University College School

[NKF]

in North London. Does anyone know anything about it? Have or had children there?

O school, probably. Or CVMS, though less sure about that.

What were you not so keen on re. QEB? We might try for DAO as well, since we're Islington so fit one of their criteria. Pig of a journey, though, and have heard some slightly negative things about their pastoral care.

I know a lot about the Oratory and nothing about Cardinal Vaughan. I thought QEB seemed a bit boorish. But it was a fleeting visit and probably not fair.

I know a lot about the Oratory and nothing about Cardinal Vaughan. I thought QEB seemed a bit boorish. But it was a fleeting visit and probably not fair.

I would be interested to hear anyone's opinion on how UCS and Highgate (ignoring the cost) compare with QEB and Latymer, as we will be looking at these schools next year.

Are UCS/Highgate realistic as backups to Latymer/QEB or are they just as hard to get into because of the restricted numbers at 11+?

I think (may be wrong) that the selective private route is less academic than the selective state. For example, the exam for Channing isn't as tough as the exam for Henrietta Barnet.And there are other factors (interview, siblings etc) Latymer just take the children with the top exam results. On the other hand, with private, you get small class sizes and therefore closer pastoral care. That's my thinking to date.

It depends. Of the 100 top schools by exam results only 18 are state yet if it were harder to get into the state schools the children would be cleverer and would be most of the top 100 schools surely?

On the list

QEB state 21 (best state school in the country of exam results but still well below schools like St Paul's, Haberdashers, Merchant taylors, North London Collegiate etc all in the private sector all in the South East.

Latymer state 42

UCS private is 67

Highgate private is 87

So in other words UCS and Highgate are kind of second rank privates. Most parents would be better off trying to get their sons into Westminster or St Paul's if they live in Central London unless the child isn't clever enough.

Oratory is not in the top 100 and nor is Cardinal V.

Oh f*ck off, Xenia.

I wouldn't send my child to St Paul's or Westminster. Full stop. That is not what I want for them. I want them to be able to achieve their potential without being unduly stressed or thinking that life is all about academic achievement.

The schools at the top of the league tables are not necessarily better schools. They take hyper-bright children, teach them intensively and work them very very hard. The league table results tell you very little about how well an individual child will do in a particular school, which is the only thing that really matters. I'm choosing schools that suit my children and that I think will enble them to do their best, academically, socially and emotionally.

Except that private schools have smaller class sizes and that means a lot in terms of
teaching.

Of course there's a ranking within independent schools. I expect Eton gets better results than St Paul's but some people wouldn't opt for boarding school however superior the results. I think there's a point where you think the teaching and the learning are good at certain schools and after that you're looking at ethos, atmosphere etc. What intrigues me, Xenia, is that, apart from hating boarding schools, you seem to go entirely on league table position. But perhaps there's more to it than that.

Frogs I would never speak about schools in quite the way Xenia does - children being "thick" or "not clever enough" etc...

However I have ds1, y10, at W and ds2 to follow next year. Ds1's best friend from his old school is at UCS. I know a few parents with boys at the Junior Branch too. Ds2 sat for UCS too and was offered places at both.
My observation over the past 14-15 months is that ds1's friend at UCS spends just the same amount of time, if not more, as ds1 does on his schoolwork. For example he usually has 4+ hours of work set over the weekend, whereas my ds1's weekends (after Saturday morning school which admittedly took some getting used to) are COMPLETELY free for him to unwind. My ds1 is bright but not a genius; W suits him well and he isn't stressed. At the time of his interview a member of staff commented that the boys who are happiest there are the ones who shine at one or two things, whether it be maths, art or drama. This has proved to be the case with ds1 who's beginning to find his niche in art/creative writing/history, without being in any way a driven or overworked boy.

At UCS the vibe I get from parents is that the place is very laid back...which (without being inflammatory, as I'm finding W more laid back than I'd been expecting) has its pluses, but it does mean that perhaps the very brightest boys aren't being stretched enough ? Certainly for a selective school in a very middle class area with most parents being well qualified professional people, the percentage of Gcse A grades isn't as high as one would expect (38% in the Times Parent Power league). If A is the new A, and if dozens of schools, state and private, can better this, while still offering lots of extra curricular trimmings then personally I'd be looking for more in terms of added academic value.

But that's my personal opinion.

My children are at a school that Xenia would consider decidedly 'second rank'. They are however an awful lot happier, with better facilities and pastoral care, than I was at my 'top' (i.e. hothouse) London girls' school. My oldest is aiming for top grades and Oxford, why would it be worse for him to achieve that at a school that caters for a wider range of abilities than a 'top school'? (And yes, they are 'clever enough' to get into one of those kind of schools, but I wouldn't choose it for them having experienced it myself).

I don't have any recent experience of UCS, getting back to the OP, but as an ex north Londoner it's one of the schools I'd have considered had we stayed. Knew a couple of nice kids who went there.

That's interesting, mio.

But UCS wouldn't be my first choice in any case -- I'm thinking of Highgate/UCS only as backup plans in case it all goes bellyup. My ds is bright, but probably not in the premier league. And easily discouraged, competitive and young for the year as well. So we wouldn't be aiming for a super-competitive school for him in any case.

FWIW, people say similar things wrt Latymer vs QEB, ie. that Latymer is much more laid back wrt homework and pressure in the early years.

And, NKF, my impression is that you may be right about the selective state schools vs private schools. Although there is a caveat that the exams are very different and hence hard to compare directly. I think there are plenty of N. London parents who use the private system as a backup in case their child doesn't make the state selectives. But conversely I think lots of private prep schools will put kids in for HBS and StM but will end up going the private route anyway even if the children get in.

Horses for courses (and wallets), I guess.

Frogs to get back to state schools, one of my sils teaches in a Barnet primary. Her dds went to DAO; my ils have lots of family connections but I can't recall whether they also had to sit the exam. (i think yes ? If only to assess which band they'd be in)I'm also aware of the Islington connection due to its former site.
But my neices and sil - who's well placed to keep up with local schooly gossip - have often said that a lot of what's behind the school's good results is a heavy amount of outside coaching...

All schools with good results have pupils who are tutored externally. A bit of extra help or an Easter holiday week at MPW. There is a kind of madness that means that nothing is every quite enough but I doubt that DAO is unique in that respect.

Mm, depressing but not surprising really.

I'm not as sold on DAO as most people seem to be, partly because I know a couple of people who were very unhappy with their children's experience there. It seems that they deal best with bright, motivated children (also depreesing but not surprising) and were less good with square pegs or children who were not right up there with the high fliers.

But don't you think you can find people who've had bad experiences at any school? It's trying to judge if a school is right for your particular child that is so so difficult!! We're in the North London Year 6 bunfight at the moment and every school our dd is trying for offers something different and everybody seems to have a different opinion on all the schools. I've heard fantastic things about DAO (not an option for us sadly) and less positive feedback on HBS but it really does depend who you're talking to. But I still listen as just one school visit seems so little to go on and you just find yourself searching out any information that might help.

Friends of mine who have children there love it. And because of the sibling policy there must be plenty of children who aren't academic high fliers. It's the sibling policy that attracts me to be honest. Can't bear to go through this more than once!

Oh yes, obviously it could be a one-off, and they were just unlucky. But ideally I would like somewhere where my ds could be one of the high-fliers rather than feeling like an also-ran. I'd also prefer a smaller school, tbh, and I think he'd prefer single-sex, since he's quite a boy's boy at heart but has two sisters.

Has DAO's sibling policy not been affected by the new rules? Tbh their whole admissions policy seems completely opaque to me, but I must try to get to grips with it at some point.

There was resistance to any changes to the sibling policy and it didn't happen. Basically, it's a a bit of a hybrid school - part exam, part locality and part Islington dwelling. There may even be a some music places as well.

But presumably the Islington places are still based on ability, ie. they take the top N performers in the exam?

Many parents diss the schools at the top of the league tables for being crammers which is a lie. Normally they're just jealous their children aren't clever enough to get into them. My daughters' schools Habs and NLCS .. .over the years so many many mothers whose daughters failed to get in go on and on about the so called pressure. It's not more pressure than anywhere else and all the other facilities etc are just as good. You're not chained to a desk for 10 hours a day at these high achieving schools.

My view is that in those large very good schools with lots of grounds etc the rest of the school life is very similar - over the years I was constantly asked the differences between Habs and NLCS having daughters at each and really there's not much in it - similar work, ethos, life in school.
(The unplaced state schools I mentioned - I didn't know whether or not they were selective).

Eton is 10 on the list below St Paul's Westminster North London Collegiate. Obviously if you do want to board then that's another factor too.

Yes Frogs but because it has a sibling policy, there will be children in every year who might not have passed the exam. Basically you just need a clever first born and you're sorted.