Talk:IB Diploma Programme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Group 6

Unles i missed it, should it not be noted that it is possible to use group 6 to specialise, and take another group 2, 3 or 4 subject??

thanks. Massau (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

This article should be semi-protected because of all the nonsense some people are writing. Kevin23 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, semi-protect the damn article!!! - Kevin23 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Connör (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

just deleted another load of rubbish... Massau (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed.

Heck yeah, You are right. I'm in the same boat as you, and feel the same way. Agreed.

[edit] Under-recognized

I'm a 1st year IB diploma student in Syracuse, New York . I have seen and heard of very few universities and places of higher learning appreciating the IB program. I would like everyone out there to know that I work... a lot more than the students enrolled in the basic regents program at my school!

shame on you!

That is true in the United States, where AP is better recognized. However, that is not true elsewhere (the UK).

[edit] Is this official?

From the article:

Choosing three subjects from group 4 and none from group 6 would be a normal diploma + 1 certificate. Choosing three from group 4 and none from groups 3 & 6 would fail the IB diploma criteria, but would perhaps be accepted by some universities. This is an article about IB diploma, not about university requirements. Can someone figure out what was intended here, and fix it accordingly?--Niels Ø 13:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The IBO allows students in Finland to pick three subjects from group 4 and none from group 3 to satisfy the requirements of certain faculties (such as medicine or biochemistry) of some universities. These students have to apply for special permission from the organisation (they nearly always get it), and they do receive the full Diploma without having to take any group 3 subjects. I think this is rather clearly stated in the article as it is, but if you want to change the wording, feel free to do so. :) - ulayiti (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Wait,so you can choose three subjects from group 3/4 which will take place of subjects from group 3,4 and 6?Can someone site the source of that, cause I'm not sure my coordinator will believe 'Some Wikipedia article' ?

In new zealand most unis require 3 sciences for medicine. To get around this, IB students at my school take three group 4 subjects and no group 3 or 6. Or, they anticipate one subject (eg their group 3) and take the third science in that spare option line in their 2nd year of IB Leeni247leeni247

This is provided for with a "non-regular diploma". In Turkey, for example, high school students are required to study a set curriculum which for science majors does not include a time slot or the option for a Group 3 subject. 18 months before the exams the school can request a non-regular diploma, along with documentation of the reasons for not completing the hexagon as designed, such as official curriculum documents from the Ministry of Education. Also, Group 6 can be used as an elective, that is, a second subject from Groups 2-5, so the "non-regular" nature is just 1 extra Group 4 subject in the place of 1 Group 3 subject. Refer to Handbook of Procedures (Vade Mecum), Candidate Registration, section C2.

[edit] 'Student websites'

I removed the bit that was added by an anon user about student websites since it read like glorified linkspam for the website that was mentioned there. That there are websites should be evident from the fact that there is an external links section in the article. However, if someone else wants to put it back, I'll reconsider my view. - ulayiti (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with ulayiti on removing that paragraph about student websites, I think there may be a place in this article for discussing such entities. I was the lone diploma candidate at my public high school (just before the Internet); the ability to interact with other "full" IB students would have made a difference in my experience. I am sure that these non-school websites have changed how some students go through the diploma programme. -Acjelen 14:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit sceptical on this... the external links section is there already to give weblinks, and while I agree that the websites are an important thing for some IB students, they aren't that for even nearly all of them. Ibscrewed is probably the major one of these, and even it is far from meeting the notability criteria at WP:WEB, so it definitely shouldn't have its own article and probably not its own section in this article. However, there could be a more general section on 'IB culture' (if such a thing exists and if it's not too vulnerable to speculation and POV), which could briefly mention ibscrewed. - ulayiti (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link on Matt Shepperd, Matt Shepperd of kstrut.com is Australian and not the link subject 02/12/2006

[edit] 'similar or superior'

In Canada and the United States, some IBDP courses are recognised as equivalent to university/college-level courses, and universities and colleges may award entering students with first-year credit for high IB exam scores. In this regard it is similar to the Advanced Placement Program, or superior to it, depending on the institute of higher learning in question. UCAS rates the AP programmes to be of GCE AS level difficulty, which is roughly equivalent to the standard level of IB Diploma subjects. However, universities in the United Kingdom accept the IB Diploma on a par with A-levels, including Oxbridge.

I think we've got a POV problem here. Very few if any american universities consider an IB diploma to be superior to equivalent to AP courses. The diploma as a whole (and the extended essay) are almost univerally ignored, and attention is paid to individual exam scores instead. Very few american universities offer credit for SL courses, and many do not offer credit for certain HL courses (Computer Science comes to mind). In this respect, I find it difficult to argue that american universities tend to consider as superior to AP.

I take issue with the idea that "very few if any american universities consider an IB diploma to be superior to equivalent to AP courses." I don't know if you've done any polling on the issue :-). In my experiences I've seen the gamut: what makes this more complicated is that some consider the diploma, while others the tests, and still others a combination. I know a number of schools that offer credit based on IB test scores only if the diploma was achieved, for example. I can't imagine how you could say, therefore, that the diploma is "almost universally ignored." We might be able to craft some wording the reflects that the IB Diploma Programme is similar in that colleges award credit for it but they sometimes evaluate it differently than AP, in some cases more favorably, and in other cases less. Good luck to someone on that wording! -- joeOnSunset 07:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point, although it will be much more difficult to express without adding additional POV is that many students find that it is much more difficult to score high enough to earn credit on an IB exam than it is to on the equivalent AP exams based upon those who take both.

I mention american universities specifically, because AP is predominately an american program.

--Orang55 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Even though it is a US programme, I think the article should not reflect a US point of view. The example of the IB being 'superior' to AP is from the UK (UCAS), where the 'superiority' is true. It's true that it could be phrased in a slightly better way though. - ulayiti (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How about saying that it is favorable to the AP Program instead of superior? I don't think superior is a good word to use there. Chocolateluvr88 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that my university considers it to be quite superior to AP, as do most Florida universities who try their hardest to woo IB students over others. I know I got a lot more credits out of the way from IB than from the AP tests I took. That's why I think "depending on the institution in question" is just fine. Mike H. That's hot 07:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I talked to some college counselors and the thing that they said is they take the IB Full Diploma Candidates and put them in a separate pile and analyze them first. That's what I was told from college counselors. 24.4.221.251 04:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User category

I've created a user category for the Wikipedian IB population for prospective, current, former students, or anyone else involved with the IB: Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians

You can add yourself by adding [[Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians|yourname]] to your user page.

Obli (Talk)? 05:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you change this to Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians, so that it's properly capitalised? - ulayiti (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Man, I wish I could program bots to do these tasks... Obli (Talk)? 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Pretty much all the arguments in the criticism section are made using weasel words. This section really needs to be cleaned up or it will be removed. jaco♫plane 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section, as it was also horribly POV and USA-centred, and pretty much all the 'criticisms' could be said of any educational programme. And some of them were not even true, for instance the IB doesn't really give you any more work than any other system that I know of. - ulayiti (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'The IB is un-American'

Ulayiti (→External links - rm confused linkspam) - Confused linkspam? Adding an article directly critical of the very topic discussed is direct linkspam? This is supposed to be a place for all to contribute in a way directly related to the subject matter of the wiki. Clearly the view that the IB program is un-American, especially where such a claim is specifically detailed, is directly related to the subject matter of this wiki, and it was properly demarcated as a critical response. Ulayiti's removal of the link is pure POV. Ulayiti does not want people to know, apparently, the information contained within the article of April 6, 2006 by EdWatch.org entitled, "Why International Baccalaureate (IB) is Un-American," by Allen Quist. Allen Quist is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato, Minnesota, and is a former three-term Minnesota state legislator. He is also author of three recent books on the federal education system. Yet Ulayiti claims a scholarly article by Mr. Quist is "confused linkspam," according to the history. Ulayiti is in error here, and I ask the wiki community to maintain the Allen Quist link in the Critical responses section even as Ulayiti likely tries again and again to remove it as I don't have the energy to personally police Ulayiti's POV censorship, or whatever to call it -- I am a near total Wikipedia newcomer at Ulayiti's mercy. Thank you all, and please read the Allen Quist article. 71.192.35.245 18:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the general trend of links added to this article, I think this link adds something this article lacks in general - criticism of the IBDP, and criticism coming from an education lobby organisation seems like a good place to get such criticism, as opposed to the random IB student that adds the "IB social shell" argument every odd week. -Obli (Talk)? 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

HELP! While writing the above, Ulayiti censored it out again!! 'Ulayiti m (rv - see Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid)' Ulayiti - I read the link you courteously provided. Thank you. Not a single one of the issues raised applies in this case. Perhaps you think the Allen Quist article "contains factually inaccurate material." That's not only your POV, but, in providing factual accuracy, Professor Quist provides specific links to source material from the IBO web site itself, specifically for the purpose of providing factual accuracy. Please, Ulayiti, think what you are doing and please reconsider your censorship. Please, Wiki community, this guy/gal Ulayiti is faster and more Wiki experienced than I, but his censoring out a professor and former legislator's scholarly article to assert his own POV is just plain wrong. Please help. 71.192.35.245 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That edit summary remains a mystery to me as well... -Obli (Talk)? 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, maybe I'm culturally biased or something, but somehow I don't see how endorsing the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the IBO somehow 'bad'. I also don't see how simply being international or 'promoting world citizenship' can be called 'criticisms'. But that's not the point. Pretty much the only thing in the link that's sourced is the fact that the IBO endorses the declaration of human rights (as does pretty much everyone else). From that, the 'article' goes on to leap to the following conclusions (all of which are massively POV and very much original research):

  • 'IBO undermines the foundation principle of the United States that human rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property, are inherent and inalienable, and must be protected by government' (How does this follow?)
  • 'Either United States citizenship or world citizenship must have priority in our education program. Which will it be? IB gives priority to world citizenship.' (It's not like it's one or the other.)
  • 'The IBO ideology has primary importance; state standards have lesser importance.' (Isn't this quite obvious, since the programme is managed by the IBO?)
  • 'IBO promotes the actions and treaties of the UN even though many of these actions and treaties have not been approve by, or ratified by, the United States.' (No it doesn't, and there's no way you can deduce this from the UDHR.)
  • 'IB promotes the view that the United Nations has higher standing than the United States Supreme Court on issues of human rights involving U.S. citizens.' (Same as above.)
  • 'The view of the United Nations is the foundation of totalitarianism.' (I wonder if this guy is on drugs.)
  • That same-sex marriage and the redistribution of wealth within nations are 'contrary to the nature and interests of the United States' (which I would call not only biased, but blatant lies).

None of this makes any sense to begin with, let alone being encyclopaedic enough to be included on Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulayiti - a person of Allen Quist's stature writing for this particular organization says x, and you, some anonymous person on Wikipedia, make arguments above why the professor is wrong. Your solution is to remove the information provided by Allen Quist to this wiki. You have proven the case that your removal of the link is a direct result of your point of view. Further, your statements reveal a political bias. I'm new to wiki but I don't believe wikis are to be policed by politically biased individuals with a particular point of view that, if questioned, results in the removal of information with which they disagree. This is Wikipedia, not Ulayitipedia. 71.192.35.245 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I am saying he's wrong, but that's not the point. Including your (or anyone's) personal essays on Wikipedia - even through external links - is blatantly against two key policies, namely no original research and verifiability. The article has no justification whatsoever and sounds pretty much like a crank theory by some low-class public servant who's been made unemployed after the introduction of the IB in some tiny small-town school in the middle of nowhere (and frankly, I find it quite amusing).
I also don't think that the website (whether it's your personal one or not) counts as a reputable publication. If you can find similar claims in any reliable source, feel free to include them. I'm removing the link for now. - ulayiti (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ulayiti - I am so happy to hear that you personally know Allen Quist is wrong. I am so happy to hear you think the Quist article is a personal essay by "some low-class public servant who's been made unemployed after the introduction of the IB in some tiny small-town school in the middle of nowhere." After all, we all know that flyover country people are a bunch of hick hayseeds, as you demonstrate. I am happy you said these things because you again sink your own case, and I will be restoring the link. By the way, thanks for deleting the vandalism.
Now you raise the issue of Verifiability. So I looked it up to see if you were correct. However, like the fast and loose way you use Wikipedia to enforce your personal worldview, you have again presented an argument easily overcome. Verifiability says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors." In this case, I'm the editor and Allen Quist is the reliable source. Reliable Sources says "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."
Allen Quist is of the "most reputable" variety, the kind "expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject." In About the Author, Allen Quist, we read,
"Allen Quist is Professor of Political Science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minnesota. He is a widely recognized writer and speaker in Minnesota and throughout the United States. Allen Quist is author of five books, the most recent being America’s Schools: The Battleground for Freedom. Quist authored the best-selling book, FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How It's Enforced, which has sold 17,000 copies. He explains the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and programs such as International Baccalaureate, he describes the math and reading wars,and he discusses the effects of international agreements on our schools. Quist writes about the preservation of America's sovereignty, our commitment to self-evident truth and unalienable rights, and our resolve to pass this liberty on to the next generation.
"Prof. Quist served three terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1983 to 1988. In the Minnesota House, he served as Chair if the Social Services Subcommittee and also served on the House Education Committee. Prof. Quist played an influential role in legalizing home schools in Minnesota. He was the Republican endorsed candidate for Minnesota Governor in 1994, and was one of seven delegates elected from Minnesota to the White House Conference on Families in 1980.
"Allen Quist has been a member of two school boards and holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, MN), a Master of Arts degree from Mankato State University (Mankato, MN), and a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary (Mankato, MN). He, his wife Julie, and the youngest of their ten children live in rural St. Peter, Minnesota."
Now, Ulayiti, regarding your argument of "No Original Research," you are wrong again. That policy applies to me, the editor. I am not presenting original research. Rather, I am pointing to Allen Quist. I did not make up any theories and post them. Actually, I did not say anything at all! Nothing! The only thing I did was post a link to a reliable source with whom's arguments you personally disagree!
Really, you now have not only stepped on me, but by recensoring this page, you have also stepped on Obli. If I knew who the Wikipedia police where, this would be the time for me to consider calling them. 71.192.35.245 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave the link there then. As I said, this was all probably down to cultural difference (me thinking that to become a professor you'd actually need to know what you're talking about). - ulayiti (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Phew!! Thank you!! We can all rest now!!  ;-) 71.192.35.245 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue needs to raised again. This 'Professor' is definitely not unbiased, nor he is a scholar, or indeed an expert on anything, much less international standards of education. He openly and clearly supports home education, and teaches at a college were religious classes are mandatory. While alone those two facts are inconclusive, they do point an arrow at the sort of man he is. That would be opinionated, and uninterested in the truth. I have not been able to find information on the field in which he read for his Masters, but I'm guessing its not education, because if it was, it would have stated so on his page. Besides, I think that in order for an international encyclopedia to consider someone's opinion quite important, if not correct, the post-graduate degree of said person would have to be at least at the doctorate level.

Besides all of this, who the hell cares if the IB is 'un-american', as he so charmigly puts it. Maybe it is. Maybe its un-Argentinian as well, who gives a toss? This is an international encyclopedia. If Quist's page simply said that the IB was un-american, without attaching opinion or spin to it, perhaps then it would be OK to keep his link. But seeing as he clearly hates the UN, despises international standards, and thinks the US has the moral high ground on every crime ever committed and is yet to be committed, I think his link should be removed.

I leave you with a quote from Wikipedia:External Links "Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked" Pharzo 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Pharzo - I disagree with you for the reasons stated above but also because Mr. Quist's article has been corroborated with the addition of another article that is similarly illuminating while providing new and useful information perfect for WikiPedia. IB Schools in U.S. Under U.N. Law; International Baccalaureate: An Analysis of Jurisdiction Further, your arguments that pertain to American sovereignty alone seem to apply equally to all over non-UN sovereignties. To exclude the comments of the Americans means you get to exclude the comments of the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Nepalese, the Vietnamese, the Canadians, the Peruvians, the Venezuelians, the Senegalese, the Inuit, and everyone else. Clearly your point of view regarding criticism of the UN places anyone outside the UN at a decided disadvantage. Finally, your choice of language proves your interests are not in the free and open exchange of information for all but rather the promulagation of language that supports your singular point of view. 71.250.82.253 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This article I actually like. I think it should be put in the links section, mainly because it is well written, factually supported, and is not written with blatant bias, as the other one was. I wasn't saying we should exclude the comments of anyone, I was just questioning the validity of questioning the un-Americanism of items in an international encyclopedia. Also, I did not make any comments at all regarding criticism of the UN. I'm not sure what you mean by 'promulgation of language', but I suggest you look it up in a dictionary, if not to learn how to spell it, then certainly to illuminate yourself as to the true meaning of the word. I think you will agree that the second article is much better written, and much more pertinent to encyclopedic content? The first one is an opinion piece, with some references to the UN charter, but the second one is an analysis of regulations. I think the first one should be removed, the second one kept. Pharzo 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, months later, wikipedian Hughcharlesparker decided this article was a "rant" and cut it out. [ 13:54, 15 August 2006 Hughcharlesparker (Talk | contribs) (→Articles - removing the first link - it's not an article in any sort of reputable journal, it's someone's rant. WP:RS) ] Apparently Hughcharlesparker had not read this section of the Talk page. And he did not first discuss its removal here. Worse, his history comment reveals a definite bias as his reason for removing the article -- he calls it a "rant," for example. Therefore, I restored the link. --SafeLibraries 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I also am new to Wikipedia. I find the defense of Alan Quist to be interesting. This is not a scholarly piece. Mr. Quist has a partisan point of view on "internationalism", his article is hosted by an advocacy site (edwatch.org), on which his wife sits as a board member. According to the edwatch website, he is a politician who has run unsuccessfully for the governorship of Minnesota. In this article he is writing outside his area of expertise. An interesting counterpoint to Quist's parochial POV would be Professor George Walker's view of the IB in North America http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/ibna_jul05.pdf ````

[edit] I'm confused...

I've read about this programme but I still don't understand what it "is". Is it just a group of courses taken at my school in place of others? or is it another school that I would go to. I just don't have an understanding of what it is. I know I'm vague and this is definitely not a discussion topic diserving two "="'s signs on each side of the title so I have no problem with this being removed following someone telling me what this "thing" "is". 24.154.173.50 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, it's a bunch of papers and exams you have to write, and then you get a diploma. —Keenan Pepper 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
So it is taken along with normal schooling? 24.154.173.50 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
At my high school (Rickards), there were IB classes, but non-IB students could take them too. Some were mixed AP/IB classes. —Keenan Pepper 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks 24.154.173.50 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I take the IB as a full diploma, i would say its quite hard to take it at the same time as doing other schooling, as it is a lot of work. You need to complete essays and coursework in many subjects and perform presentations and stuff.

This is not the place to discuss your IB queries, but to discuss the article. Please use other sites for this purpose. Spaztic ming 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is, after all, a place to discuss the article, perhaps we can discuss how the article was so unclear that OP did not understand what the programme actually 'is.' The answers Keenan Pepper provided should perhaps be available in the article?

[edit] Overly Praising

Students who pass through the IB Diploma Program with the reception of the diploma truly deserve to be recognized as exemplory and wonderful students for what they do. In several cases, only about 20% of the students who enter the Diploma Program actually end up with the diploma. Those who actually earn it have truly accomplished a great thing.

This is a bit too subjective, feels much like an IB-student patting himself on his own back. But even I, an IB graduate, find this passage totally ridiculous.BrorMartin 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Haha, yeah, this passage is way too ridiculous. Yes, IB is difficult, I admit, but this is an encyclopedia for information, not a place to praise people.

[edit] AP and IB

Most colleges will only give college credit to students for taking higher level courses, and require a score of 6 or 7 most of the time. While on the other hand, the same colleges give credit to students who get a 4 or higher on a AP exam.

Confirmation please? Aren't IB exams are out of 7, and AP exams are only out of 5? Then the requirements would be balanced. These policies vary greatly for both the IB and AP. I may have snafued here by editing what was on the page without discussing it here first. The acceptance policy at highly competitive schools, such as MIT or Cornell , will only allow for 6 & 7 on HL exams. However, other schools, such as University of Florida will accept SL exams of scores ranging from 4-7, and most colleges will accept HL scores of 5-6, with many accepting 4's. I've been involved in collecting these policies and meeting with colleges over the last 20 years to get students credit. Certainly I have a bias toward the IB, but have found more colleges taking a fresh look at their policies to attract students. In essense, no declarative statement works here. Asse2 16:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Most colleges will only give college credit to students for taking higher level courses, and require a score of 6 or 7 most of the time. While on the other hand, the same colleges give credit to students who get a 4 or higher on a AP exam. Confirmation please? Aren't IB exams are out of 7, and AP exams are only out of 5? Then the requirements would be balanced.

Although IB exams are out of 7 and AP exams are out of 5, it is much harder to receive a 6 or 7 on an IB exam than a 5 on the AP due to the way the curves are given. On some AP exams, nearly 40% of the people who take them receive 5s.

Lilyv129 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To add to what Lilyv129 said, the IB scores given are a result of the combination of assessments and tests (the example that springs to mind is Language A1 in which two papers, two oral components, and two tests at the end of the year all make up the actual score), whereas AP scores are based on a single test--I'm not sure you could say that they are necessarily apples and apples, although I think the scores received on both tests probably correlates somewhat. Not to mention that the phrase 'While on the other hand' is redundant :)

[edit] Criticism

Just removed a lengthy paragraph from this section, as it was clearly a very individual POV (and that's putting it nicely). Incoherent nonsense about the business and international relations elements, and how their lack of primacy meant that the IB was not truly 'international'.

You do get some nutters on the internets.

I edited some of the criticism here - about CAS and about IB crreating segregation in schools, and about appealing local decisions in the program. These may be personal experiences and are not indicative of the 1000+ schools world wide. Many schools are now created in an inclusive model or as whole school programs. The goal is to "level up" all students, to run an elite (but not elitist) program. A good example of a whole school approach is the Baccalaureate School for Global Education in Astoria, Queens (NYC) which was created to have all students do the IBMYP and IBDP. Inclusive models can be found in City Honors HS (Buffalo), Binghamton HS, or South Side HS (Rockville Centre NY).

The key point about the IB is that the program is a framework, with shared assessments and grading criteria and is administered by the local school who is subject to a five-year review by IBNA here in north america. Individual experiences should not be generalized to describe the program as a whole. Even North American experiences, like mine, may not be bias-free if a world-wide perspective is taken. Asse2 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'segregation/social darwinism' criticism sounds abit bunk. I went to a multi-stream International school (in the Netherlands) that did IB as well as other curricula, and the kids all mixed alot outside of class, namely during breaks and during sports. This alledged segregation can in no way be taken a as criticism of the IB, but rather, the way certain schools are run, whether individualy, or on a regional basis. It should be removed.

[edit] Advanced Placement Program vs. the International Baccalaureate

I just found a very interesting comparison of the AP and the IB programs. [1] I think we should include these points and maybe organize them into a table (which I sadly cannot do). Please give your opinions. Thanks, (Eddie 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Advanced Placement Program vs. International Baccalaureate

  • Students can build up an AP profile over the course of several years. vs. Student are restricted to completing the IB diploma program during the final two years of school.
  • Students sit examinations as they complete the respective course. vs. Student write all examinations at the completion of the second year of the program.
  • Students can sample a wide variety of advanced courses. vs. Students must enroll in six two year courses, excluding other possible interests.
  • Each course combines breadth and depth in treating the subject. vs. Each course emphasizes depth of treatment, not breadth.
  • The flexibility of the AP program allows for additional boarding-school demands on student time. vs. The inflexibility of the IB program does not allow, or comes into conflict with, some boarding-school requirements.
  • Entrance to German universities requires 4 examinations in year-long AP subjects, one of which must be mathematics or science. vs. German universities require the entire IB diploma program plus four years of a second foreign language.
  • Austrian universities require 4 AP examinations in year-long subjects, one of which must be calculus. vs. Austrian universities require the entire IB diploma program.
  • British universities require three AP examinations. vs. British universities require the entire IB diploma program.


* Students can build up an AP profile over the course of several years. vs. Student are restricted to completing the IB diploma program during the final two years of school.

In the first two years of high school, students take "pre-IB" classes, which are often taught with AP classes.

* Students sit examinations as they complete the respective course. vs. Student write all examinations at the completion of the second year of the program.

This is not true. Most of the time, students take two standard level examinations that they tookt he course for at the end of their junior year. At the end of their senior year, they finish two higher level exams and two additional standard level exams.

* Students can sample a wide variety of advanced courses. vs. Students must enroll in six two year courses, excluding other possible interests.

Students must take at least one course in each of the six areas, but are allowed to take other courses that they are interested in for "certificates" that supplement their actual diploma.

* Each course combines breadth and depth in treating the subject. vs. Each course emphasizes depth of treatment, not breadth.

Breath is emphasized by IB, also. At my school, students who take the IB exams also take the AP exams.

Lilyv129 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Incidentally, on the first point, my school district does not allow students to take AP classes before junior year, so I'm not sure how universally true that is?


This table should not be used, as it's clearly pro-AP propaganda for that Salzburg school that is linked. It looks like it was created to showcase the AP programme as something new and hip and very American. The last line on that webpage instructs users to direct their questions about the AP programme to some administrative person, which is just another indication that the page is trying to sell AP. Tomwithanh 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening the "IB is UN-American" debate

I've removed the link again for the following reasons (yes, I've already read the previous discussion):

  • It is not a reliable source, that is, it is a self-published paper (it was posted on an advocacy website, for crying out loud) without the proper fact-checking that a reliable source would have. The author, Allen Quist, is not a "well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field" so he is not qualified to criticize education on any level.
  • It gives undue weight to a fringe minority. As said by Jimbo Wales, "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliaryarticle. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."
  • Have you even read the article? The arguments it makes are complete bullshit. A logical, thinking person would not make such wild leaps. It makes my brain hurt just to think about someone so vacuously stupid. Perhaps when someone makes some legitimate and intelligent criticism of the IB Program"me", it can be included.

If you insist on SOME kind of critical link, use this one instead. While it is still enormously POV and still lacks reliability, at least its arguments are grounded in logically sound assertions. Axem Titanium 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted the removal. The link stays up until this matter is closed. Then, based on the outcome, appropriate action should be taken. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(Oops, added wrong comment to history.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still maintaining my opinion that criticism of the IBDP is something needed and quite hard to find (not counting the bi-weekly OR about "The IB bubble effect"). What we need, though, is simply a better description of the link, just something that says the article is the opinion of an American education lobby group against globalisation or something (that's what I got from the article, anyway). -Obli (Talk)? 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, that link Alex suggested seems alright to me, with a similar note warning readers of the POV, of course. -Obli (Talk)? 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been three weeks, let's see what we have: 2 in favor, none opposed, 1 who hasn't given any position. Looks like consensus to me. Axem Titanium 01:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Obli, is what Axem Titanium did okay by you? I think the article is overly glowing without the thing just removed given its quality and source. What do you think. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
On rereading this, and with Obli saying, "What we need, though, is simply a better description of the link," I would say the consensus is to keep the link, me and Obli, versus one nay, Axem Titanium. So I'm adding back the link until the consensus changes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia consensus on reliable sources is very clear, and this link is not a reliable source. It should be removed. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-16 12:08
You seem to be misinterpreting his words. He said "that link Alex suggested seems alright to me", referring to the other link I suggested. Axem Titanium 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links that include criticism of the IB that could be included in the article: [2] [3]. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-16 23:17

The first one you suggested has the same problems because it's from the same group (which btw, seems flagrantly xenophobic and anti-environment; OMG, the Earth Charter! God forbid IB to support saving the Earth!). The second one looks good. Axem Titanium 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I say keep all the links critical of the IB. We are not using them to support statements about the IB ('The IB is anti-U.S (ref)') but to illustrate the fact that the IB does have critics. In my opinion the criticisms are nuts, and it shouldn't take most readers long to come to the same conclusion; but shouldn't we allow readers to make up their own minds rather than 'protect' them from these viewpoints by censoring them?
As for the point about these criticisms being related to a single country (the U.S.): More IB students are in the U.S. than in any other country so I'd say the criticisms were important. What if someone said the baseball was un-American? Would that be irrelevant because people in other countries also play baseball?
Ewen 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I just completed the IBDP. Most of the ToK comments made by that guy are absolute non-sense. We never had to read the entirety of any of those books for ToK. We had to read a couple chapters out of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair, but that was it. Thegreyanomaly 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:IB students

Any ex or current IB students that wish to declare that they underwent (or are undergoing) two years of hell the IB Diploma Programme, please place the following code onto your user page:

Code Result
{{User:Zuracech lordum/User boxes/Ex IB Students}}
This user was a student of the IB Diploma Programme.

{{User:Zuracech lordum/User boxes/Current IB Students}}
This user is currently studying in the IB Diploma Programme.

{{User_IB_Student}}
IB This user is a student that currently attends the IB Diploma Programme.


{{User IB}}
IB This user is an IB Diploma student.


Cheers. Good luck to you all who are going to do the exams soon! It'll be the time of your life. Zuracech lordum 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a better one (in my opinion) on my userpage. anyone is free to use it. Connör (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your title could be better as IB DIploma Students. IB students covers PYP, MYP and Diploma. Candy (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical comparison with a-levels

I dispute every conclusion of the paragraph, and removed it only for User:Zombiboy to replace it.

  1. I don't know anyone who thinks the IB is easier than A-levels. 'Many believe' that it's easier do they? Let's see some justification, please.
  1. I think the level of study is greater, including in the sciences. I teach both A-level and IBDP and the majority of material is common to both courses, with IBDP HL being fully comparable to A-level.
  1. I know of no university which has considered the IB inferior, except a few who asked for more details about the course because they didn't know much about it - something that rarely happens today. Check the UCAS website for how universities offer places to both A-level and IBDP students. The UCAS points system clearly indicates how the IBDP compares (very favourably) to A-levels.

Ewen 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zombiboy and I have had a little chat about this paragraph on User talk:Ewen. I'll try to modify the paragraph put it on common ground. Ewen 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critisism removed

I remove the critisism - not that there cannot be valid a valid critique of the IB Diploma Programme - because it appeared like an unsubstantiated (tagged since Feb 2007) PoV diatribe. The material was also not of encyclopedic quality. Candy 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I came to the wiki page specifically seeking information on the criticism. Our local (US) high school is considering an IBO program and more than a few people are vocal in opposition. In digging around, I think the concern is the emphasis on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That wiki page does have information on the criticism. User:clevell —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dire

Having fully read the article, it is dire. There are a great deal of unsupported "facts" and a plethora of unqualified comparisons. I will come back soon for a major pruning. Candy 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max # of High Levels

Can anyone confirm that students are not allowed to take more than four high level courses? --Kycook 17:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am an IB student and students cannot take more than 4 HL courses within the 6 "diploma" subjects. Students taking a 7th "extra certificate" subject can take it at HL in addition to 4 other HL courses, but as the 7th subject does not count as part of their diploma, it doesn't really affect the number of HLs they can take. Beggarsbanquet 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-IB Article Link Removed

Someone re-added the link to the anti-IB article, which I removed again because it is blatantly unreliable. We should support all viewpoints on Wikipedia, but these people make up a very small minority and they aren't a reliable source. Beggarsbanquet 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. You should not remove such things without discussing it first, so I am re-adding it now. This is especially true where it has been discussed again and again and was left in for a reason. Now perhaps it should ultimately be removed. But you can't just cut it out under these circumstances. So I'm adding it back in. I suppose it's everyone's right to reraise any matter again and again. But cutting it out unilaterally is not your right. Discussion is needed first. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this issue needs to be opened for discussion again. The un-American article may be supported by some facts, but Mr. Quist manipulates the facts to try to force his opinion on the reader.
For example, he describes the IBO's belief in world citizenship and then adds "Either United States citizenship or world citizenship must have priority in our education program. Which will it be? IB gives priority to world citizenship." Mr. Quist is making it clear that he believes US citizenship should be more important, but provides no details as to why it deserves priority.
The article is not a scholarly review of the IB program. Mr. Quist obviously did not research the program with an open mind and instead got caught up in his American patriotism. The article reads more like a blog entry than a scholarly analysis of IB and the American education system. This article definitely should be removed. Kycook 03:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I didn't know we needed to discuss it. Now it appears that most people believe it should be removed. Anyways, there are way too many links on Wikipedia that are not "scholarly" but have some merit to them, but this is basically just someone's unsupported opinion. I suppose someone could give a good argument against the IB program, but this person isn't; he has no facts to back up his assertions, and it is full of logical fallacies. I would hate for someone to think this is an honest critique of the IB program. Since it doesn't seem that anyone is contradicting my opinion to remove it, I am removing it. Beggarsbanquet 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't take unilateral action as you have. I am reverting you. You have not given time for the others to respond here, as in the others who have again and again in the past voted to keep the link. Please be patient. Or ask them directly to get involved. Be fair and invite back everyone, not just those who agree with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like only one person keeps putting that link back. That's no discussion, it's diatribe. Where are the results of the previous votes?

I see this is your first edit ever on wikipedia. Congrats! Talk some time to learn the ropes. You will have lots more fun here that way. And to answer your question, just look back at the previous talk on the issue. There's a lot on it by a number of editors. By the way, it's a good idea to remember everyone here is an editor just like you, and no one likes to be treated badly, like, for example, talking about a diatribe. You will get more people persuaded by your arguments if they are respectful and based on policy. Whatever, do have lots of fun on Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed an IP address/newbie removed both links with no history comment, no talk comment, leaving only positive stories, hence appearing to me to be POV edits. Further, significant past and even present talk on the issue of one of the links was essentially nullified by these removals. Hence, I restored them. Here is the history for the link removals:
  1. (cur) (last) 16:15, 18 July 2007 71.110.244.203 (Talk) (18,982 bytes) (→Articles) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 16:15, 18 July 2007 71.110.244.203 (Talk) (19,137 bytes) (→Articles) (undo)
Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why International Baccalaureate (IB) is UN-American link is broken

It is not working. Should we take it off? Thegreyanomaly 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We should have taken it off a long time ago, since it doesn't represent a reasonable opposition (the people who believe this are few and far between, and their arguments have no logical basis). Even if there were a reasonable case for the IB being un-American, that article does not present good arguments for it. It's a good thing the link is broken so we can say good riddance to this "opposition." 24.192.248.238 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Can't you stand to know the truth about IB schools? It's just another UN power grab to indoctrinate our kids into trashing our American sovereignty. Shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.64.13 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has actually gone through the IB, I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:IBLogo.jpg

Image:IBLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tidied up - what about regional papers?

Tidied up and removed some very speculative parts.

Has anyone got a good way of expressing how the regional examination papers work in the Diploma Programme?

Candy 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Article Name

I think that this article should be renamed from “IB Diploma Programme” to “International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme” because this would be more precise. It would specifically state which organisation offers this diploma rather than relying on the user’s knowledge of the acronym.ML Saturn (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Certificates

"However, if taking World History (social studies certificate), the student is required to complete the Theory of Knowledge. "

Citation please. The regulations may vary from school to school, but as far as I know, taking TOK is not required for a World History certificate. Alternately, the wording may need to be revised to clarify exactly which certificate this is referring to. In my region (Alberta, Canada), World History refers to a specific part of the History HL curriculum, the part which pertains to (I believe) Paper 2 of the IB exam for European History HL. I'm not familiar with a certificate in just World History. Is this History HL, History SL, History of the Islamic World...? Please clarify. Clocktowerkiss (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IB vs. AP debate.

I think a section of this article - or a separate article altogether - should be devoted to the debate between the IB program and the Advanced Placement program in the United States, and similar debates in other countries between IB and their native advanced education program, such as British A-Levels, the French Baccalaureate, etc. I know here in the US it is a pretty big controversy over which program better educates students and prepares them for college, and over the fairness of how college credit is awarded toward each program. I have heard that IB vs. A-Levels is a pretty big issue in Britain as well. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)