Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
||
Line 426:
:::::Oh yes, I'd LOVE to see a definition of what an "Anticipated Certificate Candidate" is - especially since every student who takes an IB exam, SL or HL, will get a Certificate, even if they score a 1. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== Consistent capitalization ==
Since you guys fought and won the capitalization issue, may I respectfully request that either Pointillist or Truthkeeper provide consistency throughout the IB series, especially here: [[IB Group 3 subjects]]. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 17:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:Go ahead and add the comment on the [[IB Group 3 subjects]] talkpage so it's not forgotten. That page looks as though it can do with a little cleanup, but I can't get to it at the moment. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I have no pressing reason to clean up that page right now, either. My next IB series priorities are improving [[Extended essay]], adding results statistics in various places and verifying some of the stats that are already used. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Ah. Whatever. Since it seemed so important to you here, I thought you would want to attend to it elsewhere. Well, you have capital discrepancies there and plenty of citations to add. May I recommend that somewhere you include the fact that IB examiners can refuse to assess the paper if it exceeds 4,000 words. ;-) [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::I agree that the EE article should contain a summary of key conditions, but it would have be presented as an incomplete snapshot-in-time, because there's no guarantee that it would be maintained (by me or by other editors) in the long term. As it happens, the IBDP materials are well written (I guess they assume their audience won't have English as a first language) but you have to buy them from the IBO store to get the detailed picture, and you don't know whether to buy them until you know a lot of stuff. So I believe an important contribution we can make here is to outline key facts and alert readers to the need to get better information before making what could be a high risk decision. I'm not anti-IBDP though: I've been going through the EE assessment criteria today and I'm convinced that—though "it isn't everyone's cup of tea"—it is excellent preparation for demanding university courses. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Re: 4,000 words AFAIK the EE rule you mention is that ''"essays containing more than 4,000 words are subject to penalties and examiners are not required to read material in excess of the word limit"'' (page 15 of the EE guide), the principal penalty being that no marks will be awarded under criterion I: formal presentation (which could be worth a total of four marks) and the secondary penalty being that important material beyond 4,000 might be ignored which might adversely affect the marks for some of the other criteria. Feels like too much information for a Wikipedia article. If we want people to read our efforts we have to right-size them. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::...and the moral of the story is...don't go over the word count! It is there for a reason. And that goes for Internal Assessments and other assignments as well.
:::::::Cheers! [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::You know, looking around my extended family I wonder whether ''"for a reason"'' invites a counterproductive reaction from mid-teens. Maybe it's better to say ''"don't go beyond 4,000 words because you'll be penalized, it might not be reasonable but life's like that: deal with it and move on"''. Those <s>little buggers</s> emergent adults can be unexpectedly pragmatic if you don't tempt them to argue the toss.... [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 23:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, yes, you've got a point there. I know a few adults like that too! At any rate, saying "you'll be penalized if you go over 4,000 words" sounds reasonable to me. ''Why'' would anyone'' want'' to go ''over'' the word limit?!
::::::::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) '''Pointillist''' - One of my major disagreements with Jay Mathews of the Washington Post/''Supertest'' over IB, is his insistence that IB is better than AP because of the 4,000 word essay. I have two major problems with this argument. Strictly adhering to 4,000 words and penalizing a student for exceeding that number, seems rather counter-intelligent. I would think that the quality of the writing and the content of the paper should be considered far more important than the number of words. If a student needs 5,000 words to adequately address an in-depth subject, why should they be penalized? Secondly, 4,000 isn't really all that much. Thirdly, you bring up an extremely excellent point- ''"but you have to buy them from the IBO store to get the detailed picture, and you don't know whether to buy them until you know a lot of stuff."'' IB's "secrecy" and lack of transparency is extremely disturbing, especially to the American taxpayer who is being forced to pay for something they are not "entitled" to review.. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
P.S. - Fourthly, it bothers me that ToK and the EE are only run for full DP students. That means in a school which relies mostly on the certificate courses and with less than 10, in some cases only 4 full DPers, a class must be run which could be far less than a district's minimum class size policy. If the EE is so wonderful, then it should be an opportunity for every student in a school, not just the full DPers. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 23:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:I agree that (given the miniscule revenues they must earn from selling documentation) the IB would serve its consumers better by making all its [[Curriculum|curricula]] and [[Rubric (academic)|rubrics]] available free of charge. It isn't as if they are secretive, anyway—buying their materials isn't expensive (in the context of higher education generally), just unnecessarily inconvenient. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC) <small><i>simplified 23:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small>
::(ec) ObserverNY, at my school, we do have students who take the TOK course who aren't Diploma candidates. Students are also free to do the EE, but it's a substantial amount of work and I don't know of any students who have done the Extended Essay just for kicks. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Pointillist, yeah, I agree with you. As I've said a few times around here, I wish that IB would make their documents freely available online. But, as I've also said, it's their copyright, so they can do what they want with their own material. Nonetheless, I'd prefer that they change their minds about that. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Cinchbug - a ToK technicality, while non-DP students ''may'' take ToK, IB will not assess their essay, an ''internal'' assessment team must be established to do that, and it will not appear on an IB Certificate. Glad to see at least 2 people agree about IB's lack of transparency.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::Well, given their proclivity to "change," (which sometimes leads to major improvements), I wouldn't be surprised that, in the near future, their materials were found online and the core components would be opened up to students who did not wish to pursue the full Diploma as it is now (6 subjects+EE+TOK+CAS). Pure speculation on my part.
:::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 00:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::ObserverNY, yep, I'm aware of that, and that's something I wish they'd change, as well. But the entire Diploma is the focus of IB and I can understand that, though I'd prefer they'd loosen their policies a bit. Hopefully La mome's predictions are right and they'll make some changes in these regards. In any event, I'm not sure that this amounts to a "lack of transparency," since the documents are all available to the public, albeit for a fee--it's not like they're hidden in a secret CIA vault or something, after all. ;) Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Cinchbug - While the full DP may be IB's focus, U.S. public schools are using the program for social manipulation and as a "designer label". The decision by a district to make application to IB is done completely on hearsay. NONE of the proprietary details of IB are explored, reviewed, shared with the public or even the teachers and Board members prior to committing taxpayer funds to the application process. To me, this is unAmerican. ;-) [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::::Cinchbug - I'm curious why you are hopeful that LaMome's "predictions" will be right. If Harpo Hanson really was as instrumental as you folks claim in IB's development, it seems to me that IB should have followed the lead of its chief competitors (AP) and made its course syllabi transparent and online a long time ago. This is a company that can't even launch a complete online DP in this day and age, instead offering 3 measly courses that cannot fulfill the requirements. IB's obfuscation of its programme is deliberate. I am hopeful that IB goes out of business, and soon. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== Consensus for deletion of list pages in IB series ==
<small>This section was originally titled '''Maintenance nightmare'''. I have renamed the section to stimulate feedback from interested parties - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
Since this currently is the talkpage to discuss the entire series, have a look at [[List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme]]!! Seems like a maintenance nightmare! [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that entire page should be eliminated. Anyone interested in whether a school is an IB school can simply go to www.ibo.org and look it up. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I agree. I have never been comfortable with manually-maintened lists on Wikipedia: IMO it would be better if reference citations could be attached directly to categories, so such lists could be generated automatically from primary articles. - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:I agree we should delete the list pages in the IB series. That would also include the "IB People" list, correct? (Even though that is probably less of a nightmare, if at all). I was going to doing it, but can't figure out how.
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 12:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::No, that doesn't include the '''List of IB People.''' Gee, I wonder why Harlan Hansen isn't listed there, hmmm, how very odd. In fact, I see that there needs to be a recent "notable alumni" added to that list. ;-) [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::The IB people list includes only director-generals, council presidents and notable alumni. Harlan Hanson wasn't any of those. Perhaps we should add a list of founders/initiators. I noticed Marie-Therese Maurette was not listed either. Which notable alumnus needs to be added?
:::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::::'''LaMome''' - Oh! You simply ''must'' run over there and see who I added! Right after you apologize for calling me '''fraudulent'''! [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:Um, so is someone going to mark [[List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme]] for deletion? It (and [[List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme]] and [[List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme]]) are most definitely violations of [[WP:LINKFARM]]. I'll do it if no one else wants to. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::I think you can go ahead and mark it for deletion. Thanks! [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Articles are up for AfD. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (2nd nomination)|here]]. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you, HelloAnnyong! [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::As AfD is a voting process, if any of you agree with the nomination, then you should cast your vote. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Done. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== History discrepancy ==
On the IB page, the history starts off with Marie-Therese Maurette in 1948 as writing what would later become a basis for the IBDP. Yet, on the IBDP page, the history starts in 1962, with no mention of Maurette. Thoughts? [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:Yeah, the Maurette reference which was ORIGINALLY here and screwed around with should match up with the [[IB]] History. 1948 Pre-dates 1962. I would think you would want to include the "mother" of IB as referred to by IBO's most "prolific" Director General [[George Walker]], but hey, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me '''fraudulent''' and don't feel you deserve to have any questions answered or addressed until you show some intellectual honesty and "good faith" and apologize for your rude, incorrect allegation. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::ObserverNY -- in my view you're crossing the line and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility engaging in incivility] which makes working on these pages near to impossible. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 14:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Truthkeeper -- in my view, you are being disingenuous in ignoring an editor who accuses another editor (me) of '''fraudulent''' offering of information to go unaddressed when the last time this same editor posted a snarky comment which was reprimanded by Uncle G and to which YOU took personal offense at. Remember? You do, right? I believe I supported you and asked you to come back, that Uncle G's comment was not directed at you. Remember? So I am entitled to an apology from LaMome. Please feel free to call an admin in to arbitrate. I'm offended, insulted and outraged. This sort of sneaky, duplicitous, arrogant, POV manipulation of the IB talk pages by LaMome is intolerable. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::So... you can all sit here and [[WP:NPA|snipe at each other]] and point fingers and such, or we can actually edit the article. The former doesn't sound all that appealing. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Or, LaMome could simply apologize.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::Actually, Maurette was the mother of the IBDP, so I moved her back here. [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I have no problem with you adding Maurette here. I do have a problem with you removing it ''there'' and I have re-added it to the [[IB]] article. IBO only "sold" the IBDP" for 30+ of its 40 years in existence and therefore Maurette is notable historically to both the organization and its primary product. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
| |||