I find it extremely unfair that IB students get results much earlier.

Not quite that easy for things like English etc. maths probably doesnt take long, but some things will probably take much longer.

Not strictly true - the marking starts as the exams are done or else there'd be a HUGE backlog if they waited for every exam to finish before they started marking.

Having said that, your point still stands, in that until the very last exams (which were sat on the 24th of June) are marked, the entire marking system is incomplete, therefore rendering our marking process the longer of the two qualifications.

When you're with a group of friends, you start the conversation with a topic, which is later replaced by another topic whether its relevant, related or not at all. This is a student forum. Everything we're discussing is not wholly relevant to the thread's title, I agree, but it is indeed related.

When you're with your group of friends, do you run the conversation by regulating what comes out the mouths of the other participants? I think not. Please, show a little more tolerance.

I knew this thread would become an opportunity for a lot of IB students to flaunt their superiority complexes.

Really, much easier? I'm pretty sure most of us learn the same information as you, particuarly in sciences, so don't use that one and don't feel sorry for yourselves. It's not extremely unfair, it's A DIFFERENT QUALIFICATION. Also, I did 4, some people did 5 or even 6 in very specialised subjects.

I'd also like to point out the fact that A-level students who get AAA do as well as IB students with the 7,7,7 or whatever at uni so your point is redundant.

Also, we don't have longer to revise? You do all your exams at the end of the 2 years and have a long period of study leave, whilst it could be seen as easier that we do modules, it means we have less time to learn the detail for each module so we have to be on top form all the time.

Whilst, in some ways, you can say that the IB is harder, in no way can you say A-levels are a doss unless you think like a douche.

Absolutely, that's why it is world renowned.
Unlike IB which has how many candidates world wide?

This definitely true, but the point is, universities (until this year) cannot give offers higher than AAA, unless the candidate is taking more than 3 subjects.

You may be exaggerating however. While those offers you stated happen, they rarely do. It's much more common to see a 7,7,6 at HL and 40 points overall offer.

With IBers, universities have the chance to really make sure they really did choose the right people. In that sense, it may be easier for IBers to get offers, because there is a much higher level discrimination which A levels just can't provide. This is just speculation though.

All AS level students finished by 2nd June, most that I know by 28th. Last proper A levels were like the 17th/18/19thish. That means the AS students finished a week after you and then have to wait 2 months and 20 days, and A2 students have to wait 2 months. That's still longer than you.

I mean, I don't really care that you get yours earlier, because it's international and so doesn't really come under the same umbrella, and it's definitely not "unfair", but I don't think "we finished earlier" is a valid rebuttal of the OPs post.

No we didn't. I had a History exam on the 8th June.
Maths was after that too, the mechanics module

I wouldn't say that front-page headlines every month about how your qualification is being irreparably dumbed-down are exactly symptomatic of a "gold-standard". There's just no question that the IB is tougher. To take a bog standard example, over 50% of people get an A at Further Maths A-level, whereas only 8% get a 7 at Maths HL in the IB. If you honestly think A-levels are worth anything, you're verging on delusional.

Still, 7,7,6 at HL and 40 points (which is, indeed, the standard Oxbridge offer) is much harder than a simple AAA.

Thats because of the quality of students that take further maths. 50% of people doing the IB will do HL maths whereas there is a very smalll number of people doing the further maths A level. In the year above me one person was doing the fulll further maths a level out of 500 people doing A levels.

Thats because of the quality of students that take further maths. 50% of people doing the IB will do HL maths whereas there is a very smalll number of people doing the further maths A level. In the year above me one person was doing the fulll further maths a level out of 500 people doing A levels.

No way! At my school there's about a fifth of us doing it, lol. And to compare abilities, people who are roughly equal are getting As in the Maths and Further set and 2s and 3s at HL Maths at the mo... Anecdotal evidence, I know, but still...

No-one's trying to feel superior; it's just a case of pointing out the fact that the IB is much harder work and much more stretching than A-levels. That's a simple fact.



It's certainly true that A-levels and IB cover the same material in most subjects, particularly - as you say - sciences. The difference lies in the method of assessment: questions are, quite simply, tougher.



Firstly, there's no equivalence between a 7 and an A. As the Cambridge report I linked earlier confirmed, generally a 6 works out as an A (and in some subjects such as Maths or Physics a high 5 would equate to an A).

Secondly, I don't think there's any real fact of the matter about who is more successful, though I think it would be wiser to assume IB people are more prepared for University in that the IB tends to focus on skills rather than knowledge, which sets you up for future learning better than A-levels where the converse is true. To take philosophy as an example, at A-level you're tested largely on your ability to remember what such-and-such a philosopher said, whereas at IB you're tested more on your ability to reflect and develop a "critical response" yourself. The former is more esoteric and prone to being forgotten than the other.



The modular A-level system is much easier, both in virtue of the fact that you can do retakes and also that you get tested on something you've just learned and is fresh in your mind. At IB, on the other hand, if you don't pay attention there's just no way you're going to remember it in a year and a half's time.



In all honesty, I really don't think A-levels are stretching at all. Lots of guys I know in the year above me at my school had their As secured before they even took their final exams, as they'd taken 2/3 of the modules already and got high 90s and 100s on every paper. They were literally skipping lessons and didn't do a stroke of revision. In contrast, the top IB guys were working their ******** off for their grades. I've done some A-level modules early, and, to be perfectly frank, they really didn't require much effort.

As I say, this isn't about blowing your own qualification's trumpet; it's purely a matter of fact.

It is a matter of blowing your own qualification's trumpet, in your case. Or you wouldn't bother saying it, like A-level students wouldn't bother trying to defeat the BTEC unless they had a superiority complex.
Also, I doubt you have really experienced that many A-level papers to have evidence for most of the things you said.

The fact is, in this country certainly, the IB is done in the schools with higher teaching standards. A-levels are often done in low achieving schools and require a lot of self teaching from the students. In that case, I think it's very hard for students with A-levels to achieve anywhere near the highest AAA mark and so they would find the IB impossible.

Also, the relatively small proportion of IB students in universities currently, and the number of people graduating from good universities with good degrees is the same, if not better, than previous years so it just can't really be said to have much of an effect at university. After a while, previous qualifications become irrelevant and you only need the basic knowledge and so the number of subjects in the IB is irrelevant, as is, often, even the 3 subjects typically taken at A-level. If you're a motivated individual who can achieve AAA and would achieve well at University, you'd do well in the IB as well I imagine. So the difficulty of the two comparibly is irrelevant, it is the individual itself that matters.

I knew this thread would become an opportunity for a lot of IB students to flaunt their superiority complexes.



Really, much easier? I'm pretty sure most of us learn the same information as you, particuarly in sciences, so don't use that one and don't feel sorry for yourselves. It's not extremely unfair, it's A DIFFERENT QUALIFICATION. Also, I did 4, some people did 5 or even 6 in very specialised subjects.



Awwww, want a medal?



Whilst, in some ways, you can say that the IB is harder, in no way can you say A-levels are a doss unless you think like a douche. I'd also like to point out the fact that A-level students who get AAA do as well as IB students with the 7,7,7 or whatever at uni so your point is redundant. Also, we don't have longer to revise? You do all your exams at the end of the 2 years and have a long period of study leave, whilst it could be seen as easier that we do modules, it means we have less time to learn the detail for each module so we have to be on top form all the time.

Seriously, get over it already. A-levels are seen equally to IB to UK universities.

That's reasonable. But I still believe that getting AAA isn't particularly hard, no matter what school you go to (and I'm pro-leniency for people who've come from difficult schools). As long as you work hard and are moderately intelligent, I don't think it's beyond anyone's reach.

hahaha long period of study leave... I had 2 days study leave before my first exam...

i think youll find it really dfoes depend on teh school. I got AA in the two A levels I did and a distinction in an AEA and only got 666 at higher level IB. Trust me, Ive done both, its easier. Not the knowledge, but the way the exam is. The A levels are designed to help you get marks, the IB is not, its more about independant thought. Find someone else who has done both who doesnt say the same as me, and Ill believe you!!!

I'm reasonably intelligent (not blowing my own trumpet, it's just the truth) and I still had to work 10 hours a day to have any hope of meeting my offer which was AAB because of the sheer amount of exams I had to sit for my A-levels. I did 4 subjects + general studies. It's hard, and I imagine a lot of people would find it extremely offensive if you said to them that AAA isn't particularly hard.

"trust me, I've done both, it's easier". That's an extremely strange thing to say, I'd like to know which A-levels you sat and when, and what school you went to. There is no way you can sit an A-level, walk into the exam and just get marks. A-levels are NOT designed to help you get marks, how is that even possible?

"Find someone else who has done both who doesnt say the same as me, and Ill believe you!!!"
Sitting A-levels at the same time as an IB really doesn't count as having a balanced argument. You sat 2 A-levels, which is going to be easier than the 3/4/5 that people sit at the same time. You also probably did it in subjects that you were interested in, making it easier, whereas you cannot always do that when sitting proper a-levels. Also, you'd have the skills from your IB making the a-levels seem easier, and you must have come from a good school to do both. Just the truth. There's no way anyone can sit both in the same way, sitting 3 A-levels and an AS in two years is the standard, and nobody will have done those two years then done the IB.

You clearly DO have a superiority complex, the guy above didn't start blowing his own trumpet as much.

Saying the IB is harder, in some ways, is fair. However, saying A-levels are a doss, acting like people who don't get AAA are stupid and acting like anyone who sits the IB is some superior genius is completely uncalled for and it won't do you any favours at university where you'll be with these stupid people who sat A-levels, found them hard and perhaps didn't even get AAA, god forbid!