Last week I had to take the Defense Language Proficiency Test. This is an annual requirement for military linguists. We take the test to show that we have maintained our level of proficiency in our language.
The results of this test are used in a variety of ways for or against the linguist.
- We receive extra pay if our scores are high enough. In the Army, you can receive up to $300 extra every month if you can score high enough in three different languages.
- We can get comments on our evaluation reports based on the results - for good or for bad. It can also affect promotions. Linguists who don't receive at least a 2/2 on their test can have a tough time getting promoted.
- We're told that higher scores mean we can qualify for better assignments - that's hit or miss. I've been the benificiary of this twice. My last was in a unit where language skill was a requirement. Not everyone there was a linguist, which made work interesting and challenging, but ultimately rewarding. How many people have had the oppurtunity to work in an office where the non-English speakers outnumbered the English speakers by 10-1 or more? My current assignment is at DLI. Here I teach Korean to the next generation of military linguists. Again, at least on paper, a high level of ability is required.
- Unit commanders also recieve marks on their evaluation reports based on the percentage of qualified (score 2/2) linguists they have in their unit - this has gone a long way in many units to force commanders to pay attention to the need for a good language maintainence program. Before it was completely the soldier's responsibility to maintain or improve. Now that it can make them look good or bad, the programs have gotten better.
For good or bad, this is the guage we use annually to determine a linguists level. There are problems in the system, though. For example, the Korean test wasn't updated for many years. That meant that Korean linguists took the same test for many years in a row. Scores generally rose for many linguists over the years as familiarity bred improved scores without necessarily improved skills. Now, there are three new forms of the Korean test available.
So while I have scored 3/3 (the highest possible score on the present tests we use) for a number of years in a row, I wasn't sure how I'd do on the new test. I'd heard that the new test was harder. That is was easier. It was longer. It made more sense. It was a better guide for our ability. I was told that while it was harder at the 2 level, it was no different at the 3 level. I truly had no idea what to think.
I wasn't too worried about the listening comprehension test. I am a little weaker at listening than I am at reading, but I knew that I'd be taking an old form of the listening comprehension test. Apparently, we are still tweaking and validating form E's listening test. But I would be taking a new form of the reading comp test. I am a very strong reader in Korean. My last job required me to read more than 1000 documents a day (some were very, very short and could be ignored in seconds). But still the new is always something to approach with a little caution.
After I took the test, I was asked by my coworkers how it went. I felt confident that I had done well on the LC, but I thought that the RC was deceptively easy. I explained that I was pretty sure I had done well, but that maybe I only thought that because I been fooled by how hard it really was. I spent a few days wavering between confidence and slight apprehension over my scores.
Well, I got the results and I scored 3/3 again. Not only that, but I got a perfect score on the reading comprehension test. That's right, I am 65-0 on the new test.
I love being me!