IB to A-level conversions !!Watch
There's some data on the IB's website, but it won't open on my phone so I'll carry on... According to this article in the guardian (also 3 years old, I know ) "there are still more private school candidates than state". I don't have an issue with the IB; I have an issue with the superiority complex some IB students have. Take the student on here who couldn't believe that Cambridge had the indignity to reject a student even though his teachers predicted he/she would get 45, disregarding the fact that other factors are important and that this happens to plenty of kids predicted A*A*A*.
Harder and demanding mean essentialy the same thing, let's not waffle here... The IB's increase in breadth is balanced out by a corresponding decrease in depth. I guess the fact that A-levels are modular made them a bit easier, but now they're being abolished I really don't think there's a difference. Scottish students have the same problem with highers over English universities' lack of knowledge, what do you expect when it's such a minority qualification? I guess you've got a point with your proposal over making changes to IB offers, but it wouldn't address the fact that HL in a subject usually covers less material than the corresponding A-level
I think those that have the superiority complex just have it, it's not because they do IB, they'd be moaning if they were predicted 4A*s at A-level and Cambridge wouldn't take them. As I said previously, it's more than grades universities looks for (personal statement etc).
The difference between more demanding and harder is that individually, the IB's subjects are not harder, but the fact that we do seven subjects (if you count TOK), plus EE plus CAS, makes it a more demanding course. It's not more difficult in that respect, it's just going to take up more of your time. If you think that makes it harder, your opinion, not mine.
Well I think universities should be more well versed in general over A-level alternatives.
I'm not all that sure that IB HLs do cover that much less content, given I could have quite an in-depth conversation with an A-level history student about things I was studying in my course. I know that they go into more depth on Russia than I did, but IMO we did as much background on the Chinese Civil War and Mao's dictatorship. There was a LOT of depth in history as well as breadth. For stuff like English too I wonder whether they go into more depth, I'm not really sure how much more depth they could go into than we did since you're fully analysing set texts. I would agree that with maths and sciences though the comparison is more problematic. That would be for admissions to look in to though, how the individual subjects differ in depth and how much it actually matters since degree level will be different to both anyway.
I know two people who got 45 points in IB but they were both predicted 42. I don't think teachers usually predict 45 just because it is slightly unrealistic and maybe a bit too optimistic? That's what I would guess, anyway. But I wasn't actually talking about Durham, my friends never applied for it.