Preparing future EU-interpreters

Hi Javier, It's not actually an EU accreditation test programme. It's a period of post-exam teaching (following the final exams which usually take place in May or early June). It lasts 4 weeks, with a mixture of interpreting exercises, seminars (e.g. on stress management) and lectures from real life speakers (with interpretation). The emphasis is on simultaneous, which UK graduates don't have much time to acquire (since the Master's lasts one year, not two). The idea is to start doing some interpreting work that more closely resembles 'real life', in terms of the speakers and material (e.g. simultaneous with text). Clearly, anyone hoping to sit the EU accreditation test would be well advised to sign up for the post-exam teaching period.

Hello Mijenka, As mentioned at the SCIC Universities Conference in April, we are working with the "Téléparrainage" prototype for the moment. We offer to candidates that have already passed the Pre-Selection Tool, and therefore demonstrated that they have a real potential, the possibility of being heart by professional interpreters interpreting from speeches very similar to the one that they could get in an accreditation test. For the moment we have tested only 5 languages but the results are very promising. We will keep everybody posted. In any case one important thing to have in mind is that we are not a training institution, we can not replace the training course and everything that students learn there in order to become good professionals. We are employers and very demanding ones because we need the highest quality, it is a question of survival. But as employers we can also help in the process of preparing to pass the highly demanding and strict selection processes that we ha put in place.

Great ideas! I also think it would be helpful if trainers and institutions could get together to produce some definitions of how accreditation differs from a final exam. What extra is expected, apart from knowledge of the institution and perhaps some life experience? International organisations are often observers at universities' final exams, so should have some insights into how they differ. I question the assumption one sometimes hears that a low pass rate necessarily means either a) there's something wrong with the testing procedure, or b) the universities are doing a bad job. More analysis could lead us e.g. to c), that schools produce all-rounders, and accreditation tests are looking for in some sense "specialised" professionals.