City of London Girls withdrawing offers

I think needmoresleep talks a lot of sense in that post.

And the steps she recommends are what every school except this one and two others is doing, successfully, year on year. It's not difficult or unusual, and it works (all these schools have same issues and constraints). And of course it would remove the risk of being thrown out of ISA for breaching admissions standards.

No Wombat, they can do better.

1. Go back to basics and consider how they can forecast acceptance rates better, using things like postcodes, but also interview questions. "What other schools have you applied to", "how will you get to school" "what do you like about City given all the other schools you have applied to are co-ed" etc. Talk to other Registrars. Yes they are competing for pupils, but they have an "industry" problem. If they dont do so already, hire a professional to look over past data and do some modelling.

1. Slightly over offer to their top applicants, but not to the silly degree that City did this year. Then the Head and Deputy hit the phones, flattering the parents by saying how well their DD performed and how much City would like them to accept (which they do). Then when parent is feeling warm and fuzzy ask if they are likely to accept. If parent says yes, ask them if they could do so quickly (they are likely to want to go to the offer day, but equally will want to be in the schools good books.) If they say they are on a wait list for SPGS, JAGs etc, or waiting for a Grammar place, do a bit more modelling. I assume it is even possible to phone the other schools to ask them about the likelihood of wait list movement. I know of people who have had this happen elsewhere, and who have been delighted with the personal touch.

1. Have quite a long wait list. Then try to go to it before the deadline day. Keep in active contact with those to the top of the list and their schools. Then after offer day ask whether people want to remain on the wait list, and encourage those who are towards the top or who seem most likely to accept. Good Registrars do this well. Be ready to throw the odd discount or "exhibition" the way of someone who is losing a terms fees/deposit elsewhere.

1. Work with other schools, to consider whether there is scope for a different approach perhaps involving shorter deadlines, given the number of applications people are now making.

1. Look at contingency. Perhaps a classroom in neighbouring building, say in an the office or church or one of the Barbican seminar roms, where a sixth form subject might be taught, releasing space within the school should a bulge class have to be taken on.

I have no doubt that if they continue with exploding offers, next year's parents will not want to leave anything to chance so will start queueing at 4.00am in order to be first in the queue. Perhaps the queue might even generate professional queuers who camp for several days in order to keep someone's place in line.

I don't know what they will do next year, but suspect a re-think will have already started. You are right that they won't want people camping out. Something will have to be done to prevent that possibility, but I've no idea which direction they will go in.

Coming back to co-operation between schools or collusion or whatever you want to call it - I guess there has been a level of it, with agreed acceptance dates and offers dates etc. It has never been as developed as the co-ordinated admissions system of the state system and I can't see a system like that developing where people have to rank preferences and only receive one offer - independent schooling is a market and schools want to be able to compete for pupils.

Thinking if it in this way, City I guess has acted to break a collusive or cooperative agreement - although their official deadline for offers is still the same as the others, their exploding offers have been like one firm in a collusive agreement or cartel breaking the agreement and doing their own thing, in order to benefit themselves rather than going with the system agreed for the good of all memebers. The exploding offers have been designed to push people to accept them earlier so they don't have to use the WL as other schools might have to do. As others have said here, behaviour of consumers and other schools does adapt in relation to this, so there are only so many times such a strategy can be used ...and it does seem exploding offers won't be a workable system next year, because of the speedy way parents have responded this year .....and this is all without even getting into the moral arguments about whether it is right or not.

Interesting to observe from outside. Absolutely can see it's not interesting but has had a significant effect on some people for whom City really was their first choice and who missed out. They operated a first come first served system first, followed by a top score goes first system on the wait list. Marginal candidates who were quick off the mark may have secured a place, whereas better candidates may have missed out and other marginal candidates who missed out, probably have little chance now.

Why can't the independent schools get organised and use the state school allocation method, aka families with offers fill in a form stating their preference in order to be submitted after state school allocation is known. Will that not be most efficient?

Its a highly stressful and emotive process at the best of times...can you imagine the chaos next year? Parents lining up with cheques, and then the cut off. One parent being told the last place has just gone. The issues over 'saving a space in line' for a friend.

Madness on all levels. And cruel to the children. There's no need for this - offers have always been honoured.

ChocolateWombat,

What's your proposal for CLSG to avoid parents camping out from 15 Feb 2019 (if not before)? Or do you believe this is the best way for the school to allocate places? Because that's where the current mechanism leads.

Backingvocals - even in game theory, you get different outcomes when you switch from single to repeated games! And in some ways they are discovering this is more like a repeated game, where a more collaborative strategy might pay....

I should add, our own situation aside, I have got nothing but good will for the school. It gives me no pleasure to see otherwise fine institutions who do well by their students do badly. I grew up in London, attended one of those other selective schools and have good friends and who benefited from a CSLG education

ChocolateWombat - let's see what happens with the accepted places. If, as some people suggest, experience with the exploding offers is previous years has encouraged a significant proportion of people (say 20-25) to accept on a "just in case" basis then City has made its problem worse. Those people drop out and it goes to its WL at a much later stage, when those it might want have financially and at least as importantly mentally committed to another school. I genuinely don't understand how that helps them. If this 75 who rushed to the door are almost all true, committed, firm acceptances (which I can see may have been the case in previous years when people hadn't twigged to the full implications of the system, but I am less sure will be the case now) then they really didn't need to over-offer by anything like the same degree. That is putting aside the inherent unpleasantness of the system (which they can choose) and it's utterly chaotic administration.

We are probably still in a place where we'd accept a City offer and give up a deposit elsewhere if it came in mid-March (and I know that is not likely). Would we still feel the same in April or May - I'm not so sure.

Game theory is all very well but it doesn’t factor in the need to build relationships or treat children with care.

I think as someone else has put it City has chosen to make the problem of an under-enrolled school the problem of the applicants rather than their problem.

A sustainable business built on relationships and reputation cannot do this or rely on game theory to manage this process.

But as I’ve said I don’t think this process is reflective of who the school is or wants to be. So I doubt it will endure.

So here's another thought about different ways of allocating places and the risks for a school of the different ways.

1. Slightly over allocate to the very top candidates. Positives - you could end up with a cohort of the most able. Fantastic. Downsides - you may find that many of these decline to go elsewhere and you have to go to WL and that by the time the declines are in and you go to WL, many on the WL never wanted you anyway and decline or did want you but have accepted somewhere else and you have to go far down the WL to candidates of not such a good standard. Result - fairly widespread of ability.

1. Significantly over offer, including anyone who has reached a standard op above whatever the minimum acceptable is judged to be. Positives -you are more likely to fill and whilst you might or might not get lots of the very top candidates saying yes, you know you are full and everyone is of a decent standard. Downsides - risk of over offering and too many accept - big problem for City, so this one isn't really an option for them.

1. Significantly over offer using exploding offers. This brings the same advantages of system 2 but removes the risks of ending up with too many candidates and a bulge class which cannot be accommodated.

Option 3 is a form of '2nd best'. In Game Theory, businesses often go for 2nd best options because the ideal scenario involves too many uncertainties and risks. The school would like to offer to the top 75 candidates and all accept. However, they know this will never happen, so they have to find another way to get good candidates and avoid the risks of bulge classes. Exploding offers is their 2nd best system.

They have decided it's better to be full or close to full with girls who are of either a very good or at least acceptable level of ability, with certainty of numbers and control to prevent a bulge class, than to deal with the risks of over filling which they cannot accommodate, or having to use a long WL.

If there was a traditional system without exploding offers, a school like City may well need to offer twice as many places as places exist. Many schools will need to do this in urban areas. It might seem like massive over offering, but once you consider that many have applied to 4 or 5 schools and can only accept one, you see how many declines each school will get.

So if City offered to say 200, it could be that 100 at best would accept.

Regarding the WL, no doubt there will be many on it for whom City was never their top choice and still isn't - but people like to think that they are keeping their options open. If and when City goes to WL, they may well find that they make offers and people decline - because they never had it as top choice, or they did but have accepted another offer they received. All of this is totally common with traditional waiting lists. What City has done is to try and reduce the no of places they need to fill from WL, hoping that the vast majority of the 75 acceptances are genuine. It's not so bad to have to fill 10 or 15 places from WL, from a pool of candidates who met their required standard. With the traditional system, they may have decided they could only over offer slightly to avoid the bulge class - perhaps 100 places, but then there is a possibility that the majority of these have one of their other 4 or 5 choices top, and acceptances are only 30 - so then there's a big need to use the WL and to go far far down it. This is what they have avoided.

Re WL and not being especially high on it, I would say that they won't need to fill huge numbers of places from it this year - some will have paid £1500 deposit and not take up the place, but they will be fairly small in number. A few places will become available, but they may have to go quite far down the list to fill them in actuality as many have take others, so not being at the absolute top might not matter. How have they ranked the list ? Is it by speed to get on the list or score in exam?

One final thing, it may well take longer to get to WL this year - those who paid £1500 to secure a place who later give it up, may take longer to do so - right up until Easter, when they would owe a full term of fees. Why? Because, having paid, they feel no obligation to be speedy in releasing it and may well sit on the City place, as well as another independent they have accepted and intend to take, or a state Grammar place. Having accepted and paid, and especially if they felt pressured to do so, they may delay releasing the place until the very last minute, meaning only then can City go to WL if they decide to do this.

Quite a few schools don't use WLs. They know that over the next term or so, people move into the area and contact the school about admissions and that they can test them, find people of a good standard and give them the places - these schools though tend to be more flexible about space and numbers and so can take an extra few late comers if they are great candidates, or not bother and just have a smaller year group if they're not so good.

In the end, what does this mean for people waiting? There will probably be a longer wait than previously. The consequences of not getting those forms in are perhaps more significant than people first thought, if they are still holding out for City. Not what people want to hear, who still really want City despite everything, I know, but likely. Other schools will go to WL on 5 March if they need to. City might not get their declines until Easter.

I guess the reason why CLSG did not just offer less and ask those families to reply quicker is that they will be officially changing the acceptance deadline and the ISA will not like it. By exploding offers however, their deadline on paper has not changed.

The acceptances they have got will be a real mix if they have over offered so much.

I'd question whether they have actually filled all their places but decided to withdraw all offers on Monday because they had made a major mistake with the offers and realised this on Monday once acceptances were being received. Hence now you have a merit based wait list. I assume they could have legal action taken against them if they just withdrew offers for no reason. I remember reading a post where I think one mum said she had a thank you email for accepting a place (but she had not accepted a place) and she also had an email stating that the place had been withdrawn because places were filled all within a 24 hours period. So the whole process was a mess.

The letters sent offering the girls spots were quite personalised, I do not think City accidentally sent offer letters to all 300 girls who made it to the interview round.

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

Firefox1066 I don’t think your theory is correct because as I previously posted my daughter is below 50 on the waiting list.

Supposedly less than 11 girls have come off their waitlists in the past few years (our head told us 6 came off last year).

Very odd numbers indeed especially if these teachers statements that the school offered less places than last year are correct.

I'm wondering whether the 88th actually includes all offers?

LondonUSAmom indicates she knows of one in the 50's and I've been told by a parent that their DD is in the 30's. So I doubt if your interpretation is correct.

*fewer offers, not less

I'm wondering whether the 88th actually includes all offers?

In other words perhaps 88th means that in real terms she is "18th on the waiting list" I.e 18 above their desired number of 70 (or whatever the desired number is)

Other wise the 88th makes no sense at all

Given the low number of places on offer in the first place, 88th on the waiting list having previously been offered a place, is absolutely bonkers.

So have they over offered in error, as PPs have suggested, or ranked the waiting list wrongly?

Either way, the whole admissions process this year is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

@LondonUSAmum - posted by @backingvocals on 20/02/18 following their attendance at the offer holders Morning. " I spoke to one of the teachers who said that everyone was a bit horrified by what had happened and she thought that they would just have to change the system for next year. She said they had issued far fewer places this year and had 15pc higher take up than last year so were totally caught on the hop."

I have also been told this by another current parent. HTH

Well, if 75 places were available and if the 88th place on the waiting list is to be believed (I have no reason not to as I know another parent who received an email saying DD was in the 80's), then the minimum number of places offered was 75+88 = 163. If you assume that any parents declined places before the waiting list was ranked (I know of at least two and have read of others, and also know that CLSG called parents to ask if they wished to remain on the waiting list), then the number of places offered must have been higher. Possibly much higher.

A waiting list into the 80s seems bonkers if there are only 75 places to be filled.

if your question is pointed to am I frustrated by those hoping to take up a grammar school or equivalent place? No.

Pradaqueen,

I'm merely highlighting that some, possibly many, of the places being held by people for whom CLSG is not the first choice are being held by people who are caught in a bind not of their making and, in my opinion, who deserve no opprobrium for doing what they believe to be in the best interests of their daughters. I would extend this forbearance to those who are on waiting lists for more preferred independents as well.

CLSG chose a badly flawed approach. In my opinion, they deserve more far more blame for the subsequent problems than the parents who are forced to deal with the approach.

A similar thread last year revealed anywhere between 100-115 offers were made. We know there are roughly 75 spaces assuming all of year 6 move up. So I am not sure how anyone's DD is 88th on the WL unless something has gone very badly wrong this year

Pradaqueen,

I know of another girl who is in the 80's in the waiting list. We can assume that either:

1. CLSG's admissions department does not know how to count, or
2. More, not fewer, offers were made this year than last year, or
3. The 100-115 estimate from last year was wildly off

I'm inclined to believe either 2 or 3, probably 3 if the PPs reports that fewer offers were made this year than last can be believed.

@Greenleave Yes we''re thinking along similar lines. First-come-first-served till all places filled, and then manage the WL on performance. Interesting strategy.