« World's Coolest Alarm Clock | Home | Gucci Hobo Bag »

February 14, 2005

67 is a passing score — if you want to live in Canada

Ca

In a recent New York Times story about people in the U.S. who are moving to Canada as a result of political despair over the results of the last presidential election, buried deep, deeper, deepest in the long article — as is surprisingly often the case with Times stories — was something much more interesting than the focus of the article itself.

It was an outline of the point system Canada uses to decide which of the many potential immigrants seeking to live there qualifies for a permanent resident visa.

Here's how points are allotted:

• Education: 25 points maximum; a master's degree is worth 25, a bachelor's 20

• Language skills: 24 points maximum, received for being fluent in both French and English

• Experience: 21 points maximum

• Age: 10 points maximum for being 21–49 years old

• Arranged employment: 10 points maximum

• Adaptability: 10 points maximum

You can see that the maximum points achievable (shades of 800 on the old SAT!) = 100.

Applicants must attain at least 67 points in order to qualify for a Canadian Immigrant Visa.

How'd you do?

February 14, 2005 at 10:01 AM | Permalink


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5dea53ef00d8347150f869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 67 is a passing score — if you want to live in Canada:

Comments

I don't see how Canadian point system is more important that the fact that a large number of Americans don't agree with the current leadership. Their vision and needs are different from what bush thinks and wants, who knows me might spend a fresh group of few hundred soldiers and billions of dollars on Iran, he certainly doesn't have the guts to go to N. Korea.

Anyways Canadian point system should not be anyway more interesting than Australian system or even New Zealand these are peaceful prosperous countries with liberal immigration norms (at least easy enough for Americans)

Posted by: vips | Feb 16, 2005 1:39:13 AM

Um, it was IN the article, so I don't see how it could be "more interesting than the article itself." But I take your point: the fact that Melanie and a handful of neurotic navelgazers and other delicate flowers are considering moving IS of precious little interest...to me anyway. In running a worthless article the Times gave this story the treatment it deserves. "Will you promise not to come back?" Sheesh.

Posted by: foley | Feb 14, 2005 1:47:10 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.