Candidates for interpretation programs are generally tested on their knowledge of the working languages and current affairs， skills in comprehension and production， and personality traits (Moser-Mercer). Professionals in conference interpreting may be assessed by content， terminology， style， grammaticality， fluency， diction and voice (Kopczynski). These criteria are largely related to linguistic proficiency， which may explain why interpreters are predominantly language majors. But how does one account for the rare gems that belong elsewhere? This report attempts to examine the learning process of non-language majors in interpretation training through case studies of their performance as distinct from their classmates' in regard to content， style， fluency，and terminology. The results point generally to varying degrees of lingl.istic competence. In comprehension， nonlanguage majors often lag behind their peers in texts with high syntactical complexity although they fare equally well when handling sentences of semantic complexity. In production， the non-language major's rendition in the foreign language may be paled in style， fluency and diction， but the same cannot be said of its content and terminology. To cope with temporary setbacks in an obstacle race where language majors have. a head-start， the non-language major find his own strategies. He may employ simplification， summary， or more effectively， deverbalizaiion. Until such time as the non-language major has acquired a desired level of linguistic competence， training programs will have to design language enhancement courses tailored to his needs. Given that some of the most brilliant professionals have come from unrelated disciplines， interpretation training for the non-language major is a gratifying challenge that can be met by a talented student determined to make odds even.