18 replies to this topic

[schouston1991]

To all of those in the ACT or NSW in Australia, I would just like to voice by discontent with the new ATAR (previously UAI) conversion for 2009.

With the new ranking system the marks of everyone who is doing the HSC in 2009 will be scaled UP by between 6 and 0.05 points compared to those recieved in previous years. The marks of those who are doing the IB however, are not being changed from the previous conversion to the old UAI. So, if a HSC student achieves a mark that was previously a 68.95 as a UAI, this year they will recieving an ATAR of 71.20 instead. If an IB kid however, scores a 24 wich was also previously a 68.95 as a UAI, they will still be getting a 68.95 as an ATAR rank in 2009. Fair?? I think not.

Edited by schouston1991, Sep 26, 2009 - 06:38.

[Dropkick]

I didn't know this!! That is really lame, I picked the IB over HSC for a reason - to work harder for a better mark, to improve my chances of getting into uni. And this just goes against that..

I understand the change to ATAR, but shouldn't equality and fairness in scoring be a priority? I know the IB already has a pretty good conversion rate, especially with the higher scores (I think its 36 or something and you get an ATAR of 90?) but still, the increase should be standardised to IB as well if it is going to occur. The IB has a hard enough time being recognised and undertaken, and now this..

[balloon]

I got a letter explaining that the HSC students had, all along, been disadvantaged in their grades, that the ATAR was a correction of this, and that the IB students had always recieved comparatively 'fair' conversions because of the way they were calculated. What I don't understand is how UAC can possibly think that IB conversions are fair when we are already considerably disadvantaged by the Australian Universities. I.e. failure to recognise that for example, HL Biology is almost equivalent to first year Uni Biology and that IB courses are almost three times the content of equivalent HSC courses. Universities underestimate how hardthe IB is, and tend to downscale IB students because they don't achive their marks through direct competition with other students.  I guess it doesn't really matter that the whole point of IB is to make a university professor's 'dream come true' of a student!

[laryxle]

That sucks. Compared to the IB, the HSC is really quite easy. As the poster above said, we have so much more content (and at my school we have less lessons than HSC). I already thought the conversion was a bit bad at the top (there is very little difference between 41-45 I think, even though there is quite a difference between them in IB). I didn't know that universities didn't recognise how hard some of the IB content is. My Dad is a psychologist and does some university teaching and he told me that some of our content is harder than what first-year students do. It kind of sucks.

[Henza]

the letter uac sent out was great: we're not disadvantaging you guys, we're advantaging everyone else but you

[kelsie:)]

wow, that sucks..
cause in queensland they recognize the IB...
and out score gets converted into a rank...
*which makes it harder to get a better rank, cause the stuff we do is harder than QSA*
but for HL Maths, Biol and something else...you can actually get 2 units creditted..
so you dont have to do them ever again..
UQ was the first to do this..now i think griffith and few others do now too.
but, yeah that really sucks for you guys.

[Asheee]

Yeah, in Victoria our IB scores get converted to a VCE equivalent ENTER score. an IB score of 33 equals a 90 TER. Here's the conversion table if anyone is interested. http://www.vtac.edu....ional_enter.pdf

Let's face it, nobody understands the IB unless they complete it themselves. In Australia the IB appears to be very overlooked, you can notice it especially in the Media. VCE students who recive a 99.95, get a huge write up in the paper, whereas IB scores are hardly commented on, even though we work so much harder.

UQ has the right idea I think. There's a uni in either NSW or QLD that gives out extra points for the completion of LOTE, and because IB has to do a second language, everyone gets some extra points.

[Bandev]

Ashlee, the Victorian conversion is in my opinion very generous. I know that if I did VCE I would have ended up with a 98 or less, but never the 99.45 I ended up with.

[Asheee]

I never said it wasn't generous. We appear to get a converted score that works out better than other states. I do also agree, if I had completed the VCE, I wouldn't have got the score that I did. I just think IB kids deserve more recognition for what they do. Such as credits for previous learning like in Queensland. I just get annoyed because the Victorian Media hardly recognise the IB compared to the VCE.

[Bandev]

I can totally understand the frustration with the media.

[rrswong]

Even so, the Queensland system is still very unfair, because you need a 42 for an OP1 equivalent. (It's kind of a 99 ATAR, I think?) And they've been raising it ever since a few years ago. Another unfair thing is scholarships - they don't take in the bonus credits, and I was told not so long ago that to get the top scholarship at UQ, you have to get a 45. Nothing else.

[MinaDoan]

I think there must be a reason for that. When I search the previous IB results in NSW, most candidates got very very high mark. In some school, there are even 3 or 4 people got 45!!!!  
Maybe that is why they "move up" the HSC and "move down" the IB ?!?

Personally, I think the IB is the "INTERNATIONAL baccalaureate". Maybe it's worth more "international" than "national" =]]
So yeah, if IB candidates chose to study in NSW, I think the new ATAR rank is not very fair to them.
The next generation may not be as good as the last generation because the number of IB candidates is increasing   (the teachers might not have 3 people in one class any more)

[intlstudychick]

I think that it is fair that the conversions are now lower for the IB. That makes it fair towards the students studying the HSC because they are doing a harder course. I did both the IB and HSC and there is nothing easy about the HSC considering it has stronger marking criteria by which the top mark can be attained only if you have over 90% and the fact that the exams and exam questions are much more demanding, asking for longer and more detailed essays. For example I did History HL and Ancient History in the HSC, produced essays of approximately 700 and 1000 words respectively yet had to use a variety of primary and secondary sources in the HSC exam which was not required by the IB, not to mention that HSC exams get crammed into one paper as opposed to the IB.
The IB is overrated and it doesn't actually cover 'more' content but is rather a little more spread out than the HSC which offers greater depth. The IB English A1 HL cannot compare to Advanced English in the HSC (in my opinion) and the Biology basically required straight forward responses. The reason why IB is like this is not because it lacks potential but rather because it has to cater for students worldwide of whom, not all have excellent English skills. As a result they are kind of let off easier.
Think about it, how many students get an ATAR of 99+ when doing the HSC? How many get an ATAR of 99+ when doing the IB? It is easier for them because in order to get 45 points they need to have 6 7's and the 3 core points. How easy would it be for HSC students to get an ATAR of 99+ if all they had to do was to get 5 6's, participate in sport, art and do 1h of community service a week? As for the TOK and the EE, they are not a burden, are fun, not hard and count for extra points; when you are in the HSC you have to write essays of 3000 words + all the time anyway, so why not do it just once and get a point for it?
The idea that IB courses are more difficult that HSC courses is just common but not fact, and I'm not saying this to undermine the IB, I mean I did both, so.

[timtamboy63]

The conversions from IB to ATAR are, to put it bluntly, horse****.

There's a lot of talk going on about fixing them up, especially as the IB has way harder questions. However, I doubt they would be fixed by the time most of us have graduated.

Hence why im going to the US to study (:

[tenaciousdan]

Oh yeah IB English can't compare at all to Advanced English. How would we ever be able to memorise an essay we stole off the internet?

[Nietzsche?]

tenaciousdan I find your attitude toward Advanced English to be completely misrepresented and unfair. It's more like 3 essays.

[sofiaa-c]

kelsie:), on Nov 13, 2009 - 11:01, said:

wow, that sucks..
cause in queensland they recognize the IB...
and out score gets converted into a rank...
*which makes it harder to get a better rank, cause the stuff we do is harder than QSA*
but for HL Maths, Biol and something else...you can actually get 2 units creditted..
so you dont have to do them ever again..
UQ was the first to do this..now i think griffith and few others do now too.
but, yeah that really sucks for you guys.

You also get two rank points for doing a language. I agree, the system is ridiculous. They don't take into account how difficult the IB is at all.

[faith]

I just don't get why the conversion rate drops every year (I'm talking about Victoria.) A 44 would had been a 99.90 last year but it will only be a 99.80 this year.

It's not like getting a 44 this year is any easier than it was last year.=-=

[Access Denied]

Its awful, I used to need a 41 for law and thought that would be hard, now a 43!

Anyone know who i can contact to complain like a direct line?