City of London Girls withdrawing offers

...and Chocolate Wombat did you change your mind because your daughter was subsequently offered a place? Easier to see things from City’s perspective if you haven’t been caught out. Seems an interesting U-Turn on your views on this matter. Of course we are all entitled to our opinions/views but I wondered.

Theinvisible I haven’t read all recent posts so forgive me if I missed something..but I’m curious why you would turn down HB for City. The latter being prestigious grammar academically equivalent to City (and free?)?

There is some movement on the City waitlist so seems some must have been happy with state school placements or people are just making final decisions in general.

It does raise the slightly bizarre possibility that we release a place at HBS, which might release a place at City, which might move T up the waiting list....!

Samnam, as it turns out, we have the offer of Henrietta Barnett. Very proud of DD, but I suspect we will not take it (though will be at the offer holders morning tomorrow to see again).

Am curious how those whose offers exploded have done with their state school allocations? I hope there is some comfort somewhere!
The waitlist might also start to move soon.

I agree with all those who say you can't accurately predict at 10/11 (let alone at these prepreps that are supposedly selective at 3). How they perform in these somewhat predictable exams has as much to do with where they've come from as where they're going, academically.

If a child from a prep school who's perhaps being tutored on top of that and attends mock exams etc gets the same marks as a kid from a class of 30 in a state school then the latter arguably has more potential. At a scholarship interview I was chatting to a lovely girl who was telling me that every week in her private primary they'd have timed mock English and Maths 11+ papers which they'd then go over to improve technique etc. Meanwhile my daughter was doing a bit of Sats spag.

I don’t think you can predict completely accurately who will do best at GCSE based on their performance in a test taken when they are 11

Excellent post qgmum and I completely agree. My oldest dd did GCSEs last summer; some of the strongest performers at GCSE were not scholarship girls or those who were high flyers at 11.

@Pradaqueen

It is certainly not a 'dog eat dog' environment nor a place for girls (or Parents) with 'sharp elbows'

We attended two open mornings at City in which Ena Harrop used the exact phrase ‘sharp elbows’ in her speech to describe what is required of a City girl; literally to fight their way on to the tube each morning during rush hour and figuratively to keep up with the competition and pace of academics at the school.

I don’t think it is true to say that admitting from WL will impact league table position.

Plenty of dc get admitted to selective schools from wait lists and MNetters often worry they will be bumping along the bottom. The usual reassurance is that this is not the case. For my own dc who was admitted from WL she is in the top quartile of her cohort for maths and the second quartile for English.

Also DC change between 11 and 16. They mature at different rates. Some are more heavily tutored than others. Some have been better prepared by their schools. Some may have had off days on the exam. Some will become more diligent as they get older. Some will become less diligent. So many factors are at play. I don’t think you can predict completely accurately who will do best at GCSE based on their performance in a test taken when they are 11.

I think its a deplorable thing to do to a child. However, I do wonder if its a reflection on the increase in the number of schools applied to these days. It use to be 2 or 3, now 5 or even 6 seems to be the norm. I suspect it means that some girls have much more choice then historically, so it may mean that the percentage of offers being accepted has dropped across the board in the last few years and schools are struggling to figure out how to deal with this.

A waiting list of 88 seems, simply, bonkers.

I agree that schools usually have enough applicants to pick those who will thrive. That's a term schools use for why they use interviews as well as exams. Thrive, of course is a very open ended term, which can be adjusted according to circumstance and need.
And yes, the most academic schools will have loads and loads of applicants who are clever if not stellar and could achieve a very good if not exceptional set if GCSEs. Other schools might have to take a broader interpretation of thrive and will see a broader range of GCSE results to reflect the broader ability intake. Of course this is true.

Even within highly sought after schools, some cohorts will have higher ability than others on intake and it will have an impact on results. They might thrive, but sometimes it might be a struggle to get the GCSE results out if them that will match the league table results that schools know future parents look at. They all say that League tables are meaningless.....but still love to be high up and know that's how they are measured by many parents. Not having to go far down a WL or to even use one is a key way to secure this.

I would say that, as with all fiercely selective schools, there is a large gap between 'the score in the selection process sufficient to get an offer' and 'the lowest actual ability that allows a child to thrive in the school'.

So even if the school had to give a place to a child who did not score QUITE highly enough in the application process to get onto the waiting list, in order to fill their places, that child is almost certainly still of 'high enough ability to thrive'.

NLCS wouldn't take a girl who will not thrive

No they shouldn't and wouldn't. But if they don't receive enough acceptances, what else are they doing to do other than go down the waiting list?

I think the girl in question WAS interviewed but not put on the waiting list.

But Perhaps they did offer spots to all 300 girls who interviewed

Does anyone know a girl who was interviewed who did not receive an offer?

horsemadmom,

Are you asserting that NLCS will not and has never called girls who were not included in the waiting list in the event that all girls who were on the waiting list have declined and places remain? Or is your assertion limited to last year's 11+?

expat96- Both claims. Just because someone said it, doesn't make it true . This stuff is really pernicious. Every year, I get PMs from parents who are convinced that their DD still has a chance of a place even if they weren't interviewed. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Sometimes I am sympathetic- English is not everyone's first language and the guidance on the school website is clear but not brutal. Some parents are just flummoxed as to how their DD's genius was not demonstrated in the exam and want to know how to appeal. And some, have read rubbish on this forum and others. Untruths give them false hope.It's just cruel. NLCS wouldn't take a girl who will not thrive.
DDs who are interviewed after the block interviews have finished are afforded one for two reasons only. Candidate was travelling from an insane distance or candidate was ill for the other interview dates.

For state school you name 3 or 4 or 6 schools in priority order.
Then the LA works out which you qualify for and allocates you the highest.

For universities, you apply for 5, get offers reasonably in advance, then have to firm and insure 2 offers rejecting the others.

I can't help feel from reading this thread that the private schools in London could cooperate somehow to everyone's benefit.
Though probably not as they are competing businesses. (Or are they given that they have charitable status?)

horsemadmom,

Which claim do you assert was utter fiction? That NLCS called girls whom they had not interviewed, or that NLCS called girls whom they had not placed on their waitlist?

I do wonder whether things have changed that much to justify the changes in behaviour. I grew up in North London and sat 11+ myself more than 30 years ago, from a prep school. It wasn't so unheard of for people to sit 5 schools and people tended to do at least 3. So not a new problem. Populations and the school "pecking order" do change a bit in that time, but it ought to be manageable. As for size of site etc. knowing both sites pretty well, I think SHHS has even less options for additional bulge classes or at least the same as City. It certainly has less available grounds/outside space. There isn't much excuse here. Channing and Highate are different again - I think these are both ambitious schools, slightly less well prized, who are hoping that by forcing the issue they can attract a few better pupils than they might get otherwise. Both are on reasonably spacious sites where size is not the answer. Highate ran a one off 9+ entry this year which as far as I can tell was wildly oversubscribed. It will have got them good students that might have gone elsewhere at 11+ with parents who were thinking it might be attractive not to have to go through the full 11+ round.

*I did hear (third hand) that last year [NLCS] had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed.

This was utter fiction*

Errmm no, it did happen.

horsemad I think you have dds at NLCS so it is understandable that you defend them. But that particular year, NLCS was less popular than HBS (where not all Band A girls were offered places). It just goes like that sometimes, it changes every year. The fact is, all indie schools are clearly struggling to offer the 'right' number of places, NLCS offered too few, CLSG too many.

Most schools behave honourably. I'm afraid that CLSG doesn't feel beholden to cooperate within the London schools ecosystem and this has lead to the situation some families find themselves in. A few years ago, they moved their 7+ entry to November where the rest of the schools do it in January. In my opinion, this was a cynical move to entice parents to take the offer and not sit the January schools. Exploding offers are just behaving in character.

All schools have to accept that they are not first choice for all applicants. There are lots of very good academic girls schools. There might be one or two which are seen as the absolute top tier, but they won't be everyone's top choice, often because if geography. Once you get to the extremely good but next tier down, those schools know that people applying to them are probably applying to 2 or 3 or 4 more. Postcodes might give guidance on top choices, as might siblings or asking people, but people make all kinds of choices which are hard to predict and will drive past another great school to get to their chosen one, which just seemed to 'fit' their child. All of the London schools will be struggling with judging making offers and will have years of a bulge class or having to go far down the WL or beyond it, because things don't turn out as they predicted. A school like NLCS has space for a bulge if it comes to it. Of course, they don't say much about these things, especially using WL because a big part of their appeal is people's beliefs that the school is taking the very best students and that its most people's top choice. Many parents are pretty sure the school they want is most applicants top choice - it might be for the handful of other parents from their Prep school that they have spoken to, but it's very difficult for parents or schools to know and when asked, parents are not always honest or open about these matters. Schools try to gather the info from application forms, from interviews and asking the children often inappropriate questions, but they still often don't get accurate answers.

Interstingly, I knew one popular girls school last year, who in September had to spell staff that there were no academic scholars in the 1st Form - they had made plenty if academic scholarship offers, but all of those girls had chosen to go elsewhere. It's a popular school which does fill or close to fill its year group, but is has to offer 3 or 4 times the number of places it has in order to do that - it simply isn't the top choice for probably 3/4 of applicants, but a back-up. They fill from those who do have it as first choice and from those who didn't get their first choice. And you'll find too, that many of these schools get close to filling but not completely and then take a good last minute applicant who has just come back from abroad or wherever, maybe in May or June or even later. Even some of the most popular schools will do this.

Perhaps it's hard to feel sorry for these schools with their struggles and uncertainties when they are charging vast fees and don't seem to be hard-up. Fair enough. However, exploding offers are a sign of the difficulties within the system. The level of the difficulty does vary from school to school. Being really popular reduces the risk on one level, but also makes even more people use you, many as a back-up. Being in a location many can reach, even if not easily, again makes more people choose you, but for many as a back-up. This is the very anxious time for schools now - because the numbers they attract and the quality of those candidates will have a big impact on the financial strength if the school and it's academic success at GCSE and A level in a few years time. Every year group isn't equally able and yes of course they should be able to do good things with any ability, but the bottom line determining academic success is how selective it is on entry ...and a lot of it depends on whether the WL has had to be used and by how much. You can see why schools are keen to avoid it if possible.

I think that the system which worked for many years when people applied to a couple of schools, might not be workable for much in days where many apply for 5 schools, creating huge uncertainties.. Schools breaking away and doing their own thing and looking for ways to reduce the risks of not knowing how many of the vast numbers applying are actually serious about attending, is a sign of this. Maybe a new, better co-ordinated approach will emerge or perhaps more and more schools will do their own thing.

It's a peculiarly London thing because of the urban nature and existence of many schools close together, plus the ratcheting panic which seems to grow amongst parents and drives them to apply to larger numbers if schools. Even a few miles south or north in the outer zones or the Home Counties, schools can use the traditional system with much more certainty because schools are spread that little but further apart and the numbers applied to not quite so high.

I did hear (third hand) that last year [NLCS] had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed.

This was utter fiction.
Beware certain posters on 11+ Forum who have a professional interest in making parents confused.

SHHS are doing well. Perhaps it is within the GDST to put girls first. A decade ago when DD was applying there was a financial crash and parents were rubbing their hand thinking private school places would be easier to come by. I assume schools were equally keen to avoid empty places. But it was more nuanced than that. DD had two offers including a GDST. We went to the open day where the Head rather strangely suggested that if she were a sporty girl she might do better at the other school. The same was said to someone else we know.

The school she went to had to take on a bulge class, not what they wanted as they had a year of major building work and so were already adapting the timetable and reducing the lunch break to find enough classroom space. The GDST apparently had to take on two bulge classes. As one City dad explained to me. If he were to lose his job, he reckoned he could put enough of his redundancy aside to cover GDST fees till his DD finished her education. But did not want to commit to a more expensive school.