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)

Name change

Does anyone know why the name of the article has changed twice in the last few days? Just curious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[4] ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I saw that. But why? Was it vandalism, or intentional? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Guess you'll have to ask them! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See here. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was changed unilaterally by a user who had been warned about doing this type of thing. It destroyed the archives and the to do list. I requested a revert so we get the archives and to do list back. A sysop helped me. It was clearly intentional but I think it was in good faith ... but without consultation was inappropriate. However, the perp got a limited ban. --Candy (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the archive bot is not functioning and needs to be re-set. I don't know how to do this, so I hope someone will look into this. Thanks, La mome (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

defend similarities

Tvor65 - since you are so quick to revert my edit, please share with everyone the similarities between the French Bac, the European bac and IB. In fact, I would love to hear your reasoning for including either of those Bacs, especially when the European Bac article specifically states: It is awarded only by the fourteen European Schools and should be distinguished from the International Baccalaureate (IB) and the baccalaureate of various national systems Furthermore, the French Bac was established under Napoleon and is extremely nationalistic. Referring readers to those two Bacs is simply not WP:notable and implies that they have something in common with IB. They don't. United World Colleges do. ObserverNY (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ah! Whoever Colonel Warden is, I find that to be an acceptable substitution. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the French Baccalaureate, it is their national (not nationalistic) exam for university entrance. They list the International Baccalaureate under their “See also” section along with the European Baccalaureate. They also have a list of other national exit (or university entrance) exams under the section “Compare.” The French also have their own "French International Baccalaureate." If you compare the French bac and the French international bac, you will see many similarities between those examination systems and the IBDP. You'll also note that it has changed since Napoleon's time.

I think we should have either "See also" or "Compare" (or both?) at the end of the IBDP, with links to other national and international university entrance exams, as opposed to the link to the list of exams. One of the problems I see with linking to that list is that the IBDP is listed only under Europe, where it is really found around the world. That list could change or be deleted without our input or knowledge. I'd rather we decide what should be listed as comparative to the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Tvor65 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As a new (welcome!) and previously uninvolved editor in this article, I think Col. Warden's edit is sufficient. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• In a British context, the IB is usually discussed as an alternative to the Advanced level of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (A-level) and there is now a competing national Diploma qualification for 14-19 olds which is confusingly just referred to as The Diploma. If we start listing all these specific national alternatives then we will recreate the list in question. Better to just use the list and improve it if needed. I have created an International section in that list to address the point made above. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the International section. I suppose we should add the French International Diploma and the AP International Diploma to that section as well. So that solves one problem, but there are others. In linking to the list, are we suggesting that the American GEDis equivalent to the IBDP?

La mome (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The items on the list are equivalent in that they all constitute secondary school leaving certificates. ObserverNY (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In any case, we're not suggesting an exact academic equivalence. See also is just a list of topics which a reader might reasonably find useful as being generally similar or related but which haven't been mentioned in the body. If we have something to say about qualifications which are specifically accepted as equivalent or antecedent to the IB then this would best go in the article proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If topics that are generally similar are in the "see also" then I'd agree that the other bacs should be included w/ IBDP. See the "see also" on the Matura here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

TK - The "other bacs" are on the list. Also, I notice you added the IB logo. Was there a consensus that it meets WP:FU? ObserverNY (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I didn't add the logo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The logo was added to the IB series box and appears in all the IB series entries. La mome (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to TK for the mis-attribution, I read your "added image" edit and neglected to look further. I see someone totally unrelated to our discussion made the logo edit [5] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - the chateau picture adds a nice touch of elitism to the page. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I can take out the Chateau as the logo was added almost simultaneously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the chateau! Hey, did you know "Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf" went there? Interesting bit of trivia, no? La mome (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you leave it in or take it out. I happen to like pictures on the Wikipedia articles. I think it serves to enforce the IB's elitist snob image. If that's what you want to project, fine with me. But since both images were added without any discussion, I guess I can assume that this is a new manner of editing? ObserverNY (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So, how do we go about finding images that don't reinforce the elitist snob image that a chateau provides? Btw, did you know that Ronald M. George went there too? La mome (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to respond. I thought I'd find an image of Ecolint as the history section has space to support an image. The image of the Chateau was the nicest of the images and as it happens that's where many of the meetings took place during the early years. I added the image and poof! the logo popped up as well. A new manner of editing? I tend to make changes and respond to comments. So if there's a problem with the image in the history section, by all means comment, or even delete if you want. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

GA discussion

Here's an image that's been uploaded. Does it pass FUR? If so, then it could be added to the template.

There was contention about describing the programme: is it a pre-university course of study, or not? Thus the cluster of citations in the lead -- though those could be removed and then added to the article body if everyone agrees. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CW - I am of the opinion that placing the IB logo on the page is a violation of WP:FU specifically as it refers to: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In the case of a Wikipedia article, the use of the IB logo is promotion for an expensive programme. Schools pay big money to be able to "use" the IB logo and a Wikipedia article should not stand as an advertisement for any organization. For example, you do not see a College Board logo on the Advanced Placement article. We used to have IB's mission statement in a pretty blue box, but I don't know what happened to that.

As to the cites in the WP:LEAD, I remember a dispute about the 16-19 year old thing and the fact that students must be enrolled in an IB school to participate. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to be clear -- the image I posted was uploaded by another editor a year ago, and I believe has been used on these articles in the past.

Also, this diff shows the reason for the cluster of cites in the lead. Unable to agree, or in the process of edit warring, some editors were using multiple cites for verification. In my view, the article is not stable enough for GAR, but input from independent editors would be welcome, so for that reason a GAR isn't out of the question. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because another editor inserted the logo previously and had it subsequently removed (where's the reason for removal?) doesn't mean it constitutes WP:FU. Furthermore, it would appear that the particular dif TK cited dealt more with the insertion of the subjective adjective "demanding" than with the age disagreement. ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Except as you have been previously informed ObserverNY, words like expensive (or cheap) are subjective and pejorative terms so it doesn't assist in creating a discussion - no matter how much original research you throw in. --Candy (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the CB and IB are both non-profit organisations. Regarding the logo, the College Board logo is used on the College Board page. The question is whether the IBDP should have the logo of its parent organisation on the page. Comparing the IBDP to the AP article isn't really a good yardstick to base a rationale for the IBDP article. The AP and CB articles seem to need a lot of work. --Candy (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts/comments:

1. I think what TK was saying is that there was a logo for a while, which is still on the IB page. The question is, does it belong on both pages? And if yes, what about the other IB pages in the IB series? I agree that there should be an image near the lead paragraph.

2. Citation 3 was added to support the addition of the word "demanding" as the IBDP has been described as challenging, rigorous, demanding, etc... Since the word "demanding" is no longer there, the citation can be removed, imo. Then we would need only one of the remaining two, if at all, to support the description of the IBDP. The IBDP has also been described as a "college-prep" programme. That works for Americans, but not for others around the world, where "college" does not necessarily mean "university." It was suggested to use "pre-university" but then refuted that all HS courses are "pre-university." It is difficult to describe anything without using adjectives. The problem is that someone pointed out that it needs to be stated early on that the IBDP is more (pick one) difficult/challenging/rigorous/demanding than an average HS programme of study.

3. I don't think anyone contested that students need to attend an IBDP school in order to participate in the IBDP. There was mention of the online courses, that would be opened up to students not attending an IB school, but that is a future event, and only certain courses are offered, not a full slate needed to complete the requirements of the programme. The other dispute involved the use of "must be enrolled in" vs "must attend," but no citations were added for that.

4. I think it would be a good idea to invite other editors in to clear up these issues. If nominating the article as a GA is an option, I am all for it.

La mome (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

To provide some focus for our further efforts and get more independent input, I suggest that we nominate the article as a Good article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a lovely suggestion. You have my support. ObserverNY (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In terms of independent input and focus, a good idea.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Checking it before nomination, there may be a couple of issues:

a) The article seems overcited, having citations in the lead, which ought to be a summary of cited points made in the body. Some of these citations occur in clusters. Do these represent points of contention?

b) The article could perhaps benefit from an image at top right. I suppose that most relevant material is copyright. Perhaps the IB logo would be acceptable fair use. Has this been considered before?

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Recognition section

I was cleaning up the recognition section (not that I like it much) and I realised that it isn't a recognition section. It's a recognition and how many schools there are in each country.

What abut we remove reference to the number of schools in each country? This is a list we can't efficiently keep up to date with and I see it as beyond the scope of what is encyclopaedic. People can get that info from the IB website. Actually, hang that, I'll delete those refs now and see what it looks like. Someone can revert if they feel they need to and we can discuss. --Candy (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did that. Then I thought I'd see if I could find cites for recognition. It turns out the IB web site has these as well. I looked at the Austrian one [6] and wondered how on earth that will be condensed for the table. Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• If reliable sources can be found the "Recognition" section should describe how Universities value the IBDP compared with national qualifications. IMO removing content about the number of schools was a good call. - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (explanation follows)

1. Recognition by Universities is definitely of interest to parents: I've just come back from Oxford's alumni weekend where there was palpable frustration from middle-aged graduates about how much harder it was for their children to excel in the IBDP (compared with GCE A levels) and that they felt colleges didn't sufficiently appreciate this. We were seated randomly at my college's dinner but the couple next to me said their son was rejected for PPE in Dec 2008 with 42 points predicted and achieved 44 points (with 7 for HL Economics). Of course, one bright individual might mess up the TSA and/or interview but in my small circle there were other Oxbridge examples: rejected by Oxford with 42 points predicted and achieved 45 points, and accepted by Cambridge with a 45 point offer (achieved!) that to my mind indicates a lack of understanding of how well the IBDP prepares students for the demands of higher-level education.

2. The count of schools by country didn't belong in "Recognition" and anyway it is very difficult to get a meaningful figure: at one end of the spectrum there are schools like KCS and Sevenoaks in the UK where the IBDP is the only 16+ option and at the other there are those who offer/will offer/previously offered it as an option. The IB website doesn't distinguish between such cases. - written by Pointillist

1. I also think removing the number of schools was a good move. This info is easily found on the IBO site and is hard to keep up-to-date.

2. I think the info on recognition is useful but it does require a lot of work; much of it lacks citations. I suggest also that we return to the text/list form, which is easier to edit than a table (does not matter for me but may be intimidating for new editors) and which it was until ONY decided one day to convert it to a table. Anyway, these are my two cents.Tvor65 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:forum. ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions? Tvor65 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of any clean up for the so called recognition section. Also, in favour of converting to text if editing the table causes difficulty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are all in agreement on scrapping the number of schools in each country as readers can search for that themselves, I recommend the same logic be followed for scrapping the entire "recognition" section and condensing the section to a one line reference directing readers here: [7] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And I ABSOLUTELY object to this edit by Candorwein [8] which oh so slyly removes the IB schools in Iran, Pakistan and other countries and gives WP:undue weight to others. Scrap the whole thing. ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please relax, ONY - it appears that Candy removed all countries for which there was no university recognition info. If you've got that info for Iran or Pakistan, go ahead and include it. Otherwise, there is no point in including these until such info becomes available.Tvor65 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid ONY that calling me sly is not an appropriate word to use for what are entirely open actions. If you can't assume good faith then you are not welcome here. It seems your various bans have done little to improve your manners. Please read what Tvor65 (talk) wrote immediately above and read my comment on this edit which states that countries were removed. [[9]] --Candy (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein - I did not call YOU sly, I called your EDIT sly: ...object to this edit by Candorwein [10] which oh so slyly. Please learn the difference and either restore the table as it was until consensus is reached on what to do or eliminate the section completely. ObserverNY (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier.

La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the one to mention it and it is already done. ObserverNY (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict) Candy mentioned it first. I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities.La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – table deleted - ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Candorwein linked a specific country, I linked the search directory and made the change. ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYObserverNY (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY - First of all it's not appropriate of you to start telling me what to do with edits which are fully documented. Secondly, your comment about my edit being sly is certainly inappropriate. The edit was sly; that was sly editing. Same thing. You still don't seem to be able to work in a friendly manner do you? I also do not have to restore the table or delete the section. It's not appropriate for you to demand things of me. It's been opened for discussion. I see your ban has not improved your civility. --Candy (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

...Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, Candy.

Thanks, La mome (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the best solution is, since I certainly see Candy's point about maintaining the information and keeping it current. But, if we're going to delete the table, I would suggest that we save it in its current form, perhaps in TK's sandbox (which has an earlier form of the table, but not the current one, I believe). That way, if we should ever decide we want it back in again, we don't need to rebuild it--we can just copy it and modify as necessary. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well...I guess I'm a little behind the times, since the table is already gone. It might be a good idea to go back to a previous version of the page and save all of that work somewhere now--trying to do it later would be a much bigger hassle than doing it now. Anyway... • CinchBug • 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cinchbug. Surely, the table is permanently (well as permanently as wikipedia is here) stored in the history? Simply viewing an earlier revision means that we can extract the wiki code. I agree that it can be a hassle to find things when many months have passed though. Shame there isn't some sort of simple revision log available for edit pages which shows major deletions and additions along with dates.

However, I would have liked more of a discussion about it to be honest as I had flagged up.

Candy, yes, it's true that we can always retrieve the table, if necessary. But I agree that more discussion would have been nice. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were considering converting to text and not eliminating the table altogether. I've been very busy, but when I have the chance will stash the most current version of the table in my sandbox in case we decide to have a proper discussion about the edit. In my view a link to the IB website isn't sufficient -- in fact we already link to the IB website in the external links. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memories: Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier. La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Talk about beating a dead horse! ObserverNY (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Maybe I should have added "...and start all over again." I also said this-"I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities." La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think that the recognition section the way it appears now is complete.La mome (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was an agreement on removing the table. Converting it back to text and improving its content were discussed, and Candy already started working on the latter when ONY deleted it. As I said before, I think that info was useful.Tvor65 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful to whom? The WP:notable portion of the topic, 75 countries and 2500+ universities is listed. Wikipedia is not a college search directory for IB. ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY