
A newly updated index ranks English proficiency around the world - respinal
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/12/04/where-are-the-worlds-best-english-speakers
======
hmwhy
Highlights and comments:

> These results are not comprehensive, however. Nor are they representative.
> EF’s index is based on the results of a free online test taken by 2.3m
> volunteers in 100 countries. Only people with an internet connection and
> time and willingness to take a test are included in the sample...

I almost stopped reading at this point.

> Such biases aside, the EF’s index produces results that are interesting...

I was taught that in scientific research one should never claim that her/his
own research is interesting, not least because it's something that's up to the
audience to decide.

> ... interesting, if not entirely scientific.

At least they are honest about it not being entirely scientific.

> This correlates with another factor: EF repeatedly finds that English skills
> are highly correlated with connections and openness to the rest of the
> world.

Openness...? By what measure?

Edit: typo.

~~~
Fezzik
I would take “openness”, as typed in an Economist article, to mean something
like “[a country/government that] does not snuff out opinions contrary to that
of the government, sometimes by disappearing, sending to concentration camps,
and/or murdering contrarians”. Or something like that.

Also, I wish people would stop doing such mental gymnastics just to complain -
your comment is effectively attempting to amplify the shortcomings of the
study _that are pointed out in the article you are quoting_ by then quoting
them and adding slightly snarky commentary. Why? The author does a fine job
framing what the study actually accomplishes, in their opinion, and then
assessing its utility.

On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and not
written by the authors of the actual study. So when The Economist says the
results are “interesting” that is not Education First (the company behind the
study) claiming their own results are interesting... it is an audience member
doing so. Please be accurate if you are going to nitpick so aggressively.

The fact is the article does provide interesting commentary on the outcome of
a vast and interesting survey while clearly acknowledging the interesting
issues with the data.

~~~
hmwhy
> On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and
> not written by the authors of the actual study.

You are right, I completely missed that point when I commented and that is now
an embarrassing mistake that I can only learn from and remind me to be more
accurate in the future.

> Also, I wish people would stop doing such mental gymnastics just to complain
> - your comment is effectively attempting to amplify the shortcomings of the
> study that are pointed out in the article you are quoting by then quoting
> them and adding slightly snarky commentary.

I wasn't "attempting" to amplify those shortcomings, I was indeed amplifying
those shortcomings.

Once you have acknowledged that there isn't sufficient evidence to make any
solid conclusions then the only logical next step is to get more evidence to
support or refute your hypothesis instead of coming up with "interesting"
commentary.

It's not like the article is asking for help to get evidence to substantiate
the study, or tries to give the reader any valuable, fact-based insights. So
the fact that the author acknowledges that the study is "not entirely
scientific" in multiple paragraphs, then proceed to use a misleading title and
come up with conjectures to make the study seem more interesting/increase its
value is a huge red flag to me.

Edit: typo.

------
esharte
Look how Europe corresponds with this map of which countries dub foreign
language TV shows and Movies versus which ones use subtitles.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/59zyal/map_of_europ...](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/59zyal/map_of_european_countries_who_are_dubbing_foreign/)

~~~
PeterStuer
Correlation for sure. Causation? Maybe in part. The cost of dubbing is very
much higher that subtitling. So dubbing was only used when the target market
was large enough. Larger language groups are more robust against cultural
imperialism due to a more significant internal cultural market. Even science,
which has universaly adopted English in Europe, was still written in French
and German in their respective countries right up to the 1980s.

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
Is the term cultural imperialism even appropriate here? Cultural adoption
might be less loaded.

------
snowl
Article is based off
[https://www.ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/ful...](https://www.ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/full-
reports/v9/ef-epi-2019-english.pdf)

------
playing_colours
I am surprised to find Germany that high in the rank. Outside of large
international cities, and particularly in former DDR lands in my experience it
is not that good.

Among my neighbours, in an area of Eastern Berlin, far from gentrified places
only 1-2 out of 10 adults between 30 and 50 years old can speak English
fluently, half can somehow communicate.

~~~
fishnchips
My experience as well. I visited a client in Berlin this summer. Pretty much
everyone at work spoke perfect English and there were even workplace
conversations in English between German native speakers, for the benefit of
their international coworkers. All the usual touristy places in West Berlin
were pretty much the same.

I stayed in Pankow though, which is a residential area of East Berlin, and I
literally wasn't able to communicate a word in English. There wasn't much
sympathy or patience to be seen when I was trying to speak German either, only
annoyance. Which surprised me somehow - I remember living in Denmark people
were both supportive and amused when I attempted to communicate in their
language.

------
henrikschroder
Interesting that countries where English is an official language scores lower
than countries where it isn't, like Singapore, Malaysia, and South Africa.

The full report had a list of cities though, where Kuala Lumpur scored higher
than Malaysia, so that's an interesting phenomenon how it's a city thing
rather than a country thing.

~~~
ajdlinux
As others have mentioned, English is an official language in Singapore and
South Africa.

As for Malaysia, English is not an "official language" however it is an
official language in one state, and it is still an important language in
government - particularly in the judiciary, where many cases are still
conducted and judgements written in English. More importantly, it's the
primary language in most larger private-sector businesses particularly in
cities like KL where Malay is less dominant.

\---

edit: unless we're interpreting you wrong, and you mean that you're surprised
that Northern Europeans do better than some Commonwealth countries - ignoring
the obvious massive bias issues with this "study" as a whole, I'd remember
that Europe has higher quality education in general than the poorer
Commonwealth countries.

~~~
henrikschroder
Yeah, sorry, I should have flipped the is and isn't so the examples followed
the right one...

And you're probably right that the bias in the study skews the results.

Another possible angle is how you measure "correct" English. American English
and British English are technically two separate languages with separate
rules. Should you measure the correctness of a Singaporean against either of
those? Or should you measure them against some Singaporean English standard
instead?

~~~
ajdlinux
FWIW, the Singaporean government actively tries to encourage "Good English"
rather than Singlish, much to the dismay of many.

The Malaysian government doesn't do quite the same type of attempts at social
engineering as the Singaporeans, so you don't see quite as many official
denunciations of Manglish.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_Good_English_Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_Good_English_Movement)

------
hoi
Since this is based off tests does it stipulate whether there is a diffrence
in reading, listening and writing comprehension vs ability to speak? There are
many countries where written English is exceptional, but when it comes to
conversation, it's lacking.

------
gumby
Amusing German anecdote: my German son went from German school in California
(English was taught by native-speaking, non-german-speaking teachers with a
California teaching license, and of course spoken outside school) to Germany
(English was taught by a native English speaker who spoke no German (moved
with her husband to Germany)). What subjects was he behind in when he arrived?
English.

Coincidentally his English teacher his last year in California and when he got
to Germany were both Australian.

All that being said, outside big cities I haven't really encountered anyone in
Germany with strong English.

~~~
hwj
There are German schools in the US?

~~~
gumby
Sure, and not all are subsidized by the German government. Just as there are
French, Japanese, even Swedish schools in various countries all over the
world. There are "international" (English as language of instruction,
sometimes foreign funded) schools and universities around the world too.

Some are used by business people moved over for a couple of years concerned
that their kids won't be able to pass the exams etc if they get out of the
"home" system (though I figure if you're only visiting for a couple of years
why not sample the local system..though in California that's pretty dire). The
other reason is the opposite: the kids are integrated to be able to do things
like little league or whatever but need to get some "home" education so
they'll be able to move back.

If you live in Palo Alto there are even _two_ German ones close by: one just
across the north border in Menlo Park and one immediately south in Mountain
View.

------
cmrdporcupine
I've always intuitively felt that the Dutch were the best non-native English
speakers out there, it's nice to see this confirmed with data.

Not surprisingly the areas with native Germanic languages do the best in this
survey.

~~~
mr_custard
A long time ago, before Analogue Terrestrial TV (OTA) was replaced by Digital
broadcasts in the UK, I was visiting a friend in Amsterdam. I was surprised to
discover that she was watching BBC television. The signal was strong enough to
be received in Amsterdam, and I often wonder if this is why the Dutch are
historically better at English because they watched so many British TV shows.

~~~
PeterStuer
In Belgium, a country that got an early lead in cable coverage, there were
antennas at the North Coast specifically placed for receiving the BBC
broadcasts and feeding it into the analog cable system.

------
natmaka
The variance is non-neglectable. In China, for example, English proficiency is
WAY higher in huge cities (say, Shanghai) than in the countryside!

------
ashwinaj
Yeah right. I was in Beijing last week, how in the world is China ranked
alongside India in terms of English proficiency? I could hardly find anyone
even at the Beijing Capital airport to speak a coherent English sentence, let
alone grammatically correct.

------
irrational
What is up with the gray countries? I spent 2 weeks in Iceland and everyone I
met was absolutely fluent in English (strangely they all sounded like
Americans - I expected them to have English accents for some reason). It
should be marked as high or higher.

~~~
kingbirdy
Gray appears to be countries which primarily speak English (e.g. US, UK) and
countries that weren't able to get data (e.g. North Korea)

~~~
Geee
Really weird choice of colors.

------
durnygbur
In Europe DACH and Scandinavia are understandable, Portugal and Poland are
outliers (here we are serving in your low cost centers).

------
englishrookie
Yes! We Dutch are the bestest in English!

