P.S. I didn't look at your links, yet, Wallflower (my apology, but I wanted to respond before I got sidetracked).
Your text did mention Beloit and "not for beginners". This suddenly made me think further of my own experiences. Middlebury's program was billed as "immersion", and you actually signed a "contract" of sorts stating that you would use the language you were learning exclusively at all times to the best extent possible.
Sounds really impressive, up front. In practice, many of the beginning class members were not that motivated and they mostly spoke English outside of class. The amount of effort and success varied, and plenty of people showed some good will effort. But the "immersion" experience did not match the marketing.
I was more than a little frustrated by this. But in terms of a lesson to pass on, I would say not to allow yourself to be intimidated by such marketing language. If you have an honest intent to learn and practice, that's probably going to quickly place in you the top 25% of performers, regardless of your starting ability.
I also spent some time during college in Munich, Germany, as part of an exchange program. Again, the program billed itself as "advanced" and requiring fluency and daily use of German. In practice, a lot of those kids could barely string a sentence together. (And you haven't lived until you've heard German spoken with a full on Dallas drawl. ;-) It seems that one kind of marketing for these language courses focuses on projecting the image of "advanced learners". My personal, anecdotal experience is that, for the U.S. audience, at least, and a couple of decades ago, this was consistently, dramatically exaggerated.
Don't let a bunch of attitude put you off. If you really want to learn, you're already ahead of 4/5 of the pack.
Your text did mention Beloit and "not for beginners". This suddenly made me think further of my own experiences. Middlebury's program was billed as "immersion", and you actually signed a "contract" of sorts stating that you would use the language you were learning exclusively at all times to the best extent possible.
Sounds really impressive, up front. In practice, many of the beginning class members were not that motivated and they mostly spoke English outside of class. The amount of effort and success varied, and plenty of people showed some good will effort. But the "immersion" experience did not match the marketing.
I was more than a little frustrated by this. But in terms of a lesson to pass on, I would say not to allow yourself to be intimidated by such marketing language. If you have an honest intent to learn and practice, that's probably going to quickly place in you the top 25% of performers, regardless of your starting ability.
I also spent some time during college in Munich, Germany, as part of an exchange program. Again, the program billed itself as "advanced" and requiring fluency and daily use of German. In practice, a lot of those kids could barely string a sentence together. (And you haven't lived until you've heard German spoken with a full on Dallas drawl. ;-) It seems that one kind of marketing for these language courses focuses on projecting the image of "advanced learners". My personal, anecdotal experience is that, for the U.S. audience, at least, and a couple of decades ago, this was consistently, dramatically exaggerated.
Don't let a bunch of attitude put you off. If you really want to learn, you're already ahead of 4/5 of the pack.
Cheers!