>In a hypothetical world of accessible real-time translation, what exactly is the point of teaching foreign languages to students as a standard?

>Why do we need as many dedicated translators when anyone can work abroad using it?

It really depends on how the technology functions and how it is received. In your hypothetical, I am assuming that we're talking about is something like the google translate app but with more accurate translations, and not something fantastical like a Babel fish from H2G2.

If that is the sort of translation device we're talking about, I actually don't believe that it would open up work abroad to everyone. A large portion of working abroad is working alongside, communicating, and generally integrating with people of another culture. They not only want someone with whatever skills they're looking for, but they also want someone that knows the language and will fit into their culture.

Utilizing a translator app creates a sort of barrier to your integration abroad. At some level you are always going to be an outsider, and may even be ostracized to some degree. Imagine going to a bar after work and trying to have a conversation with your coworkers using a translator app, or trying to take a business call using it. It's just not an adequate replacement for fluency in the language. A foreign company would rather take someone that knows the language than someone who doesn't.

>And even if the tech falls short, wouldn’t it at least be prudent to teach students how to work with it?

This is the other problem; I think there are going to be a lot of situations where the tech would fall short. There just aren't simple 1:1 translations of every sentence, and a translator app would have significant issues in day to day use. For everyday utterances, there can be a significant amount of pragmatic meaning encoded into the sentences that requires understanding of unsaid context to decode (for example utterances with implicature or sarcasm).

As for if the tech should be taught to students, if it functions as-is, then is there really a need to teach it? Assuming it's a translator app that works just by plugging in a sentence and receiving an output, what else is there left to teach about it?

I just don't see it as beneficial to progressing a student towards the goal of fluency. The goal in any class is for the student to develop an understanding of the material, not just learn the means by which they can receive good marks.

>We can focus on teaching them general principles since they can rely on programs existing to calculate those for them. The entire field of computer science rests on the idea of being able to reliably abstract away some lower level functionalities so we can focus on design and higher-level applications.

When you get to higher level courses then sure, but the entire point of a lower level course is to build a strong understanding of the fundamental material. You are able to focus on higher level applications once you have that base of knowledge and intuition to draw upon.

>The goal of schools is to prepare students for the world and to be useful citizens, not to unlock the artistic eye of every individual.

Who are you to say what is or is not useful to any particular student? If someone eventually decides to become a translator, work abroad, or work in counter intelligence, then a fluent command of another language is a hugely beneficial skill. If someone ends up as a writer, chef, or artist, then plenty of STEM skills that are frequently considered "useful" could end up being useless to them. What is or is not useful is highly dependent on what the student ends up pursuing.

Not everything taught in school is going to be useful to everybody. The purpose of school is to give students a strong general base of knowledge so that they are able to pursue and focus on whatever they are interested in pursuing later in life. If they are taking a language class, then they should be there to learn the language, and writing in the language does contributes to that.

Writing and creating complex grammatical sentences in the foreign language aids in their learning of the language. The end goal is that they are able to "think in the language," not be able to create an English sentence and then translate it.

>The only reason Google translating foreign language essays is bad is because you can’t rely on Google translate in the real world.

It's bad because if you're taking a foreign language class, the entire point of the class is to learn the language. Assignments are given so the student can learn and better internalize the material, they aren't just busywork. If you don't think children should be required to take a language class, then that's a different argument we could have.

 

>But say there was such a tool that allowed you to seamlessly real-time translate anything you spoke or wrote into any other language.

We are currently very far from this, and there are some expressions that are culturally specific and I don't think could ever really be translated 1:1, but sure we can take that as the premise.

 

>What would the actual point of expecting students to learn it by default be?

Language is a form of expression, and there is a difference in just getting your point across in a language and being able to freely express yourself using a language.

There are countless numbers of ways you are able to express any particular thought you have using a language, and many different nuances and subtleties you add as a fluent speaker, either through structure, tone, or by choice of expression. These are all be lost in translation.

Fluent speakers are also able to use language as a form of artistic expression (for example, poets and writers). One particular example I have of this is the Japanese author Haruki Murakami. In English, his translated books are interesting enough, but when I was talking with a Japanese friend about it, he said that I was really missing out by reading the translated work, and that the way Murakami used Japanese in his books was particularly beautiful.

There are creative new ways that speakers can use language. In English, you have abbreviations like "lol" and "lmao" which are now common in colloquial use, but at some point someone created these neologisms. A translation device would maybe be able to translate an existing idea, but it certainly could not create new expressions.

 

>Most people would benefit from having such a tool to improve global communication and work on problems past a language barrier.

It would certainly be beneficial, but if you are taking a class for it, then the point is to learn and internalize the material.

 

>Similarly, if the homework assignments given to kids is so rote that we can now automate it, maybe we should be finding better assignments that allow kids to work with new tools instead of complaining that they can’t do what the tools can manually.

To me, this is like saying that because we have calculators now, we should no longer teach math.

Yes. It helps you to consolidate and articulate your thoughts in a structured, intelligible way. Writing an essay also allows you to utilize more complex grammatical structures than are usually used in day to day language use, so it can also help develop your grammatical competency in a language.

I mean, the entire purpose of homework is for the students to work on developing and internalizing requisite skills for the course. The goal isn't just completing the homework, it's learning the material and doing the work necessary to complete it.

It's like if kids were able to just Google translate all of their foreign language essays; Sure the essay is done, but they've missed the entire point of the assignment.