Facilitate the design of the curriculum and the turn of course direction

2. Limit the design of the curriculum and turn of course direction.

3. Encourage students to register in interpreting schools.

4. One more indicator to use when employing teachers.

5. Does not make a difference.

6. Others. Please relate in detail _______________.

A: Of course an accreditation like this would in one way or the other limit the autonomy enjoyed by interpreting schools. Educational organizations are not cram school. Schools not only teach students how to cope with one single exam but all kinds of different interpreting situations.

We plan to impart more than test technique to our students and teach them to handle all kinds of challenges that arise on the job. A more diverse knowledge background and a stronger theory base will benefit the student in the long run.

However, if the test can get the students a pass to the job market, than our goal would be to help them overcome the barrier. Although it is obvious that qualifying for one single accreditation test does not mean the student is fully prepared for the interpreting market, but it a

least opens more doors.

If the certification is prevalent and credible, it will inevitably become a benchmark for the quality sustained by individual interpreting schools. This is not a negative development, for schools would have a clear goal to reach for and future candidates who wish to enroll in interpreting schools would have something to a better understanding of what lies ahead.

There is not one single system that can be comprehensive, but having one is better than none.

B: It depends on the credibility of the test. If the test proves to be reliable and valid, then it may be a good way for interpreting schools to examine how their students are doing compared to other schools and how the test results differ from that of their own professional exams. Students who have passed both tests would gain a higher trust from clients. In all, the impact will be quite positive, although we believe that the chance of designing a reliable and valid test is not high.

The possibility of the washback effect is quite high. We do fear that the test questions may force us to alter some of our course direction and design. For example, in the interpreting proficiency test held last December, the ratio of questions in certain fields such as environmental protection is higher than others. The result may well be that candidates who are more familiar with the participant will have an advantage. If the proficiency test continues to put emphasis in certain participant fields in the future, we might have to highlight those areas as well. Examination guided teaching increases the risk of training conference interpreters who are only capable of dealing with certain participant areas. If this happens, the students will have a lower chance of surviving on the market where the demands actually greatly vary.

If interpreting schools become interpreting cram schools, the professional image of interpreters and the interpreting industry may be undermined.

C: A certification test would not limit the development or course design of interpreting schools. We do not only train interpreters but also train interpreting teachers and researchers. These people do not need to pass professional test for interpreters but only need an in-depth understanding of the nature of the interpreting work. The goal of the interpreting school is more diversified than simply helping student pass the exam and they need more training as well. We believe these two systems would not conflict with each other.

D:We don’t think a nationwide accreditation test would have much of an influence on interpreting schools. These two systems have different goals. The tests are designed differently and, as a consequence, would examine different abilities. For example, we do not divide consecutive interpreting into short and long in out test. As a matter of fact, we expect all interpreting students who graduate to be able to perform an at least 3 minute consecutive interpretation at once.

However, if the accreditation held by the government is in the form of licensure, then we would try to help students prepare for the test.

E: It certainly won’t hurt us. Students of TI programs should have high passing rate.

Passing the test conducted by the government means that the candidates are endorsed by the government, which in turn gives credit to interpreting schools who enjoys the most pass rate.

However, a nationwide test has its flaws. A single test with limited test questions is not sufficient to judge whether the candidate is qualified to perform the interpreting job or not.

Furthermore, there are always doubts on the possible washback effect that may happen.

7.) For the graduates who wish to become interpreters, what gives them a competitive edge?

1. Certificate 2. Work experience

3. Interpreting degree 4. Membership of a professional organization.

5. Referral from peers or teachers from interpreting school 6. No idea.

7. Others. Please relate in detail ____________________.

A: Certificate, work experience, interpreting degree, and referral from peers or teachers.

We do believe that if a nationwide certification test has established its credibility and necessity, than it will become more influential than the other references; however, at the moment, referral from peers and teachers from interpreting schools would give the students the most powerful advantage.

B: A good working condition and professional status. If the clients have a better understanding as to how to treat interpreters, then it is a definite advantage to whoever wants to enter the conference interpreting market.

We host mock conferences and professional exams to which conference organizers can come and scout for potential interpreters. This is an advantage provided by interpreting schools to novices.

Through conference organizers or by referrals from the teachers, novice interpreters will be more likely to obtain opportunities. But the most important of all is that once interpreters get an opportunity, they should be fully prepared and willing to communicate with the clients. After all, reputation speaks louder than everything else.

Another factor that would increase the competitiveness of novice interpreters is in-depth knowledge in a certain domain. Clients will be more inclined to hire the conference interpreters if they know the interpreter is capable of handling professional terminology and understand the logic used in the industry. Sometimes clients will come to me and ask me to refer student interpreters. I

often hesitate when the conference is highly specialized in nature such as music or art. Many students do not have an in-depth knowledge in these participant fields, naturally they have less chance of obtaining jobs in these domains.

C: The best way would be for the interpreting schools to work hand in hand with conference organizers to provide students with plenty of opportunities to practice and improve. In other words, experience is the most substantial.

The question is actually not what would give novice interpreters an advantage but how can the market cultivate qualified interpreters.

D: Novice recommended by the teachers in interpreting schools would gain a definite advantage. Certificates obtained by passing tests like the professional test co-hosted by GITIS and GITI would also increase the students’ opportunity to secure a job.

E: We do believe that an interpreting degree will give novice interpreters an advantage.

Even if graduates from interpreting schools may not be fully prepared for the market, the years of training they have had would still make them a better candidate than those who are not trained. That is one of the reasons why most of the new interpreters in the market are formally trained. Take the translation and interpretation proficiency test held last December for example, many of the candidates who passed the test are students from interpreting schools.

Furthermore, existing interpreting certifications have so far produced mixed results. Take NATTI accreditation for example, it has become more a channel for foreigners to emigrate to Australia than as a system to select qualified interpreters. And NATTI accreditations, as far as I know, are basically for business and community interpreting instead of conference interpreting.

Therefore, other less prestigious interpreting accreditation systems may not produce the type of

quality control that we crave and probably would not gain the public’s trust.

8.) Is implementing interpreter certification a necessary step for the conference interpreting industry? Why?

A: An accreditation system is essential for exercising quality control. At the moment, trained or not, any bilingual can enter the interpreting market, and many of the interpreting textbooks on the market are full of mistakes and misunderstandings. A clear standard on interpreting quality introduced by a professional certification test should reduce such market chaos.

B: Originally, it was the hope that by establishing a professional accreditation test, the society will have more respect for interpreters and the interpreting industry. The general public will have a better understanding of the nature of the profession and understand that interpreters are more than mere bilinguals. Step by step, order will be built in the market chaos we see now.

In addition, it gives everyone in the society, regardless of training or degree, a fair chance to prove his or her ability to become a qualified interpreter. In addition, students who did not passed the professional exams at our school may want another chance to prove themselves. Other times students may simply want to seek extra endorsements from another authority.

Furthermore, as far as we know, some of the interpreting schools don’t have professional exams of their own. An accreditation held by the government may then become a good screening mechanism for them.

Although, the low pass rate may discourage candidates to take the test in the future, it also shows the society that interpreting is not as easy a task as it seems to some people. Thus, the professional status of the profession may improve accordingly.

However, the conference interpreting market is actually a fairly small one. With a test that

demands so much time and effort, it seems to be a bit of a waste. Market mechanism is sufficient enough to screen the candidates.

Presently clients have pretty good understanding of what interpreting is. They do not need the certificate to convince them of the benefits good interpreters may bring. As for those who do not believe in the critical role interpreters play, they would not consider hiring certified interpreters anyway. As a result, an accreditation test will not make much of a difference.

C: A certification test endorsed by the government will certainly achieve more than the professional test held by individual interpreting schools for the government is much more resourceful. A government certification would then become a benchmark. The message would be that interpreters who passed the test are the best in the field. The interpreter would have a clear idea of what they should achieve and what a good interpreters should be like. The test is open to all that has an interest and the professional test held by interpreting schools are only open to their students, therefore, it can service as a benchmark for the whole society. The industry can use it as a general standard to screen future candidates from all different sources.

We need to give people who are not trained or approved by interpreting schools a chance.

The certification means to select from all potential candidates and give them a fair chance, instead of simply certifying the ones that are already at the top of the field.

D:If it is a national development policy set, then necessity is not of concern. The thing is, presently, the talent located by the accreditation test is different from what we look for.

Actually, senior interpreters have already established a client base, and it makes no sense to force them to take a test. A test for basic interpreting ability would not have made a difference anyway for conference interpreting involves more sophisticated skills, which they have already proved themselves capable of. However, it may help interpreters who aim for the escort or

community interpreting market. Interpreters with basic interpreting ability would do the job well.

E: The general public has no way of evaluating professionals performance and often has trouble selecting the ones that are capable for the job; therefore, the establishment of a certification system will service as an indicator. After all, the issuance of a professional certificate means that the candidates passed a strict screening process backed up by a professional team in the field. This will also be a welcoming promise for clients and agencies when they can be sure that the certification means basic quality control.

However, even graduates who we believe to be good enough to enter the market would need a few years of working in the field before they become competent interpreters and able to handle different topics with more ease. Therefore, even if there is a nationwide certification, the ones that passed cannot be labeled as qualified interpreters immediately.

In all, we believe that the function of an interpretation certificate is fairly limited.

Presently most of the novice interpreters in the market have formal training and a better understanding of the need of the industry. In time, these professional interpreters with similar background will form consensus and establish market order. This is not what a single certification can accomplish.

9.) What should be tested in an interpreter certification exam?

1. Translation (both ways) 2. Domain knowledge 3. Interpretation (both ways): consecutive and simultaneous 4. Summary 5. Note-taking

6. Others. Please relate in detail _____________.

A: English proficiency is tested at the first stage of the translation and interpretation proficiency test held last year supposedly because foreign language proficiency is deemed as a basic skill in interpreting; however, we believe that English ability should not be considered as a part of the interpreting skill that should be tested, but a prerequisite in entering the interpreting proficiency test. As a matter of fact, the interpreting accreditation system should distinguish itself from English proficiency tests. There are already many different English proficiency tests on the market that can verify the candidates’ language ability; therefore, tests on interpreting abilities ought not to include participants that concern basic language abilities anymore.

The certification should also be divided into different interpreting categories such as Chinese-English and Chinese-English-Chinese short consecutive interpreting, long consecutive interpreting and simultaneously interpreting. It is quite impossible to divide the tests into many different knowledge background such as business or culture for there are too many different participants that varies greatly from each other that made it almost impossible to design the test questions and find qualified judges to review them.

B: There is no need to establish an accreditation.

C: Language ability should not be tested, but set as a prerequisite for registration. We have a lot of language certification tests already, there is no need to add that to interpreting certification tests.

The basic ability has being tested in the proficiency test last year already. In the future, the test should be further divided into more participant fields like foreign affairs, culture, or

physical education, although that may have to wait for we will have to find professional good enough in a certain area to judge the performance.

D: For a general interpreting accreditation, language ability should be up to standard.

Therefore, the test could either include a language proficiency test or simply set it as a prerequisite.

Others would be basic interpreting ability such as consecutive interpreting. There is no need to divide the test into different participant area for there is simply too many of them and the test can never cover everything that was needed.

E:It should examine basic interpreting ability. In addition, the topics picked out for the test should probably be divided into different participant areas or even different levels of proficiency.

10.) Should interpreters be certified or licensed if a regulating mechanism is to be installed?

A:I believe that the interpreters should not be licensed from the very start, although whether it may end up being so is still up for debate. It should start from certification and see how it goes from there.

If the present translation and interpretation proficiency test has earned public trust and established its influence in the industry, Licensure would then be an option for it has higher credibility over certification.

The advantage enjoyed by certification is that the market can choose whom to hire according to their specific needs and budget. Some of our students from the undergraduate department have been working for firms who are only willing to pay minimal wages for translation or interpretation services. Of course then the quality may not be satisfactory.

Even though there are certain benefits to certification, licensure still gives the interpreters a better leverage for it indicates a stricter quality control and the highest credibility perceived by the general public. Some say that licensure is too strict a mechanism and may cause more damage on the market than benefit; for instance, take a look at licensing for lawyers, if a candidate failed the entry test for lawyers, people will simply say that they are not fully prepared and unfit to go into the market. So the question isn’t how strict the test is but how professional the public view the profession. Of course we do have to agree that the field of law has a stronger and graver impact on public safety and property.

B: There is no need to establish a certification.

C: Certification is enough. Licensure will be too strict. Interpreting agencies will have a lot of problem accommodating the huge demand if all interpreters need a license to perform the job.

D: Licensure needs a legal base and is a very strict market entry screening mechanism.

Interpreters in law or medicine may need to be licensed for they are involved in matters of life and death. For example, criminal cases will involve sentences such as imprisonment, death penalty or fine. Even in civil cases, a large sum of financial compensation may greatly affect people’s lives.

It is generally accepted that these two participant areas of interpreting should be licensed because it affects public or personal safety or property; furthermore, they include a certain domain knowledge that can be pinpointed in the test. Conference interpreting or general interpreting includes no specific domain knowledge that can be tested all at once. In this sense, only basic interpreting ability can be verified and a certification would be sufficient for general interpreting.

E: Licensure is not possible. All interpreters, especially conference interpreters that are

highly respected and trusted in the market do not have licenses and up until now things have been run smoothly in the market. This shows that currently people manage to find qualified interpreters without the help of licenses.

Furthermore, licensed professionals like doctors or accountants are not only tested in the depth of professional knowledge in their field, but also the procedures that need to be followed as

Furthermore, licensed professionals like doctors or accountants are not only tested in the depth of professional knowledge in their field, but also the procedures that need to be followed as