In early 2021, a prospective student — let’s call him James — received an offer to take on a PhD at the University of Cambridge. It had been an intense journey, getting into his dream programme after being rejected just the year prior, and he was over the moon. Amidst the wave of congratulations, however, an outstanding problem loomed in the back of his mind: he hadn’t yet been able to meet the required score for International English Language Testing System (IELTS). It was a heavy feeling, that the fate of his future trajectory still lay on that one piece of paper.

“The ability to articulate ideas in English is still essential for a scholar to succeed internationally”

Few would dispute James’ competence as a potential scientist, but reality is harsh — as much as we are aware of the disproportionate power of the English language, the ability to articulate ideas in English is still essential for a scholar to succeed internationally. To ensure that English medium instruction doesn’t constitute a barrier for learning, it has become standard practice for global universities to set specific English language requirements for international students. This is usually proven through internationally recognised standardised exams that assess English for academic purposes, such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the above-mentioned IELTS. At Cambridge University, a minimum band score of 7.0 for the IELTS (out of 9.0) or a total of 100 for the TOEFL (out of 120) is required for successful entry. Other top universities worldwide demand a score of similar range, although admittedly the actual benchmark also depends on the perceived importance of language for the subject in question (Philadelphia’s University of the Arts, for instance, requires only a 6.0 for the IELTS and a 79 for the TOEFL).

As an educational linguist, I acknowledge that some form of diagnostic language assessment is necessary for creating an effective international learning environment. However, having applied to institutions in Belgium, the US, and the UK as an international, there are just aspects of these regulations that I can’t help but question. The first point of confusion pertains to who needs to take these tests. The standard statement of most universities (including Cambridge) is that applicants are obliged to present a score if English is not their ‘first language’.

“Many of us have grown up in multilingual environments with an incredibly complex linguistic makeup”

While this may appear to make sense on the surface, any accomplished linguist would maintain that the concept of ‘first’ or ‘native’ language can be elusive, more so when it comes to English. Many of us have grown up in multilingual environments with an incredibly complex linguistic makeup, some of us may have more than one language that they identify as ‘the first’, and some of us may even speak their second language better than the first (paradoxical as it may sound). I, like many, identify with the latter - as a Taiwanese who grew up with heavy influence from American media, my English has always been much stronger than my Mandarin. The term ‘first language’, then, isn’t as meaningful a criteria as, perhaps, ‘dominant language’ in an academic context.

Further, we should not forget that the purpose of the IELTS (academic version) and the TOEFL is to assess one’s ability to use English in an academic environment. There is now ample scholarly evidence suggesting that academic communication in any language is linguistically nuanced and highly sophisticated, which means that training is needed for anyone to succeed in it regardless of native (or non-native) speaking status. It is questionable why English ‘native’ speakers are automatically exempt from this despite having an edge in spoken fluency; for fairness, it is necessary to reflect on how academic communication skills can be assessed among the ‘native’ speaker applicants.

A final issue to acknowledge — the elephant in the room — is that the costs of these English language tests likely discourage many well-qualified internationals from applying in the first place. At the time of writing, a single sitting of the IELTS is priced at a whopping £175 to £195 (or around $200+ for the TOEFL depending on location), which is nothing short of extortionate. Considering how the global average salary is less than half of that in the UK, a young applicant in another country may need to contribute half a month’s salary or more just to take a test to prove themselves (not to mention scores are valid for only two years only). This, of course, does not include the fees for those taking extramural classes to prepare for the IELTS, which could take up another pile of funds. The University of Cambridge has started to appreciate these other financial obstacles — having waived the £60 doctoral application fees — but the £195 testing requirements remain in place. We can only imagine how this constitutes a barrier for globally talented applicants who simply do not have the financial means to take the required tests.

This topic in question is not unique to university admissions, however, as it extends to similar dilemmas in workplace assessments and immigration tests. The solution here is not to lift these requirements completely, but to be more critical of the values reflected in these requirements and the constraints that they may pose. If we are to take pride in creating an ever-growing multicultural community, it is essential to be more sensitive to barriers to access and the needs of international communities.