Maybe Latymer has used the tactic of offering means tested scholarships to recruit some very bright pupils away from the competing schools to further it's strategy of improving it's academic reputation? If you look here www.latymer-upper.org/the-latymer-foundation.html at the annual report and accounts they describe an increase in the number of means tested scholarships as distinguished from bursaries, which implies academic selection. Most schools offer bursaries according to need, and, normally scholarships, which offer more prestige than monetary value, according to academic selection. Parents of boys would, and did, argue that their boys chances were sacrificed to the schools strategy for improving it's academic results when they admitted girls. They have been so successful in achieving their vision that they clearly have employed a lot of successful tactics......
Ladymuck There is little transparency in the normal selection process and the bursary process is also far more sensitive. My DDs schools have been very careful to make sure no one knows who is there on a bursary. The only way that they should be transparent, without risking increasing stigma (showoff parents apart) is to publish the size of the bursary fund for the year and how many pupils in the school are on full and partial bursaries, which they mostly do. Certainly at my DD's school it varies year to year but at @£1m it covers 42 bursaries of which 21 are full so in any given year it really is only a handful. The above report and accounts puts the Latymer fund at £1.3m funding 73 fully funded means tested scholarships 14 of 75% or more and 102 combined bursary / scholarships, so clearly the number of bursaries based on need are relatively small and they have preferred to allocate resources to means tested scholarships instead. It also looks likely that at least some of this larger number of scholarship / bursaries are for lesser amounts / shorter periods eg sixth form?
Iwanto maybe that school had enough bursary funds to be needs blind? Some are much richer in endowed funds for bursaries than others. I am also guessing some schools would set an academic bar then consider the other factors, such as social situation and finances to determine how to ration the bursaries between those that meet the academic criteria, whilst others will decide that if a candidate doesn't look like standing a chance in terms of the process for rationing funds then there is no point putting them through the stress of interview.
The thing is though that the academic selection process is opaque, it isn't even that cut and dried if you can afford to pay. As Needmore highlights it throws up all sorts of anomalies. Each school has different papers, some straightforward, some testing lateral thinking, and places a different emphasis between school reference, maths, English, VR, general knowledge and interview and even more so between a pupil's creativity, accuracy, intellect, sports prowess, music, drama etc etc. n terms of the selection process. The fact that a child is competing for a limited bursary pot just throws another variable factor into the mix. It isn't a racetrack that rewards those first past the finishing post with the highest marks .
So all we parents can do is have a nice cosy safe rock there for our DCs where what matters is them. Believe me passing the exam into even the most selective and prestigious school doesn't mean that you won't need that rock again, and again.