Is Prince Roy Above The Law? One of the most misunderstood concepts among the general public concerning diplomats has to do with the body of International law known as "Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities." This law has evolved since the ancient Greeks, and the basic surmise is sound: Diplomats must be able to perform their roles without fear of arbitrary arrest and detention by their host states. The engine driving this machine, then, is the same that is behind so much of International law---the idea of reciprocity. Nations want to ensure their own diplomats are well-treated and can get their jobs done without undue harrassment, so they extend the same courtesies to visiting diplomats. Eventually the UN moved to codify the customary law regarding diplomatic immunity and privileges. It enacted the first, called the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in 1961. The second, known as the Vienna Convention On Consular Relations, followed in 1963. There are significant differences in the level of diplomatic immunity afforded personnel of embassies as opposed to consulates, even though all may be considered 'diplomats'. The reasons for this are historical---embassies have been traditionally viewed as engaging in 'real' diplomacy, while consulates existed merely to issue travel documents and assist expats of the consulate's nationality. What many countries do to get around this is enter into bilateral treaties that give consular personnel the same level of protection as those in the embassy. The US has done so with several countries, including the PRC. This is a very well-defined area of law, with careful distinctions between embassies/consulates, family members/members of household, diplomatic official/admin-tech support staff, etc. If you'd like to read an excellent overview of these distinctions I provide one here. Many people are aware of the special black passports diplomats carry. There are absolutely no rights or privileges we obtain with these. By themselves, they are no different than a regular passport. What changes that is the diplomatic visa stamp issued by the host country. Without that stamp, a diplomatic passport is useless. Also, any immunities and privileges are only good in the host country. For instance, if I am assigned to Argentina I would receive all benefits accorded by law, but these do not extend to my vacation in Brazil or any other third country. There I am just a tourist, completely subject to that country's laws. So what then, are the privileges and immunities enjoyed by a diplomat? For a diplomat in an embassy (for consulates see one of my above links) they are:

1. Criminal Immunity: may not be detained, arrested or subject to a body search. May not be prosecuted or required to give evidence as a witness, absence a waiver of immunity. The host authorities may interrupt any criminal or dangerous activities by the diplomat (i.e., DUI).
2. Civil and Administrative Immunity: largely immune from civil actions except those concerning real property, actions where the diplomat is an executor or beneficiary of an estate in the host nation, or actions related to professional or commercial endeavors engaged in by the diplomat outside the scope of official functions.

Family members receive the same protections for criminal immunity and in most cases for civil and admin immunity as well. It is up to the host state to define what 'family member' is. The US defines 'family member' as the spouse, any children under the age of 21, children up to the age of 23 if they are in school, and children of any age if mentally or physically handicapped. Does this mean that diplomats can act with utter abandon and disregard for host state law? Not really. The host state holds the trump card in that it decides to whom it grants diplomatic status. It can declare an offending diplomat persona non gratis (PNG) at any time and for whatever reason. Once it does so, the PNG has a certain amount of time to leave the country before losing all privileges and immunities. But that may not end the matter---diplomatic immunity is not a pardon of criminal behaviour and the host state may use extradition treaties to obtain jurisdiction over the person who has returned home. Also, for particularly egregious crimes like murder, rape or drunken driving manslaughter (yes, these happen), the host country can request that the diplomat's home country waive diplomatic immunity. The US has done this on several occasions. In one famous case a few years ago, a Belgian diplomat at the DC embassy committed two murders while on vacation in Florida, and the US requested that Belgium waive his diplomatic immunity. This led to something of an international incident, because Belgium was reluctant to do so since the diplomat faced capital murder charges, and the Florida prosecutor wanted to pursue the death penalty. Belgium, like almost all of Europe, has abolished capital punishment. Eventually they worked out a deal where Florida agreed to reduce the charges to second-degree murder. This crime does not carry the death penalty and Belgium waived the diplomat's immunities; he was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive 25-year terms in prison. States obviously have a vested interest in seeing to it that their diplomats conduct themselves professionally while abroad and the US State Department expects us to obey the local laws of the host country at all times---to pay any traffic/parking tickets, etc. If we do not do so, our careers may well suffer as a result. So don't worry, there is no (well, little) danger of Prince Roy running amok!
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/30/2003 10:15:00 PM| |

 
I've now reached the end of Week Four. We have today free for Thanksgiving, and while we don't get tomorrow off, it is only a half day, so I should be home by 1:30. In other news, I am pleased to report a very happy discovery. The local Rock Bottom Brewery offers a Wednesday special of all-day $1 pints. Their beer isn't especially great, but to borrow a catch phrase from Robocop I, "I'll buy that for a dollar!" Now I just have to run a cost-benefit analysis because of all the damn smokers in this town. We went there for a late lunch yesterday and there was a hardly a soul in the jernt, but we still came home reeking. I did just get a really nice winter coat and gloves on sale at Old Navy, so I may be standing outside a lot. Well, as long as I can peer through the windows and see the games on TV, I guess... For the next two weeks we are in what is called our 'tri-cycle training'. They split our class into three groups, each named after a cute and fuzzy animal. We are now in what I consider to be the meat of the course. We get instruction in writing diplomatic reports ( called "cables"), public speaking, and other general things like managing culture shock, working in a foreign environment, etc. We'll also be involved in some interesting presentations. Each group gets assigned a 'Global Briefing' and 'Foreign Policy Panel'. In these we hear various government, NGO and private officials provide their points of view on an issue and we see how all these are integrated into policy considerations. My group's Global Briefing was on the issue of "Biotech", about the simmering trade dispute between the US and the EU over genetically modified food products. When I first found out this was our topic I must say I was very disappointed, particularly when I saw the other two groups were doing 'Refugees' and 'War Crimes', respectively. The latter two are much more up my alley in terms of interest and experience. But I have to admit the topic turned out to be fascinating and it is a very highly emotionally charged issue for many people, especially the Europeans. We got to hear perspectives from all sides, except those of the extreme environmental groups, but we can find those easily enough on their websites. Our Foreign Policy Panel topic will be 'Border Issues' between the US and Canada. Again, I am somewhat disappointed with this, but I'm now willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, seeing as how our Global Briefing turned out so much better than I expected. In two and a half weeks we find out where we're going. Yep, Flag Day!!! The tension around here is so thick you could easily cut through it with the world's dullest butter knife. Adding to our misery is the knowledge that our instructors know our destinations, but they are exhibiting very good poker faces. Apparently the CDOs made most of the assignments during our recent three-day offsite. They travelled up there with us, and many people used the opportunity in a last attempt to sway the CDOs to get their desired post. Maybe I should have tried a similar tactic, but I figured I made my case as well as I could during my interview, and at the end of the day I'll be happy going anywhere on my list.
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/27/2003 09:30:00 PM| |

 
Today we visited Arlington National Cemetery to pay our respects at the grave of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who was assassinated 40 years ago yesterday. Flowers left by the Kennedy family at a memorial service yesterday were still present on the grave markers of President Kennedy and his wife, as well as that of his brother Robert, who also died by assassination in California during the 1968 Democratic presidential primary. Afterwards we visited the Tomb of the Unknowns and watched the changing of the guard ceremony, which occurs every hour during winter months. At this tomb lie the remains of unknown soldiers from World Wars I and II and the Korean War. It also held the remains of an unidentified soldier from the Vietnam War, but officials exhumed those remains on May 14, 1998 and mitochondrial DNA testing identified the soldier as Air Force 1st Lt. Michael Joseph Blassie, shot down near An Loc, Vietnam, in 1972. The Vietnam War marker currently lies empty. The changing of the guard ceremony was very impressive. The 3rd United States Infantry Regiment (also called "The Old Guard") has served as sentinel at the Tomb since 1948 and is the oldest infantry regiment in the United States. Visit the unit's website here to learn more about its long history as the President's Honor Guard. Witnessing the ceremony today reminded me of the time when my own unit pulled funeral detail one Winter/Spring for veterans in the Fort Sill (Lawton, Oklahoma) area. We travelled as far away as Arkansas for some funerals, mostly those of WWII and Korean War veterans. We trained and drilled for weeks to learn the proper protocol and movements, but were obviously nowhere near the skill level exhibited by The Old Guard. I was the part of the detail that fired a 21-gun salute with M-16 rifles. I still remember how cold it got on those gray, windswept hardscrabble cemeteries in the plains, but we owed an important duty to honor those departed warriors.
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/24/2003 11:45:00 AM| |

 
I'm back from the three-day offsite. We stayed at a small resort in the Appalachians. The training consisted primarily of outdoor teambuilding/leadership activities designed to give us insight on how to most effectively lead groups which invariably have many different personality types (or at the very least the 16 indicated by the MBTI). I'd rather not go into the specifics of the training---if you are familiar with the 'corporate teambuilding' concept you already know what we experienced. If not, then you may want to visit the website of the company that conducted our training, Team Building Associates. You'll find plenty of information there. Hilights? It was nice to get out of our cramped classroom environment and into the mountains for a few days. Also, the evenings were a lot of fun, especially "Follies Night". The more theatrically/artistically-inclined of our classmates gave a performance of original skit and song where they playfully pilloried our instructors and the State Department institution. They impersonated our instructors to a "T", and one in particular did a brilliant transition in which he morphed into Jack Nicholson's "A Few Good Men" character while doing a send-up of one of our instructors, who is in the Management career track. Our classmates did an outstanding job with the performance, especially when you consider it was an entirely volunteer effort and they had only a little over a week to come up with the script and songs. Since we are such a large group, it was also great that the offsite broke us up into small sections because it gave me an opportunity to meet and work with new people in the class. For the previous two weeks we had sat in a classroom in pre-arranged alphabetical order, so I mostly just got acquainted with the people beside me. From here on out we will train in smaller groups, which I am thankful for. Our class is filled with an abundant number of accomplished people and I'd like to get to know them better. The biggest drawback of the offsite for me personally was the food. The vegetarian offerings left much to be desired, though in all fairness, State did full disclosure on this beforehand, and informed us we might like to bring food of our own. Mediocre fare perhaps, but there was plenty of it, so a chowhound like me wasn't going hungry. A Personal Appeal To The Men and Women Of The China Blog Mafia If you didn't know already, the next State Department written exam will be held on April 24, 2004. For more information, please go here. Sitting for this exam is the first step to a career as a foreign service officer (FSO), and I implore all of you to consider taking it, because the nation needs you. I know for a fact you can take it at many overseas locations, including the PRC. IT IS ABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE TO TAKE THIS EXAM. When you register for the written exam you will need to decide upon a career track. This is an important decision, because you cannot easily change it later. State provides an extremely useful online interactive tool here that can help you decide which career track is best for you. It only takes a couple of minutes and provides immediate feedback. You can purchase a study guide from State for the written exam, but it is not necessary---I never did. Find out what the exam covers here. Here's my advice: read a good survey of US History, particularly from the Civil War-present. Read the Washington Post and New York Times daily, preferably the print editions, but online if necessary. Know the US Constitution, especially Articles I-III. Understand the separation of powers. I would recommend commencing these steps from at least four months until the exam if not sooner; the earlier the better. There has never been a better time to join the State Department. Although it is a long, difficult process, if you succeed it will be well worth it, especially if you have a strong commitment to public service and seek a career where you can help make a meaningful difference in the world. There is currently a dearth of diplomats at the mid and upper level positions, which is why Secretary Colin Powell initiated the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) shortly after assuming office. This shortage means that we will have the opportunity to obtain important responsibility early in our careers and we have the chance to make significant contributions to US foreign policy. The DRI has brought in over 1200 new FSOs since 2001 and in fiscal year 2004 State plans to hire over 550, its largest number ever. It is unclear how future budget appropriations will affect the DRI, so it is better to begin the process NOW while the money is there. State especially needs people who have learned 'super-hard' languages like Chinese, and your experience living in China will provide an invaluable asset. I hope you'll begin the process regardless of your personal feelings about the present administration. The best policies come from a maximum amount of information and viewpoints. And regardless of FSOs' individual political leanings, Secretary Powell is universally revered for all he has done for the State Department, especially in the areas of espirit de corps, morale and material resources. Our instructors tell us all the time about how most FSOs didn't even have email/Internet access at their work stations until 2001/2002. State (and more importantly our country) truly needs people like you with extensive experience in nations very different from the United States. I covered some of the China-specific reasons in an earlier post here, but I think the logic is self-evident. Please, please consider joining me here. With you guys on board, I'd have much greater hopes for future US-Sino relations, and I'll sleep far better at night.
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/23/2003 02:00:00 AM| |

 
Salubrious Living in D.C. The District has a lot going for it. It is a magnet for intelligent, public policy-oriented young people. D.C. ranks as the US city with the highest percentage of population having college degrees, and one of the youngest cities as well, in terms of the average age. We lived here previously from Jan. 1999-Aug. 2000 when I worked at the Voice of America after graduate school. Now we're back after an absence of over three years. In many ways it feels like a completely new city than what I remember, and of course it is radically different from L.A. Take star sightings for instance. In L.A. I regularly spotted celebrities like Pete Sampras shopping at Best Buy near our house, Will Ferrell shooting a film on the campus of UCLA where I attended law school, or Adam Carolla yapping in his cell phone on the street outside some charity event in Hollywood while waiting for the valet to bring his car around---he drives a Mini Cooper. In D.C. all I ever managed to see was the receding figure of George Stephanopoulos leaving some swank eatery in Adams Morgan in 1999. And one of my classmates reportedly saw Secretary of State Colin Powell the other day at Main State. I also remember how we thought the Asian supermarket where we used to shop here was the bomb. Called "Jin Shan" [Gold Mountain], it is located in a D.C. suburb. Actually they've expanded to a number of different locations in Northern Virginia and Maryland. But compared with the Ranch 99 empire of California it is just a puny corner mom and pop operation. We went back the other day for the first time since we left and I couldn't believe how small and dismal it was. The hardest thing by far to get used to, however, is how people can smoke in restaurants and bars here. I've never smoked in my life, and it is a wonderful thing to be able to enjoy a few beers and come home not reeking like someone's ashtray. Most places I've lived have long ago passed no-smoking ordinances in public places. I doubt Virginia will ever do so, seeing as how it is a big tobacco state. Our class has held several happy hours, but I attended my final one last week because I'm sick of having to peel my clothes off the moment I walk in the door, do a load of laundry and hit the shower. Unfortunately, this means no more Sunday football games at the local pub. I'll be pouring my own black and tans at home from now on. I've lived in three Asian countries where almost all the men smoke and many women as well, but for some reason the effects of cigarettes there don't seem to be as bad, especially in China. They are still disgusting, don't get me wrong, but I think there is something peculiar about American cigarettes that stands out and sticks like stomach-turning glue to the person and clothing. Is it that American cigarettes use a higher grade of tobacco? Or do they contain more chemicals? After our first happy hour social in a nearby bar during our first week of training, it seemed I could still feel and taste the cigarette smoke in my sinuses and throat three days later. I only hope that if I ever work on trade barrier issues, I'm assigned to advocate for US microbrews rather than tobacco products.
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/19/2003 11:30:00 AM| |

 
The State Department in the Colin Powell era is really big on management training and leadership development. To that end our class had to take a 'personality' test called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This test purports to categorize people into one of 16 personality types. The idea is that if we know our own personality type and are exposed to the other types, this will make us more effective in the workplace. The MBTI is based on the theories of Carl Jung, and apparently is a widely-used tool in the corporate world, because everyone in our class who had come out of the private sector was familiar with it and had taken it before. I had never heard of it before taking the test last Monday. We got our results back today along with a class devoted to explaining what the various types mean. Unless you already know about the test the following might not mean that much to you, but I just thought I'd share it because I found it rather interesting. You can do a google search for more info, or go to a site called Typelogic, which describes the 16 personalities in detail and even tells you which famous historical figures share your personality type. Your Prince finds himself in the illustrious company of Socrates, Descartes, Isaac Newton, Jung and Einstein. And Tiger Woods... I came out as a INTP (Introverted/Intuitive/Thinking/Perceiving). My raw scores respectively are 30, 30, 1, 12. I'm off the charts for Introversion and Intuition, both of which have a max of 30. Here's what INTP types are like: --Logical, analytical and objectively critical --Quick, insightful and ingenious; intensely curious about ideas and theories --Adept at providing a detached, concise analysis of an idea or situation --Likely to approach situations with skepticism and form independent opinions and standards --Likely to value intelligence and competence --Flexible and tolerant of a wide range of behaviors --Usually seen by others as quiet, contained, and independent I always take these kinds of evals with a hefty grain of salt, but overall it provides what I'd say is a fairly accurate description of my personality. But I think these things are a lot like horoscopes: we emphasize the positive characteristics we want to believe about ourselves, but a lot of times the descriptions are so broad and general that they could apply to pretty much anyone. MBTI UPDATE: you can take a free online version of the test here. It's not the exact same one we took at State, but after completing this online version I received the identical outcome as I got from State, so it looks to be reliable. See where you come out and go to Typelogic for a complete explanation. The next step in this part of the training is what State calls the "Off-site". There we will learn the fundamentals of teamwork and how to function among the various MBTI types through a series of outdoor activities. I guess it's a pretty common thing in corporate America, because again, all with that background have done this type of course before. Nights are devoted to social bonding (read: partying). It's supposed to be one of the highlights of Orientation, and I'll report back next week if it lives up to the reputation. The Assignment Process I've described this briefly in a previous entry, but I'll go into a little more detail here. On our first day of training, State gave us a list of all embassy/consulate openings available to our class around the world. We also received a list of domestic posts in DC, for those who for whatever reasons need to remain in the US for the time being. Last Thursday we turned in our bid lists. If we wanted to go overseas we had to rank 25 posts in numerical order and also put an H, M or L next to each one (High, Medium, or Low priority). We either had to bid completely on overseas posts or on domestic ones---no mixing and matching. We have what are known as "Career Development Officers" (CDOs) to guide us through the process. Our class is so large that they divided us up among the 6-7 CDOs. We had a total of two meetings with our CDO before we turned in our lists. At these meetings we could explain our rationale for choosing a post to a CDO, since that person is effectively our advocate. The CDOs then meet together over a two-week period, and in a group consensus, they will assign each person in our class to a post. There are usually multiple openings in all areas of the world, so it is not difficult to avoid going to a certain area or country if you have no interest or desire to do so. For instance, my list contained no Middle East or Africa assignments. State almost always is able to assign you to a place on your list, and usually one of the higher choices. The rule of thumb they kept driving home is "do not put down a post on your bid list if you would not want to go there." When do we find out where we go? In mid-December at a ceremony State calls "Flag Day". I'm not sure yet the exact level of ceremony involved, but the gist is that some State official calls each person in our class up to the front of the room where s/he will pin the flag of the destination country on to our chests. I am really looking forward to Flag Day. Jobs in the posts cover all the career tracks of the foreign service, and we are not limited to a job in our track. In fact, at this stage of our careers State encourages us to work in another area. Also, it is a requirement for tenure that we spend at least one year in a consular position. There are two reasons behind this: 1) State has a shortage of consular officers and a huge number of visa applicants to the US; 2) State believes our primary mission as foreign service officers is to assist US citizens abroad and this is the main function of a consular officer. Most posts require foreign language ability but some do not. Since we must get off language probation withing five years of our hire date, most people bid on a post needing a foreign language. If they get such a post the next phase of their training consists of language classes at the School of Language Studies (see entry below). The length of training depends on the language but ranges from 26-44 weeks. We go to class five hours a day and have three hours of further homework/language lab. In essence, it is our full-time job to attend language school. Before beginning language training (usually) we also receive job-specific training for whatever our duties will be at the post. This could last as long as three months, so it is possible that some people will spend over a year in training before they ever get overseas. I am off language probation because I tested at a satisfactory level for Chinese, but I still bid mostly for posts requiring language because I very much want to learn other languages, specifically Japanese and Korean (also the Cantonese dialect). Prince Roy's Dream Sheet In a previous entry I shared my bid list from positions 11-25. I'm a superstitious type, but since my bid list is already in, I figure it is now out of my hands. Here then, are the top ten choices on my list: 1 ULAANBAATAR 2 TOKYO 3 SEOUL   4 SEOUL   5 SEOUL   6 HO CHI MINH 7 BANGKOK   8 LONDON 9 BUENOS AIRES 10 RIO DE JANEIRO Seoul appears three times because it was either a different job or language requirement (one of the Seoul spots doesn't require Korean). My CDO told me at my interview that I had an excellent chance to get Mongolia, my top choice, because of my East Asia background, but I know for a fact this was a heavily-bid post by my classmates. His eyes really lit up when he found out my Chinese score (I had taken my proficiency test the morning of this interview) and he started pushing Ho Chi Minh because they have to fill four jobs there, and Vietnamese, like Chinese, is a tonal language. Just between you, me and the signpost, I have a feeling I am headed for Vietnam. But so be it. It is also considered a hardship post, like Mongolia, so I'll qualify for the Student Loan Repayment program and I owe $45,000 in law school loans. I would be perfectly happy in Vietnam and it would be cool to learn Vietnamese. I've heard great things about the country and have always wanted to go there. I'm pretty sure I could get to Mongolia in the future, too. Well, if I do get the Mongolia or Korea gig, I'll certainly be in touch with The Marmot, as he apparently has in-depth experience in both countries. I'll try to post again by this weekend depending on how the "Off-site" goes, so keep checking back.....
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/18/2003 05:46:00 AM| |

 
Prince Roy Gets Run Through the Zhongwen Wringer... As promised, here's my account of the Chinese Proficiency Test I took last Thursday morning. It was quite an experience, significantly more stressful, intensive and difficult than I had anticipated. But now that I've been through it once, I think my anxiety level at future tests will be far lower. The Foreign Service School of Language Studies is an amazing institution, offering the highest quality of instruction in 67 languages. It's located in the same complex as where we have our orientation classes, and I've been up to the Chinese Department to have a look around. They've got an incredible array of materials, but unfortunately they also use the abominable Integrated Chinese (IC) series by Ted Yao, et al. You can read a review of IC I wrote here, back when I was a grad TA at CU-Boulder. Anyway, on to my report: The Basics A language proficiency test at State is a rigorous exam that takes approximately 2-2.5 hours. Two people administer the test; one is the 'tester' and the other is the 'examiner', though both decide on the score given to the examinee. The examiner reads the instructions, clarifies/answers any questions, acts as timekeeper, and passes out materials as needed (S/he conducts all administration matters in English). The tester is the person with whom the examinee interacts for the speaking portions of the exam. The exam consists of both a speaking and reading component. Scores use the ILR scale (Interagency Language Roundtable), and range from 0-5, with '5' considered native level. In an earlier post I provided a link that explained the scale, but the explanations were too simplistic. Read the real deal here. It is also possible to get a '+', i.e. 1+, 2+. A '+' indicates that the examinee exhibited some ability at the next level, but not quite enough to warrant the higher score. State uses the scale for both speaking and reading, so a typical score might look like this: 2+/2 (speaking/reading). State offers an appeals process if an examinee is unsatisfied with the score received (State records the exam on audio/video tape), and the result is good for five years. One can also retest in a language in six months or after 100 hours of formal instruction. Speaking This test consists of three parts. First, I had to have a 10-15 minute everyday conversation with the tester. The conversation had to cover personal, social and current events topics. To obtain a higher score, I had to engage the tester, ask questions, follow-ups, and initiate the discussion rather than just taking a passive role. Second, they gave me a choice of five to six topics from which I had to make a 5-10 minute oral presentation (extemporaneous speaking) . After I chose my topic, they left the room and gave me five minutes to prepare my remarks. They provided paper and pen with which I could jot down notes or an outline, but I was too stressed for that. The topics were of an academic nature, ranging from political, economic, and cultural fields. I chose to talk about bilingual education, its pros and cons, effects on children, whether an 'official language' is a good idea, etc. After I made my presentation, the tester asked me questions or challenged my conclusions. Third, I had to interview the tester in a subject which I chose from a list of topics they provided. I went with "Arts and Literature". The idea here is to obtain information about the subject from the tester according to questions provided, and report back to the examiner (in English) what I found out. This was a bit disconcerting, because it was rather awkward to stop the conversation every minute or so and make a quick report. That concluded the Speaking Test and they gave me a five-minute break... Reading This component consisted of two parts. No dictionaries allowed, but we could choose simplified or traditional characters. I chose the latter. First, they provided me with six short written texts ranging from about 4-6 paragraphs. They left the room for six minutes (a minute per text) and when they came back I had to give them the general idea behind each selection (in English). The difficulty level varied considerably, but I could read all of them fairly easily except one that was in classical style with no punctuation whatsoever. What made this exercise so hard is that one minute per selection is not a lot of time. They then asked follow-up questions and I could go back over the text as needed. This ended up being far more difficult than I had anticipated, though I think I managed ok for the most part, except for that damn classical piece, and one other text that was somewhat abstract. Second, I had to read two longer articles. I selected the first from a choice of six. They left the room for seven minutes, and when they came back I had to give a 2-3 sentence summary (in English) of the article. They then had me go through it paragraph by paragraph. For the second article the procedure was exactly the same, except this time they chose the article. Both articles were fairly straightforward for me, and after this I thought my pain was finally over, but no, these sadists were enjoying themselves far too much to let me off the hook. They had me do yet another article that they again chose, and this one proved to be my undoing. It was a sanwen essay that was very, very difficult to read. It was a highly literary, emotional piece about the aftermath of the Taiwan earthquake that happened a few years back. I simply could not get my hands around it in the alloted seven minutes and so failed miserably. What rotten luck. If they had chosen almost anything else I would have been fine. Anyhow, after that disaster they mercifully told me to wait outside while they discussed my score. Results and Analysis I won't keep you in any more suspense: I received a 3+/3. When I registered for the test I had to provide my estimated level which I gave as a 3+/3+, so actually I wasn't too far off. It took them about 20 minutes to arrive at my score and they called me back into the room to assess my performance. As far as the speaking section, they said for parts one and three I am at a '4' level. What brought me down to the 3+ was the oral presentation. They told me that my vocabulary could use a bit more sophistication, and I agree with them. This is the first time I've done something like this in Chinese, so it was a new experience for me. Plus, I haven't conversed on complicated topics of an academic/professional nature since I lived in Taiwan over 10 years ago, so my facility with the language has regressed somewhat. You may think that having a Chinese spouse makes up for it, but that is not the case. Our daily conversations are of a very mundane nature. In fact, I've had a long-held belief that language learners without native spouses/significant others are often better able to discuss highly advanced, sophisticated topics, though their colloquial ability often leaves much to be desired. That's been my experience anyway. I have to admit I am slightly disappointed at my reading result. I think if it hadn't been for that last whammy I would've gotten a 3+ at least. I console myself with the fact that I haven't really read Chinese intensively since I finished grad school in 1998, especially literature, which is what that essay was. Also, although I chose traditional characters, I am far more used to reading Mainland content---in fact I hardly ever read Taiwanese publications. The texts in the exam were all from Taiwan. Maybe you won't agree, but I think the writing styles tend to be quite different, especially literary texts, and to be honest I couldn't quite adjust, particularly in that timed setting. But I think a 3-3+ is a fairly accurate reflection of my current reading level. Overall, I think the exam got it right. If I had taken it in the early-mid 1990s I'm sure I would have gotten a 4/4, but the fact that I haven't lived in a Chinese-speaking country for any significant length of time since 1993, and spending the last three years in law school where I had hardly any time for contact with Chinese has taken its toll, so I'm quite satisfied that I'm at the upper end of a general professional proficiency rating. The good news is that State will allow me to take what is called a 'top-off course' that will bring me back up to a '4' level in the event I ever get posted to China or Taiwan. I will also apply for a post to Hong Kong at some point because that way I can learn Cantonese. In my next post I will discuss more about how State assigns us abroad. I'll try to get around to it in the next couple of days so keep checking back...comments, as always, are highly appreciated!
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/16/2003 01:15:00 PM| |

 
Why the MLAT Is Junk Science Quite an eventful day today, and so this entry may prove worthwhile to anyone interested in foreign language learning, pedagogy, and linguistics, even if it comes off as something of a rant. Feel free to take me to task in the comments section if you disagree with any of my conclusions---I'm always game to learn the errors of my ways. By means of introduction, the State Department requires all incoming junior foreign service officers to take the MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test). Our class took the exam on Monday. This test purportedly aims "to provide an indication of an individual's probable degree of success in learning a foreign language." Two professors designed the MLAT in the mid-1950s, and State has used it ever since. It consists of five parts, which I go into in some detail below. The test exists in many language versions; our version used Kurdish, since I guess State somehow ascertained that no one in our class has had any exposure to this language. The entire exam was self-contained on cassette tape, and we marked our responses on a Scantron sheet with the standard No. 2 pencil. Part One: Number Learning. This test measures part of memory and 'auditory alertness'. The speaker introduced us to the basic counting scheme in Kurdish, and after a few minutes of practice, we had to mark down numbers read by the tape and fill in the corresponding bubbles on the Scantron. So far so good; I believe numbers are a valid indicator of foreign language learning ability. In fact I did extremely well in this section, scoring in the 96th percentile. Part Two: Phonetic Script. This test deals with the ability to associate a sound with a particular symbol. It measures how well we remember sounds and our ability to mimic speech sounds and combinations in a foreign language. The speaker read sounds in groups of four and we associated the sounds with an orthography printed in the test booklet. After reading these sounds in sets of five, the speaker would go back and read ONE sound in each group. We had to mark which sound he read on our answer sheet. This could get pretty tricky because he introduced many similar sounds, but again, I think this kind of exercise in distinguishing sounds is a reliable indicator of foreign language learning ability. I did quite well here too, getting in the 90th percentile. Part Three: Spelling Cues. This is supposed to measure how extensive the examinee's English vocabulary is (emphasis added). Here is where my day went south. It's entirely my fault, because I misread the directions and this was a very quickly timed portion of the MLAT---two minutes only. By the time I figured it out almost a minute had passed, and I was pretty much toast. We were given a partial English word, for example 'ernst'. Of the five answer choices we had to choose the closest appropriate synonym. So in this example (ernst=earnest) we had to find its synonym, i.e. 'sincere' or a similar choice. My goof? I thought we had to find the actual word, not a synonym, so I was looking for 'earnest'. Yeah, so I screwed up, but I fail to see how this exercise correlates in any way with learning a foreign language. Maybe a linguist out there can help me here. Part IV: Words in Sentences. This part deals with 'sensitivity to grammatical structure' and so is supposed to provide info about our ability to handle grammar in a foreign language. We had to read an English sentence that contained an underlined word. The answer choices were other English sentences that also contained underlined words. We had to select the underlined word in an answer choice that most matched the grammatical function of the underlined word in the prompt sentence. What made this especially difficult is that many sentences contained several underlined words. I'll admit I bombed this one too. I don't have a strong knowledge of the mechanics of English grammar, and besides, the 'grammatical method' of foreign language learning that this section tests fell out of favor over 30 years ago---it is thoroughly discredited by every foreign language acquisition expert I am aware of. This is where the MLAT really shows its age. Part V: Paired Associates. This part measures the ability of rote memorization. Here we were given a list of words in Kurdish with their English equivalents. After brief study period we then had to see how many words we had memorized. The prompt was a Kurdish word followed by a list of five English words and we had to select the correct English one on the Scantron. I did fairly well on this section, scoring in the 88th percentile. In sum, sections III and IV killed me. I did ok overall, scoring at about the 86-87th percentile, but I believe the result is in no way indicative of my foreign language learning ability. I'm hoping that anyone who examines how I scored on the individual sections will make the same assessment. I'm somewhat worried, because in every bureaucratic organization there are always admin folk who like to pigeonhole people on the basis of these kinds of tests. In other words, they don't really understand what the results actually indicate. State says that it doesn't assign very much weight to the MLAT in language course consideration and I can only hope that is truly the case, even though my score is not bad at all. OK, I know I promised to fill you in on the results of my Chinese Proficiency Test today, but the hour grows late and I need to work on my travel voucher since I have to turn it in tomorrow. That means actual $$$ so you'll just have to wait to hear about my morning on the hot seat...and it WAS a very hot seat...
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/14/2003 08:50:00 AM| |

 
It's Veterans Day, a US federal holiday, which affords me a much needed day off, and an opportunity to make a new entry. I am now in the second week of the seven-week orientation course that provides initial training for US diplomats in the Department of State. Our day begins promptly at 8:30am, Monday-Friday, and ends at 5:00pm. During the day we have varied classes of all types, which are designed to introduce us to life in the foreign service. It doesn't sound like much, but believe me, it's very fatiguing. There is a lot of information to digest. State is also very good about providing a nurturing atmosphere for families, and a good deal of the course consists of introducing the new employee to the legion of services available to family members both here at home and abroad. Although we have the normal government working hours, there are also several weekly social activities after class time, and while attendance is not required, it seems like most feel they should at least make a token appearance. State places a very high value on 'socialibility', and a good part of our jobs entails going out to all kinds of functions. I incline to be more of a private person, so I have made it a point to attend all of these events just to get in the habit of what I know is to come. Also the fact that many of the events are catered is a huge incentive! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH? Those of us with previous language experience must also take a placement test in those languages. I put down Chinese, and my test is this Thursday morning. Some classmates will not have their tests until December. It is a good idea to take the test during orientation, because as junior officers, we are on what's called "language probation". We have five years to achieve tenure, and one of the requirements of tenure is to test at a certain level in a foreign language. The level differs depending on the language: for 'world languages' like the European ones, the standard is higher than for what are termed 'super-hard' languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic and a few others). So assuming I reach the desired level (very, very basic for Chinese), I am off language probation. It is also beneficial to have a language qualification on one's record because if a position requires a certain level of language proficiency we stand a better chance of getting the job. State also awards pay bonuses of up to 10% annual salary if we use the language in our jobs. WHITHER THOU, FAIR PRINCE ROY? Everyone in our class is very anticipatory about where we will go. As I wrote previously, we will not find this out until December. On Thursday we will turn in what is called our 'bid list'. At our first day of training State gave us a list of overseas openings available to our class, in every area of the world. The list has changed almost daily, with new posts going on, and some coming off. Since our class is so huge (95), we have to put down 25 posts on our bid lists, and rank them in numerical order of desirability. State does its best to send us to a place on our list, but nothing is guaranteed, although people in previous classes I've talked to say that most get something in their top 5-6. Most jobs are scheduled to begin next Fall because they require the assignee to receive language training here in Arlington. We get a lot of time to research posts, and I've been surprised at the lengths many classmates take to find out about the post. For those with kids in school and spouses with well-established careers I can understand it, but even many singles spend multiple hours finding out all they can about these places. As for me, I finished my bid list in about two hours. I pretty much know exactly where I want to go, and it's not so much of an issue with me how great or bad the nightlife is, or whether the local stores sell Cheerios. As long as I go to a country I like, I'll be happy. And even if I don't get any of my top choices, it is only a two-year assignment. I'd share my list here, but I'm rather superstitious and I don't want to jinx anything. But rest assured, I will let everyone know soon after I find out myself. What I will say is that my list is heavily stacked with East Asia assignments, but I'm guessing you probably figured that much out already... UPDATE: I've decided I owe it to my good readers to offer at least a hint of my bid list. Here are my rankings at the lower end of the list---numbers 11-25: 11) CHENNAI 12) MUMBAI 13) RIO DE JANEIRO 14) HANOI 15) KINGSTON 16) MANILA 17) PONTA DEL GADA 18) PORT OF SPAIN 19) PORT OF SPAIN 20) FRANKFURT 21) GUADALAJARA 22) MEXICO D.F. 23) MONTERREY 24) KATHMANDU 25) ROME note: I've bid higher for Nepal and Vietnam for other jobs---the jobs for these lower bids are in the management field, which is outside my chosen career track. CLASS MAKEUP The range of experience in our class is pretty amazing, and I feel like small potatoes compared with these guys. Here's a rough breakdown: 49 men and 46 women, ages ranging from 23-56, with a mean of 33. 50 are single and 45 are married. 37 have BA/BS, the rest have advanced degrees including 4 Ph.Ds, 11 JDs, 27 MA/MS and 10 MBAs. Languages are all over the place, from Arabic to Vietnamese and practically everything in between. Apparently someone even speaks 'Telegu', whatever that is. For the purposes of the China Blog Mafia, there are 10 Mandarin speakers (two are Chinese-American, with one of those born in the PRC and coming over here at age 11), three Japanese speakers and two Korean speakers. I can't assess the levels of language ability except for the classmate born in the PRC--obviously fluent though I have yet to chat in Chinese with this person. State uses a scale of 0-5 and assesses both speaking and reading. '5' is native-level so I would imagine most of us are in the 2-3 range. During grad school, I would have considered myself a '4', but three years of law school really hurt me. Learn more about the scale here. I'll let you know my results Thursday, no matter how embarrassing.
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/12/2003 05:16:00 AM| |

 
Hi everyone! I'm back---kind of. I'm still waiting to get Internet access in my apartment because of a huge account SNAFU caused by the woman who was the previous occupant. Now I'm down in the "business center" which as you may guess, isn't the most ideal place in the world to post. But this short post is just to let you all know I arrived safely in Washington, D.C. and in fact, have just completed Day Two of "The Career". I'll have a lot more to comment about this later. It is a seven-week course in all, and to cut you off at the pass, no, I do not yet know where I will go. They will tell us in mid December. We HAVE gotten The List from which we will bid on assignments and I will share the openings once I get some privacy. Please come back in a couple of days---we have a lot to catch up on... WTF happened to Blogger? I've been gone less than three weeks and I find this totally FUBAR new set-up. Man, I feel just like Rip Van Winkle. UPDATE: I'm now online in my own apartment so I'll get back to work on the blog this weekend. We have been simply too busy this first week. Disregard what I wrote about Blogger---down in the 'business center' the template looked all screwy but it's normal on my own machine. What the hell happened to all my readers? Those of you stopping by, please let eveyone know I'm back on the throne.
- posted by Prince Roy @ 11/05/2003 10:37:00 AM| |