is it on purpose

[Skvach]

The IELTS itself was designed to evaluate one's language ability for studying at Uni.
And later some countries started to use it for immigration.

there are a lot of native english speakers, for instance, who struggle to achieve 7 in writing.
We don`t write essays at work or at home, only students do it.

And actually they have designed a new test for immigration -IELTS Life Skills, which is used for UK visas.

 

[Han]

Canada decides who they need - EE and CRS scale are just an expression of that design.

Canada has determined that the highest indicators of immigrant success are a permanent full-time non seasonal job (with or without provincial support), at least 2 or more post secondary educational credentials, above average language skills (English or French or both) and at least 2 years of verifiable skilled work experience (Canadian or Foreign). In addition to all that, being younger certainly doesn't hurt because you pay taxes for longer than someone who is already 50.

We may rant and rave and disagree with the CRS system but we ranted, raved and disagreed with the previous system's faulty FIFO processing as well. No matter how Canada designs their systems, some immigrants will always feel left out. Because they don't fit the bill of what Canada requires now. But that's the only thing that matters - what Canada requires, Canada does.

I agree with you, BUT there is always room to improve the system! Don't expect improvements if no one speaks up! You may only feel it when you face the situation. When one of your skills is 0.5 below the famous 7778, and although you score way more in another three skills, the system doesn't boost your score at all! It hurts more when you see how inconsistent IELTS scores are! it is literally frustrating! As I said, one may feel it only when he/she faces it!
"No matter how Canada designs their systems, some immigrants will always feel left out." I agree with you, but it doesn't mean the system can not be improved more! I don't think punishing people for missing 0.5 in one skill and giving a sharp increase (mine jumped from 401 to 465!!) to people who score 7/7/7/8 is a good idea! Should a person be punished because he scored 9/9/9/7.5?

 

[RamsayBolton]

The IELTS itself was designed to evaluate one's language ability for studying at Uni.
And later some countries started to use it for immigration.

there are a lot of native english speakers, for instance, who struggle to achieve 7 in writing.
We don`t write essays at work or at home, only students do it.

And actually they have designed a new test for immigration -IELTS Life Skills, which is used for UK visas.

The IETLS General was created in 1995, so it's not a new thing at all. The same applies for CELPIP, these tests are constantly updated and redesigned with new materials. You might not need to write academic essay at work, but you do need to write reports, test reports, audit reports, analysis report, system documentation, hardware manual, annual financial reports etc. These things are several times more complex than those mere 2000-word essays in college.

I believe if you want to work in occupations belong to NOC B, A and 0. Your writing skill needs to be at least band 9 or 10 (7.5) in IETLS.

 

[Skvach]

When writing reports, test reports, audit reports, analysis report, system documentation, hardware manual, and annual financial reports you are nornally not limitted to write it in 40 mins, and also you have Ms Word or something, which helps a lot.
To write a good IELTS essay you have to be trained to do so.

But we can't change the system anyway.

 

[mf4361]

The main problem with all those exams is that they were never designed to be used for immigration, but for academic purposes.

This is partly true. General Training is supposed to be a test for "general language usage" outside academic field, although it is somehow derived from the academic one. But then no one in the real world judge ones language ability with a test (like, no job description will require a IELTS >6). So its only practical purpose is for immigration.

 

[Chiuzi]

This is partly true. General Training is supposed to be a test for "general language usage" outside academic field, although it is somehow derived from the academic one. But then no one in the real world judge ones language ability with a test (like, no job description will require a IELTS >6). So its only practical purpose is for immigration.

Personally I think IELTS it's a great test.. demands a lot! just like your future employer will... of course there is a lot of room for improvements...

 

[mf4361]

Personally I think IELTS it's a great test.. demands a lot! just like your future employer will... of course there is a lot of room for improvements...

I'd imagine its better than CELPIP as a gauge of language ability. But IMO it punishes people who are used to talk in technical languages, which employers want from an employees.

Reminded me a few coworkers in my company who just arrives from Eastern Europe as mechanics. First they are given general English courses, but very soon realized they are useless as it teaches things like "describe your living room" or "how did your vacation go", instead of technical terms they will use on a job.

 

[Han]

Personally I think IELTS it's a great test.. demands a lot! just like your future employer will... of course there is a lot of room for improvements...

You probably were lucky to get the scores you wanted. You would probably feel people like me if you had spent 1200 on IELTS! I am a research assistant in a good university in Canada. The papers I write get accepted in high prestige journals and conferences but my writing was scored 7 in 2013 , 6.5 in summer 2014, 7 in fall 2014 and 7.5 in fall 2014!! The same thing happened to my listening skill! That is why I firmly believe IELTS is subjective and inconsistent!
The last time I took IELTS, I got good scores. I have received ITA and filed my app, but this doesn't make me ignore the flaws in this system.