Talk:International Baccalaureate

Organization

"The IB is a nonprofit organization,[22] selling its products and services to schools in a system analogous to a franchise network. Schools buy products and services from the IB – assessments, publications, the right to use branding – and in turn schools act as distributors, reselling the products and services to families.[23]"

The comparison to a franchise seems very odd. I don't see this as different than what College Board does with AP, or pretty much how it works when contracting with any educational organization or company. I don't see the same sort of wording on the College Board / AP articles. I don't believe the comparison is appropriate without the same sort of wording being used on other pages related to educational programs. It sounds as if it is significantly different from how agreements with other organizations/companies; of my knowledge, it isn't significantly different. As such, this passage seems misleading.

--2600:1700:2E4F:2C00:607F:26BD:94B4:11FF (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

IB admits marking guides plagiarized from Wikipedia, pledges inquiry

From the TES:

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6060245

--TS 20:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if this is not getting as much attention as it deserves; does anyone else feel that something needs to be done about this? I don't know enough about the legal consequences of plagiarism so I am unable to suggest any action to be taken; perhaps someone who knows enough about this can fill in the gap. I would truly be saddened to see that an organization which so strongly emphasizes the importance of academic integrity has gotten away with so blatantly committing a violation of this caliber. I have seen the plagiarized documents and it is quite shocking to see how much of what was sold by the IB to numerous educational institutes around the world is actually the work of Wikipedia editors -- almost completely word for word. If I get the chance, I will upload these documents and put up a link for others to see. Also if anyone thinks that this should be brought to the attention of Wikimedia then I would appreciate any suggestions for contacting their personnel as I have yet to find an appropriate person to contact. User:MONODA (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that if anyone is interested, I can provide more information on the topic as I am in contact with a few of the members involved in uncovering this "scandal." It's ironic how the IB does not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate source for papers that students write yet would find it fitting to use it for its own economic growth. User:MONODA (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this from Tony's utalk page. You can bring it to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation but it's unlikely (IMO) they'll get involved, since they don't actually own the copied material. It is we, the individual editors, who own copyright in the creative material we ourselves have published here. Now an individual editor could certainly pursue legal action if their material has been copied without attribution for monetary gain. If they have the 100,000 dollars or pounds or euros to even get within smelling distance of an actual court trial. And of course copyvio is not a criminal offence (as commented elsewhere) it is a civil offence. And a statutory offence no less, since there really are no tort damages to speak of when you feely contribute material - so the judge is just going to say "you win, you get $1000 as mandated by the statute, have a nice day". Unattributed copying from Wikipedia (and from everywhere else too) happens all the time, it is unfortunate ranging to despicable, but I seriously doubt WMF will get involved to any serious degree.

We have enough problems of our own too with plagiarism and copyvio, with only a few volunteers willing to tackle the endless tide (see WP:CCI and hooray for User:Moonriddengirl!!!). Externally though, on its face this looks pretty blatant, so do feel free to pursue it off-site. You could also open a discussion thread, probably at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) to see if there is wider interest in pursuing the matter. Other than that, and just my own opinion - shrugs... Franamax (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not really anything for Wikipedia to fuss about, but it may belong in this article. --TS 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Brisbane Times:

• http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/education/marking-aids-copied-from-net-20101021-16w5f.html

--TS 11:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't, I think, fit neatly into the "Reception" section, but might with a bit of re-work. The TES article also mentions that "The news follows last month’s public naming and shaming of Jeffrey Beard, IBO director general, for plagiarising the work of another educationalist in a speech without acknowledging his source." I appreciate that there's a difference between the two events, but it might a way to segue something in to the article. TFOWR 11:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sideaway. It may belong in the article. It needs some careful positioning and wording to avoid the two spectrum ends (IB bad, plagiarism rife <---> IB pick up on plagiarism quickly - hurrah!). Hi, TFOWR - The Jeffrey Beard one was a major clanger! What's not reported though is that Beard plagiarised work by Ken Robinson who himself had not acknowledged one of his own quotes as being adapted from Yeats! Candy (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the creation of a "Criticism" section would be appropriate here. In addition to discussing this it could also mention other criticisms of the IB in general. User:MONODA (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Great work getting the IB plagiarism incidents into this article. I'm impressed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.38.139 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's plagiarism if an educational institution copies information from Wikipedia for course purposes. That is what Wikipedia is all about, information sharing. If a student copies information verbatim into a paper he/she is writing for marks, without attribution to Wikipedia, that would be plagiarism, but educational institutions and teachers should be able to copy specific information freely without the lawyers and media getting into a tizzy about where it comes from. Under Canadian copyright law, for instance, educators and students are allowed to copy entire encyclopedia articles verbatim for educational purposes (although not entire encyclopedias), and Wikipedia explicitly licenses and encourages readers to copy shareable information. When I put something in a Wikipedia article, I assume that people are going to copy anything I write, and that's why I put it there. I've edited hundreds of articles and I neither expect nor want attribution. I just want to share information that I know with other people that need it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC) ... I accidentally posted this to the Article rather than Talk. Sorry about that.... The hazards of having too many windows open at once.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Centers

Is there any difference between the Global Center in Bethesda and the Regional IBA Center in the same city? --Мурад 97 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Baccalaureate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090904104933/http://www.post-gazette.com:80/pg/06047/656217.stm to http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06047/656217.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Schools Offering International Baccalaureate

I suggest that this section is removed.

The reason is that there are currently over 4500 schools offering one or more IB programmes and the list provided barely scratches that surface. Instead a link can be added to the IB's Find a World School which would benefit the reader more as it would provide far more current and relevant data than can be found on Wikipedia. This link can be added through prose in the text together with relevant, cited information about the IB's claim for the number of schools. I further suggest that this is trivial criteria for a list in this wiki entry. It will also prevent the section being used as a promotional page for schools, organisations or individuals. The revision history shows that multiple people edit this by adding one school.

If I don't hear a good argument for retention, I will be bold :D

Candy (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the external links, reduced the list to those schools that already have an en-wikipedia article, divided into columns, and added the link to the full list - I think this is manageable - Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Candy. Leave the external link. The lists look ridiculous. -Observer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.195.176 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Baccalaureate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ibo.org/announcements/2014/ibcp.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018045327/http://www.ibo.org/ibcc/framework/ to http://www.ibo.org/ibcc/framework/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907145642/http://ibo.org/ibap/news/documents/ib-aim-moa-malaysia-2013-press-vFinal.pdf to http://www.ibo.org/ibap/news/documents/ib-aim-moa-malaysia-2013-press-vFinal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Split of "Schools Offering International Baccalaureate"

I believe that this section should be split into a list article, something like List of International Baccalaureate Schools. It is currently very long, and doesn't seem to serve a purpose for people reading the article; therefore it would be more useful as a separate article, where readers looking for such a list will find it. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I didn't agree with this in January 2017, but the list has since grown from about 200 schools to about 700, so I think it is now time for it to be split off. - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a WP:RFC matter, please use Template:Split and follow the directions at WP:SPLIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the list be titled "List of International Baccalaureate World Schools"? They are called IB World Schools. — bieχχ (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

2020 Grading Scheme Allegations

I believe that adding this so called "scandal" is mandatory for the future IB students and their parents that are planning to enrol their students into the program. I also believe that it should not be censored at all, as the IB have mostly kept quiet and have not been transparent about the situation. The addition of these allegations should get the IB to speak up on their grading system and give an explanation as to how they have done it. Again, this is not some angry student that is mad and took to wikipedia to talk about it, I have been perfectly neutral on this situation. However, what I am against is the organization being very quiet about the grading system and I thought that it should be reflected. I would like to get the permission from others to post at least some of the content to the IB's page.

Obviously, there have been others who hit the page to put down that the "IB is a scam organization" etc... This is unacceptable and I do not agree with such actions.

article addition block quoted by user:Meters for clarity

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the IBO have cancelled all May 2020 exams (known as M20). Instead, they will be using the students predicted grades, along with the already finished coursework. In a statement, the IBO have said that they will "be using vast historical assessment data to ensure that we follow a rigorous process of due diligence in what is a truly unprecedent situation." and that they "will require schools to submit the coursework for all candidates. We will externally mark work that is usually marked by teachers, instead of taking samples and applying moderation."

Prior to grades becoming public, a data analyst voiced concern about the grading model, arguing that using pure statistics was bound to introduce bias in the given grades and disfavor schools with few students or with less historical data available.

However, on results day thousands of students have voiced their opinions and upsets on the grading system through social media and petitions. They have "condemned this year's results as a scandal after receiving lower-than-expected grades in a system accused of lacking transparency." This left many students with a grade "shockingly" lower than expected, accusing the IBO of "lacking transparency." The IB have since then denied any wrongdoing, explaining that the grade calculation is "justifiable."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Hellofriendshello (talk • contribs) 22:06, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the addition again pending this discussion. I don't know if the IP who originally undid this edit will see this or wish to comment, but I share the IP's concerns about htis material, at least in part. Yes we should should cover this, but some of the sources are not anything we can use, and I feel some of the material should probably not be included at all. This should have been discussed before the first restore, let alone the second. Meters (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

First point: The section header "2020 Grading Scheme Allegations" does not follow WP:MOS wrt capital letters, and is not appropriate. There are no allegations here.. The IB people have had to make accommodations to grading to handle COVID-19. They have said what they are doing. Some people are not happy with the results. The original header "2020 Grading Controversy" (actually "2020 grading controversy" per WP:HEADERS) was more accurate, but i would prefer something completely neutral,. along hte lines of "2020 COVID-19 grading accommodation" Meters (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

First para: Not bad. The entire paragraph is sourced to one ref so we don't need the first, duplicated ref call. I suggest paraphrasing the extensive quotes. We don't need the exact words from the press release, just a description of how they were going to handle the situation. The paragraph could use some copy editing wrt tenses. Meters (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Second para: Interesting analysis, but we cannot use it. This is simply someone's personal website blog, and there is no indication that this person can be considered an expert in the field. tt is not a WP:RS . We don't present website blogs as expert opinions. The comment at the end of the post thanking his mom and dad "for reviewing drafts of my first article ever!" is telling. We would need reliable sources before adding this material. Meters (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Third para: A train wreck. Students (and parents) are complaining online that they didn't like the changes and that their marks were too low. I'm sure they are. Students everywhere lost out this year. These are unprecedented times, and we're seeing unprecedented solutions in an attempt to handle the situation. One of my local universities, one of the top schools in my country, only gave pass/fail grades this term.

I'm not going to bother analyzing this paragraph in detail as it stands. I got fed up after repeatedly failing to find the supposed quotes in the sources. Rewrite it neutrally, without fake quotes and without scare quotes and I'll look at it again. Meters (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I do understand where youre coming from. Is there a way that I can send you my newer version? If not, Ill just send it here in a bit, once I think of another approach to the whole source.

Please note that I have not written the second paragraph, I have written a few articles (minor to bigger edits) and I have some (not a lot) of experience when it comes to this on my accounts from years ago. As for the title, the one that you suggested will be included as I do agree that it does sound more justifiable. The first paragraph does require a few more sources, youre right on that. Since yesterday, quite a few more news articles came out about the "scandal" and I will make sure to include them if theyre relevant.

While I do agree that everyone is in very unprecidented times right now, I thoroughly believe that this is one of a kind. If we go by personal experiences, about 60% of my friends that have just finished IB have lost their university offers due to this non-transparent grading system. For instance, their predicted grade was a 38, however they ended up with a 29. Personally, I have not gone through this but I wish to document their worries. Once again, I do understand where youre coming from but the fact that the IB have been absolutely non transparent with this whole process and have not said a thing is not acceptable and that is why I think that a section on this "scandal" should be documented.

On a side note, I appreciate the fact that youre agreeing to work something out for this matter. I will post an alternate version in a bit that involved accurate and correct information. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellofriendshello (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've linked to this discussion with a neutral notice at the high schools project [1] for more input. Meters (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, here is the first paragraph that I redid. It does contain some quotes from the source but theyre not huge chunks. (Undid the previous one due to a wrong source!)

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the IBO have cancelled all May 2020 exams (known as M20). Instead, they promised to use predicted grades, along with the already finished coursework and specific schools' correlation between the final result and the students predicted grades in the past years. In a statement, the IBO have said that they will "be using vast historical assessment data” to ensure that they create “fair” grade judgement, requiring the schools to send in all student work from 2018 onwards. Additionally, the IB has assured their students that their “calculation” will make sure that there is no advantage to the students that do better in their coursework compared to their exams.

(edit: Same user as savaajankovic, I was on two different browsers by mistake, my bad :p... sticking to this one so that I dont get another claim for sock puppetry)

Hellofriendshello (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still not sure whether there should be another paragraph after the second one, which would perhaps focus more on the reaction and the so called "calculation".

Hellofriendshello (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's completely reasonable to include this matter in the article, but NB neutrality is still expected. Labelling an issue as a 'scandal' immediately depletes any impression of neutrality. Let's keep improving this section as the story unfolds. ByzantiumLives (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:SPA Hellofriendshello went silent after a block from this article for socking. Now another SPA has appeared and rewritten the section, again with significant POV and sourcing issues, at least in some sections. We should cover this, but neutrally and accurately. We're not going to attempt to entice readers to sign petitions by making up ref titles such "Sign the Petition", and we're not going to pretend that sources say certain things when they don't. I'll go through it once more. Meters (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Meters, that sounds sensible and helpful. I'm happy to collaborate with you on that.ByzantiumLives (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And now ByzantiumLives is CU blocked. Meters (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

May 2021 exams

I would like to remind all users to reference all new information, following Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Change.org is not a reliable source (accusations of fake signatures, for example) and has been blacklisted (so no content on Wikipedia can link to this site), so please do not add petition information from Change.org in the article. Threedotshk (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's not see the the 2020 mess again. This article isn't the place for POV edits by students who are unhappy about the effect of the pandemic. Everyone is in the same boat. Keep the changes sourced and neutral. For example, a newspaper interview with four students is not evidence that "hundreds of thousands" of students are concerned for their "mental and physical health, safety, the comparative inefficacy of online learning, and having been bereaved of family members", and wed don't need to use language such as the "unrelenting exacerbation of the Coronavirus Pandemic". Meters (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And what the UK chooses to do with their (non-IB) exams has nothing to do with this article. Meters (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)