> I stand by my comments that a person with some other degree BA/BS
> (Modern Dance) but no
> interpreter training is still not going to make that person a better
> interpreter than a person with an AAS degree in INTERPRETING and no
> BA/BS degree.

Objection, Tammy -- assuming facts not in evidence. :-)

The assumption here is that interpreter training programs taken as a
whole do a better-than-chance job of preparing interpreters. There are
individual programs which do rather well, but is there any work
(perhaps by someone in CIT?) which points to the efficacy of
interpreter education in general?

Put another way: is there consensus on what skills/knowledge/attributes
need to be instilled in potential interpreters, and is there a good
consistent method of instilling them?

Just for grins, I thought I'd go to look at the BA in dance offered at
my institution (University of New Mexico):
http://finearts.unm.edu/academic/degrees/dance_degrees/danceba.htm

It includes a core curriculum well beyond what is required at any AAS
program, and courses in the major which any interpreter would benefit
from: Voice for Actors, Kinesiology, Movement Analysis, Pedagogy, to
say nothing of elective hours from pretty much any field. And not for
nothing, but they'd actually be well-versed in at least one field (and
just might make for a kick-butt performing arts interpreter!).

But wait? Can they sign? And I say again... can ITP graduates? Sad
experience dictates that language is the single weakest area in the
field generally, and with ITP grads particularly. As one of the faculty
here is fond of saying, interpreters who are weak at sign-to-voice only
*think* they are better at voice-to-sign. When one voices, one can hear
all the mistakes, and one's English instincts are well-honed enough to
make one wince. An interpreter with weak language skills make not have
the linguistic maturity to realize that what they are producing is sign
salad.

-Dan.