Impact of changes to the A level on IB uptake

[Figmentofmyimagination]

DD is currently deciding between the IB and A levels. She is lucky that both are offered at her school - they have maintained a dual sixth form successfully for several years now (single sex independent) although up until now, A level students have significantly outnumbered IBers.

I am wondering whether the change - and the resulting uncertainty - over A levels for the sept 2016 intake - may push more children - and schools - generally across the uk - in the direction of IB where it is offered. Obviously the choice has to be right for the child, but in DD's case, her school has decided that it will no longer be offering AS exams, and anyway with the Gove changes, one of the key attractions of the A level for some children - partial completion after year 1 - will fall away. Also IB has a coursework component, which is interesting.

It would be good to have an AS score, to show universities at Ucas time, but the more schools that stop offering AS exams at all, the less useful it will be as an indicator - rather like the EPQ. I wonder what others think.

But you can do Maths Studies instead of Maths which is very easy. Also there is Literature and Performance as an alternative to just English. I'm not sure how different this is to English.

But maths studies is not considered acceptable for anyone wanting to study STEM, economics, geography etc. BoboChic is right that there will be a much bigger group of students taking SL Maths than that taking A level Maths. SL Maths will be taken by people who wouldn't take A level maths in the UK.

Yes but you can do Maths Studies if you intend doing Arts etc. Looking at the table for DS's school for lower level subjects it was split about 60/40 in favour of Maths Studies. For Maths Studies 95% achieved level 7, for Maths it's 35%. If your Uni offer is based on total points and you don't need Maths you would be mad not to do Maths Studies.

I just checked the Sevenoaks results as they are they must be the biggest IB cohort here, and it is selective and one of the top performing schools internationally with an average score of 39.2. 61 sat H/L Maths only 15 got a 7, 67 sat S/L Maths and 18 got a 7. 79 sat Maths Studies and 33 got a 7.
Because selective schools usually base their entrance tests on English/ Maths I would expect there to be a far higher average ability for maths at DS's school and Sevenoaks than from a non-selective school.

DS is still for A levels.

Cake, comparisons are difficult. From observation there is often quite a range of results with Further Maths, with some getting A* in Maths but dropping to a C in Further.

DS' experience is that relevent maths content may well be covered again at University. He was a bit surprised when they effectively covered half the content of one of his FM papers in a single lecture. He was glad that in his case it was revision.

Needsmore, DS is only looking to do Maths at A level, not FM, If you are an all out mathematician I don't think it matters which course you take. DS is trying to keep a broad range of subjects because he's not sure what to study at Uni. He thinks it's important to keep going with a language, so that 2 options taken and he is really struggling to chose the other 2. IB would suit him so much better.

I'm just sharing the advice we were given by DS's school because there are lots of parents trying to help their DCs decide between IB/A levels at schools that do not offer both. Maybe the advice is wrong, but it is one of the top performing IB schools in the world so I would expect their advice to be as good as it gets. They are actually very concerned at the huge drop in numbers taking IB since introducing A levels and so are doing everything they can to encourage the IB. But even then they are concerned about the Maths. Apparently last years papers were "better".

2 of my DC have A levels, 2 did IB.

To get even a sniff of a course at University - think medicine - you need at least 38 points. So, with 6 subjects, you need 6's which is the equivalent of an A. In 6 subjects. The extra 2 marks will come from the Extended Essay subject, if the magic 7 the A* is reached or a combination of factors.

My DD wants to be a vet, she needs 38. If she was doing A levels she'd need only 3 A*s to be considered. She needs to get A's is 6 subjects. Biology, chemistry, maths, English, French, history. On top of that, she has the theory of knowledge (a philosophy subject) her extended essay and community, arts and service to pass. If you don't pass any subject, you fail the whole IB. It's not easier than A levels, it's incredibly hard.
I really don't think the Universities do 'get' the IB at all, it's certainly not a level playing field. 6 subjects opposed to 3.

The stress is unreal, she has no free time, she's not enjoying her 6th form at all. My DS who did IB - was always in the top of his maths and sciences at school, managed the A*s at IGCSE, gave up on IB half way through and failed.
The 2 DC that did A levels, had a much easier time of it, they enjoyed their last years at school and achieved the grades.

If I had a choice, I would've only let my DC do A levels.
Thankfully, this is our last child and the angst, worry and stress will end the beginning of June next year.

IB is a great exam IMO but it requires more and different resources to teach to full potential than does a traditional course of three or four A-levels.

A-levels are not particularly demanding relative to some other European end-of-school exams.

Thanks for sharing that millions, it has reassured me that DS is making the right decision.

Just looking through HEAP there are lots of courses asking for 766 Highers compared to A*AA, with no allowance being made for studying a further 3 subjects plus the extended essay etc.

Good Luck to your DD.

cake - IME English universities make no "allowance" when setting minimum entrance standards for extras that DC are doing above and beyond their core subjects.

Thank you Cake!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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......

Millions 3 As is an incredibly high target to achieve. I'm not sure that "only" needing 3 As is the way I would look at it.

This year, several of DDs contemporaries achieved scores of 43 or over in the IB - not necessarily at her school, and others comfortably achieved 40 - all after a lot of hard work.

Most offers - from strong places like Exeter, oxford, Bristol etc - seemed to be in the region of 36 to 38.

I think once you start looking at exceptionally competitive courses like vetinerary science or medicine, expected standards are uniformly higher in both A level and IB.

The same is true for entry to cambridge, where (unlike oxford) it wasn't unusual this year to be asked for AAA for a humanities subject such as English or history, even after passing thorough their own admissions tests, so an IB score of 42 for cambridge doesn't really surprise me.

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.

Yes I get that. There was all the work experience too I expect! My DD is also looking at studying to be a vet and I am pretty shocked tbh at the specificity of the work experience requirements! How can they possibly be expected to fit it all in on top of the work! I think the only way might be to take a deep breath, wait til the gcse results and then if my DD is still determined, plan for a year out before going to university, to do the work experience - but that's for another thread!

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!

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.

But temporary, most A level students study 3 not 4 A levels - at least at the moment. I think that is millions' point. And not very many study for EPQs (although I don't know the stats).

At our school, the A level students study 3 A levels only - and they do very well - everyone gets their first choice, good Oxbridge stats etc. Nobody studies 4 A levels except further maths. The IB students obviously cover their various IB subjects etc. Over the two year period, although the IB course is more structured, I don't hear complaints that the IB is more work. Maybe with the abolition of AS this will change.

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.

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.