Anyway, as usual, lots to blog about, lots to catch up on but just not enough time! :) I thought I'd start the ball rolling again with a non-controversial topic. I think the media both online and offline these days are filled with controversial issues. So we'd take a break from that :).
Many of us, myself included, would not have heard much about the "international baccalaureate" (IB) programme, specifically the IB Diploma Programme. Recently however, there has been more press given to the IB Diploma Programme as a good, or possibly better alternative to the 'A' Levels.
The IB Organisation (IBO) is a nonprofit educational foundation, motivated by its mission, focused on the student. Founded in 1968, we currently work with 1,874 schools in 124 countries to develop and offer three challenging programmes to over 481,000 students aged 3 to 19 years. As opposed to 'A' Levels, which is an export of the United Kingdom or SAT, of United States, the IB curriculum "represents the best from many different countries rather than the exported national system of any one. [The] challenging Diploma Programme assessment is recognized by the world's leading universities. [IBO] maintain [their] high standards by actively training and supporting teachers, and by authorizing and evaluating IB World Schools."
The IBO works with schools in 124 countries, headquartered in Geneva. They have offices / representatives in Bath, Beijing, Buenos Aires, Cardiff, Geneva, Mumbai, New York, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo and Vancouver.
One of the leading global pre-university institution adopting the IB curriculum is the United World College (UWC), blogged here earlier. Ng Eng Han, a student at UWC-USA who has received his admission into Dartmouth College via early admission has also written a short piece on the IB diploma programme - what it's about and where it's offered. To find out more about the curriculum of the IB diploma programme, you may like to visit their official website.
More interestingly, and back to the comparison of 'A' Levels versus IB, it appears that the Universities and College Admission Service (UCAS) of the United Kingdom have recently endorse the IB diploma programme as being "academically superior" to the 'A' Levels programme.
A new points tariff announced by UCAS... made a relatively modest IB score of 35 points (out of a maximum of 45) equivalent to four and a half A grades at A-level.The 'A' Levels, which has been criticised in recent years as falling significantly in standards will find this "as confirmation of how far A-levels have slipped from the 'gold standard'." And it may hasten the switch of many schools around the world from conducting 'A' Levels to the IB Diploma Programme.
An IB score of 38, the average achieved every year by more than 200 pupils at Sevenoaks, one of the first independent schools to adopt the exam, was deemed to be equivalent to five As at A-level. Oxford and Cambridge typically ask for 40 points, equivalent to five and a half A grades.
Even 30 IB points is judged equivalent to three and a half As at A-level, sufficient to secure entry to most academically selective universities.
Worried about the dropping standards of the UK 'A' Levels programme, Singapore which uses the 'A' Levels qualification as the de facto criteria for entry into the universities, has clearly set out to differentiate its own 'A' Levels programme, distinct from that in the UK. As mentioned here in the press release way back in 2002:
In Singapore, students offer the Singapore-Cambridge A-level examination which is a separate examination, conducted jointly by MOE and the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). The Singapore-Cambridge A-level has its own set of question papers. The setting, marking and grading of the examination scripts are subject to stringent quality control procedures and are closely monitored by UCLES and MOE to ensure that grades awarded reflect accurately the performance of students.The question however, is whether, the 'higher' and 'stricter' 'A'-Level standards in Singapore will penalise the students there as opposed to those who too 'A'-Levels based on the "declining" UK standards? Will UCAS differentiate the grades?
MOE has assumed greater control of the Singapore-Cambridge GCE A-level examination from 2002. Our A-level examination papers are based on syllabuses that are designed for Singapore's educational needs. MOE and UCLES are responsible for the setting of standards and the awarding of grades. This means that Singapore students offer a set of examination papers which meet A-level standards but are separate and different from those offered by students in the UK. The grading of our A-level examination, jointly undertaken by MOE and UCLES, is also a separate process from that of British A-levels.
Anyway, given that the IB programme is offered only in a limited scale in Malaysia at this point of time, and not to mention, costing quite an arm and a leg, the question of which programme to take is probably moot even for students opting not to pursue STPM. Most Malaysians will still end up with 'A' Levels, South Australian Matriculation (SAM) and other matriculation examinations. However, this might just change in the near future.
For the moment, students pursuing other pre-university programmes including STPM need not be overly concerned. 'A'-Levels for example, is still well recognised around the world and as long as you do well in it, you can be certain of acceptance into the top universities of the world.
Thanks to LYL for the pointer. :)
On a different topic: international science olympiads, such as
International Biology Olympiad (IBO)
International Chemistry Olympiad (IChO)
International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO)
International Physics Olympiad (IPhO)
How good are Asian students from China, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, etc, in mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics?
Visit the following sites and see the 2006 results:
How good are students from Malaysia (always claimed to have world-class education) compared to students from China, Indonesia, and Thailand (so-called 3rd world countries)? Judge for yourself. Hint: see IChO results.
ANOTHER OFF TOPIC
Everyone should read kit siang blog...they really kill the faculty of computer science and information technology.
Learn from history should give his comments
Sorry...its University Malaya Faculty of computer science...he he he
At this point of time, The IB is still very much an exclusive pre-u program. Unless one has a big fat bank account, it is unlikely that one can take this course.
Also, it is misleading to say that IB is 'academically superior' to the A-levels without highlighting the footnotes, without analysing further.
In the IB program, students are required to take up 6 subjects+TOK, a vigorous module called the CAS, besides having to write an extended essay. Whereas in the British A-levels, most students will sit for 3 A2s and 1AS, while the capable ones will take up 4A2s. Now isn't it obvious that it's a matter of 6+++ subjects vs 4 subjects? Isn't it logical that the more subjects you take up, the more UCAS tariff points you'll earn? One A is worth 120 points, if you have 6 subjects with a grade A, you'll get 720 points. Similarly in the IB program, if you score 7 in all subjects, you'll get 42 and that is equivalent to 698 UCAS tariff points. So where does the argument that IB is academically superior to A-levels fit in? No where. This is simply a matter of equivalencies. If A-level candidates are forced to take up 6 subjects, there won't be anything to discuss, there won't be IB vs A-level.
It won't be all too surprising that if UEC were to be 'calibrated' against the UCAS tariff, we'll get a similar result.
UCAS is just doing IB justice, it is giving IB acchievers their due recognition by matching IB scores to appropriate UCAS tariff points.
"How good are students from Malaysia (always claimed to have world-class education) compared to students from China, Indonesia, and Thailand (so-called 3rd world countries)? Judge for yourself. Hint: see IChO results."
Its a bit unfair to judge our students over these competitions. Do note that this is our first year that we are participating in the IChO. In fact, this year is one of the best (sadly?) for us in terms of these competitions, because we managed to get a Bronze for the IChO, IPhO and IMO.
However, do note that our training methods for these competitions is indeed inferior to our neighbours. Also, for the IMO, there is a .. ermm... how should we put this.. "quota". Make your own conjectures.
The comment by anon above notwithstanding, I don't really think that IB is a better alternative to A levels. IB's curriculum is more extensive in that it covers more subjects. It may make for a more rounded student but if I'm interested only in a science and scientific research career, why would I waste my time in language, the arts or individuals and societies' subjects which don't interst me at all?
I did many IB at an International School many years ago. I think IB is a great course. We were supposed to pick 3 higher level subjects, and 3 so called "lower" level subjects. As mentioned by some of you, why choose subjects which don't interest the students. Well, that is not really the case. For students, we can choose 3 higher level subjects such as Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics at higher level, and at elective we can thus choose subjects such as english, a foreign language course, and another arts related subject. It does really train us to be a better all rounder. I remembered having to participate in activities as it is a requirement for our CAS points. Many people are often complaining on how students lack many soft skills, and universities are asked to train students in soft skill. IB on the other hand, would ensure that we are all rounder, and participate in activies as well as doing a so called "final" year project in our chosen field.
I did many IB at an International School many years ago..
Sorry, it should be "I did MY IB".
I'll be starting my IB program this fall in the States. Prior to this I completed a semester of A levels.
Firstly: it's hard to compare the IB and A Levels. I think the range of pre-U programs offered out there are tailored for different groups of people with different goals in mind. Those doing SAM obviously want to hurry up and graduate with a degree or study in Australia. Likewise, those who opt for ADP want to study in US. Those doing foundation programs are 100% certain of their career paths (lucky them in a way). Those doing IB or A levels both want to keep their options open.
But the similarity ends there. In terms of subjects, A Levels in Malaysia does not allow a student to take say - Chemistry and Literature, or Music and Math. The furthest you will get with diversity in A Levels is Bio/Chem/Math/Lit and Physics/Math/Double Math/Econs.
Therefore IB's 'breadth+depth' formula is particularly appealing to the student who wants much more than just a classroom education; who isn't sure what he or she plans to major in; who excels in certain fields but has a broad-and possibly confusing- range of interests and abilities.
This is not to say that I think IB 'superior' to A Levels, especially if you compare them in course offerings. It merely caters to a different group of students. My main reason for doing the IB is that I want to try things I've always loved, but was never able to study and earn academic credit for in school - like music, theatre or literature. If I was doing A Levels, this wouldn't be possible at all for two reasons:
a) Restrictive subject combinations
b) Time. A Levels is offered in 1.5 years & even 1 year here, while it is supposed to be 2 years. The extra semester gives students more breathing space to pursue their interests outside the classroom - something which we don't have here.
To answer anon 2's question - why do arts if you're a science person - it falls back on your goal. If you have completely no interest in an unrelated field, no desire to play basketball and get to say 'It's compulsory, I have to fulfil my CAS requirement' then it's perfectly acceptable that the IB is not for you.
As for Anon 1, I disagree that the UCAS tariff system was based on quantity of subjects. It's what the subject requires of the candidate that matters. For example, in A Level Literature, I had to study 6 texts within 1.5 years (meant to be 2 years) and sit for 4 written exams at the end of it. One paper contains 'unseen texts' - meaning that a candidate has to analyse a poem or play excerpt she has never read before, based on the question given.
IB English HL is far more complicated. The written exams also contain 'unseen texts'- but the instruction is frighteningly unspecific - 'Give a written commentary'. There's also an ORAL literary analysis, and an ORAL presentation. Students have to study about 15-16 WORLD Literature texts and though not all in depth, some texts are TRANSLATED literature originally written in French or whatever. This requires much more of the student than the mostly British, only English texts set by the Cambridge A Levels. In this respect, the IB English HL course is thus more demanding. Although this is not true for ALL the subjects offered in both IB and A Levels, I believe it illustrates my case that it is unfair to judge just by number of subjects alone.
I also don't agree with your generalisation that the IB is exclusive. In North America and the UK, lots of high schools offer the IB. It is only the lack of a broad-based educational system here that prevents this trend from following.
Well said, ps. Obviously you are matured enough to know what you want. Wonderful! Enjoy your IB journey.
Yes, at the end of the day, we realise that nowadays there are many different pre-university routes, some of which are shorter and more restrictive, while others are longer and more liberal or broad-based in terms of subject combinations.
Your choice is dependent on your financial position and options opened to you. In Malaysia, options available to you depend on which racial group you are classified as.
For A-level examinations, you have a choice of taking 3 or more subjects. In Singapore, JC2 students have choices: normally 4 A-level subjects, 1 General Paper, and 1 mother-tongue subject; some students may choose to take additional S-papers (from 1 to 3), i.e., JC2 students may take a total of 6, 7, 8, or 9 papers.
Of course, if you are bright and financially disadvantaged and die-die must get into a medical faculty in one of our local public universities, then the matriculation route is obviously the smarter route, rather than the STPM route.
Now you also have the IB route.
People can debate or pass judgement on which route is better or more superior academically. Certainly some routes are obviously more superior in terms of training and diversity, thus preparing the students better for higher performance later, though not guaranteed.
We may make generalized conclusions about various systems, but please bear in mind that there are always exceptions.
Want to do IB, start young, don't see it as a pre-u course, no point, no point. Why? Because you have been educated in a non-IB enviroement so long that you just can't get the benefit of an IB curriculum overnight.
-- Old Man.
In case you didn't know, UCAS tariff points is exactly a conversion of grades to uniform points that can be applied accross the board. Not as what you have said, that what the subject requires of the candidate that matters.
STPM as we all know is much tougher than the domestic and CIE A-levels both in terms of breath and depth, however an 'A' in STPM physics is equivalent to an 'A' A-level physics. That said, I believe that I have already illustrated my case, that you are disagreeing with something that shouldn't be disagreed with.
Again, you're disagreeing without any substantial reason or rather do not know what you're disagreeing with. Yes, NA and the UK has many schools offering the IB but many if not all of these schools are private schools, which means exclusivity. Only those who can afford to pay the fees can take the IB. Sri KDU recently announced that they will be offering IB diploma program. Do you want to know the fees? RM25k per annum, that means RM50k for the entire course for tuition fees alone. How many Malaysians can take this course without having to sell their arms and legs? UWC offers limited scholarships, typically 3 or 4. But how many bright Malaysians can come up with RM100k per year?
If you go to the UK, it's even worse. Local students only need to pay GBP3k per year for their university tuition fees and they are already making so much noise because of that. Do you really expect that the common Briton can afford to take IB?
With accessibility limited to only those who can foot the bill, isn't this called exclusivity?
old man: Yes, you're right. I have been educated in a non-IB environment for 11 years. But that doesn't mean I haven't cultivated IB skills over those 11 years.
1) UCAS tariff: Thank you for informing me about the point conversion. But I still don't understand how they convert the maximum 45 points (not 42, by the way) in IB to 768 in the tariff. Do they consider the Extended Essay, TOK and CAS as 'subjects' too, since 3 bonus marks are awarded for these components? Surely, in determining how many points to award for an 'A' grade at A Level or a '7' score in IB, they must have at one point considered how much a particular subject demands of a candidate. There have been formal studies conducted to compare both syllabi; I find Sevenoaks' study (http://www.sevenoaksschool.org/doc_docs/IB_Courses_21_March.pdf) an enlightening example.
Yes, I am aware of the IB fees in Sri KDU, Mont Kiara, ISKL and UWC, having decided not to go to any of the above unless I garnered a scholarship. But I think you misunderstand me. What I meant to say is that IB only seems exclusive because there is a lack of demand here for a broad-based system. The common Malaysian hasn't even heard of the IB,because school counsellors are unequipped to inform students about the course.
Lack of awareness and education is a bigger obstacle than finance here. Not many Malaysians actually want to do the IB, because they have no idea what it is and thus don't apply for scholarships to do it. Roughly 60-70 people applied for the ISKL and UWC scholarships this year, and most were from the Klang Valley.
So there is little incentive for corporations to look into sponsorship opportunities. No demand, no supply. Only Petronas sends 5 or 6 scholars to UWC every year. The UWC National Committee itself is trying its best to secure more sponsorship - and this year, it raised the bar slightly by sending 7 students to UWC compared the last year's 3. By the way, only one scholar has to pay 100K for the TWO years of IB; the rest pay from approx 90K to virtually nothing.
On a global scale, it's rather unfair to UWC scholars if you say the program is exclusive or elitist. Some UWC students are refugees who strove to obtain their offers. Most are middle class and lower middle class.
As for North America, there are approximately 1,014 schools that offer the IB program. I admit that I have no exact statistics to prove the ratio of state to private institutions, but my point is that the IB is so well-recognized overseas - sadly, Malaysia can't follow suit because there is little information, and therefore little demand. In Britain however, I believe that majority of the schools that run the IB program are STATE-funded (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/06/nucas06.xml). Of course, you may have better sources.
To PS: The common Malaysian is not attracted to IB because the fees are unrealistic. As far as private colleges are concerned, there is no reason to conduct this pre U course. No point to have any product to be supply driven when to be viable, the product must be demand led.
Forgot to sign off ..
Just want to add that in addition to the above, s'times one doesn't really need such broad based education system to get into a degree programme. Then also, FYI a simple one year Australian pre-U matriculation is recognised and qualified to be given a ASEAN undergrad. scholarship.. It all depends on the student's overall attitude and personality in addition to type of education system he/she is from..
You might want to look into this table, taken from UCAS.
Now, A at A-level will earn one 120 points. 6 As and one will get 720 points. If you score a full 7 in all 6 academic subjects in the IB, you will only get 698 points.
Assuming that you did well in the CAS, TOK and the extended essay, you will only get a maximum of 768 points. If one took 6 full A-levels and 1 AS and scored all As, one would get 780 points. Which is already more than the maximum of 768 points.
Also, if one takes some key skills/core skills qualifications and the AEAs one would still earn points. The 3 extras(though compulsory) in IB are similar to the AEAs or the key skills in terms of points recognition.
Do note that if we were to consider what you have said to be true, that UCAS considers how much a subject demands of the students, then from the figures given, IB is 'inferior' to the A-level. Think A=120 UCAS points, 7 points in the IB=~116 UCAS points
Count the number of schools offering the IB in the UK to be certain how many are self-funded.
Yes, UWC is exclusive, don't bring in scholars as they are not required to pay anything. Talk about the multitudes of people out there who are capable of studying at UWC but could not afford it. Running an IB program is not cheap, a school needs to have the recources to run it properly. It is not like the A-level where any institution can register as an exam centre.
I must stress that I'm not finding fault with the IB.
IB is not really accessible to all even in the UK or the US. So there is a bit of exclusivity in the IB. Maybe in the future, things might improve.
Singapore A-level on the other hand embodies what education should be like, good education for all.
On the UCAS tariff, the International Baccalaureate scores are worked out as following:
Higher Level subjects range from 20 points (level 3) to 130 points (level 7). This is because a level 7 (130 UCAS points) is deemed to be just higher than an A at 'A' level (120 UCAS points).
Standard Level subjects range from 13 points (level 3) to 86 points (level 7) This is because a SL subject is deemed to be 2/3 of an 'A' level subject.
TOK and CAS bonus points range from 10 points (0 extra points) to 120 points (3 extra points).
Thus the overall tariff is given on a linear scale, ranging from 280 (24 points) to 768 (45 points). Although, candidates are not given points scores based on individual subjects, but on their final score. The breakdown above how the top score of 45 is made up: 7+7+7+7+7+7+3 is 130+130+130+86+86+86+120=768.
I am a student who just graduated a pre-university course.. Recently, I have compared past papers from IB Chemistry and A levels Chemistry.. In my opinion, the questions given from both papers are similar in terms of the difficulty.. I honestly think that IB students would go through more pressure than A levels students as IB students would have to take 6 subjects + Theory of knowlege, Community and SErvice and 4000 word Extended Essay.. However, the benefits of being an IB student is that they are exposed to a wide range of subjects.. Essentialy widen their areas of knowledge.. Unlike an A level student who would just take only 3/4 subjects of sciences.. Ib students are thaught to think critically in TOK.. and CAS is a good way of encouraging more people to do volunteering especially helping out the needy.. I came across a University website and the requirements for a student doing IB is 38/42 points(which is quite high) and for A levels they require them to have BBB.. This is definitely bias.. IB is such a brilliant programme and soon will take over the A levels..
Much earlier on, one "anonymous" said that the STPM is tougher than the A Levels. It is simply not true. My sense is that the syllabus and questions for STPM require a lot of memory work while for the A levels, there are more thinking type of questions.
Thus, it may seem like the STPM is more difficult, but it is not testing the right stuff. There is really no point in testing memory. The ability to think is more important.
My sympathy lies with the STPM students.
I was in the IB programme about 3 years ago.I found that it was a fun programme with a broad range of subjects.My papers were HL (higher level) Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and SL (standard level) Business and Management, English and Bahasa Melayu.I found that it was quite easy to be accepted in a lot of international universities from the UK,Ireland,Australia,US and New Zealand.I once compare my HL Maths guidebook with an A-Level textbook and I found out we studied more than the A-Level.I am not saying which one is better since I really don't know what A-Level is like but I do recommend IB since it is a really fun programme.
Hi, I'm currently in IB program in my college. And at the same time my college offers A-level program too. From what I observe is that A-level students are extremely relaxed and carefree. Well, I at first saw this as an advantage to them but then again, it's actually a disadvantage. Well you see, they really cannot manage their time pretty well. Trust me, i've seen it. When it comes to lots of work, what they would do is leave them aside first.I'm not saying this to all A-level students, probably some only. IB program however, seriously helps you to manage stress and time. Imagine CAS, Internal Assesment, EE, TOK essay, World lit. Each of this "things" eventually makes you a better person. How?? Take an IB program and feel the difference. I'm not pointing out that the IB program is better than A-level, I'm just saying that it is more helpful to students in long-term. Thats my two cents.
Before giving my opinion on the subject, I would like to point out that I completed the first half of my A-Levels before moving into STPM. I have completed my STPM by taking 5 subjects in Science stream and I have utilized A-Levels, STPM, South Australian Matriculation, and SAT reference materials when studying for STPM.
The reason of my transfer is due to STPM from A-Levels is simply because many have said that STPM is hard and I wanted to take up the challenge. Truth be said, both STPM and A-Levels are just too damn easy.
Both focuses only on the written examination while I find the practical paper as a marketing tool. The reason being that the skills taught in the practical paper are far from sufficient to conduct simple experiments in a truly controlled environment.
Not only that, the syllabus is focused on scientific knowledge that has been used by the scientific community for over a hundred years. What good is this to the students from the 21st century? Malaysians whom are masters of their respective fields of study are the small group of people who did the HSC(High School Certificate) and were granted scholarships to prestigious universities in the UK. That same syllabus is simplified and is taught to students today, both in STPM and A-Levels.
From what I know about SAT, it is a speed based examination; the STPM, a heavy syllabus examination; the A-Levels, a logic oriented examination; and the IB, a wider subject spectrum examination. All of this Pre-University courses are simply insufficient for that student to excel in their career in the near future. No street-smart skill is ever focused on any of this course, except the IB which integrates little social skills into the syllabus.
In terms of syllabus coverage, especially in the science courses, no Pre-University course is complete. Courses like SAM, AUSMAT, VC, Canadian Pre-U and a few others should not be the required qualification for engineering, medical, and other pure science courses. Science subjects like astronomy. geography, social sciences, and philosophy are no longer taught to the general science students.
My comments on these Pre-University courses are negative because the syllabus and teaching style of these courses are not enough for a student to be excellent in their subject. Mediocre knowledge in science will be their downfall when they pursue a career in science.
Therefore, I suggest students to study way more than required regardless of the Pre-U course taken as the syllabus is not sufficient. In addition to that, I recommend part time working while undertaking any Pre-U course to gain some street-smart skills that will be useful in University. Immaturity in university is simply not tolerable but it is part of the consequences from recent education system.
I have already acquired a reasonably high status in terms of academic qualification and have studied under many senior lecturers globally. My comment is based on my observation and from these handful of ex-Malaysians that are masters in their field of study.
Written By: George Smith
Well, I think that the IB programme currently produces more consistent students. Rather than being a purely exam-based format, like the A-levels, it focuses on consistently working throughout the course, not just at the end.
And of course there's the wider range of subjects, as well as the 3 core components, TOK, EE and CAS. Just my opinion, but students who want a course that prepares them more for university life should consider IB. Ultimately though, remember that it's just a pre-university course - in the end, A-levels or IB, it's up to the student to do well, and if he/she does, then they'll go far either way.
Check out this free resource for Edexcel A-Level Economics students:
May I say thank you for allowing the rest of us to learn from your animated debate about the pre university courses. Previously, a comment was made that the IB was elitist. It was expensive and not many could get in.
There is a new underdog in town. Fairview International School KL has just launched an IB diploma program and it costs much less than the 50k++ mark the rest charge at. look it up!
hey there. do you have to take pure science in high school to be an IB student ? please reply ASAP. thank you!
Nope. IB students often have many subjects in many areas. Its quite different from simple streaming. check out this page. http://fairviewfoundationscholarship.pbworks.com/w/page/32374993/FrontPage
It is interesting & valuable, that's great.. The blog seems to be interesting....
Post a Comment