Impact of changes to the A level on IB uptake

IMO academics often "accuse" prospective students from other education systems of lacking depth when judging them from their own cultural prism. "Lacking depth" often means no more than "they don't think about the things that 18 year olds in our culture think about".

Sure, insights from comparative literature and language are incredibly enriching but universities see those skills in prospective students as "nice to have" rather than alternative, .IYSWIM.

BoboChic I have no problem grasping different styles of writing across cultures. Indeed I have direct personal experience of that even in science papers My question (which was obviously not clear) was different and relates to the texts read not when the student's native language is different from English.
A native English speaker or a bilingual English speaker educated purely with the English IB and HL English (as a native language) and choosing to do an English Literature degree in the UK would have problems with depth from what SheGotAllDaMoves says but I would have thought (my point) that the insights from cross culture texts should be a positive not a negative for HE Literature analysis.

The top few universities for any given subject in the UK are indeed very selective and so e.g. Oxbridge bachelors degree will be at a higher level/pace than a typical European bachelors degree.

But if you look at top 10-20 universities as a whole (often erroneously called RG on Mumsnet, although for any given subject not all of the top 20 will be Russell Group) I don't think that the average standards are particularly different from continental standards. European universities often don't select on the basis of high school leaving grades, but they can and do throw out a lot of students at the end of the first year. Moreover, Germanic countries have grammar school systems and fairly tough high school graduation exams so the students they accept onto academic courses at research intensive universities are already top 20% or higher.

Outside the very top few UK universities I don't think there is that much to choose between bachelors degrees (in my subject area) around Europe, although comparing grades is often quite difficult. In fact I would go further and say that quite a few European universities (even outside the French grandes ecoles) work to rather higher standards: students can retake more easily so there is less pressure to pass students rather than getting them to retake. Many people in the UK might be surprised at how high undergraduate standards are in places like Greece, Bulgaria,...

On the other hand, there is not much monitoring and assessment of standards in many other European countries which means that undergraduate education can be much more variable in quality.

I do think European masters graduates are typically head and shoulders above UK bachelors graduates, and it is a shame that funding for masters degrees is very difficult in the UK.

disquistiones - while I agree with everything you write, I think it's worth pointing out that the UK has one of the most universally selective UG entrance processes in Europe. Students don't work at the same pace or in the same depth at all universities, by quite a long shot. Three years of an UG degree when the course is highly selective and students have to work very hard takes UGs to a place that not many continental students can get to. In many countries, the wheat is only really sorted from the chaff at Masters level.

TemporaryUserName8 - there are all sorts of ways in which analysis and writing vary across languages and cultures. I'm not sure that I can attempt any sort of comprehensive list on MN - quite apart from the limitations of internet posting, the topic is worthy of a PhD thesis at least :)

My DP (French to the core) always says about my written French (which is technically almost faultless) that I write English in French. My approach to explaining issues or solving problems in writing is very different to the French approach. The way French students write, with a visible plan, is anathema to me. One of the really fundamental underlying differences is probably that France is a pays d'ingénieurs, not of storytellers. That difference constantly shows up in any form of analysis or writing.

European Bachelors degrees are, following the Bologna agreement, three years and are comparable in content to those in the UK.

However in Europe it is much more common to do a two year Masters degree as well and so many graduate jobs in practice require this. For example, in Switzerland teachers would have five years of university education (cf 3 years Bachelor and 1 year PGCE or equivalent here).

In my experience UK Bachelors graduates are less educated and less mature than European Masters graduates and for some multinational companies the former may well feel that they need to get higher level qualifications to get jobs and progress.

Harder does not necessarily means "better", nor does easier. IB is tough time wise. Observation suggests the same applies French Bac. The final two years of school in England (and Wales) seem uniquely specialised when compared with the systems elsewhere in America or Europe. Our University system is naturally adapted to this and many degrees will assume that prospective students will have concentrated on just their main subject and a couple of supporting/complementary subjects before arriving. Obviously there will be some subjects where maining a greater breadth will be an advantage, but many which assume this greater focus.

The advantage is that a University degree here is often done and dusted within three years, despite UK Universities more than holding their own in international rankings. Plus the ability to select students who have already specialised can be expected to reduce the drop out rate, with students clearer about the reasons they want to study a subject and demonstrating a level of aptitude. The disadvantage of having a system which is different from our European and North American peers is that movement between systems, either inwards or outwards, can be difficult. Hence the appeal of IB for some international London parents. And presumably one reason why selective London private schools routinely have their students taking four A levels. American students will often keep up both maths and English to A2 not just to help with entrance tests but because they need to continue with both in the early stages of a typical Liberal Arts Degree. Many Europeans obviously take their mother tongue as an early additional A level, so can well end up with five.

FWIW DD is keeping five subjects up to A2 as she wants to retain the option of applying to Irish Universities next year should she get nowhere with UCAS this, which would mean achieving four absolutely top grades, plus it gives her the option of completely changing track should she need to. DS took five as well, useful as his offer was based on four A levels and he had an off two years day on one. (Five A levels seems mainly a science thing. I don't think you would get away with it and still have lots of time for computer gaming with humanities, though an EPQ on top of four humanities is reasonably common in London days schools.)

Generalist or specialist? Both mine were very relieved to get to A level and to be able to drop English and focus on subjects they found easier. There certainly is an argument for saying that British students, and my DC in particular, should keep up English or another essay subject to the end of school and beyond. Ditto for those who find maths hard. Our system probably does land us with too many geeky illiterates or the reverse.

Whether IB or A levels is a better preparation for a degree in England/Wales probably depends on the subject. If you are aiming for, say, Liberal Arts at UCL, then IB is probably going to be helpful. Engineering at Imperial, then A levels will allow you to narrow down your studies to relevent subjects from the age of 16, meaning you hit the ground running. We had a brief look at European alternatives when DS was applying for Economics and at Undergraduate level the UK seemed to have by far and away the best offer. (Shorter course, better ranked, more relevent content, wider employment/post graduate prospects.) And indeed the traffic seems to be overwhelmingly from elsewhere in Europe towards British courses. Universities have lots of experience, and top ones are very focussed on their international rankings so will want to recruit the best students. If there is a perception that they prefer A levels as a preparation, there is probably a reason.

Having worked in an international setting I can agree with Bobo, that there are cultural differences in an approach to analysis. It would not be unusual for Anglo-Saxons to look confused as a Frenchman launched into a lengthy, seemingly philisophical, argument about something quite straight-forward. Le Monde is hard to follow, not so much because of the language, though that is convoluted enough, but the argument. Similar English papers are much easier. (And third country nationals would say that American English, bar the jargon, was easier than Bristish English. We speak faster and use more vocabularly.)

Thank you for the explanation SheGotAll.

Bobo I am not sure that I understand you. Are you saying English Literature as in just texts written by English authors? I have assumed of course that anybody studying English Literature would have done the native language literature in English. With that assumption I would have thought that notwithstanding the disadvantage of less depth, insights from cross culture IB texts would enrich discussions and perspectives when studying History or English.

Bobo& / Shegot*
One of DDs friends is going to college in the US - on a sports scholarship - she is doing A levels and a BTEC but also managed 1600 in her SATs.
She'll be in the UK Olympic squad for 2020
If the school offered IB she'd have got low marks over all.
The pick and mix of the UK system has allowed her to excel in her chosen area and get some academic credentials.

UCL and King's have developed courses that are not a follow on from A-levels and are particularly appropriate for their international clientele.

talkin I think you're right, that there are only a few courses for which IB is a better preparation, and of course one doesn't know if one's DC would be interested in them anyway.

And even if they do decide to do one of those courses, A levels don't seem to hold them back particularly. As I say, the schools sending students to the US in reasonable numbers don't seem at a disadvantage.

It's entirely understandable that an an English English Literature qualification at school level is likely to provide the best possible preparation for an English Literature degree at an English university. The same is going to be true in France of a French literature degree. You cannot divorce analysis of literature from specifics of language and broader cultural knowledge.

The IB is designed for a wider audience than is A-level.

I have taught IB HL Maths for about 9 years, unfortunately I hav no experience of teaching A'level.

It is an extremely demanding course and a 7 (top mark) requires a level of knowledge and undrstanding which can not be attained by merely doing a load of past papers.

I have spoken to many of my ex-pupils when they come to visit my school, and the message I have heard again and again is that the IB students are far better prepared for first year under graduate studies compared to non-IB students.

This is in terms of time management, study skills, independent learning and other attributes. However, I'm not sure if this difference is so pronounced in subsequent years.

We have LSE visiting our school next week, I will be interested to learn how they compare the IB to A'levels.

The choice to do IB is, IMO and in an ideal world, best made with a specific university course in mind.
Absolutely.
But there are so few such courses in the big scheme of things
that the vast majority of schools and colleges focus their resources on the qualifications that cover the most bases.

If every school had the revenue per pupil of Sevenoaks it might be different.

Analysis of English literature and History require some of the same skills, but the skill sets are not inter changeable by any means.

For example the word level analysis that pupils need to develop in their study of poetry requires very much deep (rather than broad) thinking.

For this, pupils need time. And time is not on the side of the IB student.

Look, I'm not saying that the IB is a poor qualification. Those that do well in it are clearly highly motivated all rounders. But from our department's perspective it is not quite the training ground of an A level.

I don't speak for other subjects.

No they aren't. Not only are they very different between eg English and French, they are also very different between US and UK English (at school and UG level).

Bobo sorry cross posted. Interesting point but the tools are the same surely ?

Yes BoboChic IMO that is exactly right. Or for entry into a course like the U.S. ones which start off assuming a broader less depth level.

There aren't "generic skills" of analysis and writing, though. Analysis and writing are highly culturally loaded.

That's interesting SheGotAllDaMoves. I always assumed that IB students would be ok for subjects like English or History as the generic skills of analysis and writing would be acquired through at least two of their subjects even if the texts studied were different.

The choice to do IB is, IMO and in an ideal world, best made with a specific university course in mind. IB is great preparation for a lot of social science degrees.

Schools which offer IB certainly present it as something favoured by overseas universities (particularly Ivy) but in fact, the schools who are regularly sending students to those universities are generally offering A/pre u.

Certainly the department where I work (not STEM) does not view the IB as offering equal depth in our subject.

millionsmom the relative advantage, if any of IB for entry to US universities is a separate point to the one I was making. Due to the cost of US universities it is irrelevant to all but a tiny number of UK students and not really a reason to push towards the IB.

Concerning my point, UK universities are set up to teach students educated by early specialism but are now admitting and teaching IB students. Inevitably the IB students doing STEM courses have to catch-up some material not covered by their IB teaching.

Thank you Figment, that's my point.

Regarding US Unis, to make sure my DC had the chance of going anywhere, both have applied to US Unis. Even with great gpas, they both had to take the SATs. We were hoping it would be optional.
DS if at a US Uni. It's my DDs 'if all else fails' option.