Should all Grammar Schools be super selective?

[StressedaboutUni]

Rather than offering places based on living in a catchment area, surely grammar schools should simply admit by highest ranking? This would prevent local schools from losing all their bright pupils as some would not get into the grammar of it was purely based on ranking score. For example in Barnet, QE boys purely admits on highest ranking and all the local schools are doing really well compared to the average secondary school in England.
In addition, it would make Grammar schools even more meritocratic as you don’t need to live in the (often expensive) catchment area to get in.

Not really the university will look at where the applicant live and which school the student took the GCSE

And they don't look at which school the child takes a-levels?

@Fumb the contextual offers are much more complicated than that, to be in the most flexible quintile re university entry you'd have to be living in an extremely deprived postcode/in the care system/first in family to go to HE etc.

Middle class children who go to state comprehensive won't (and shouldn't!) benefit from widening participation initiatives simply because they were educated in the state system.

In short which school did A level make little difference for the applicant.

Some super selectives limit travel time for applicants.

Super selectives don’t alter surrounding schools that much. County wide grammars do. Recent research shows Dc won’t get much worse results in a non selective school though and often no difference at all . Background makes the most difference.

Grammar school Dc don’t get bigger budgets spent on them. PP funding rarely finds its way to them for example. The amount given to each pupil is the same in each area irrespective of grammar or non selective. Only PP and possibly SEN funding makes a difference. Plus funds raised by parents. The big difference is always background and parents and home.