IB students at an unfair disadvantage to A-levels?

The course I want to apply for is Neuroscience at Bristol. They have recently reviewed their entry requirements, and they now ask for 6,6,6 at HL, yet only AAB-ABB for A-levels.

Looking at the UCAS points awarded, that would mean that an IB student would need 330 points in HL alone, plus 40 points or so for each SL subject, so that's 450 points plus the additional requirements (TOK, EE, CAS).

If universities went on UCAS points alone, then IB students would be at an advantage, however, they ask for "35 points with 6,6,6 at Higher level".

35 IB points = 501 UCAS points.
So assuming you got 6,6,6 at HL (330 UCAS points), in order to get that 35, you'd also need at least 5,5,4 at SL - and that's assuming you get all 3 points for TOK, EE and CAS). So what they're asking for equates to at least around 650 points total. That's NOT 501, as stated for a 35.

For A-level, they ask for AAB = 340 UCAS points.

If my calculations are wrong somewhere, or I have missed something, please let me know.

It does not seem fair that IB students, who have chosen to take a more challenging course, are expected more of and are given harder offers than A-level students, who are given lower offers.

well you're the one who chose IB...

but I dunno, I don't think it's that much of a disadvantage in practice.

I wasn't told about this when I applied. I was merely one of the students foolish enough to be persuaded by the college to take IB, so that they could appear more "prestigious".

Not to mention that my college has messed up with the IB and has now dropped it after only 2 years...

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to apply for BSc Neuroscience. I have noticed recently that the entry requirements have been reviewed.
For the IB Diploma, Bristol now asks for "35 points with 6,6,6 at Higher level", yet for A-level, "AAB-ABB including two sciences" is asked.
Statistically, and by UCAS point conversion, 6,6,6 at IB is slightly harder to achieve than AAA at A-level. This also does not take into consideration that in order to achieve 35 points, an IB student must also achieve at least 5,5,4 in their SL subjects, plus all three TOK, EE and CAS points.

I am seeing repeatedly, no matter where I go, that IB students, who have chosen to take a more challenging course, are being asked more of than A-level students.

I am not insinuating that any changes be made, I am merely bringing the matter to light, as I am sure many other IB students would be inclined to.

Regards,
Another disgruntled IB student. "

I wrote this e-mail to the admissions office. Worth a shot.

I wrote this e-mail to the admissions office. Worth a shot.

You probably feel annoyed etc. but tbh, think rationally. They are not thick. They do know the difference between A levels and the IB. They don't just randomly decide "oh lets make the grade requirement 35.. "

Not to mention that my college has messed up with the IB and has now dropped it after only 2 years...

I emailed Imperial asking about this and they sent me a really snotty email saying some total bull about how the reason we IB kids get higher offers is because we do more subjects and that 38 points is the same as AAA which, you know, it blatently isn't. If I hadn't fallen so hard for Imperial I wouldn't apply because they clearly don't understand IB (and also as a 'if your going to be such idiots then I won't apply there so ha!' kind of thing) but I'm still applying and getting revenge by reporting them to the IBO mwahahaha


story of my life

It might be that Universities expect higher results from IB applicants as you go into less depth in your subjects than you do at A level simply because of the fact that you do more subjects and so don't have the time to.

Also, A levels are designed for entry to the UK University system whereas the IB isn't. Therefore they may reason that you need higher results to be adequately prepared for them (in there view).

Just my thoughts, but it might explain this attitude, whether it is fair or not.

It might be that Universities expect higher results from IB applicants as you go into less depth in your subjects than you do at A level simply because of the fact that you do more subjects and so don't have the time to.

Also, A levels are designed for entry to the UK University system whereas the IB isn't. Therefore they may reason that you need higher results to be adequately prepared for them (in there view).

Just my thoughts, but it might explain this attitude, whether it is fair or not.

The course I want to apply for is Neuroscience at Bristol. They have recently reviewed their entry requirements, and they now ask for 6,6,6 at HL, yet only AAB-ABB for A-levels.

Looking at the UCAS points awarded, that would mean that an IB student would need 330 points in HL alone, plus 40 points or so for each SL subject, so that's 450 points plus the additional requirements (TOK, EE, CAS).

If universities went on UCAS points alone, then IB students would be at an advantage, however, they ask for "35 points with 6,6,6 at Higher level".

35 IB points = 501 UCAS points.
So assuming you got 6,6,6 at HL (330 UCAS points), in order to get that 35, you'd also need at least 5,5,4 at SL - and that's assuming you get all 3 points for TOK, EE and CAS). So what they're asking for equates to at least around 650 points total. That's NOT 501, as stated for a 35.

For A-level, they ask for AAB = 340 UCAS points.

Statistically, the amount of students that get 6,6,6 is a lot lower than those that get AAA, assuming that a 6 equates to an A (which in fact it doesn't, a 6 is slightly harder to achieve than an A).

If my calculations are wrong somewhere, or I have missed something, please let me know.

It does not seem fair that IB students, who have chosen to take a more challenging course, are expected more of and are given harder offers than A-level students, who are given lower offers.

Actually, most univiersities (especially the more competative ones) make offers in terms of higher level subjects. Higher levels go into just as much depth and breath as an A Level. Standards are different, they go onto as much depth, but as there is less time they have a more limited range of topics.

We were told (although this was by my own school, which is obviously biased haha) at the beginning of sixth form that universities liked the IB a lot because of the scope it gives you and the Extended Essay and TOK Elements which actually made students more prepared for university study

Interestingly, as of next year, UCAS plans to lower the IB tariff, meaning that they will consider a 5 to be the equivalent to a C at A Level. Which personally I think is ridiculous! Luckily for me I will be done with UCAS by then, bit it really makes things tricky for 2013 applicants :/