Candidates flying from overseas to sit super-selective grammar 11+

@Mydogisamassivetwat I wonder if you live in Birmingham and your daughter has got into one of the grammars here? Lots of poverty and lack of aspiration but some good grammar schools largely populated by the aspirational second or third generation Indian/Pakistani community. Just being nosey.

So Westminster School with their 50
per cent Oxbridge rate is that also just all tutored kids @Dtnews - top 30 per cent with pushy parents primarily. So Oxbridge same story then? At what point does it change for you?
Is Oxbridge itself also just fake news? Blame the pushy tutoring parents?

That’s absolutely not the same point. The most selective schools base their selection on tutored, inflated CAT scores rather than intrinsic CAT scores, meaning tutoring has a substantial impact on admissions. On paper, these schools claim to select students from the top 5%-10%, but in reality, they often admit a large number of children from families with resources and support, whose intrinsic abilities are around the top 25%-30%.

I’m not sure what @Ubertomusic mentioned about CAT scores below 125 here. However, she also brought up other points, speaking as an experienced mum who had previously sent her other DC to Tiffin and latymer.

@Dtnews - but we are making the same point. The most selective schools have kids with high intrinsic CAT scores and I do not think you can tutor much beyond a certain point. Certainly not without significant effort. So I see it as pointless. I do not really believe there are loads of kids at the schools @Ubertomusic mentions with CAT scores below 125, prior to tutoring. Having had multiple kids go to this type of school, I really cannot say that the reality was contrary to my belief. They are just very bright DCs, as a cohort. I really do also believe that to be the case with the most selective private schools.

Of course, if anyone ever had any actual concrete data to prove that QE has CAT4 scores from Year 7 proving that they have more of a 110 score on average that would be another matter. I highly doubt it though.

Is it because you’re not interpreting the maths properly? A CAT SAS score of 125 corresponds to >the top 8% on the curve, while a score of 110 places a student in the top 25%. It’s quite easy to improve from 110 to 125 with targeted tutoring, but progressing from 125 to 135 is significantly more challenging, in my opinion.

OK @smogsville - but where these kids really not likely in the top 3 of a state primary class, on average?

There are CAT tests which show the ability of kids on a line. 125 and above is top 5%. The most selective private schools aim for at least that, typically. For the most selective private schools like Westminster at 11 plus at least, most of the kids getting in will have much higher scores than that.
I am just really not sure why some of you believe you can tutor in another 20 points kind of thing. I do not think it is possible.

Cut off score for HBS first round this year was 347.65 for VR, NVR and English. This is not a particularly high bar to clear - DD is not academic and we did zero prep as never planned to apply to any grammar, she did 5 mock tests and some practice on Atom in the week before the exam, nothing else whatsoever. She was 30-odd marks off the threshold, I suspect mostly in NVR.

If an academically average child can do this with one week of familiarisation, an academic child would easily clear that with minimal prep. Then if they are in catchment, they're in.

HBS, QE, St Olave's and Wilson are the hardest to get into. I'm not saying everything else is a walk in the park, but it looks doable without the drill.

The rankings also include numerous private schools that achieve these results, some of which admit students as early as age four. The truth is, gaining admission to a super-selective school isn’t solely about being in the top 5% of natural ability. Many other factors come into play.

@Araminta1003 I can only speak as I find. None of the children I know who’ve worked as I’ve outlined and gone to super selectives in the last five years are struggling or unable to keep up or considering moving to less demanding schools. They didn't all get in straightaway, some were waiting list for example, suggesting they had to put in the graft in order to score highly enough to win a place eventually. But they’re happy there now and it appears to have been worth it. I don’t agree with you that tutoring a bright but not genius level child doesn’t pay dividends I’m afraid and I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why you seem so keen to insist otherwise.

Bowing out now as nothing further to add. Good luck everyone.

Parent Power on Times lists the very few schools in the country including the most selective schools, and 95% of GCSEs at 7-9 is reserved for the most academically selective schools. It is absolutely not top 25% of ability. It is much more selective than that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, just another jealous cat on the internet.

They select the top 25%-30%, but the same argument holds true in reality: children in the top 30%-45% with extensive tutoring have better odds than those in the top 25% without additional preparation.

Furthermore, in grammar school areas, students who end up in secondary modern schools often experience further setbacks in their academic progress.

@Dtnews - no, the grammar schools in areas like Bucks or Kent aimed at the top 25-30% of cohort do not produce GCSE results at this level.

The problem with your statement is that, even if all your kids get in, it still goes against many other opinions shared in this thread. Ignoring those viewpoints doesn’t turn your opinion into a norm or a fact.

I can confidently say top 25% with appropriate tutoring and support can yield 95% 7-9 at GCSEs.

In any event, top 10 per cent means in the top 2-3 in an average state primary, at least.
In many years of watching the kids get into this type of school, I can confidently state from personal experience that every single child I know fell within that parameter, at least.

Top 25% does not yield 95% 7-9 at GCSEs, sorry. 57% Grade 9 etc.

These are largely at least top 10% kids in the first place. Not sure why you find that so offensive @Dtnews

@Dtnews - what is your current experience of your own children at London superselective grammar schools? How many of your kids got in?

Obviously if they are top 1% they won’t have to do much prep.

I have serious doubts about this statement. It’s a matter of distribution: many students with intensive tutoring, likely in the top 25%-30% ability range, are far more likely to pass the exam than those in the natural 5%-10% range with minimal preparation. The top 25%-30% will have 3-4 times more numbers. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that a child in the natural top 1% could pass these kinds of exams without any preparation.

@smogsville - it was for September 2025 entry, so this current year.
And I have done it successfully with 3 older DC too. I do feel I know what I am talking about.

It is a myth that you can tutor a more average child into this type of school. Parents would be better off first having their child’s cognitive ability assessed somehow. If they are in the top 10%, by all means, give it a go. If not, I would not bother for this type of school. Obviously if they are top 1% they won’t have to do much prep.
The “tutoring” to familiarise with the types of questions is very important. Whether a parent does that with a CGP book or a tutor should not matter. But I do not believe you can tutor beyond a certain point.
Nobody expects a more average child to get an A star in Further Maths A level either.
The children in these types of schools are largely intrinsically clever. If they are not, the schools are unlikely to serve their confidence well.

It is always surprising that kids are allowed to be excellent at sport, music what have you, but when they are just academic, then it is somehow a problem.

@Araminta1003 well if it was recently I'd suggest you have an unusually capable DS if he was able to get himself into the top 6% of a London super selective with minimal prep. All the ones I know who've beaten the odds in the last five years have worked reasonably hard (not that pattern of all-day work during the hols with the odd meal break throughout the hols that I think @carcassonne1 mentioned but consistently over at least 2 yrs), with a one-to-one tutor and parents who are by and large professionals and prioritise education.

In my view, this is the level of commitment required for the majority of bright children who want to try for a super selective. Not enough to be in the top 3-5% of your primary class and know how to mark the answer sheet correctly. A friend's DS who is very capable across the curriculum and got a scholarship to an indie didn't make it, arguably because he didn't do enough prep towards the end. You have to be quick and accurate these days - it should be a test of aptitude but if the 'pass' mark is north of 90%, plenty of practice is the only way to get there - for most children. Your experience might be different of course.

It would be if it was actually a big problem but it really isn’t. I dare say there might be a few here and there but, despite what some very ignorant posters on here will have you believe, the kids in grammars, especially super selective grammars, are very bright. Obviously it’s a spectrum- some are brighter than others there and some are better educated or further ahead than others there but the common denominator for all of them is that they are very academically able children.

And yes, not much prep. Perhaps we were just lucky and the very last on the list!

We have one poster claiming that little preparation is required, while numerous others argue the opposite. Either someone is lying, or it’s simply not the norm.

In fact, I have asked my older children and they cannot even remember sitting the 11 plus much. Nobody has to put copious amounts of pressure on a kid. It is what you make of it. Just like GCSEs.

@thing47 - is performance at KS2 SATs in any way linked to GCSE results then?… Because it tests the same material largely, for many of the 11 plus tests. You cannot have a system where you nationally test the same stuff, directly link school performance to it and CAT4 yet suddenly it has no bearance for the purpose of 11 plus results.
The vast majority of kids who pass 11 plus grammar will also get greater depth in their KS2 SATs. For the most selective London boys grammars, the GCSEs are then at 95% 7-9 at GCSE.

@smogsville - DS did get into a London superselective and looking at the figures yes about 6% chance, depending on how people rank the schools. And yes, not much prep. Perhaps we were just lucky and the very last on the list!
These tutoring myths are self propagated. Nobody is saying you don’t have to do some prep, but if the child is clever you do not need to go over the top in the ways described by many. There are thousands of people doing pointless amounts of work.

It is for the schools in Birmingham too.