Kings College Wimbledon - So Disappointed

Stumbled on this thread today. I just want to say that I disagree that you don't choose the school your DC go to. No you don't choose how well they do on the day but you do choose which schools/exams they sit. From visiting to choose a prep school, I discarded some schools because they weren't a good fit or I wasn't happy with them on some things. I'm sure I'll have to cast my net much wider for the 11+ but I'm also sure that there are schools I will discard and DC will not sit their exam.

Fascinating thread. My views are based in my experience as a lecturer and admissions tutor in an upper level but non-elite Russell Group STEM School.

So I understand the value of IT etc for all. But @Cheshirewife is correct that in the RG at least Maths, FM, Physics, other sciences and intellectually demanding subjects are more valued A Levels. CS and Engineering are taught fresh at uni within a much more sophisticated intellectual framework. We can provide the content to students who are ready for it.

Isn't it also based around their extra-curricula activities too?

For instance a boy with 128 and who is playing for Chelsea youth football squad might be given a place because of course, he's going to be in the A team and contribute something to the school outside of academic success.

At 128, that child is going to more than capable of getting 7,8 and 9s come GCSEs etc.

I think the conversation misses the point that there are surely some who are accepted with slightly lower points but who offer something else?

Music, drama, art - there are other aspects to a boy than just his CATs surely?

@
11Plus2022

No worries. I won't get too worked about it tbh as Mumsnet is an echo chamber. If you simply get your info about the UK educational system from Mumsnet, you'd think the majority of us attend Independent schools and we all know that's not the case. Heck even amongst State schools, you'd think Grammar schools are the most popular school of choice going by Mumsnet and again we know that's not the case.

With regards to arrogance and entitlement, thankfully it's only an incredibly small minority that feel that way but you can definitely sense it even here on Mumsnet. That's why you have posters saying their kids places at Top Unis are being taken by State kids as if the Ultra Bright kids can only be found at the Highly Academic schools.

Thanks @Elij00, agree that an average of 137 is just non-sensical.

I’ve been trying to work out why this particular misconception winds me up as much as it does. And I think it’s this: on MN as well as more widely, there is often criticism that the pupils at some private schools are arrogant and entitled. Unfortunately, for some pupils at some schools this may be justified. If the parents and pupils at these schools believe their kids are all super highly gifted rather than “just” very bright (not to mention very fortunate to have parents who can afford to, and want to, pay for private education) then this feeds this arrogance and sense of superiority.

The average CAT is most certainly not 137. That's just a case of Old wives tales being bandied about.

As someone noted earlier it is statistically impossible for that to be the case unless you are telling me every single one of the 1-2 percenters(that's where a score of 137 and above firmly puts you)attend the same 3 or so academic schools.

We all know that's know that's not the case as Kids with High CAT scores can be found at other Public Schools and Independent schools alike. And we are yet to even talk about Grammar Schools(SuperSelectives and just Selective) and partially selective ones like London Oratory, Cardinal Vaughan, DAO et al.

The only way It is remotely possible is if CAT scores of 137 upwards now accounts for 10% of the population and not the 1% it is pre-assumed to be.

I was told the average CAT score of the boys who entered KCS Year 7 was 137.
That was a few years ago. It might change yearly. Obviously there will be some variation in the scores of the boys gaining places. Of the boys offered places in my son’s cohort, I knew some with higher scores than 137 and some with lower scores. I think the most important thing is passing the entrance exam, but the scores are an indication of their innate ability. If a boy is able to pass the exam it follows that their score should be high anyway, though there will always be some outliers.

@Jumpalicious, but what about the boys already there (who also went through a very competitive 7+ process). Are you saying they are less bright than the ones who come in at 11 or 13? My calculations are about the numbers and distribution of boys across all schools in London in year 9 in total, regardless of whether they joined at 7, 11 or 13.

Also, KCS (while undoubtedly excellent, which is why my DS has applied this year) is not the only great boys school in London. Indeed, there is another thread at the moment about the much lower Oxbridge success rate of KCS when compared with Westminster, that gives a different picture.

@11Plus2022 but your numbers don’t add up either. You say

“Westminster, St Pauls and KCS have say 400 to 500 places between them.” No they don’t. KCS has 60 places at year 7. Westminster & St. Paul’s have similar. KCS is the number one boys school in the uk, so the scores will be freakishly high. Absolutely 500 boys may score that mark in the cohort, and only 200 places between the top 3 schools.

133 and up I’d say, as a minimum.

@abricotine, the entry point is not that relevant. It’s very competitive at 7+ too, and I was looking across the whole year group. Yes, some boys come from the SE. But some in London will choose to board at eg Eton or Winchester so should we count those places too?

For info, there are around another 50 000 boys in each year group in the South East (data is from government key stage 2 publications) Then you would also need to factor in the numbers of those SE boys who will instead go to closer schools for them like Habs, Brighton college, Tonbridge, RGS Guildford etc.

Whichever way you look at it, the numbers don’t work.

@Sunshine6363, sorry, I definitely do not think, and did not mean to imply, that all the boys who got into Kings are heavily tutored, or continue to be once there. Indeed I sincerely expect the vast majority are not. My understanding is that the whole KCS entry process is instead designed to identify true potential. The point I was making above is that a boy with true potential in the top 3% of his age group (so a CAT score of “only” 130) should have a good chance of getting into Kings.

The other comment I was making was an attempt to explain the belief that seems prevalent in some London preps that you need an even higher CAT score. It doesn’t make statistical sense, unless the CAT scores at those preps have been inflated by tutoring (which I am using loosely to describe a lot of VR and NVR training and practice, whether at home, school, or with a tutor)

Sorry my random comment above was in response to a comment saying everyone has tutors who goes there!
I just thought I’d add that not all parents are loaded and driving expensive cars! Some are from pretty normal backgrounds.

I just thought I’d say my son goes there and does not have a tutor. Personally, I can’t see the point of paying school fees and then paying for a tutor on top!
I think it’s important that they learn to do the work/revise for exams themselves. They’re meant to be bright and if they can’t do it by themselves now they never will!

@11plus2022 some of your assumptions about places on offer for 11+ aren’t really correct. In each of those 3 schools you’ll have a significant number of places already taken by boys from the respective junior schools. So the true number of places up at 11+ is far less than you are suggesting. Also are you including all the boys who travel in from Surrey and other home counties to your London numbers?

@Jumpalicious, I’m sorry, but I simply don’t agree that a boy has to have an ability level equivalent to mid 130s CATs to have a chance of getting in to Kings. It’s statistically impossible:

There are around 100,000 pupils in each year group in the whole of London, about half of whom are boys. To be in the “mid 130s” for CATs you’d have to be in the top 1% of that group. In all London, there are therefore on average 500 boys that fall into that group. Westminster, St Pauls and KCS have say 400 to 500 places between them. So if they all only took pupils in the top 1%, that would be close to every such boy in the whole of London; that is clearly absurd - especially when you take into account the places available at the super selective boys grammar schools too.

I’ve seen comments like yours on here before, and the only way I can explain the myths about these schools is tutoring - if a boy in the top 5% of the ability range is heavily tutored, he may, post tutoring, score in the 130s on a CAT test. But at that point the CAT score becomes rather less meaningful as a guide.

I have a lot of experience of another school that has consistently been in the top 10 in the Times tables for many years. I know from direct discussions with a previous head that their aim is to have pupils in the top 10% of the ability range. They therefore only have a few pupils in each year group who would score mid 130s or higher on a CAT test.

KCS is the top boys school (& top coed school) in the UK according to the Times.

They are extremely academic (see above) & it’s ok not to like it. I found the boys showing us around to be sweet/polite, if a bit intellectually intense (one started talking about Difficult Physics to me 😆).

But to say things like “dreary facilities” when they have RIBA award winning sports block, music centre, etc is just odd to my mind. Or maybe posters are thinking of what it was like some years ago.

As to Blockbusters analogy, brilliant! Maybe they’ll fall from grace and end up in position 11 (currently held by Eton - also not everyone’s cup of tea). Or drop off the top 20 independent school list altogether, like several schools mentioned here, but that are clearly loved. Someone earlier said, you defend your own school & bad mouth the others! Is it also tall poppy syndrome? I’m from the US, and I notice a lot of this in the UK.

@Wobblypig thank you. Lovely that your DS is happy there by the sounds of things and you are happy too!

DS went to Trinity in Croydon in the end. His choice not ours at that point but very impressed with it now.

I don’t think CAT scores are very useful in predicting academic excellence. But since they are reported quite widely (by predominantly private schools) it makes sense to differentiate between incredible/very strong/strong/etc scores: 139-141 would be considered ‘incredible’. Surprisingly, they are not even that rare in the ultra competitive London prep school environment.

@Wobblypig can I ask where did you go in the end? I'm not keen on KCS or Hampton for various reasons.

@fabricaabandonada if it’s a genuine 131 (rather than after extensive tutoring in VR and NVR) it would put ops DS in the top 2% ability wise. Only on MN could that be described as an “ok score”.

131 is an ok score, not incredible by any stretch

My son got into KCS. It turned it down because he didn’t like it . Much more important to like where you go than attend the most prestigious school. Beware Hampton however, looks can be deceiving and it’s desire to compete with schools like KCS means that it does some funny things. DM for specifics. We have friends there who are happy but we were appalled by their attitudes and practices.

Maybe be less concerned with traditionally ‘academic schools’ and broaden your horizons. My DS is very happy at a less well known school .

@laren try posting on Primary not Secondary for 8+ you'll get a better response.