I think that when it comes to postgraduate study, you have to look at the university’s rating and reputation for the individual subject, rather than its overall university ranking. Westminster is certainly one of the most highly regarded universities in the translation industry, and has first-rate links with the profession. The course has a fairly vocational focus, whereas some of the other MA courses are slightly more theory-focused, so it really just depends on what you are after. To answer your question: yes, I was very happy with the course I chose

Thanks for your comments. Your understanding of the situation is roughly the same as mine. I believe they do require applicants to offer more than one language combinations – although I think they might be rethinking this in light of receiving a low number of suitable applications.

I wasn’t aware of any ageism on their part, and I don’t recall their calls for applications specifying any particular age restrictions. But I was under the impression that the vacancies are entry-level (this may be completely the wrong impression!).

I’m very much aware that the DGT is taking these things on board, with Fiona Harris, currently on secondment to the DGT Field Office in London, discussing these issues at last year’s ITI conference (see – http://iti-conference.org.uk/conference-2009/content/view/57/30/).

Philippa

Interesting post and I agree with what others have said about the overly long and drawn out process that occurs when applying for an in-house position at the DGT.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that, until very recently, the EU had an ageist policy with regards to hiring. When you think about what the EU is meant to stand for, this was ludicrous. Aside from the obvious fact that the EU were most probably shooting themselves in the foot, as to be a good translator takes time, so those with a lot of experience in their late 30s and 40s were immediately ineligible to apply. However, the fact that the legislation to reverse this policy is recent does bring in to question how efficient EU policies and actions are in real terms.

Another obstacle in getting people on board could be the fact that they stress the need for the applicant to possess multiple languages. I’ve nothing against polyglots (indeed, I wish I was one!), just that, isn’t it sometimes better to have a few people who are specialists in a certain language combination? Language interference is then further reduced and specialism, i.e. in the language itself, is increased. I feel I would really like to apply to work at the EU, but with such a stipulation in place, this is impossible. Am I right in thinking that the institution (like many!) could do with a shakeup?

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Just

Thanks for offering an insight into your own experience of applying to work for the EU – it really brings an extra dimension to this issue. It is indeed very sad to see that yet again English native speaker translators are being reflected in a poor light.

I dare to dream that the tide is turning in the UK, with more school children choosing languages. I think it might be….very slowly. The professions of translating and interpreting just need more and more positive publicity in order to help to counteract the shortages and/or apparent poor quality. I think the ITI might have organized career talks at some universities in the past, but perhaps it’s time to reach out to primary schools?!

Yes, the comments on The Times article just beggar belief. Despite growing up in the UK, I’ve managed to avoid too much exposure to the whole ‘faceless eurocrat’ way of thinking (prob by steadfastly ignoring certain factions of the press!) and I’m always astounded to see or hear such ridiculously anti-EU views.

Memo to self: no more comments after 9.30pm at night…