IB to A-level conversions !!

Hey, which university are you referring to?

University College, Oxford University

Thanks

I got the the following results....
Mathematics-A
Physics-A
Chemistry-A
Further Mathematics-B
Does anyone know what my IB point is????

I would say that 70% of the stuff done in HL is the same as SL...
but to achieve a 6 or a 7 in HL you need to master the other 30%
basically we do all the same topics as SL math.
for example, calculus, if there were 10 sub topics in Calculus which HL do, SL will do 7 of those sub-topics, but HL will do all 10.
also in the exam it will be 60% based on those 3 topics which are HL and 40% will be related to the other 7 topics.

One of my friends got 45 points in IB and was rejected from Cambridge.

I mean... that's literally the highest you can get in IB.
It's really quite unfair.

With Cambridge it isn't just about score. It's about interview and admissions tests too.

It's when Durham reject 45ers without interview or test that shocks me.

Ah, fair enough. Durham rejects 45ers? That's harsh.

IB students normally come from private schools, which gives them an advantage. Even if the IB to A-level conversion is a bit unfair, all it does is level the playing field slightly

That's not true. "In fact, nearly twice as many govenment-maintained schools as private ones offer the programme." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/8125719/IB-or-not-IB-That-is-the-question.html).
That assumption is made by a lot of people though. How would it 'level the playing field' in any way even if it were true though? You'd still have private school students doing A-levels applying too and it would be easier for them to get in than even those doing IB at the same school.

According to data from 3 years ago... I see the IB has done little to aid your research skills. And I didn't say it would level the playing field completely, only slightly (which is why I used the word slightly...) if a discrepancy even exists. It would only be easier for the A-level students at said school if it were certain that the IB was harder. I've just had a look at the syllabi for SL chemistry and maths - they don't seem to cover as much content as their AS equivalents, which balances out the fact you do more subjects imo.

The IB has only gained more popularity among state schools in recent years. Data from 3 years ago is not relevant though, no? Glad that provided you with an opportunity for a dig at the IB though, as you so obviously have some issue with it.
It's not about one being harder than the other, it's about one being more demanding than the other, which I don't think is something anyone can really dispute. Saying one is 'harder' than the other is pointless, it's like getting into an argument on whether physics is harder than chemistry.
IMO the playing field won't be level until universities actually understand the IB. You try going to an open day or university fair and asking about the IB and they'll look at you slightly confused before flicking through the prospectus to show you their official entry requirements.
If you ask me the fairest thing to do would be to ask for 6s or 7s in the most relevant subjects (which should be HLs), and then a pass in everything else (4,4,4 + core point).

Do you mean people who apply with 45 predicted?
Maybe they don't think the prediction is realistic or maybe they just don't like their personal statement. I applied for Durham when they wanted 38, was predicted 40 and got rejected, I didn't expect to get an offer just because I was predicted more than what they wanted.

IB students normally come from private schools, which gives them an advantage. Even if the IB to A-level conversion is a bit unfair, all it does is level the playing field slightly