fluent knowledge (perhaps including reading and writing fluency) of Mandarin will certainly make your resume stand out. However, under a capitalist system, it's the cheap English-speaking Chinese that will be more affluent than the Chinese-speaking expats. Only companies that understand that large cultural barriers do in fact exist, and realize that paying for quality will (hopefully) improve operations, will hire the latter. These types of companies, I fear, are far and few between.

The Economist article is a "sour grapes" rationalization, along the lines of: "if many of the best and brightest Westerners - whose knowledge and culture is already so superior - can't learn Chinese in a reasonable time, it must not be worth the effort." Ironically, this reminds of when Qianlong in the Qing Dynasty is said to have rejected trading with the West because the British Ambassador Macartney refused to bow to the Son of Heaven. This rejection is considered by some historians to have started the downward spiral in China's cultural and economic standing in the world. I hope that Westerners' fears about learning Chinese doesn't eventually result in the China eating our economic and cultural lunch - grapes and all.

Once you boiled this article down to not worth the trouble, lets study easy things, I think you cracked the whole article open. May the spirit of learning about each other and from each other, especially through language, overcome narrow mindedness and the profit mentality.

I can't help thinking that Ken has been living in (greater) China for too long. As Kyle said, 'many Chinese aren't learning English for fun, they're learning it to survive.' There sure is tremendous pressure upon Chinese kids and graduates alike, and we know how they go about learning, how determined, 努力 and prepared they are. I'm guessing these are the people who attend Ken's language schools in China. If people in the West had the same attitude towards learning, there may be less truth about the article and the economics of language learning.

Only tangentially related to to this post, but Australia's new leader, Kevin Rudd, has a background in Mandarin.

Browsing in the rich material Chinesepod provides I hit upon a reference to an article in The Economist, of which I have been a faithful reader for several decades. Clicking on the reference, I saw that it was about this week's issue, of which I had already read the table of contents and several articles, including three about Chinese matters. It turns out that the section Britain does NOT contain the article you quote. It must have something to do with European vs. Asiatic editions. When I read your reaction, Ken, I had the sad feeling you get when two good friends of yours fall out. Both Chinesepod and the Economist are good friends to me, and I wish you would make up. One thing I like about The Economist is that they do admit mistakes, both in their own articles and in their Letters section. You must remember that they once published, under "Technology and education", an article "Mandarin 2.0. How Skype, podcasts and broadband are transforming language teaching". It is this article that drew my attention to Chinesepod. It must have been in June/July, for I spend every August in Vancouver and put the clipping away (unfortunately without putting on the date) until my return. I cannot go back to your blog now, for then I will have to type this over again, but you sounded a bit angry. They published the figures you gave them at the time ("About 250,000 listen regularly and "several thousand" pay for the premium services"). If you can just give them some hard figures, maybe with a guess as to the percentage of business people among your subscribers, they may well print it. You could end with something like "So many thousands of businessmen can't be wrong". I wish you good luck.

I think there's definitely lots of fabulous points written above that could be concisely pieced together and delivered to the Economist editor's mailbag... Opportunity cost? Most people who ever pick up a musical instrument never make a dime from playing it, but the satisfaction of playing a crisp measure of notes in your living room can be immeasurable.