We are developing a resource for nurses who are internationally educated, which is the term I've always used. Now I am being told to use the word "foreign-educated" nurse. The rationale was slim to none (another organization has changed). Perhaps I am being too "politically correct" but "foreign" sounds wrong to me. I much prefer internationally educated.

What are your thoughts? Any sources to validate them? I looked online and found some forums, but that's about it. Most of them preferred "internationally educated" to "foreign educated" because of the political correctness.

"Foreign" implies something outside the parent organization with dubious connotations, while "international" has an air of respectability.

Both beat alien. Both bear offshore-educated. I prefer international. There is even a school using the term: http://www.ibo.org/

Maybe I'll recommend alien-educated nurses.

Are there any good articles on this? I'll search Language Log. They probably won't be on my side, though, because many linguists don't think you should have opinions about words, I know. However, I just think this is how language has evolved. To me, calling someone foreign-educated, particularly in the U.S., is like saying, "We're educated in the U.S., but you're a foreigner!" It seems to emphasize everything I hate about Americans.

I have lots of opinions about words.
I don't think that "foreign" has a pejorative connotation, at least where I'm from. The only wrinkle I can see with "internationally educated" is that it could be interpreted as "educated in more than one country." This is how the OED defines "international".

Is this true? Are these nurses educated in more than one country?

Interestingly (or maybe not) foreign is related to forest. They are both from Latin "forīs" "out of doors".

many linguists don't think you should have opinions about words

I think most people (linguists included) have opinions about words and a lot of other stuff. It's just that I don't see why I should accept somebody's opinion as the sole true one unless they reason with me and convince me of their opinion's veracity. This is pretty much how the world works. It's just that most non-linguists I know think that their opinions on language are not opinions at all but just the unvarnished truth. Language is one of the few subjects for discussion where professionals (i.e., the linguists) are ignored or found meddlesome and annoying.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:



Interestingly (or maybe not) foreign is related to forest. They are both from Latin "forīs" "out of doors".

I thought "silva" was forest. Where did I get that idea?

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
I thought "silva" was forest. Where did I get that idea?

"silva" is "forest". "forīs" is "outside, outdoors".

So when the Lone Ranger said, "Hi ho, silva," he was actually saying, "Look out for the tree"?

quote:

Is this true? Are these nurses educated in more than one country?

Some are, but I'd say most are only educated in one country. I don't have access to the OED, but in looking international up in Dictionary.com, I see your point. It talks about being between or among 2 or more nations. Of course the licensure would be international (license in the home country and then the U.S.), but I suppose the education wouldn't be. So I'd have to go with educated in another country. While foreign has some of the correct definitions (i.e., "of or pertaining to another country"), other definitions are just what I am talking about: "an abnormal place" or "alien" or "strange."

quote:

I think most people (linguists included) have opinions about words and a lot of other stuff. It's just that I don't see why I should accept somebody's opinion as the sole true one unless they reason with me and convince me of their opinion's veracity. This is pretty much how the world works. It's just that most non-linguists I know think that their opinions on language are not opinions at all but just the unvarnished truth. Language is one of the few subjects for discussion where professionals (i.e., the linguists) are ignored or found meddlesome and annoying.

And of course I only asked for opinions here - I did not ask anyone here to accept my opinion "as the sole true one." Heck, I am using "foreign-educated nurses" in my project, though inwardly I think it's wrong.

I agree that there are non-linguists (though I'll add linguists to that pile too) who think their opinions are the "unvarnished truth." I further agree that sometimes the "professionals" are "ignored or found meddlesome and annoying." On the other hand, some linguists, in my opinion (and I believe the opinion of others), can be a bit too opinionated. One who comes to mind is Avram Noam Chomsky. (I know he goes by Noam Chomsky, but I like his real first name because that's my brother-in-law's name, too.)

In the UK we might use "overseas" to describe someone educated elsewhere; that is, "overseas-educated". We are situated on a number of islands, though; in the US I suppose someone educated in Mexico could argue they were not educated overseas as the two countries are on the same landmass.

Another possibility is "educated abroad".

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:


"educated abroad".

That's wot 'Enry 'Igginz did far Eliza Doolittle.

On the other hand, some linguists, in my opinion (and I believe the opinion of others), can be a bit too opinionated. One who comes to mind is Avram Noam Chomsky.

On that we are agreed. On the other hand, most non-linguists haven't a clue of how opinionated Chomsky is in his theories of linguistics. They only know him for his opinions in his views on politics. And, for the record, Chomsky's opinions on language are accepted by a substantial group of linguists, while others (myself included) are not so convinced by his arguments. This is very apropos to this discussion. Chomsky is offering his opinions on history and politics while ignoring everybody else who ever had an opinion or made an observation on history or politics. He is very much like those non-linguists who are irritating me.

As for my opinion of other linguists on matters of language and linguistics, I may disagree with some of their opinions (e.g., I am not convinced by those who argue for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), but I usually find myself in agreement with other of their observations about language, and we have a common vocabulary with which we speak to one another. What I probably should have said previously in this thread is that I find most non-linguists offering their opinions about language without even being aware of the observations and opinions (theories) of linguists about language. When a non-linguist tells me that it's feminists who are trying to change the language by introducing recently singular-generic they, I just have to shake my head and wonder what it is they do (and how they do it) in their own fields of study. (For the record, this use of they has been around since roughly 1400 CE, which is a period of history in which finds few if no feminists.) Likewise for those who try to convince me that using this kind of they with a singular antecedent is just plain wrong for logical reasons. And, when I point out that logic has very little to do with grammar or language, they just shake their heads and dismiss me because they know better.

Not everybody has to agree with me on my opinions on language, but it would behoove them to learn a little bit about languages and linguistics before they try to convince me of their opinions on language which are usually backed up by their infelicitous arguments and lack of observation.

quote:

Not everybody has to agree with me on my opinions on language, but it would behoove them to learn a little bit about languages and linguistics before they try to convince me of their opinions on language which are usually backed up by their infelicitous arguments and lack of observation.

Well, I don't think anyone here does that.

As for the question at hand, goofy has convinced me that my lobbying for the use of "internationally educated" is wrong. I'm reluctantly going with "foreign," at least for the time being. "Abroad" and "overseas" would indicated there is a body of water between the two countries, so that leaves out Mexico and Canada. "Educated outside the country" does it for me, but people these days seem to always want one word to describe things.

I don't think anyone here does that.

Oh, I was not talking about anybody here.

As for "internationally educated" versus "foreign-educated". While "foreign" has some negative connotations, I think that internationally is a little misleading for the reasons another member posted.