Alkanadi:

Quentin500:Rosetta Stone is a complete waste of money. I think it is one of the reasons why many people fail to learn foreign languages.

I don't know why people hate Rosetta Stone. I found it to be very useful, although they really should include translations.

Isn't the whole point of Rosetta Stone that you learn by total immersion, just as you learned your native language as a child? You didn't get translations then (and in what language would they have been?)

Not the first language-learning method to make this claim, and they're all ridiculous. A set of recordings is not a native-speaker environment.

I think people are just angry over the price and therefore they look at the product negatively. I bet if Rosetta Stone was free everyone would be raving about how wonderful it is.

Just like people would be calling Duolingo crappy if they charged 5 hundred dollars for it.

Of course, nothing but irrational anger would cause anyone to disagree with you. (rolls eyes)

Bruso:Of course, nothing but irrational anger would cause anyone to disagree with you.

It seems irrational to me. I can't understand why people don't at least tolerate it. Sure, it has drawbacks. But, what if the program was free? Would you use it?

Alkanadi:I think people are just angry over the price and therefore they look at the product negatively. I bet if Rosetta Stone was free everyone would be raving about how wonderful it is.

I don't think so. I had free access to Rosetta Stone through an old job. I found it boring, it could not hold my attention, and I was frustrated at the slow pace of learning. And there are certain grammatical concepts that really can't be taught well with their method.

And including translations defeats the purpose of Rosetta Stone.

I've never paid for Rosetta Stone but have owned several programs over the years and it's only really good for vocabulary, and it doesn't teach you that many words (compared to some other programs). It's not a matter of price. I think because it's so expensive people think, going in, it's going to be a more complete package than it is. I wouldn't bother with one fro Esperanto, there are more efficient ways to learn vocabulary.

Alkanadi:

Bruso:Of course, nothing but irrational anger would cause anyone to disagree with you.

It seems irrational to me. I can't understand why people don't at least tolerate it. Sure, it has drawbacks. But, what if the program was free? Would you use it?

No. Why? I've already said that total immersion through recordings isn't real.

For reading, writing and grammar I prefer the old texts. Plenty are out of copyright so I don't have to buy or even pirate them.

For listening, there's youtube and soundcloud and other stuff on the internet. Far more than any course with recordings has ever had.

People who are angry about the spending the money on Rosetta Stone should have known it was promising what it couldn't deliver.

But I don't think people who avoid Rosetta Stone are doing so out of anger. They just realize it can't deliver what it promises.

erinja:I don't think so. I had free access to Rosetta Stone through an old job. I found it boring, it could not hold my attention, and I was frustrated at the slow pace of learning. And there are certain grammatical concepts that really can't be taught well with their method.

Interesting. Regarding the language you were learning with Rosetta Stone, what system did you like better?

Alkanadi:

erinja:I don't think so. I had free access to Rosetta Stone through an old job. I found it boring, it could not hold my attention, and I was frustrated at the slow pace of learning. And there are certain grammatical concepts that really can't be taught well with their method.

Interesting. Regarding the language you were learning with Rosetta Stone, what system did you like better?

I have never met a computer program that I really liked that much. Duolingo is ok but you have to go searching to find the notes, so I find myself struggling to understand why a certain word is used in this case and a different word in that case, and I can't tell the difference in the translation. I think for computer-based learning, the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work that well and you are better off with a program or website that is built around teaching a specific language, versus one that is generic and teaches 20 different languages with exactly the same approach. French is the language I have studied with the most different methods and I haven't really gone through it at all in Duolingo (which appeared after the time when I did most of my French study). For reference, I have studied French to various degrees using Pimsleur, Rosetta Stone, Assimil, the audio courses Smart French and Michel Thomas, the video course French in Action, and several traditional books. My preference generally goes to things I can take with me, that don't tether me to an internet connection or a desktop computer (which puts Duolingo low on my list, since I can't use it on my Metro commute, and since it is slow to type in answers with a mobile interface). My Rosetta Stone study didn't last long. Like I said, it was too tedious, it just didn't do it for me.

My usual favorite is a traditional book that teaches grammar and then has exercises. At this point I have studied enough languages that I just want to be told certain things. Don't make me figure it out -- just tell me, this is the form you use for a subjunctive, and these are the cases when you use a subjunctive in this language, and examples, and then a text for practicing in context. I don't need to reinvent the wheel every.single.time. to discover that this is how a language does subjunctives/possession/conditionals, I just want to be told.

Of the non-book-based approaches, I like Michel Thomas for conversational language (audio course). The focus is on getting you talking as soon as possible, building sentences. For learning listening comprehension, I like a combination of Assimil with a traditional text. Assimil recordings are in the target language only, so even if you don't have the book at hand, you can just listen to the recording in your free time to practice your listening comprehension. I went through all of Pimseleur's levels of French and still came out feeling that I didn't speak French at all, there was almost no emphasis on listening comprehension, which to me is one of the hardest parts of a new language, particularly one like French. It's all personal preference though, some people absolutely love Pimsleur, I do not (and it's available for checkout from many public libraries, so there is not even that much issue with its high cost, if you're going for a major language).

For French in particular, I like the old video course French in Action. It's all in French, 100%, but it's amazing how fast they get you understanding what's going on (and they incorporate clips of real French from movies, not just "classroom French", which is always pronounced a million times more clearly than real world speech). It's available on YouTube so you can easily take a look. I think that for nearly any language, the most effective method will be one designed particularly for that language. My friend has a YouTube German course that he loves, but of course it is only in German. You could certainly take a video course like French in Action and remake it in another language -- but people don't, it would be nearly as expensive as the development of the first course, and when you have a computer program or audio program that is teaching 20 languages with the same exact method (see: Rosetta, Pimsleur, Duolingo), you are trying to achieve an economy of scale to make each successive language cheaper.

erinja:Of the non-book-based approaches, I like Michel Thomas for conversational language (audio course).

I tried it for Arabic but it is setup so that you hear other students learning. For some reason listening to other people learn a language makes me cringe. Same can be said for Earworms.

They both have a great method but I can't listen to other students practising.

For French in particular, I like the old video course French in Action.

Maybe one day we will have this for Esperanto.

Alkanadi:I tried it for Arabic but it is setup so that you hear other students learning. For some reason listening to other people learn a language makes me cringe. Same can be said for Earworms.

They both have a great method but I can't listen to other students practising.

For French in particular, I like the old video course French in Action.

Maybe one day we will have this for Esperanto.

Hearing the other students is part of the point of the course. I found that you mentally correct them as you hear them make a mistake, which I find useful. It's like being in a classroom but maybe you don't like learning in a group setting.

There already is an Esperanto video course. It would be hard to learn from it from scratch, you should come at it with some background. French in Action will take you from somewhere closer to zero, although I can't really say for sure because I already had some book study of French before I ever looked at the video course, so I was not coming from zero myself.