The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2005

and everyday use. “But,” he says, “I think most linguists would argue that this is a faulty assumption that pro- duces students who can pass the read- ing/writing tests [only] because they can pick out high-level vocabulary.” Along the same lines, stories of students arriving with extensive prior experience in a foreign language, only to be assessed as barely competent simply because they had not learned according to the method the particu- lar FSI faculty preferred, are legion. The French department, in particular, has long been noto- rious for trying to “break” such students, and for being inflexible in designing and implementing its curriculum. One student recalls: “After telling me my language- learning style, FSI then proceeded to ignore it, instead insisting that I adapt to the FSI French department’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ teaching methods. This was greatly frustrating.” The same student con- cludes: “I feel I learned French in spite of, rather than because of, the Basic Course. The textbook was very poorly written — for instance, its emphasis on role-playing without first providing a basic grounding in the language is a waste of time.” Poor management. Several current students commented that the language laboratory is not fully staffed and the equipment and audiovisual materials are not always kept operational or up-to-date. And many students in lan- guages taught in shifts due to high volume report they fre- quently do not find out until the first day of each six- to eight-week rotation whether they are staying on the same schedule or moving to another shift. Besides making it unnecessarily difficult to adjust their sleep schedule, day- care arrangements or transportation, the lack of advance F O C U S J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 27 The responses to our survey suggest that it may be time for FSI to consider revamping its conceptual approach in some respects.