Today I took a break from moving preparations and goodbye meals to take the TOPIK exam.
The Test of Proficiency in Korean, Intermediate Level. Three hours of vocab, writing, listening and reading. Fun stuff, right? A great way to spend an Easter Sunday…
To be perfectly honest though, I love tests. That’s probably because I am a pretty good tester. You name it I’ve taken it… or not really, but I’ve definitely done my fair share of language tests.
It all started in my year abroad when I first learned there were such things as language proficiency exams. Take a test and get a pretty certificate if you pass? Where do I sign up? So as soon as I got home I signed up for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT), level 2 (which at the time was the second highest of four tests). And passed.
Then, when I arrived in Japan two years later, I signed up for level 1, and passed that too. Then heard about the Business Japanese Proficiency Test (BJT), which at the time was run by JETRO, but is now run by the same people as the “Kanken” (Kanji Aptitude Test), and so I took that too. And passed (but skipped the optional interview because while I thrive in written tests, interviews make me really nervous).
Then I got into Korean, and found that they have tests too (!!), so I took the TOPIK beginner level two years ago, and the intermediate test last year.
Then I decided I might want to go to Korea and that would mean looking for new jobs. And when looking for new jobs what better thing to have on your resume than multilingualism (with more proficiency tests for proof)? So, since it had been ten years since I first passed JLPT level one, and the test had since undergone a major overhaul, I decided to take N1 (now the highest level of five), and throw in the Nihongo Kentei (日本語検定) for good measure. The Nihongo Kentei is actually a test theoretically designed for Japanese people, and tests knowledge of things like keigo, vocab, proper usage, etc. In some ways it is similar to the English part of the SATs.
Almost took the BJT again, but I accidentally slept through it… or rather completely forgot I was signed up until the day after…
And of course one more intermediate TOPIK test (because the first time around I only passed level three and I want four).
There are a lot of people out there who like to devalue proficiency tests. More so for JLPT than TOPIK (probably because JLPT has been around longer).
I personally think that you just have to understand the tests, and what they are and are not.
I cannot guarantee that having a level one JLPT has ever gotten me a job, but I can say that when we were looking for my replacement at work, we definitely filtered candidates based partially on language proficiency (as that is essential for my old job), and JLPT scores were one of the scales we used. (Of course we interviewed everyone who passed that first filter, and did language checks of our own as well.) If you don’t like proficiency tests, you are going to have to find some other way to demonstrate your proficiency in an easily understandable way.
I can also say that a JLPT score exempts one from the language test required by one of the master’s programs I have applied to, so being able to demonstrate that proficiency in the application stage has got to be some advantage (as it is a requirement of the program.)
If used correctly, proficiency tests are great for your resume.
Of course they have to be used correctly.
For example, in looking for my replacement we fairly quickly discounted anyone who wrote level 3 or below. For some it was an old result, so it is theoretically possible that they are much better now, but without any more recent indication of higher proficiency it wasn’t really worth our time. For some positions it is possible that even level 2 (N2), might have been cut, so you have to really understand the demands of the job. If it’s an old result that doesn’t really reflect your current level it might be better to leave it off.
On the other hand, proficiency tests are not necessarily great indications of your actual proficiency.
As the people evaluating the candidates, it was necessary for us to do checks of our own.
As someone taking the tests, you have to be realistic about your strengths and weaknesses.
For instance, in my case…
I studied Japanese for seven years before I’d even heard of language proficiency exams. I took formal classes, I studied abroad, and I did a lot of conversation practice. By the time I took my first test, I was functionally quite proficient (the only reason I didn’t go straight for the highest level was some insecurity about kanji and reading). As a result, the exam result was just confirmation of what I already new myself, and was a fairly accurate representation of what I actually knew and could control. I never really studied FOR the exam (other than familiarizing myself with the format.)
With Korean it was (and is) a whole different story. I knew about the existence of the tests almost from the very beginning, and took my first test after only six months of study. I was taking formal classes, but conversation practice was limited. I very much studied FOR that first test, and every test thereafter.
As a result, the scores may open some doors, but conversationally speaking I am still an infant. My comprehension is not terrible, so that’s something, but the test results are a very poor representation of my language production skills.
Anti-testing people largely cite cases like mine as reasons the tests are “worthless,” but I think you just need to be realistic about how much value to place on them.
As a learner, I am very happy with my pretty little certificates, and grateful for every door they have opened, but I also am aware of my own limitations, and that passing the highest level does not necessarily eliminate the need to progress.
And as someone looking at the tests to evaluate others, I realize that they do have limitations, and that it is fine to use them just as one clue to the bigger picture, but dangerous to assume they tell the whole truth.