When parents are slagging off the local comp...

"It's selective to begin with, and has an even more selective sixth-form. It is more selective than Eton. It is possibly the hardest secondary school to get into in the world. You seem unwilling to accept this. "

I'm unwilling to accept it because it's not true. Far more applicants apply to HBS & the other top grammars in London. And they are of similar quality too - most will also be applying to private schools.

"It's not 50-50 when you consider the scholars have a much higher chance than the average W population."

An odd definition of 50% - 50% of those in Westminster's 6th form get offers, please explain how this isn't actually 50%? Is this some special public school maths?

"The data shows that similarly qualified candidates are equally likely to get offers. Note the important phrase "similarly qualified candidates". If 10 grammar kids apply and 10 private schools kids apply, but the latter do far better in pretests and aptitude tests, then they are not similarly qualified."

Where does it show this?

The data actually shows that similarly qualified State pupils are less likely to get in: www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/UniversityAdmissions.pdf

"● The proportion of university entrants going to Oxbridge from the top performing 30
independent schools was nearly twice that of the top performing 30 grammar schools – despite
having very similar average A-level scores.
● At the 30 top performing comprehensive schools, only half the expected number of pupils are
admitted to the 13 Sutton Trust universities, given the overall relationship between schools’
average A-level results and university admissions.
● At the 30 top performing independent schools, a third more pupils are admitted to the 13
Sutton Trust universities than would be expected given the schools’ average A-level results."

Please explain why it's OK that Westminster's results are around 36% better than HBS, but 200%-300% more likely to go to Oxbridge.

And what about Christ Church and their well acknowledged link to Eton & Westminster?

alyosha you've presented untruths as fact in several of your posts.

When called out on it, you haven't offered up any explanation/excuse,simply banged your same drum.

No doubt readers of this thread will make their minds up about what else you might be making up.

However, for anyone interested, the facts remain.

Westminster is routinely the most successful school at obtaining places at Oxbridge. It doesn't take a genius to work out why. No leg ups or old boys network necessary (academics from Westminster are rare as rocking horse shit TBH).

The schools scrupulously selects its intake in a way that most schools do not/cannot.

It then offers those selected pupils a shamelessly academic education where resources are no problem. Which results, unsurprisingly in pupils that do well both in public exams and the pre tests.

Whereas the grammars mentioned are being subjected to the worst onslaught to state education funding in living memory.

In addition the pupils at Westminster are very much encouraged to give Oxbridge a go. Twice if they fancy it.

End. Of.

Oh and why has no one ever tried to bribe me with a helicopter or a suite at the Ritz? I feel a bit robbed...

Why have self declared admissions people on this thread first denied connections and then said they do exist, but it doesn't matter because they know the pupils they are sent will be the best?

Nobody wrote that, as you know well.

I wrote that top schools often send their best candidates to the old, prestigious colleges.

I did not say that these candidates automatically get accepted (as they certainly don't). On the other hand, again, should colleges turn away exceptionally strong candidates just because they do come from certain independent schools. Why?

I would have absolutely no problems at all with removing the information about schools from the application form. I am pretty confident that it would make virtually no difference to the outcome. (Actually, this would if anything disadvantage candidates from some state schools, for whom allowances are made ....)

the top Grammars mentioned will have no problem attracting very well qualified members of staff.

Only partly true.

Private schools often pay more and offer much better working conditions (in house training, accommodation, no Ofsted, no working to government targets).

Many PhDs from my field have gone to work for schools such as Eton.

I don't know a single PhD from my field who is working in the state sector.

The data doesn't bear it out though.

The data shows that similarly qualified candidates are equally likely to get offers. Note the important phrase "similarly qualified candidates". If 10 grammar kids apply and 10 private schools kids apply, but the latter do far better in pretests and aptitude tests, then they are not similarly qualified.

There 100% is an old boys network and I find it staggering that anyone could look at Westminster's 50% going into Oxbridge and think that was entirely down to merit!

It's selective to begin with, and has an even more selective sixth-form. It is more selective than Eton. It is possibly the hardest secondary school to get into in the world. You seem unwilling to accept this.

How could you not expect to when you know you have a 50-50 chance?

It's not 50-50 when you consider the scholars have a much higher chance than the average W population.

user - the top Grammars mentioned will have no problem attracting very well qualified members of staff.

However, as you mention, this doesn't really matter as most apply for humanities - and that is also the case at Grammars, they aren't all applying for STEM.

Again, I would ask anyone who denies the existence of connections between colleges & schools to answer...

Why do so many Westminster & Eton pupils end up at Christ Church? Is that a coincidence?

Why have self declared admissions people on this thread first denied connections and then said they do exist, but it doesn't matter because they know the pupils they are sent will be the best?

That's exactly why the connections are so pernicious - even the admissions staff themselves can't see the bias inherent in how they are interviewing.

Of course if you think that pupils from x school will be the "very best" it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The data doesn't bear it out though.

Curl - 50% get into Oxbridge from Westminster, hardly likely to fail!

And yes, they do expect to get a place.

How could you not expect to when you know you have a 50-50 chance?

2ndly - most of the top Grammar schools mentioned have the same range of subjects and are well aware of how "easy" it is to get in on MFL etc - you should not assume they are all applying for STEM. They aren't. My HBS mates who got in to Oxbridge were advised to go for MFL, classics & theology - but they were still less likely to get in!

There 100% is an old boys network and I find it staggering that anyone could look at Westminster's 50% going into Oxbridge and think that was entirely down to merit!

whilst science and maths will be more of a focus at the grammars.

It is considerably easier to get PhD educated maths/science teachers at top independent schools. These teachers can then teach above and beyond the syllabus, deepen students' thinking and so on.

Nonetheless schools such as Eton and Westminster send relatively few to study pure science/maths - their students are more likely to apply for mathematical subjects such as Economics which are correlated with highly paid jobs.

Alyosha the differences in Oxbridge intake between are to do with the type of selection (including interviews for Westminster etc) for the schools, the type of teachers that can be recruited, the teaching style and management of expectations.
Also as others have said a broader range of subject choice (not just STEM subjects) for degree choice.
These are unfair advantages but nothing absolutely nothing to do with an old boys network which for most Oxbridge interviewers does not even appear on their radar unless it is to disprove.
For example I know of a boy who got 5 D1s at preU (5 A**), Olympiad teams for certain subjects but did not get an Oxbridge offer. He is one of numerous examples of rejections from suoerselective independent schools that you would perceive as unfair if he came from a grammar school.

It's also common at both public schools to make a second application if the first fails.

The same numbers of pupils do not apply.

The grammar schools are more conservative.

Numbers of applications at Westminster and Eton are high. Pupils don't expect to get a place. And are regularly rejected.

And they do teach Latin at those Grammars, btw.

www.hbschool.org.uk/387/academic-life/departments/classics

Mum - I would think so, yes! These are schools with very similar demographics to private schools, they are the most elite grammars in the country. Lots of oxbridge parents & aspirants among them.

Clavinova, surely that's exactly what the Westminster & Eton boys are doing, they apply, all the admissions tutors "know" that only the "very best" pupils from their schools apply to Oxbridge, then they get in.

Easy-peasy!

Not that I'm suggesting that boys at Eton are looking for an easy way in to Oxbridge but I expect that subjects like classics and history are exceptionally well taught at the top public schools whilst science and maths will be more of a focus at the grammars.

Also look at the subjects studied at A Level/Pre-U - eg how many pupils at the grammars are studying classics, languages, religious studies, history, music etc. as these are the degree subjects with the least number of applicants (therefore less competition for entry) for Oxbridge.

Alyosha do the same number of DCs at HBS, QE Barnet & Tiffins apply to Oxbridge compared to Eton or Westminster?

Clavinova - good point.

I haven't...I think it's around 140 pupils per year for the 6th form in HBS (93 pupils a year + 50 external), for Westminster about that, maybe 200 max?

Either way they don't have 3 times the no. of pupils of HBS but get 3-4x the number of Oxbridge places.

Have you checked the size of the year groups for these schools? Eton especially is massive.

Actually more like 85-100 Oxbridge places from Westminster each year.
All completely on the individual child's merit, of course.

All private schools are mediocre when compared to Eton & Westminster :p

"d) I don't think that those attending the highly selective London grammars are of the same socio-ethnic-economic background as those attending privates and therefore often choose to study in London because it's cheaper. I think they're probably less likely to be the children of Oxbridge graduates and so aren't so obsessed with entry."

Strongly disagree with this. I would say that the majority of private school kids also apply to grammar schools, and grammar schools are almost always their 1st choice.

Of course lots of kids apply to grammars whose parents can't afford private schools, but the process of getting in involves a lot of money (tutoring, usually - but not always) - so the demographics are very similar.

I think grammar schools are just less "in there" with the colleges.

Re: medicine - that could be a factor but private school leavers also dominate medicine, vet & dentistry!

"You're misinterpreting that statement. This is part of the 'service' that top schools provide. They manage expectations of their students, and dissuade them from going where they have no real chance of success."

So you don't think that pupils from the top Public school that apply to your college are the best of the best?

Would you support a system where you couldn't see the school that pupils went too, just some generic data about how privileged it was and whether it was private/state?

Ontopof - I didn't go to whatever school you went to, but I suppose I assumed that like SHHS & Westminster they NLCS had links to various colleges. Perhaps they don't!

Lots of people on this thread have admitted to the links between some colleges and schools though, although they are insisting that this of course has no bearing on admissions. One wonders why these links even exist..

Curl - so according to your data, Westminster get 36% more A* A level grades. However they get far more than 36% more Oxbridge offers?

~80-90 Westminster pupils get Oxbridge offers last year, vs. only 20-30 for HBS.

So Westminster get 200% more places at Oxbridge but their results are only 36% better.

Why do they get a disproportionately higher number of Oxbridge places?

I'm so hoping someone from NLCS reads that they're described as 'mediocre' private school.

My dc failed to get into Latymer and did get into various pretty selective (but not Westminster, we didn't apply) private schools. I know kids for whom the reverse is true. I would generally say that the North London grammars are much more selective, certainly in terms of numbers, however I'm not sure what they are selecting translates to Oxbridge entry.

a) the tests tend to be multiple choice and some kids are very highly trained for these tests without necessarily having a depth of knowledge or the potential for that depth. Especially since they're tested at 11.

b) the children who tend to go to QEB, HBS often prize the course (eg medicine) over the university (and so wouldn't apply for, say, theology as lots of public school kids do)

c) something like Classics has lots of Oxbridge places but few schools study Latin/Greek.

d) I don't think that those attending the highly selective London grammars are of the same socio-ethnic-economic background as those attending privates and therefore often choose to study in London because it's cheaper. I think they're probably less likely to be the children of Oxbridge graduates and so aren't so obsessed with entry.

e) I think the teachers at private schools are more likely to be Oxbridge graduates and so more encouraging.

I'm not saying, btw, that either are better nor whether Oxbridge entry should be prized above all else. I would say that I think my children's chances of Oxbridge entry (with two Oxbridge graduates as parents) would probably be reasonably high wherever they went to school because it's something that feels assailable.

It is not possible to be unbiased when you think that private schools "only send their very best students" to you.

You're misinterpreting that statement. This is part of the 'service' that top schools provide. They manage expectations of their students, and dissuade them from going where they have no real chance of success.