Skip to main content

Pardon moi? Anglais rather than Francais in French universities?

This is the stuff of revolutions!    The French are turning to using English, in preference to French, in universities.

"For the first time, English has begun to replace French in, of all places, French universities! No wonder an almighty row has broken out in France. Once, French was the language of diplomacy and international relations throughout the world. Even our ancient Order of the Garter still preserves its motto in Norman French: “Honi soit qui mal y pense”. But now French universities have been urged to teach certain courses in English.
Oops, I have just demonstrated with that last sentence what the lovers of “correct” French don’t like about the influence of English – the use of the passive. They cringe when their fellow citizens say “vous êtes demandé au téléphone”. What they wish to hear is “on vous demande au téléphone”.

In fact, giving French universities this linguistic freedom makes excellent sense. It is designed to help them attract more foreign students. The present situation is that about 30 per cent of students who leave their home countries to study abroad go to the US. Some 18 per cent of them come to the United Kingdom and 13 per cent attend German universities. The comparable proportion for France is 11 per cent. And, of these, many come from France’s former colonies in Africa.

So in terms of competing for students from the so-called BRIC economies – Brazil, Russia, India and China – where English is widely taught, France is not really a competitor. And it naturally wants to be. Not only do foreign students pay high fees, they also tend to have fond memories of studying abroad, and become enthusiasts for the country where they once lived for a year or two. So for French universities to teach some courses in English is simply good business."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...