Oh, look, the Japan Foundation is busy ~~creating new material for future “the JLPT doesn’t *actually* measure anything relevant” flamewars~~ calibrating the JPLT against the CEFR for better comparability: https://www.jlpt.jp/e/cefrlevel/index.html
Finally, the “even native speakers can’t pass the JLPT N1” argument will die when they see that barely passing it is a B2 level at best.
But doesn’t the CEFR include speaking? How does it match with the jlpt?
Uh, that’s definitely a choice seeing as the Japan Foundation’s own study found only moderate correlation between JLPT level and CEFR level, with no one to one correspondence observed. They seem to be working on an actual CEFR aligned test for Japanese, so I wonder if this is just an attempt at bridging the two
I get that the CEFR originated in the European context and there will always be bias there, but there are no disadvantages on having a harmonized/consistent international standard on measuring language input/output.
Countries like Japan that manage their own measuring systems (i.e., the JLPT) should get to keep them, but only good things can happen when those organizations incorporate an international standard (like the CEFR).
I’m very happy to see this development.
From the FAQ:
> Q: With the introduction of the reference indication of the CEFR level, will there be any changes to the JLPT test contents? Do I have to change how to study for the JLPT?
> A: There will be no changes in the JLPT test contents; you do not have to change how to study for the JLPT.
5 comments
Finally, the “even native speakers can’t pass the JLPT N1” argument will die when they see that barely passing it is a B2 level at best.
But doesn’t the CEFR include speaking? How does it match with the jlpt?
Uh, that’s definitely a choice seeing as the Japan Foundation’s own study found only moderate correlation between JLPT level and CEFR level, with no one to one correspondence observed. They seem to be working on an actual CEFR aligned test for Japanese, so I wonder if this is just an attempt at bridging the two
https://jfstandard.jp/pdf/jfs_jlpt_diagram2017(english).pdf
I get that the CEFR originated in the European context and there will always be bias there, but there are no disadvantages on having a harmonized/consistent international standard on measuring language input/output.
Countries like Japan that manage their own measuring systems (i.e., the JLPT) should get to keep them, but only good things can happen when those organizations incorporate an international standard (like the CEFR).
I’m very happy to see this development.
From the FAQ:
> Q: With the introduction of the reference indication of the CEFR level, will there be any changes to the JLPT test contents? Do I have to change how to study for the JLPT?
> A: There will be no changes in the JLPT test contents; you do not have to change how to study for the JLPT.
too bad. would’ve been nice to see efforts towards including writing and speaking. hope the reference that will be added clearly outlines [the only moderate correlation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LearnJapanese/comments/15ko9dg/cefr_level_to_be_added_for_reference_to_jlpt/jv6e1ug/)