Official language exams are global numeric standards that most institutions use to gauge a person’s proficiency in a particular language. KAIST alone requires standardized test scores like the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) for English or the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK), a globally-recognized test for the Korean language, to graduate. Presumably, such requirements are established to encourage multilingual proficiency and globalization, and it does motivate students to some extent, but not as much as we’d expect.

Occasionally, I run into some international students who are very fluent in English but did not score highly in their English tests. On the other hand, many other KAIST students would score well on these tests yet struggle to hold prolonged English conversations. I’m inclined to think that the latter is not an issue of grammatical or lexical repertoire; rather, I think it lies in the inactive usage of the language. International students who don’t know Korean have to use English in order to survive, while Korean students at best use the language for easier communication, which is not as much pressure.

That doesn’t seem to be the case for international students learning Korean; even though they are in South Korea, students are learning the language for the first time in their lives, unlike English. There’s only a handful who end up being able to speak Korean comfortably during their studies, and even so, their proficiency may not compare evenly to their English proficiency. I think it’s unfair to blame the individual’s personal motivation when even Korean students would speak in Korean if it’s more comfortable in an English-driven academic atmosphere. Instead, this seems more like a lack of institutionalized motivation for learning a non-native language.

And that’s where I believe the futility of fixation on language test scores lies. Students are simply learning another language to pass these exams, but there aren’t that many other avenues to use the languages actively. Language test scores are not designed to reflect language skills, and I think they only digress from actual efforts that encourage proficiency and comfort in a language. KAIST should instead push for more active and academic-centered opportunities, since students tend to focus on their academics more than their extracurriculars. 

For learning Korean, there is absolutely zero institutionalized motivation. Students learn up to what is necessary to obtain the minimum required level in TOPIK, but not much usage of the language is encouraged in one's relevant field of studies or other aspects of their daily living. I vividly remember even back in high school that while the courses were conducted in English, the teachers put in the extra effort to help the students acclimate themselves by giving summarized English-Korean translation pairs of technical terms. Textbooks written in English also have their Korean counterparts, and students have extra learning resources passed down from their seniors to complement their main English resources. There isn’t such a support system for international students who genuinely want to learn Korean more extensively. And when you intend to stay in this country for longer, it is important to familiarize yourself with the technical vocabulary in your field. While the current attempts of KAIST on teaching Korean is a good start, more effort should be channeled towards practical, or even academic, use of the language. 

Even in KAIST, lecture materials are written in English yet designed to cater to the pace of students who are not comfortable in English. Over time, as I see students from my different lectures come to class with printed or digital versions of the slides, I’ve come to realize why KAIST lectures are different from lectures at other universities — the latter seem more interactive and do not appear as if the professor is just reading the slides. And yet, KAIST’s English lectures are currently so passive that it is insufficient to develop one’s English skills actively; if anything, the most you’ll gain from these courses would be listening (and perhaps reading) skills over speaking. Professors should thus also begin exploring other creative ways of conducting lectures that more actively engage the students. Right now, I see a handful of professors who are doing a great job at this, which is a glimmer of hope we could hold on to.

In the meantime, the language score requirements of KAIST do not serve its intended purpose for a population of students who prioritize their studies very strongly. It’s important to streamline the efforts of encouraging a diversely-lingual community at KAIST. Since language tests motivate students to study for the actual exam and barely beyond it, it’s worth considering bidding it goodbye, and rather rethinking our academic requirements to ensure a more efficient learning system for a new language.