The Sunday Times Top Schools List 2025

[PushPoshPish]

What are your thoughts? Any surprises? Any experience of the schools that feature? Will it influence any schooling decisions for your DC?

Perhaps you could argue with the researchers directly, including on the biology of gender differences?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8168369/

It's actually common knowledge sexes do differ in brain functioning 🤷‍♀️

It is not a common knowledge and always been contested and challenged as unproven myth in the science world.

https://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/girls-and-boys-have-different-cognitive-abilities/

Wow, does it? How interesting! That's probably why LSO musicians earn 30-40K, and that's one of the best orchestra in the country. I wonder how affluent the other musicians are compared to say plumbers, and why on earth they are re-training 🤔

And the first quoted research states: Sex hormones influence cognitive performance more than gender-roles and sexual orientation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169182100202X?via%3Dihub

You should really read your links before posting.

You need to improve your comprehension skills, I'm afraid. The influence of hormones on cognitive performance doesn't mean better or worse, just different. This difference is not driven by sexual orientation or gender roles.

Absolutely, music and arts are essential for wellbeing, but you don't have to do GCSE for that.
Doing exams is work, not joy anyway and why would you make something enjoyable into yet another stressful pursuit 🤷‍♀️

I never said something was better or worse so I'm afraid it's you who need to work on your comprehension - not that you will of course 😂

Sorry I cannot waste any more time on nonsense. Just try to read your own links )

They don't do them though. Their curriculum is narrow in KS3. This isn't just about studying for GCSEs! Education should be SO much more.

Yes, as @Araminta1003 said "in an ideal world",
Do you know where it is, by any chance?

Doing exams is work, not joy anyway and why would you make something enjoyable into yet another stressful pursuit

What an ironic attitude towards learning! Why not apply the same idea to politics, geography, history, biology, chemistry, physics, MFL, religious studies, or even food and nutrition? No need to study in any subjects...

I think you should read your own replies in the thread to see how nonsense it is!

This

My PGCE is in Computer Science.

I've worked in state secondaries in London my whole career 30 plus years now. I've also always been a leftist troublemaker. Despite that I adore girls boarding school stories, always have so I once read through the actual boarding schools guide , I think it was Tatler, goodness those schools do not try to sell themselves on academic achievement at all.
For them it's all about art and drama and sport and music. And location. One scottish school had kilt day when the whole school wore kilts including for PE this was once a week but you could wear them anytime I think. They ran on the beach next to their grounds like in chariots of fire.
If I had the money and no political principles I would have sent my children there I think.
Or to St Ethelburghas because the name is brilliant. I mean at the level we are discussing here academics are irrelevant.

@Yellowstonebeth
I agree with @Ubertomusic. It is not a currently a popular point of view but if you look at the research on mental rotation there are differences between males and females. Trying to say it is down to how you are brought up or gender identity or where you place your gaze is ignoring the fundamental fact that there is a difference.
Saying gender differences are just down to socialisation and stereotypes is ignoring people's natural biological tendencies. It is the nature versus nurture debate and if you look at identical twins raised apart you find they often opt for similar degrees, careers and interests, which suggests genes play an important role in development.

This article discusses gender differences in pursuing a STEM career after a STEM degree. It says, "Our findings suggest that policies that aim at increasing the proportion of women studying STEM in high school and college may have lower effects than expected due to the lower attachment of females to STEM after graduation."

cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gender-differences-stem-persistence-after-graduation

@Runemum "Different does not mean superior or inferior as the previous poster implied in his/her limited view. If you look at the following article, you will find that the majority of scientific research shows that the low participation rate is due to factors other than gender differences. The key is to create an inclusive environment in education that accommodates these differences, rather than attributing low participation solely to gender differences

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00524-0

"This systematic review examined 165 studies published between 2013 and 2023 on the factors affecting girls’ participation in STEM subjects." "Findings indicate that only 17 studies attributed girls’ low participation in STEM subjects to personal factors (interest, poor self-concept, and negative attitudes), 100 studies to environmental factors (lack of collaboration, stereotypes, and role modelling), and 48 studies to behavioral factors (low motivation, low self-efficacy, and lack of career plans)"

@Runemum Just found another interesting study highlighting cultural and historical value inheritance as one of the main reasons, rather than gender differences. I tend to agree with this, based on the rather large sample of girls I know who pursue STEM subjects successfully.

"Women from more individualistic cultures, characterised by weaker ancestral kinship structures, looser family ties, and greater predisposition to critical thinking, are more likely to enter STEM fields. In contrast, cultures emphasising values such as obedience, tradition, and restraint see fewer women in STEM"

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/12/04/the-gender-gap-in-stem/

@Yellowstonebeth
The first article you post says that it focuses on environmental, behavioural and personal factors only. It does not consider biological factors. It also takes a feminist perspective, which is a certain way of framing information that is not particularly objective.
The second article you post only focuses on gender norms and cognition.

These articles take a sociological perspective. They do not consider biology so do not contradict the nature side of the argument.

I don't think that saying that males and females are different means that females are being denigrated. Equality should mean equal opportunity not everyone being the same.

The 'genetics and biology' argument you made merely suggests that gender attributes contribute to different cognitive skills, which I agree with—everyone is different.

However, it does not imply that this is a fundamental reason why STEM subjects are dominated by men or that boys are better at these subject. Most research suggests the more interest this is primarily a social and environmental issue, which those studies also takes into account genetic differences.

However, it does not imply that this is a fundamental reason why STEM subjects are dominated by men or that boys are better at these subject. Most research suggests the more interest this is primarily a social and environmental issue, which those studies also takes into account genetic differences.

Girls are often sat next to troublesome boys. If you go in to a classroom where there are more boys than girls you will find the girls are all sat between boys.

I don't have research on this (I would love to) but it means girls have to work harder, they have to do the STEM work and they have to influence the boy(s) they have been sat next to.

I can't see your link op. It's behind a paywall.

Surely you mean there is a huge gulf in achievement between highly selective and non selective schools?

Which is hardly a big shock to anyone.

Exactly @redskydarknight 💯

Exactly this. Your child is also learning to mix with a whole range of people. Like in real life.

@LovelySunnyDayToday The articles are behind a paywall, but the actual table should be visible without a subscription.

I love the fact a state school near me is labelled “comprehensive” by The Times when 75 of its 200 intake each year is selected based on entrance exams. And in addition to those 75 a huge chunk are siblings of pupils who passed the exams in the years above them. Now in my experience, if a Dc1 is given academic tutoring to raise them up to pass an entrance exam able then there’s quite a high chance the other kids in the family are being tutored too - so by selecting one tutored clever kid you can recruit a whole family of similar siblings!

The admissions criteria stipulates the school will “take the 22 kids living closest to the school”. Which is only 10% of the intake! And the school will of course take looked-after kids (but not sure there would be so many in this area).

How the heck is that comprehensive? It is just marketing pedalled by the headteacher! 😂