Any regrets AFTER being at a super selective school?

I do wonder if this depends a lot on the individual schools and head teachers. There are comprehensives (academy chains) near me who make a lot of noise about their advanced stream, Oxbridge/careers stuff. Meanwhile (and admittedly a fair few years ago now, when education policy was quite different), my super selective school was very happy indeed to encourage us to go on to study art and drama, and frankly we barely heard a peep about lucrative careers, to the point that I felt pretty unprepared for the world of work.

I went to a comp. Same curriculum, but without the expectation that everyone who excelled academically was destined for particular university courses and careers.

He was told at school that he shouldn’t look into art and drama because he had better options.

Comps don’t push people who are otherwise doing well in that way.

I thought we were talking about both state and private schools that are massively oversubscribed, and have an intake based on an entrance exam.

Eg - for private - schools like St Paul's, Westminster, Highgate, City. For state - Henrietta Barnett, Latymer, QE Boys etc etc.

Ah, OK. I understood 'super-selective' to also cover those independent schools which are massively oversubscribed and take students based on entrance exam performance.

In terms of super-selective grammars then, I suspect my friend might regret their decision to send their daughter to one, as she has spent ages 17-24 recovering from an eating disorder. Both their sons seemed to thrive there though.

I see. DCs grammar does not have a catchment. This means some very long distances for some children. We are not far at all and so far I don't regret sending DC there apart from the fact their friends are not necessarily local. That is a big downside IMO.

It's too early to say whether the pressure will affect them.

I don't know the criteria nowadays, but 15-20 years ago St Olave's did not have a catchment area and admitted the top 120 scores from their own entry test.

Absolutely not. DD’s old grammar school is the most academically selective in our whole country but what we quickly came to realise is that ultra selective does not equal ultra good teaching. They rely heavily on recruiting cohorts of high flying kids who are able to manage on their own and need little teaching or support. This results in a huge amount of them simply being allowed to coast along and not reaching their full potential

There aren’t many super selective schools that don’t have some sort of catchment area.

Even the Colchester girls grammar is going to introduce a (admittedly quite wide!) priority area as of next year.

Places like HBS are so selective it's not on a par with what most people would be thinking of. Over 2,000 sit their first round and only 300 are invited back to second round for 100 places.

The offer first to PP, LAC and within 3 miles only out of those 300, so it's incredibly selective.

There are others that have selective catchments and super-selective non-catchment places.

I don't think that is totally correct. HBS and TGS both give applicants living in the catchment/inner area some form of advantage, and they are both widely considered as super-selective.

Super selectives are schools that take purely on entrance exam results.

School A has 120 places and takes the top scoring 120 kids from the entrance exam - super-selective

School B has 120 places and take the 120 kids from those who pass the entrance exam but also live closest to the school. So Johnny who got the highest score but lives 10 miles away doesn't get a place, but Sarah who got the lowest qualifying score does because she lives 100 metres away - selective.

Sorry, I should have said that's in response to Snooping's question as to what is a super selective.

The super selective that 2 of my DSs attended did not have a catchment area so took boys on the basis of their own entrance test score alone. It was a state school and took boys from a very wide area. It was a very competitive test with far more boys applying than there were places available.

My third DS also attended a super selective grammar school which was also part of the county 11-plus scheme. They took a proportion (I can't remember how many) of boys who had passed the 11-plus in county but took the rest from the highest scorers out of county. Again, there were far more boys applying than there were places available.

Apparently in some grammar school areas they take about 25% of kids, whereas "super selective" ones have a very wide catchment and therefore take fewer from each school.

Perhaps seletive school has different levels: mild selective, normal selective and super selective? I don't think it can simply generalized by catchment, private or state etc.

This is quite interesting actually, because I'm not sure whether the education is any broader at a comprehensive. I was at a super selective grammar and, as far as I know, the local comprehensives did the same National Curriculum years 7-9 and had similar GCSE options. (They didn't have sixth forms so those kids either went to a sixth form elsewhere, went to college, or got jobs.) I certainly don't think the comprehensives had more opportunity for creative subjects - we did plenty of art and design, and had good facilities. It does sound like your husband's school had a certain attitude, though!

Some countries, like France and Germany, have vocational high schools as well as academic high schools, but we lack this option.

What is meant by a super selective vs a selective please?

My husband. Grammar school convinced him that only highly academic courses and well paid professions were worth anything.
He spent years struggling to get the right experience and qualification to move into a low paid creative role after being in a high paid profession.

He wishes he’d had a broader less academically focused education. He suspects he would have focussed on having a career he doesn’t hate much earlier.

I’m guessing they’re talking about a selective private school.

Eye-watering amount? Aren't we talking about state grammars?

Both DC went to one. No regrets, although I prefer not to think about the eye-watering amount it cost!
Was a bit of a no-brainier for us as the alternatives weren’t good.
Both did well with excellent A levels and first class degrees at uni. I think what it taught them most of all was a belief in themselves and a willingness to go for stuff/ try things. The expectation of doing well meant they DID do well - not just in academics, but music, drama, sport etc.
Neither had any particular problems, and the minor issues that came up would have come up wherever they went to school I think.
They both keep in touch and regularly see some of their old school friends, which I think is a good sign.

It's difficult to know whether a particular school will be a good fit for your child, purely from what you read or hear from other people. Every child is different and every child's experience will differ from that of others.

My DC went to a superselective grammar and had no problem with the academic work. It does increase towards GCSE and A level preparation, but I guess that's the case everywhere. Pressure did not come so much from the school, than from competition between the students. This can be framed either as a positive motivational influence or a negative pressure factor, depending on perspective.

Some social hiccups along the way - these could have happened everywhere else and were not related to the type of school in any way.

There were MH issues among friends. Apparently there was a separate table in the canteen for children with eating disorders who were supervised over lunch.

Had we to choose again, we'd do things in the same way, I'd say. A large part of that is that in grammar school areas the comprehensive options aren't great. They are not a representative of a mix of all academic abilities, as a percentage of high achievers get directed towards grammars.

I am guessing your child has an offer for a place at a superselective school and you are wondering if it is the right decision to send them there. A few pointers might be: if they are generally top of the class in primary school without needing to study for very long hours and sacrifice social activities, they will probably be fine in terms of the work load. Do they read a lot for pleasure?

Some thrive some don't. same for everything in life isn't it.
I got a scholarship to private and as I lived very rurally lost a lot of friends, did well but then found boys and went off the rails a bit. But did end up successful from my point of view (job I love that pays well enough). My sis stayed in local comp but did just as well (albeit with fewer qualifications). In terms of earnings she's on more. In terms of life we're both happy.

For NLCS, do you know if these are the girls who joined at 11+ or those who have been at the school since reception that are having the eating disorders? We had visited years ago for 4+ and the parents/students there seemed very intense already even at the junior school which put us off the school being in such an environment from a young age.

I went to a super selective and I'm not sure if it was the best place for me.
I was fiercely independent. I think I needed someone to help me channel my creativity but they kept trying to put me back in the box. I was always in trouble and miserable at school.
I'm not sure if any other school would've been better though. maybe I would'nt have achieved much in another school, maybe I would've had the space to thrive. I don't know.