Impact of changes to the A level on IB uptake

Yes Hocus, your and Talkin's points are right but universities in the UK and US particularly are taking and teaching international students with IB alongside UK students with A levels or Highers (and very occasional preU ) and therefore the IB is important as a comparative qualification.

Ah, Temp -let me just say I am thinking along more UK uni entry lines rather than international standards etc.

Figment I also don't disagree with advantages of concentrating three subjects with time for independent study. As an academic I am certainly aware of the importance of both depth and independent work.

Actually though most state schools are still starting their pupils off with 4 subjects. I think your school is probably the exception if they start of with 3. It is difficult for many pupils to narrow their choices down to three at the start of year 12. However it may well become the norm back to the style of the old A levels

I have to say I have some sympathy with Talkin here. As the parent of a child who did Pre-U - let me tell you - there's marginal and there's marginal

Except of course to be somewhat serious Pre-U does more follow the structure of A level and indeed even more the new type because there is no AS equivalent with Pre-U.

I am not sure having no AS levels makes the decision between a child who would relish the IB or would thrive with A levels really any different.

Talkin I don't disagree with you that the frequency of uptake in the UK is low however the IB is what it says, a recognised international qualification for entry in higher education in many different countries. It is therefore of importance to the UK as a comparison of education standards elsewhere.

Most countries apart from UK recognise the importance of a broad education whether by IB or other and those countries don't have a problem producing 'geeks and arty types' or even better those people that make and use connections between the two. A levels may get the specialists faster but there is no evidence that is better for the economy or creativity.

This is very interesting. My dc are only approaching secondary level but we are looking at a school that offers both and others that do only A levels. I did the IB in its country of origin back in the late 80s. I did Biology, Chenistry and Physics Highers and got 776, 42 overall. Went on to do STEM at university. All the science geeks did this subject combination, the Maths/eng types did Maths instead of Biology. Why cant you do 3 science highers now? That must really disagvantage people wanting to do medicine/nat sciences?

On my science course, i wasnt really doing new material until the second year and i didnt ever feel my HLs had been in less depth or less material covered than the A level people. Interstingly, i was on a school tour recently at a place that does both and the 6 former showing us round was doing chemistry, Maths and further Maths and said it was handy having a friend doing HL maths as hed go to him for help for FM.

Really interested to hear what people that actually teach the courses think.

Noits
THe title of the thread is
Impact-of-changes-to-the-A-level-on-IB-uptake?
And the answer is
"absolutely none"
because IB is so utterly marginal

The college round here that used to do it dropped it because they got better Top200 Uni entrance from their A level students
The other colleges never introduced it as there was too little demand despite their massive cohorts with significant Top200 level student numbers

What a completely pointless post talk - it may not be common where you are but there are several schools, state and private, where it's an option around here. And the highest-scoring boys in ds's IB cohort are all doing medicine/science at university

Only in MN Land is the IB even a matter of interest.
Even among Independent schools its only taken by 5% of pupils
so once you are including all schools its an irrelevance in terms of UK University Entry.

IB has its place as an appropriate feed for a very few degrees leading to a very few careers
but as we are more than quorate with politicians and lawyers
A levels are more likely to produce the geeks who might make the planet livable for our grandchildren
and the arty bods who make it worth living in

Figment the students who are applying for competitive courses will usually be at the least starting with 4 A levels. That is still the norm in most schools. Quite a few of the A/ A* candidates applying for courses requiring 38+ points will be doing 4.
The IB point total also include some extras which can be done fairly easily and do not require academic ability.

But IB students don't cover as much in each subject so you can't say it's harder simply because they're doing more individual subjects. Otherwise you'd have to say GCSEs are harder because you do 10+ subjects which clearly isn't the case.

The lesson time for IB is the same as the 5 A levels which include combination of maths / further maths. However in the case of IB this timetable is not just subject specific but includes all the extras of TOK and CAS. The A level students would have their extras plus EPQ etc as extra time.

I don't think from what I hear that the homework etc is any more. Basically IB keeps the students busy in a structured way whilst a student doing 4 A levels plus extra activities plus EPQ would have as full a timetable but it would be with less lesson time and therefore more self directed. I'm not persuaded that achieving high marks in a structured full time table is harder than with a self directed full timetable.

Hi,

My daughter is doing her EPQ at the moment. Please fill in her questionnaire about people of public nature.

www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/7NLBSFR

Thank you so much!

I'm not saying As are a lesser option than IB, what I'm saying is DD has 6 subjects to study as opposed to 'just' 3.
She has to get A's in 6 subjects, not 'just' 3.
She has to get 6 for Chemistry, Biology, maths or physics and English. That's 24 points, she needs the remaining 14 points from the remaining subjects.
Studying 3 subjects is not as challenging.
Remember, my other children sat A levels, loved their subjects, had a social life and earned their grades. DD, studies hard, hasn't much of a social life and is stressed. She's no slacker, has A from her IGCSEs, it's not a intelligence problem, it's a fitting all the subjects in that's an issue.
The only upside is, her older friends already at UNI have told her how better prepared they are organising their timetables compared to their contemporaries who sat A levels.

I did the IB back in 1985 when it was in its infancy in this country. My old school, St Clare's in Oxford, was one of the first in this country to adopt it.

I did higher level maths and remember my maths teacher telling us regularly that the stuff we were learning was what he'd done in his first year at St Andrews. The syllabus back then had a lot of depth but less breadth than A levels. I don't know if it's changed.

Interestingly my old school had just over 100 IB students this year - 2 got 45 points (!!!) and the average was 36.56 points. The school deserves way more recognition than it gets. That's quite extraordinary......

And by the way I am an academic who knows the content of (at least) maths and science well. HL science has similar depth but not similar breadth to A2 level science. SL science is not A2 level, although I give you that bits can be higher than AS level. SL/HL maths has strange choices in topics and strange omissions of topics, as somebody else already mentioned above.

For vet/medicine one of the issues with IB is that you cannot take HL physics, chemistry and biology, so this means that at least one of your sciences won't be at full A2 depth. That potentially makes you a weaker candidate relative to somebody who has A2 physics, chemistry and biology plus perhaps a fourth A2 in humanities/MFL.

But the six subjects at IB are not equivalent to 6 A levels in terms of content, so she doesn't need to get the equivalent of 5As at A level. It's very misleading to write it like this. Even the HL IB subjects are not full A2 level content, so she has to get As in five subjects, some at AS level, and some at A2 level but all with rather less content than AS/A2.

The workload of IB is higher than that at A level, which indeed should be a factor in choosing whether to do IB. But the breadth and range of study at IB often gives advantages later, e.g. IB students doing STEM degrees already have skills that those who did only science A levels have to learn.

And 'low level science in IB' give me a break!
Talk about down playing qualifications.
We didn't have the choice, IB or A levels. Most folk don't understand the IB, as you've just demonstrated.

36 or 37 points is still As, as I pointed out.
One Uni 'only' wants 35, so she can afford to 'only' get 5 As. She is still doing 6 subjects, plus 2 core elements, so 8 different courses over all. A levels only need 3.

To get even a sniff of a course at University - think medicine - you need at least 38 points.

This is just not true. There are many courses at top 10 universities which ask for 37 or even 36 points with a 6 in the subject to be studied. There are lots of courses which offer 37/38 (with a 6 in the subject to be studied) versus AAA/A*AA at A level.

It is not representative to quote points requirements for highly oversubscribed courses such as vet/medicine, which penalise IB candidates for the relatively low level of IB science by asking for very high points. Note that they do this because higher grades at IB science/maths have been found to be necessary for the students to keep up with those who have science A levels.

Most knowledgeable schools do discourage prospective medicine/vet/maths/engineering candidates from doing IB instead of A levels because they know IB disadvantages them both in university entrance and once they get there. The latter is at least as important as the former.

Thank you Cake!