through this website, AAFSW receives a small percentage to help fund out activities and services. 
Through the Zhongwen Wringer
By Prince Roy
As promised, here's my account of the Chinese Proficiency Test I took last Thursday morning. It was quite an experience, significantly more stressful, intensive and difficult than I had anticipated. But now that I've been through it once, I think my anxiety level at future tests will be far lower.
The Basics
A language proficiency test at State is a rigorous exam that takes approximately 2-2.5 hours. Two people administer the test: one is the 'tester' and the other is the 'examiner', though both decide on the score given to the examinee. The examiner reads the instructions, clarifies/answers any questions, acts as timekeeper, and passes out materials as needed (S/he conducts all administration matters in English). The tester is the person with whom the examinee interacts for the speaking portions of the exam. The exam consists of both a speaking and reading component. Scores use the ILR scale (Interagency Language Roundtable), and range from 0-5, with '5' considered native level. It is also possible to get a '+', i.e. 1+, 2+. A '+' indicates that the examinee exhibited some ability at the next level, but not quite enough to warrant the higher score. State uses the scale for both speaking and reading, so a typical score might look like this: 2+/2 (speaking/reading). State offers an appeals process if an examinee is unsatisfied with the score received (State records the exam on audio/video tape), and the result is good for five years. One can also retest in a language in six months or after 100 hours of formal instruction.
Speaking
This test consists of three parts. First, I had to have a 10-15 minute everyday conversation with the tester. The conversation had to cover personal, social and current events topics. To obtain a higher score, I had to engage the tester, ask questions, follow-ups, and initiate the discussion rather than just taking a passive role. Second, they gave me a choice of five to six topics from which I had to make a 5-10 minute oral presentation (extemporaneous speaking) . After I chose my topic, they left the room and gave me five minutes to prepare my remarks. They provided paper and pen with which I could jot down notes or an outline, but I was too stressed for that. The topics were of an academic nature, ranging from political, economic, and cultural fields. I chose to talk about bilingual education, its pros and cons, effects on children, whether an 'official language' is a good idea, etc. After I made my presentation, the tester asked me questions or challenged my conclusions. Third, I had to interview the tester in a subject which I chose from a list of topics they provided. I went with "Arts and Literature". The idea here is to obtain information about the subject from the tester according to questions provided, and report back to the examiner (in English) what I found out. This was a bit disconcerting, because it was rather awkward to stop the conversation every minute or so and make a quick report. That concluded the Speaking Test and they gave me a five-minute break...
Reading
This component consisted of two parts. No dictionaries allowed, but we could choose simplified or traditional characters. I chose the latter. First, they provided me with six short written texts ranging from about 4-6 paragraphs. They left the room for six minutes (a minute per text) and when they came back I had to give them the general idea behind each selection (in English). The difficulty level varied considerably, but I could read all of them fairly easily except one that was in classical style with no punctuation whatsoever. What made this exercise so hard is that one minute per selection is not a lot of time. They then asked follow-up questions and I could go back over the text as needed. This ended up being far more difficult than I had anticipated, though I think I managed ok for the most part, except for that damn classical piece, and one other text that was somewhat abstract. Second, I had to read two longer articles. I selected the first from a choice of six. They left the room for seven minutes, and when they came back I had to give a 2-3 sentence summary (in English) of the article. They then had me go through it paragraph by paragraph. For the second article the procedure was exactly the same, except this time they chose the article. Both articles were fairly straightforward for me, and after this I thought my pain was finally over, but no, these sadists were enjoying themselves far too much to let me off the hook. They had me do yet another article that they again chose, and this one proved to be my undoing. It was a sanwen essay that was very, very difficult to read. It was a highly literary, emotional piece about the aftermath of the Taiwan earthquake that happened a few years back. I simply could not get my hands around it in the alloted seven minutes and so failed miserably. Anyhow, after that disaster they mercifully told me to wait outside while they discussed my score.
Results and Analysis
I won't keep you in any more suspense: I received a 3+/3. When I registered for the test I had to provide my estimated level which I gave as a 3+/3+, so actually I wasn't too far off. It took them about 20 minutes to arrive at my score and they called me back into the room to assess my performance. As far as the speaking section, they said for parts one and three I am at a '4' level. What brought me down to the 3+ was the oral presentation. They told me that my vocabulary could use a bit more sophistication, and I agree with them. This is the first time I've done something like this in Chinese, so it was a new experience for me. Plus, I haven't conversed on complicated topics of an academic/professional nature since I lived in Taiwan over 10 years ago, so my facility with the language has regressed somewhat. You may think that having a Chinese spouse makes up for it, but that is not the case. Our daily conversations are of a very mundane nature. In fact, I've had a long-held belief that language learners without native spouses/significant others are often better able to discuss highly advanced, sophisticated topics, though their colloquial ability often leaves much to be desired. That's been my experience anyway.
I have to admit I am slightly disappointed at my reading result. I think if it hadn't been for that last whammy I would've gotten a 3+ at least. I console myself with the fact that I haven't really read Chinese intensively since I finished grad school in 1998, especially literature, which is what that essay was. Also, although I chose traditional characters, I am far more used to reading Mainland content---in fact I hardly ever read Taiwanese publications. The texts in the exam were all from Taiwan. I think the writing styles tend to be quite different, especially literary texts, and to be honest I couldn't quite adjust, particularly in that timed setting. But I think a 3-3+ is a fairly accurate reflection of my current reading level.
Overall, I think the exam got it right. If I had taken it in the early-mid 1990s I'm sure I would have gotten a 4/4, but the fact that I haven't lived in a Chinese-speaking country for any significant length of time since 1993, and spending the last three years in law school where I had hardly any time for contact with Chinese has taken its toll, so I'm quite satisfied that I'm at the upper end of a general professional proficiency rating. The good news is that State will allow me to take what is called a 'top-off course' that will bring me back up to a '4' level in the event I ever get posted to China or Taiwan.
Prince Roy is a self-described ex-law school inmate now serving as
a US diplomat.