A new segment where we take current events trending in the news and ask one of our faculty members to chime in with their insights.
Today we asked Dr. Ross King, Head of the Department of Asian Studies, to respond to the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada‘s recently published report, Canada’s Asia Challenge: Creating Competence for the Next Generation of Canadians, which “provides recommendations for how Canadian government, education and private sector can work to improve the Asia competence of Canada’s citizens.”
Q: The report suggests that Canada is falling behind our international competitors (US, Australia, New Zealand, Germany) in preparing citizens for a rising Asia. How can an Asian Studies Major best round their Asian Competence? What gaps exist in just a major?
A: I think there are two key points for an Asian Studies major (or potential major) to remember. The first is that you have to master something more than just an Asian language—you need to combine a high level of proficiency in at least one Asian language with a similarly high level of accomplishment in a discipline. It doesn’t matter what discipline at all; but the reality is that a lot of our most successful majors graduate with Double Majors or Major + Minor combinations. The second point is that somebody with a Major in Asian Studies looks a lot more credible (and has that much more training) if they have spent at least a year in-country in Asia studying on exchange. I think too many students think somehow the key is to get through the BA as quickly as possible, and they convince themselves they can always go to Asia after they graduate. It rarely works out like that, and GoGlobal is such a great deal, that it is always far more effective and economical to go to Asia (at least, for the first time) on exchange, even if it means taking 5 years to graduate—you will never get that opportunity again.
Q: What can Canada and BC do to make up for lost ground compared to our friendly competitors in the USA and Australia?
A: It’s amazing that there is literally nothing at either the federal or provincial level in the way of targeted, top-down investments designed to increase Canadians’ preparedness for what is already known as the Asia-Pacific Century. The USA and Australia have invested in a wide range of incentives to draw students into the study of Asia—targeted bursaries, scholarships and fellowships—and have also invested in ‘K-16’ pipelines that recognize the need for more Asian Studies and Asian language teaching in schools. BC, of all the Canadian provinces, should be at the forefront of this, but is not. UBC students who are also Canadian citizens and vote should be lobbying their MPs and MLAs about this.
Q: Are there any bright spots in the report?
A: The report does indeed mention a few ‘pockets of excellence’ and UBC Asian Studies is one of them. In fact, our Chinese language program and the way it strives to provide programming in two tracks, for both heritage and non-heritage learners, is singled out. The problem, of course, is that Asian languages in general, and two-track solutions, in particular, are more expensive than garden variety ‘Standard Average European’ language programs, which, unfortunately, provide the funding model for language teaching. The public at large, and school administrators everywhere, need enlightening as to the added costs of learning Asian languages if we’re really going to get this right.
