About to be deported? [purplecthulhu]

You're viewing

purplecthulhu's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

I just took the practice citizenship test available here.

I only got 63% and have thus failed to qualify as a UK citizen.

I expect the Home Office Enforcement Branch to be waiting to deport me when I get home.

More seriously, I do wonder why aspiring citizens are expected to know things about the UK that people who've lived here most of their lives haven't the faintest bloody idea about...

←

→

There are 49 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

More seriously, I do wonder why aspiring citizens are expected to know things about the UK that people who've lived here most of their lives haven't the faintest bloody idea about...

Another expression of that old thing about having to be more X than X to prove just how serious they really are about being X. At this rate, we're going to end up with the UK turning into a bizarre parody of itself.

It's not supposed to be test of general knowledge. It's a test on the booklet. The idea is that if you read and learn the contents of the booklet you will: (a) have a working knowledge of UK citizenship and (b) be able to pass the test. The specific questions asked are not necessarily important in themselves.

But presumably it is expected that functioning British citizens should know this stuff, or 75% of it, without having to study the booklet. Otherwise the test is pointless, isn't it?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I suspect there are functioning drivers who would fail the written element of the driving test if they took it tomorrow, and functioning lawyers who would fail a law exam if they took it tomorrow. It's not at all unusual for people to learn things for an exam which they (a) forget shortly afterwards and (b) never need to know in practice.

Perhaps that is a problem with our assessment methods, but it's not a problem specific to this test.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Indeed, but there is usually some correlation between what one does on a day-to-day basis in something one is examined for and the contents of the test.

Given that many (most?) of the UK citizens who've taken this test have failed it, there would not seem to be much of this kind of correlation for this test.

[link] [parent] [reply]

So far, I'm your only commenter who's passed. I'm not a citizen and give most credit for that to the enormous number of standardized tests I've taken in my life, rather than to any real knowledge.

...

I wonder what mysterious agenda is underlying the desire to have a large number of good test-takers in this country?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I got 50%, which is not bad considering that I am not born here and didn't study.

What really worries me is that the answers I failed are the one who require remembering a number by heart. I will never be good at those.

63% correct here too :)

And the answer to your question: xenophobia. The whole thing is designed to make it difficult and a ritual of submission for people to become British.

'ritual of submission' is a good way of putting it, especially given the suggestion that there are 'moves to restrict probationary citizens' right to protest' or that 'that would-be citizens should be expected to show more obedience to the state than those who are already citizens'.

The thought police must be revving up their brain scanners at the home office, and if they start with immigrants, they'll be after the rest of us before long.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hurray! I got 75% and passed! But some of those really were some silly questions. I mean, I would understand if the percentage of a religious group needed to be estimated on the 0-5-10-15-20% kind of ranges, but to demand accuracy to a tenth of a percent in order to be correct?

Yes - this is not a test of knowledge of the UK or acceptability as a citizen, it's a test of ability to do tests, and thus pointless.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Fortunately for me, doing tests is one of my well-honed abilities. Unfortunately for me, this is a skill that rarely comes in handy these days.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Although ability to do tests is not quite pointless - if the government has decided that it wants a country full of more or less literate and almost numerate people who can function in the society we currently have (which is full of forms and ticky boxes) without leaning too heavily on the CABs then this is a non-stupid, if disingenous, way of achieving it.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I got 54%. I think I actually new about half of the answers I got right, and the others were pure luck.
I may eventually want to obtain British citizenship, but I'm not sure how I'm going to remember all those numbers.

> I'm not sure how I'm going to remember all those numbers.

I know what you mean. I got asked whether children could work 10 or 12 hours a week. Does it honestly matter? How would anyone know which it is unless they were employing them?

[link] [parent] [reply]

A triumphant 38%! Back to where I came from for me. (In this case, Manchester, which will no doubt be excluded from the UK under an incoming Tory government.)

Edited Date: 2009-08-03 02:27 pm (UTC)

Actually, I prefer my version.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I also got 63%.

Most of this stuff is junk -- of no earthly use whatsoever to anyone living day to day in the UK.

46% - but I did take less than 5 minutes for a 45 minute test.

Reviewing the questions I got wrong I have thought:

"Who needs to know that?"
"Who cares whether it is that number or some other number?"
"That is political posturing and might in fact be different by the time they wish to apply for citizenship"
"No, that is blatently false. You might *wish* it to be true, but it isnt"

[link] [parent] [reply]

50% and pretty much the same reasons

random demographic information: why on earth would you need to know that?!

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've never heard of the dialect "Ulster Scots"

[link] [parent] [reply]

I knew about that, but then I lived in Belfast for three years.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Frankly I guessed that one (and got it right).

[link] [parent] [reply]

That's one of the few which I thought was actually useful background general knowledge about the UK, a lot of the others were pretty silly - whether the number of kids in the UK was 15, 16 17 or 18 million for example is of no earthly practical use.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I wonder how many dialects and accents the booklet lists.

But yes - I agree. I dont care whether the number of kids is 15 or 18 million. why should I?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Some of the answers are just plain wrong, e.g.
'You can attend a hospital without a GP's letter only in the case of an emergency.'
is false (they say it is true) - for example you can often self-refer to sexual health clinics.

Both answers to the census question are incorrect. Information about individuals is secret for 100 years, but aggregate information is available to the public much earlier than that.

This is in fact a more worrying criticism and one which can be leveled just well at various GCSE questions (at least in the sciences).

And this level of incompetence means that the Home Office once again opens the door to legal challenges, this time from people denied citizenship because the 'right' answers to the test are actually wrong.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I spotted that mistake too.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Actually I spotted both mistakes - the hospital and the census one.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I just failed it - less than 50%. See you in Kuala Lumpur.

Amusingly my Dad was born near KL. :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Careful - the Home Office might be listening. With that and the news that you can't answer the Citizen Test correctly you might be defined as an evil foreigner and be collected for processing...

[link] [parent] [reply]

67%, using a mixture of luck, deduction, and a smattering of actual knowledge.

I have no objection to prospective citizens (and, for that matter, existing ones) having to learn stuff that's actually important to living, working, and voting here. Some of the questions did test useful knowledge (e.g. "A quango is..."), but at least as many seemed rather pointless. For example, I got the question "How many parliamentary constituencies are there?", but a question like "What is a parliamentary constituency?" would have been much more relevant.

I suspect we are seeing the classic PHB fallacy of confusing measurements with objectives - the belief that, if the numbers look good, the original aims have automatically been met. Getting 60% in this particular test doesn't mean you're ill-equipped for life in the UK, any more than driving 40 miles from London means you're in Reading.

:)

[link] [parent] [reply]

I wonder how far it would be possible to get in the citizenship application process before they ask you "are you already a citizen? oh, you are? go away, then."

Given the home office they'd probably be trying to deport you before the issue came up (especially if you weren't white).

[link] [parent] [reply]

Also: are non-citizens even allowed to donate to political parties under current regulations?

[link] [parent] [reply]

54%, took it in under 3 minutes ...

I got 50%, but for the U.S. test I got 90%, so I suppose I'm OK.

I've objected to this test for a while, mostly on a number of grounds that people have already highlighted (factual error (try asking _any_ brit about the ritual for new years, and you always get the answer get pissed (and some elaboration such as lose your keys)), pointless memory exercises, useless information).
As I understand the idea is that you ensure this way that people have enough of a working level of English to pass the test, which is sufficient also for day-to-day use. This is undermined to some extent through the use of multiple choice, but with the thousands of people trying to become citizens, I can see why computer marking becomes attractive.

The big eye openers for me were: 1. The percentage of foreign born people (according to the book) outside the London area is around 1%. Given the incessant harping on about foreigners through most outlets of mass media and the bigotry I have first hand experienced this made me angry. 1%! Not the huge influx you are expected to believe. 2. The totally derisory nature with which people who are studying for the test are treated through the language used in the book. At various points it is implied that the foreign born are here only to pillage and take jobs of the locals. I am guessing therefore that the test helps screen out those at the more competent end of the linguistic scale who are incensed at how their 'new adopted country' views them. Now if only I weren't an economic migrant (who pays her tax and NI and does not receive housing benefit (and no saying, well, oh I didn't mean _you)), I might just go home ...

/rant

Hehe, you probably did better than I'd manage :)

I failed. I got almost every non-statistical question right and almost every statistical question wrong. Some of the questions were dubious in that the answers change over time (the Parliamentary constituencies), and some were just plain wrong: You CAN attend a hospital in a non-emergency without a GP's note. It is likely that you'll be sent back to your GP, but here in the Countryside (which doesn't existin the eyes of the current administration), you may well be seen by a doctor or nurse if one is available.

I failed too - 54%

But why on earth would i know about Ulster Scots, or the exact percentage of Muslims or how many constituencies there are?

I agree with

owlfish - if it was a general rough percentage, but those kinds of increments?!

I passed! 79%

But...the guy who sits next to me at work took it ~10 days ago. So he's been giving us bits of trivia on a regular basis; the first time he asked I got the wrong century for a woman's right to divorce her husband! Did anyone get more than 3 options for the ticky box questions? Its hard to get the answers right when you can't see the right ones.

Agree that it is just a hurdle though. I almost get the impression that whoever came up with it never thought that it would be put into practice, just needed to satisfy Minister X that it was being worked on, so came up with a list of "provisional questions".

I'm waiting to hear back from the Home Office about my citizenship application.

it is quite odd. A lot of statistics to remember, a lot of stuff about the EU and then the odd question thrown in like:

if you live in a shared house, do you need a separate TV licence for each TV or will one licence for the house cover it? (they worded it differently but that was the gist of it).

there were a few other odd ones but you definitely have to remember a lot of numbers. You can tell a civil servant wrote it.

I'm sure it's no sillier than the US citizenship test, however.

Good luck with your test!

I'm sure it's no sillier than the US citizenship test

Probably true, but I'm not sure how useful or fair the US test is either. SHould we just be blindly copying the immigration arrangements (and many other things) of everyone else? Whatever happened to innovation?

[link] [parent] [reply]

oh, that's not to say I think either the UK or US test is useful or fair--in fact, most of my friends looking at the UK test said they wouldn't pass it. in fact, if we didn't know any better, we'd say it was written to . . . deliberately keep people out if possible.

I passed the test already; waiting on my citizenship application. I found the test easy but alot of the people who took it with me didn't. (i.e. if English is not your first language and you aren't used to CBT tests)

I really get the impression the UK is looking more at Australia at the moment--quotas and all that. I don't get the impression that innovation comes into immigration policy much--

[link] [parent] [reply]

December