Just saw some courses through the Swedish governments net university website. www.netuniversity.se I am doing relatively easy courses in web design and food science (for basic requirements). Admission (especially for the food course) is easy, although it may be too late now for the two webdesign courses The food design course is open to international students and is worth 15 ECTS points. The other two are worth 20 ECTS points approx. Whats more, they are free.
This is an awesome catch, Rince. Thanks for sharing it. I wonder if a degree can be completed through this courses. I think not, but nevertheless it is a great option.
Riiiiiiiight.... And we are supposed to read that how?? Etienne ____ Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
Greetings, While it is unfortunate that Sweden, like most of the 3rd world (i.e. the non-USA part of the world) continues to cling to its own language and culture, rather than submitting to our benevolent cultural imperialism, the Net University SE chaps seem to have read the writing (language?) on the wall. If you look on the left of their web page (http://www.netuniversity.se/), near the top, there is a link to their "English" web site. Alternately, you can just follow this link: http://www.netuniversity.se/en You will also be glad to know that they mention their intent to provide an ever increasing number of courses in English, in addition to their own heathen tongue. I must say that the range of their current offering of courses in English and available entirely by distance leave me underwhelmed. Still, whatever floats your Viking warship. Cordially, Richard Kanarek
Richard, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that your tongue is firmly in your Brooklyn cheek. Sweden continues to offer one of the highest standards of living in the world, far higher than your first world... Peace. Dave
Actually, Richard, I believe the Scandanavian's "submitted" - in sensible recognition of their small place in the larger world - to Anglophonic imperialism long ago - after WWII (if not earlier). For example, I was once in Dutch language class in Holland with a Finnish lawyer. She was a HS exchange-student in Michigan. That English is the world's lingua franca is hardly our fault. After all, it makes possible for the several hundreds of tongues of South Asia to have a workable democracy in India from out of over a billion voices. I call that amazing and a triumph of peace. But the real and inescapable reason for anglophonism is the richness of our language in a world of expanding knowledge. With over a million words (Shakespeare only needed one-fourth of that), it is the world richest. German is second with only half a million. And languages like Dutch are rather word poor indeed a smaller fraction of that. Like it or not, the universe of knowledge needs English because of its inherent flexibility and endowment even more they we dominate our word-poor brothers and sisters in any "exploitive" sense. Tussen tak! -Ole Orson
There are two reasons why English has become the lingua franca of the world. First, not so long ago, the British once had an empire so huge the sun never set upon it. Secondly, American companies have historically been unwilling to learn a new language before going into new markets. It's not like everybody got up one fine day and went to some meeting where they voted to pass a resolution that English be the lingua franca of the world. Sheesh.
Well, not just unwilling, many Americans seem to be unable. While most Europeans (besides the British) are AT LEAST bilingual (and when I say bilingual I mean FLUENT in at least 2 languages) most Americans aren't. Obviously, English is THE lingua franca. So, if I'm an American, why should I learn another language? Everyone else should adapt to ME. Everyone else should accomodate ME. Everyone else should learn and speak English because of ME. When I go visit other countries, I don't want to experience their cultures and lifestyle. I want McDonalds and Starbucks and I want to speak English because I'm an American and I don't know and don't care and quite frankly I'm too damn lazy to try to learn anything about what the "3rd world ( i.e. the non-USA part of the world)" is like. I wonder why there are so many people that dislike Americans. Just because it's always "our way or the highway", our culture is the best, our language is the best and everything else is 3rd world?? Your fellow openminded American, driving my gaz guzzling SUV to McDonalds to pick up another Big Mac, large fries and Diet Coke, Brandon
While it is indeed unfortunate that the Swedes cannot attract foreign students to their Swedish-taught programs, it is also a reality, like it or not, that if they want to enroll foreign students they ain't gonna do it by offering courses in Swedish. While it is always fun to blame this phenomenon on Americans and their institutions, it would also be of benefit as other posters have suggested to take a look at British colonial history when trying to understand why Swedish universities are offering English-language versions of their websites. Even the French seemed to have cottoned on to the effectiveness of offering English-taught programs at their universities and now reportedly offer over 300 such programs http://rfi.fr/actufr/articles/058/impr/article_31258.asp. If the French have given up then God help us, right?
1 million words English borrowed lots of words from other languages... Where is then its originality???
Self interest - not Empire, not American reluctance re Ted's first reason - Strange as it may seem, Ted, there are places in the world that adopted English as their second lanuage even before there was a British Empire. In the 17th century, Holland's biggest trading partner was Scottland. adopting English this way came naturally through trade. I believe Scandanavia merely followed historical success like Holland's - the first middle class society - and the practicality of size (or the impracticallity of smallness), economically speaking. Success has a way of inspiring imitation - something Ted neither mentions nor credits. Now if Hitler was more successful in his quest for a Thousand Year Reich, if Germany had held Slavic lands, and if it had populated them with lots of Germans in the form of agricutural colonies like the Fuhrer intended, "practicality" might well have been different. (All those in favor of this "difference," please raise your hand!) Your second point while historically accurate as precedent isn't true in general. First, it depends upon the product. Language barriers don't prevent a Bantu tribesman from enjoying Coca-Cola. But IT products would. Second, consider who initiates FDI and who benefits from learning a non-native tonque. The British Empire invested in the underdeveloped world at significant multiples compared to what the US does today. Very little US FDI goes outside of Canada, England, the Netherlands and the rest of Europe.The fact that English is widely spoken in South Africa compared with Egypt does not prevent the former from having half the investment of the latter. Conversely, the fact that English is the most popular second language in Japan does not prevent US FDI from being a mere pitance. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104803.html) In other words, the direction of causality is not at all what historical precedent might suggest: it isn't adopting English that causes or even prevents US companie's foreign investment. Large multiple markets with wealth to spend, accessed via a single language - ie, the Anglosphere - are obviously very desireable for plucky foreigners to tap. The Anglosphere has no equal, so they learn English instead of Kiswahili. "Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this doomsday prophecy [of US economic decline], U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly grounded: it rests on an economy that is continually extending its lead in the innovation and application of new technology, ensuring its continued appeal for foreign central banks and private investors." http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html Economically, the world needs the US much more than the reverse, thereby driving foreign langauge aquisition toward us and towards English instead of us towards them and other languages. This is a matter of rational self-interest, as well as corresponding rational ignorance. Centuries of Anglophone success and its forseeable continuation inspires foreign imitation and English learning. What Ted claims is two reasons is really one: self-interest. We are in a linguistically priviledged moment in world history. Why can't we just enjoy it instead of castigating ourselves for having good fortune? (I hear puritan ghosts, personally.) Contrary to the argument of others on this thread, perhaps too many in the world actually resist Anglophonic culture to enjoy more of its benefits. (Oxford and Harvard historian Niall Ferguson makes much of this argument in Colossus.) -Orson PS this thread originated in having a Swede bring attention to a Swedish/English ed site. Philosophers and historians have long noted two opposing axes of intellectual thought prevailing since the 18th century. A Franco-German one, and an Anglophonic one composed of Britain and its natural friends and outliers - ie, the US, Vienna, and Scandanavia. The first is deductive, rationalist, and idealist; the second, resolutely empirical and pragmatic. Because of this steeped tradition of affinity, I can't see self-debasement towards friends as a sensible reaction - like Richard Kanarek does. Fashionable castigation? sure - but not self-hating.
No way the British empire has anything to do with that. If people learn English is due solely to the US, and not only for economic reasons but also cultural. Besides, most people in Europe don´t speak English. Not yet. Not the case of Holland that, with a robust transatlantic bridge built through the years, everyone speaks English. Here in Holland this year three languages will be offered to kids in school: Spanish, French and German. English is not offered as a foreign language. It´s mandatory. TU Eindhoven, a mythical university here offers ALL its courses in English (some nice opportunities for distance learning BTW). I guess this is the product of globalization of culture as well. In any case, the British empire is a relic from the past that has nothing to do with this phenomenon whatsoever unless, of course, one considers the US is a collateral effect of it.... But that was not sought by the British, and they can´t claim merit for it Regards
just to point out that the courses mentioned in the original post are in English - The Food course is a science course and has an open entry date. You may need to pay around 90 dollars for books. The course curriculum is here Here is the course homepage http://www.slu.se/page.cfm?page=334&anmkod=60004.0405 Doesn't seem to be working tonight but it was the other day. There is no exam in the course, just assignments. ALso to point out that the the vast majority of Swedes under the age of 45 are as good as fluent in English, it is mandatory in schools, along with Swedish and another "foreign language". One great advantage of living in Sweden (I am not Swedish, I am Irish) is that when they say there is free education they mean it is completely free (schools even provide pens and paper for students)
Dag JLV- I once lived in A'dam myself, the Jordaan, with my Dutch girlfriend. She was a UvA masters student in linguistics (five languages) and English literature - and was with, one exception, not fond of American's I loved the Netherlands but have not been back to visit in a dozen years. Meijn Nederlands is geel slecht, maar ik wil te praten - a spring European conference in A'dam will test what remains of it. TU Eindhoven is a great university, comparable to MIT in the US. I believe you meant to write that it was "a storied (ie, historically accomplished) or famed university" - not "mythical." Indeed it is: "In [publications] the TU/e takes first place in the Netherlands in relation to the impact of scientific articles. In Europe the TU/e takes second place, directly after the University of Cambridge and above the University of Munich." http://w3.tue.nl/en/services/csc/study_information/masters_programs/about_tue/qualities/ A friend of mine from here in Colorado married the great Dutch cyclist Johannes Draaijer, who died in 1990. http://www.riedo.nl/j_draaijer.htm Her problem? After his death she lacked Dutch citizenship. Thus, she entered into a marriage of convenience in order to stay! She did the MBA at Erasmus, and now manages an arts center in a town south of Rotterdam. Where in A'dam do you live? Thanks for sharing your opinion on this thread, J. -Orson
Cultural economist argues for the benefits of globalization Many think badly about globalization's effect on foreign culture. In this interview, cultural economist at George Mason University, Tyler Cowen, argues for its benefits. "In his recent and important book _Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World’s Cultures_ (Princeton University Press), economist Tyler Cowen... contends that 'cross-cultural exchange...creates a plethora of innovative and high-quality creations in many different genres, styles, and media,' and that such exchange 'expands the menu of choice, at least provided that trade and markets are allowed to flourish.' "The result is a powerful, richly evocative contribution to our understanding of how art and commerce, often seen as natural enemies, are in fact closely related." http://www.reason.com/0308/cr.ng.really.shtml Clearly, if Cowen is correct, the rise of any one language to prominance as a lingua franca - whether English or any other tongue - is benificent because it dimminishes the cost of such exchanges. "Cowen: The day of very small cultures -- of groups of 10,000 or 20,000 people that have their own language and formerly had little contact with 'civilization' -- is coming to an end. I’m thinking of groups such as the Pygmies and certain indigenous groups in Mexico. The end won’t come tomorrow, or in 10 years, but groups like that are finding it harder to maintain their isolation. Instead, we have very creative regions or polities, but they tend to be like India, Brazil, or the United States: They’re large and complex and varied, but no single part of it lives much in isolation. That is not a less creative outcome. In many ways, it’s more creative, and the isolated people now have access to the treasures of the world." Isn't transcending the tyrrany of place, as we witnessed in the after math of the South Asian trunami, a benefit worth celebrating? -Orson
