The entry-level English requirement is one of the most far-reaching decisions in international admissions. It simultaneously affects the number of applications received, the completion rate of learners, and the amount of support the school must provide.
This article does not state a specific level, because the appropriate level depends on the programme, the teaching staff, and each school’s support plan. Instead, it outlines how to determine the threshold using data rather than intuition or by copying another school.
Two symmetrical mistakes
Setting it too high. The school excludes people who are fully capable of keeping up with the programme if given proper support. The number of applications drops, and the excluded group often includes candidates strong in their field of study.
Setting it too low. Learners get in but cannot keep up with lectures, cannot read the materials, and cannot take part in discussions. The result is a high dropout rate, poor academic outcomes, and a bad experience that spreads through the community.
The second mistake is far more costly than the first, because it harms the learners themselves and the school’s reputation, while the first mistake only costs a missed opportunity.
But both stem from the same cause: setting the threshold without data on the relationship between entry level and academic outcomes.
Determining the threshold with data
The approach below requires data from at least one to two courses, so it suits schools that already have international learners.
Step one: record each learner’s entry-level foreign-language proficiency, by skill rather than just an overall level.
Step two: track their academic outcomes across terms, and record who dropped out along with the reason.
Step three: cross-reference the two data sets. The question to answer: at what entry level does the completion rate begin to drop noticeably.
The result of step three usually produces a specific threshold, and that threshold can differ significantly from the level the school is currently applying.
For a school without data yet, a temporary option is to reference the levels of equivalent programmes in content and in the extent of foreign-language use, then adjust once data from the first course is available.
What matters is treating the initial threshold as a hypothesis to be tested, not a fixed number.
Setting the threshold per skill
An overall level conceals important differences.
Two people with the same overall level can be in very different situations: one strong evenly across four skills, another very strong in reading and very weak in speaking.
For a programme with heavy discussion and presentation components, the second person will face serious difficulty even though their overall level meets the requirement.
So a minimum level should also be set per skill, and it should reflect how the programme actually runs.
A programme heavy in reading materials needs a high reading threshold.
A programme with a lot of group discussion needs a higher listening and speaking threshold.
A programme with a lot of writing and reports needs a high writing threshold.
This distinction is both fairer to applicants and a better predictor of ability to keep up with the programme.
The entry-level English requirement must come with a support plan
This is the most important point in the article.
An entry threshold, whatever level it is set at, is only a condition at the point of admission. It does not guarantee the learner has sufficient ability for the entire programme, because language demands increase as content becomes more specialized.
Three support options that should be in place.
A specialized-language module in the first semester, focused on the terminology and expression conventions of the specific field.
Academic writing support. Many learners have adequate conversational ability but are not yet familiar with writing reports and essays to academic standards.
An early-detection mechanism. Instructors who notice a learner struggling with language have a channel to refer them to the support unit, instead of letting the situation persist until academic results decline.
The third mechanism is the most efficient per unit of effort, because it addresses the problem while it is still small.
If the school cannot provide the three options above, then the entry threshold must be set higher to compensate. This is a trade-off that must be clearly understood when making the decision.
Conditional admission on language
This is a useful flexible mechanism, allowing admission of candidates strong in their field but who have not yet reached the language threshold at the time of application.
Three ways to design it.
Require the threshold to be met before the enrolment date. The simplest, but candidates must be given enough time to retake the test.
Require completion of a pre-sessional language course. The cost, duration, and conditions for entering the main programme must be clearly stated.
Admit into the main programme with a mandatory language module. Suitable when the gap is small, but requires close monitoring in the first semester.
For all three approaches, it is mandatory to state clearly the consequences of non-compliance, and to state them right from the offer letter rather than waiting until the issue arises.
How to publish the threshold
How it is presented affects the quality of applications received.
State both the overall level and the level for each skill in full. Stating only the overall level leads to many applications being rejected at review for lacking one skill, causing disappointment for the applicant and extra work for the school.
List the accepted certificates, in full and updated annually.
Clearly state the validity period as measured to which date. This is the point that causes the most misunderstanding, and the correct way to calculate it is usually up to the enrolment date, not the application date.
State any exemption cases, if applicable, with specific conditions.
State the options for those who do not meet the requirement. This does not lower the quality of admissions but helps retain applicants who are strong in their field of study.
When you need to benchmark language requirements across education systems, data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides broader context.
Thresholds differ by level and by mode of study
A single threshold for the whole school is usually not appropriate, because different programmes place different language demands.
By level of study. Graduate programmes generally require a higher level, because of heavier reading loads and higher academic writing demands.
By teaching format. A programme heavy in lectures and written exams sets different requirements from one heavy in discussions and group projects.
By duration. A one-semester exchange programme may accept a lower threshold than a full-degree programme, since the learner does not need to reach the same depth or complete a thesis.
By field. Fields with a heavy terminology system and materials mostly in English set higher reading requirements.
Differentiating thresholds by programme group requires more administrative effort, but it is both fairer to applicants and a better predictor of ability to keep up. Schools do not need to do this immediately across the whole catalogue; they can start with the programmes that have the largest numbers of international learners.
Reviewing the threshold periodically
Entry thresholds should be reviewed every two to three years, based on three data sources.
Completion rate by entry level. If those who entered right at the threshold still complete well, lowering the threshold can be considered. If they clearly struggle, it should be raised, or support increased.
Instructor feedback on international learners’ ability to keep up with coursework.
Number of applications rejected solely for language, and how many of them were strong in their field of study. This figure indicates whether the threshold is wrongly excluding good candidates.
The review should not lead to frequent changes, since a constantly shifting threshold creates difficulty for learners who are preparing. Changes should be announced at least one admissions season in advance.
For questions about how language standards are recognized in international cooperation, the framework of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the reference worth using.
Discussing the threshold with admissions partners
Partners are the ones who explain this requirement directly to learners, so they need a firm grasp of two things.
First, the full requirement, including the per-skill level and how the validity period is calculated. This is the content most often misstated in advising.
Second, the options available for those who do not meet the requirement. If partners are unaware of these options, they will reject applicants who could otherwise still find a path in, and the school loses learners who are strong in their field. Both of these should be included in the annual partner training materials.
The entry threshold must be cross-checked directly against each programme’s official page at the time of application.
Summary
The entry-level English requirement should be determined from data on the relationship between entry level and completion rate, not by copying other schools.
Both an overall level and a minimum level per skill should be set, reflecting how the programme actually runs.
And the most important principle: the entry threshold only makes sense when paired with a support plan during study. Without support, the threshold must be set higher, and that is a trade-off that needs to be clearly recognized.
Next Steps
Cross-reference the entry-level foreign-language proficiency of international learners in the last two courses with their academic outcomes.
If this data has not been recorded yet, start recording it from the next course onward. This is the only basis for knowing whether the current threshold is wrongly excluding or wrongly admitting.
Alongside recording this data, ask instructors teaching classes with international learners a simple question: is anyone in the class clearly struggling with language, and in which skill. Their answers usually give a much earlier signal than end-of-term results data. A fifteen-minute conversation with three instructors mid-semester is usually enough to tell whether the current threshold is admitting the wrong people, and that is information the school can act on within the same academic year.
