Steve Kaufmann writes: "TOEFL is not a high standard. Many people with high TOEFL scores
communicate poorly in English, and could not work as pharmacists."

I've seen the opposite. I have been working with an immigrant who speaks fluent English and has European credentials as a pharmacist, but has to work as a pharmacy assistant here in the US (at a fraction of the salary) because the TOEFL score that is required for US credentialing is--from my point of view--unreasonably high, and after multiple attempts, he has not been able to achieve it. I would gladly accept him as my pharmacist--he communicates beautifully and seems qualified in every way.

Lynne Weintraub

Amherst MA



Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:19:49 -0700
From: steve at thelinguist.com
To: yohogclc at earthlink.net; englishlanguage at nifl.gov
Subject: [EnglishLanguage 4114] Re: certification of pharmacists via TOEFL

I think that the gist of the answers was:

1) TOEFL is not a high standard. Many people with high TOEFL scores communicate poorly in English, and could not work as pharmacists.

2) It is probably more productive for these aspiring pharmacists to focus on language improvement, which is within their power to achieve, rather than on any perceived injustice in the language requirements of the job, something they are unlikely to be able to change.


Steve Kaufmann
www.lingq.com

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Debbie Yoho <yohogclc at earthlink.net> wrote:

As the person who originally raised this issue, I want to point out that some of you are either over-reacting or not reading the email postings carefully.  The problem is NOT whether medical people should be able to speak English, or be certified accordingly.  The problem is about the TOEFL oral test, how it is administered and scored and the required score set by an


American professional group with a vested interest in keeping immigrants out of their profession. I asked for any evidence that this is or is not a problem.  I find that one group has dismissed the TOEFL requirement.  Conclusion:  There must be a reason.  Of course no one would advocate foreigners treating anyone unless they can speak English or have an interpreter present. Even if this were allowed, who would go to such a person?






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/englishlanguage/attachments/20090406/cb6d7a55/attachment.html