Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reception section

In my view, the Reception section was fairly balanced until recently, if rather long. Now ONY added a "newsy" item of a school in UK that has decided. Of course, for each such school one could add several others that have decided to adopt the program, but isn't that a little ridiculous? Are we going to keep adding on to this section to balance ONY's additions? Why is a school that drops the program (among many schools that keep it) suddenly an encyclopedic content? Tvor65 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is encyclopaedic content. Just because it happens to be current content on an article that can be updated daily, doesn't mean you have the right to remove it on the grounds that YOU think it gives undue weight. You want to add some more CURRENT positive reception about IB? By all means. Be my guest. Your vigilance in attempting to censor what can be added to IB articles is destructive, unwelcoming and biased. ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to this, information about one school is not encyclopedic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

TK - according to this: WP:Undue Weight Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. With the inclusion of my recent edit, there are now 10 positive and 10 negative lines cited under reception. Therefore, the reception section is now balanced. ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm with Truth on this. Just to add on top of what he wrote, the school in question isn't even notable enough to have its own article on here. So that text is really not worthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree as above, seems undue. A pure mathematical formula shouldn't be used to establish neutrality. Dayewalker (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Quoting from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." What you have added is not prevalent enough for an encyclopedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who's the new editor? Do I have to go search to see if one of you dragged him/her over here? If you want to keep the most recent "Reception" restricted to 2008 and never update the IBDP article to include a 2009 cite, so be it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Dayewalker - Welcome. Your user page indicates you pride yourself on being a master of neutrality. You should be aware that I am the only long standing editor to this article who represents the "minority" opinion regarding this educational program. My edit does not include any personal opinion, but is evidence of a recent ousting of the IBDP at a private school in the UK where the programme was previously politically promoted by Tony Blair. It is significant as there has been a change in the education commissioner there, and reflects parental and student distaste for the programme. The IBDP is considered by many to be a "fringe" educational program, with only 670 public and private schools in the entire U.S., a third of its global total. I respectfully request that you allow Wikipedia readers to see that not all schools that have adopted IB are thrilled with it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, if you can find multiple credible sources stating that schools are dropping the IB programme, then that would be fine. But building your case school by school is not fine, at least not here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ok Truthkeeper. I'm done with you folks at Wikipedia. I leave you with this video produced by an IB student. Listen carefully. Follow the math. Hear his message. I'm doing my part to try and spread the truth about IB. I am not alone. I feel this student's pain.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9u89HMtMwc

Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it isn't the place to grind your axe. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place that emboldens the Left to censor the truth. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain FACT. This student's documented international K-12 IB experience is FACT. As I said before, I cannot change the minds of those whose are closed to FACTS that don't support their beliefs. I know I cannot change the minds of those who are beholden to IB. My presence here was to try and bring to the average Wikipedia reader, representation of FACTS about this program in an article that previously read as an advertisement for IB. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advertisement. It is supposed to tell the good, the bad and the ugly about people, historical events, organizations, etc. I did my best. Au revoir. ObserverNY (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In truth, I think the video has some facts that are worth including in the article, such as the fact that students have one year to re-take tests and that students must re-take tests at a school in which they are enrolled. Also, the in issue of cheating and the consequences thereof might also be worthy of inclusion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source to say it. Some video made by a guy who was slighted by IB isn't reliable. There is no problem with showing both sides of the argument for IB, as long as we do it through reliable sources. And Observer, take your complaints about leftist censorship elsewhere; I recommend Conservapedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the youtube isn't reliable, but in my view, using reliable sources, it is worth considering adding the consequences of cheating on internal assessments or exams. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if you do pursue that, have at it. But keep in mind, this student was charged with COLLUSION, something he has never heard of, not cheating. ObserverNY (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper, "the fact that students have one year to re-take tests and that students must re-take tests at a school in which they are enrolled. " Not certain that is correct TK. Students can sit their re-sits at another IB Diploma school given sufficient notice to that school is my understanding.I agree that may be some merit in an inclusion of the consequences of academic dishonesty. I guess I'll watch the video and see if I come back enlightened. --Candy (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey now I have watched it I'm not impressed I'm afraid. A student that "accidentally" sends his IA to his partner makes him guilty of collusion which is academic dishonesty as their reports are very similar? I have to say, I find it difficult to swallow that he thinks this is OK! The rest is just a bitter tirade. In fact he confuses the exam and the IA and the reasons why he has to be enrolled in his previous school (this is someone who has already been guilty of malpractice and now wants to submit his IA with no oversight by his teachers - go figure that one). This is someone who his school (yes his school has to pass this on to the IB) has deemed guilty of malpractice and the IB has agreed. So, the IB didn't rob him of the Diploma he was never awarded it. His school clearly also believed he shouldn't receive the Diploma. Sorry, not worthy of more comment or inclusion. Certainly not a valid source of anything for Wikipedia. However, TK was right we should investigate and perhaps add a art on academic honesty. --Candy (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would therefore hard to find it difficult to believe that his school had not informed him of the IB's academic honesty policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 September 2009

The youtube video itself is not worthy of inclusion. In my view, being allowed to retake the exam, despite academic dishonesty is very generous. In any event, a phrase, a sentence at most, devoted to academic integrity and the consequences of cheating perhaps is worth adding to the "Awards" section. Ha, striking what I've just written, the "Awards" section does address plagiarism. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like to question is where this sort of text belongs: on this page, or on the main IB page. Or any of the other pages... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conley study

[1] Thought this might be worthy of inclusion. La mome (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it definitely should be included. Nice find, LaMome.Tvor65 (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

© 2009 Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC)

Do not reproduce or redistribute without permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.103 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The study can be used as a source as long as it's properly cited and referenced. It's neither being reproduced or redistributed here at Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This will take some time to read, but it looks very interesting, and yes, should be included -- perhaps in the "Reception" section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that convenient. No standards for History. Imagine that. I wonder if EPIC got grant money to conduct that "homework" for IB that IBO should have done 40 years ago?ObserverNY (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To cite this report:

Conley, D., Ward, T. (2009). Summary Brief: International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project. Educational Policy Improvement Center, Eugene, Oregon.

From the report-“The Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards are a comprehensive set of standards describing what university faculty expect in entry-level students. ….: http://www.s4s.org/cepr.uus.php.” …

“The IB standards are highly aligned with the KSUS standards indicating that students who learn the IB curriculum in high school enter college with the type of knowledge and skills not only expected by college faculty but also with skills known to promote academic success in entry-level courses.”…

“The results of this study clearly confirm the strong relationship between the IB Diploma Programme and standards for college readiness and success. The IB standards demonstrate a very high degree of alignment with the KSUS standards in all subject areas. In addition, many of the individual IB standards are at a level more advanced than entry-level college courses. Furthermore, the IB standards address key cognitive strategies that are critical to success in entry-level college courses. These key cognitive skill areas are rarely addressed in state content standards but are identified almost universally by college instructors as being central to success in entry-level college courses. In short, students who participate successfully in IB should be well prepared to succeed in entry-level college general education courses and in some cases to have already learned material covered in such courses.”

La mome (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"All subjects"?? You mean history, even though most US.. high schools require 4 years of SS, isn't a subject? The report is garbage and any sort of inclusion of the above would be WP:UNDUE ObserverNY (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please be more specific about your claim that the report is "garbage." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The report opens with a biased premise. IB supplied IB teachers to "collude" to try and "establish" some "standards" for something that claims to already be an "internationally standardized curriculum". Who knows who funded EPIC to conduct the project? And excluding the most "controversial" of IB's core subjects is clearly a means to obfuscate the area where the "curriculum" is most abused and least recognized by universities. The whole thing is bogus! ObserverNY (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This appears to be a valid study and the organization is affiliated with a university. The first part of the study was to determine the content of the IB curricula for which IB teachers and staff were consulted; then a second study was conducted in which university faculty compared the IB curricula to college materials. Perhaps you didn't scroll down and read the methodologies used in the second, independent study. The only concern I have is that the second study is US centric and thus can only be used for the US portion of this article or for reception. But using as a source stating the aims of the curricula its a fine source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So what? Bill Ayers is affiliated with the University of Chicago. Does that make his whacko politics legitimate? ObserverNY (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So what? Thomas Sowell is affiliated with Stanford University. Does that make his opinions legitimate? Regards, • CinchBug • 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, welcome back, Observer. In case you forgot in your thirty-six hour absence, this page is meant for the discussion to stay on topic. Let's keep it that way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Cinchbug, Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist and a true American, not a domestic terrorist. There's a difference.

HA - I'm not editing your precious IB articles. Merely commenting on a junk "project" which all of you hypocritically have no problem suggesting for Reception with total disregard for WP:UNDUE But you go load up these articles with all the garbage you predicted I would add if y'all stopped editing. Let's see how much biased dung you can fill it with. Ready, set, go! I have to get up early, 9/12 is tomorrow! ObserverNY (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The study is a significant viewpoint and a reliable source, so nothing undue about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY (say whaaat?!) just said above and as you have been reminded many times before please stay on the topic, use the talk pages for improvement of the article and not as a blog. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, you seem to have missed my point: The reference to Ayers suggests a logical fallacy: "My car is red. My unreliable phone is red. Therefore my car is unreliable like my phone." This has nothing to do with Bill Ayers--or Thomas Sowell--and the fact that an individual might be associated with a university has no bearing on the issue at hand. It also has nothing to do with whether or not this report is affiliated with a university. (TK, by the way, in reading the report, I didn't find a reference to any particular university. Could you point out a page number for me, since I seem to be missing it? Thanks.) To help determine whether or not this report is worthy of inclusion in this IB article, we should look at, for example, the other things that ERIC has done as an organization to determine if they appear to have any particular bias, or at other studies conducted by the authors. But to blindly dismiss the report as "garbage" just because it doesn't conform to your viewpoint would make no sense--likewise, assuming that the report is valid because it conforms to another viewpoint would make no sense. Regards, • CinchBug • 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked up David Conley. The studies he's done are for AP as well as IB and his book would also be considered a valid source, but haven't looked to see if it's available to read online. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

TK, oh, okay, I see. I'll take a look at that stuff. Thanks! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioning some statements

Under Curriculum is the following partial statement, "While the IB encourages students to pursue the full IB diploma, ..." The references linked don't state this and I have no evidence that this is true. Is there a citation for this? --Candy (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Try wading through this discussion, it might explain why the multiple refs. Of course, since then the section may also have been changed so the text no longer matches the refs. Don't know how helpful this is. Probably add to the list of sections to be worked on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't wade through this. One look at it reminded me how incoherent and off track those discussions were. I added to the To Do list as you implied. FYI the reason I suggest the removal of links to [2]is that the document itself specifies that the web pages at the IBO be used as the guide (the pdf if from 2002 as well so would only have an historical significance). --Candy (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved "Back to UWC" to archive #8. I think the bot would not archive it because there was no time stamp. La mome (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein: "As with any new venture, Miles Macdonell has experienced its share of challenges. These challenges included maintaining staff commitment to the full Diploma Programme rather than encouraging interests in individual subjects and making sure the IB programme is an inclusive program that involves the entire school, teachers, and students. http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionpacks/documents/CaseStudy-Canada_Diploma.pdf. I suppose one could argue that the above is merely the philosophy of this one particular school, however the document is hosted on the IBO website. Hope this helps. ObserverNY (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

UK perspective

[3] … “But Dr Geoff Parks, director of admissions at the University of Cambridge, says that when it comes to tutors making tough calls on borderline applicants, students taking the IB stand a better chance than their A-level counterparts of getting an offer. "Because the IB differentiates better than A-levels, (at present – the introduction of the A* grade may change this), if we are hesitating about making an offer at all, we would be more likely to make an offer to an IB student than an A-level student," he says.”... Just wondering if we can use this. Is the Independent a valid source? --Cheers-- La mome (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. But if we refer to that article we should also mention the downsides that it covers. I think the basic point is that conditional offers couched in terms of IB points are more demanding than offers in terms of GCE A levels (because AAA at A Level is only about 37 IB points, and e.g. most offers from Oxford are around 40 IB points), so when a school changes from A level to IB that is one of the issues parents need to be aware of. It is a bit hard to explain this using just this Independent article. Perhaps I will find some more references to go with it, though I'm afraid this is a very busy period right now so I can't contribute much. - Pointillist (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see the issue ... it's a bit like a vogue. ATM the Diploma has a high street cred and obviously also a high value with UK universities regarding acceptance and equivalence. The reference is also valid.

However, the real question is what we should be including in this article. IMHO, ONY pushed these articles to include as wide a base as possible to push POV. I question whether these sorts of statements from one country (ie UK .. and yes I accept it is a quality University) really enhance an article which should be grounded in the academic programme and its acceptance internationally. Perhaps some sort of consensus is needed to decide really how the article develops regarding the main topics/characteristics?

In the meanwhile, I have no objection to its inclusion in the current framework. It's just the overall framework I am concerned about.--Candy (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Candy. In my view, consensus is needed to decide what to do with the article, section by section. Decide what to change, what to add, what to delete, etc. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me if the article avoids getting into specifics about acceptance in individual countries – I just felt it would misleading to quote only one side of the Independent article. Before all the drama happened I had intended to do basic wikignoming (tidying up details and fixing references) here and I still have various useful IBDP materials to hand, including various guides, statistics on results, etc. Let me know if I can help. - Pointillist (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding result statistics would be informative. Petersen's book has statistics from the very early years (which we don't necessarily have to add) which made me think that expanding the assessment section w/ statistics might be useful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding statistics is a good idea. I won't be around for awhile, but I might be able to do some editing next weekend. And when I say editing, I mean adding stuff here first for discussion/consideration for conclusion. I have no problem if someone else wants to add info I post here into the article. I am all for collaboration, and don't assume ownership of anything I contribute on the talk page.

The Conley study and the Independent article would only be appropriately added to the reception section (I think), which I am not completely convinced should remain as it is. Ditto for the countries chart. Perhaps if they were combined...just thinking out loud. (Conley added to US and Independent added to UK---and then going into the reception and parsing it out, possibly.) We do have a to-do list, but maybe it needs to be prioritized. I agree with Pointillist that, if added, the Independent article should show both sides of the UK perspective, which I think it does very nicely.

La mome (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)