Epsom College Failing at Oxbridge?

[HedgehogFan]

I have a young DS at EC and have seen a considerable decline of Oxbridge offers compared to other similar Independent Schools. Does anyone know why?

You seem to be working under the assumption that there are no students from the state sector with equivalent levels of intelligence, @Adastraperaspera. I assure you that isn't the case, even in areas with no grammar schools at all, never mind superselective ones.

Of course there are bright children up and down the country. And that is why I would advocate for IQ style testing during Lower Sixth pre university, if they can come up with something that cannot be tutored for. To give most kids a fairer chance as one criteria to be used for university admission.

@Adastraperaspera on the flip side there are plenty of kids in the top grammars who also sailed into top indies and chose the top grammars. My DC both did precisely that and we could and would have paid had we thought the indies better for them. Both DC have excelled academically but have also benefitted from an abundance of extracurricular opportunities and broad experiences in their schools. Their university options have been wide open. In my view, their adult characters have been very positively influenced by being with a range of DC from different socio-economic backgrounds, at least much more so than they would have got in the alternative top indies. This is particularly relevant as they have chosen to become doctors.

Your point about IQ style testing is very interesting and it is something that has been developed in the medical schools' selection process. Many medical schools have shifted away from the traditional BMAT clinical entrance exam, which has a heavy scientific content where DC who have benefitted from rigorous science teaching tend to do better. The newer UCAT exam is very challenging but much more of a IQ- based, natural intelligence test linked to the key performance criteria necessary to go on to do well in medical school. They are both tough exams but the UCAT is much more accessible. This has been a very important step in widening participation in med schools as historically the BMAT was a huge barrier to super-bright kids who hadn't benefited from a certain type of teaching. It is also interesting to see quite stark variations between traditional academic achievement and UCAT performance in some cases.

You do realise @goodbyestranger that most of the DC at the top independents also sailed into superselective grammars, right?

I happen to know of a fair few who didn't sail into the London grammars, in fact, but got into top London indies. Obviously some will have sailed into schools in both sectors, so yes, aware of the situation (but one wonders why the parents couldn't make the decision about the inferior offer at the grammars before their hyper qualified kid took the test).

Dahlia in our area not a single kid has ever chosen the best (and perfectly good) indie in the area over the grammar. It goes like this: kid takes test for the grammar, doesn't get a place, makes a late application to the indie whose marketing makes out that getting a place is a great honour etc etc, surprise surprise indie finds it can squeeze kid in.

Slight exaggeration there about no kid ever, but it's true that it's very much a one way flow.

Arent these IQ tests a bit meaningless anyhow. Only one of mine ever had a test and was well over 140 as far as I recall, not sure by how much. But he's quite normal.

He was only tested because a teacher spotted processing issues when he was in sixth form - I didn't voluntarily push him forward for an IQ test. That would be weird.

It’s very area-dependent though, goodbyestranger. In London, grammars are few and far between (and quite far out anyway). Some are much more selective than others. My kids would have sat for a grammar if there was one, but there wasn’t. I think there are only about 200 grammars left in the entire country anyway and they’re clustered in certain regions. It’s simply not an available option for the vast majority.

Sure I know that anonno1. That why I said a fair few kids get into top indies in London (eg Westminster/ St Paul's) who fluffed the Tiffin/ QEB tests.

I'm not in the least against private education anyhow, so not clear why the poster above couched her post in terms which suggested I was. No issue whatsoever, except I suppose when parents and kids think that they're superior because of it, when they're self evidently not.

One of mine had processing issues too . Some IQ tests had him at 140 plus, some lower. They’re a blunt instrument imo.

The London Girls Schools Consortium switched to something resembling an IQ (CAT) test to select students at 11 plus. It was all multi-choice (ie they dropped the English comprehension paper, short story and maths papers). This was to try and ‘tutor proof’ the system. Don’t know if it’s working or not?

The thing is, if there was a definitive way to select the ‘most able’ students, schools and universities would have hit on it by now and would all be doing the same thing already.

Instead we have universities such as LSE claiming they can discern the brightest and best by a few paragraphs on a personal statement (which most have had help with anyway). And Cambridge can’t even standardise the interview process within individual subjects, let alone across the university. Depending on what college you apply to, you may have two subject interviews or you may have a general interview and a subject interview. You may just have the one interview. You may have to submit two essays, or just one or none at all. There’s not even a vague attempt to standardise the process and this has always seemed odd to me.

@goodbyestranger

Sure I know that anonno1. That why I said a fair few kids get into top indies in London (eg Westminster/ St Paul's) who fluffed the Tiffin/ QEB tests.

I know a number of them too. There was a local Tiffin/QEB tutor who wouldn't even take certain DC on for tutoring as they didn't think they had a hope and the DC ended up at the indies goodbyestranger mentioned. (For the record, we didn't tutor) The same parents are now complaining because the DC haven't got into Oxbridge or certain courses. I have no issue with independent schools if that's what people choose to do. Jjust please don't say that it's all about what money can buy in education because it clearly is not. So much depends on the natural intelligence of the child and their motivation to achieve.

DD got into Tiffin and got a helpful scholarship at one of the sought after day schools. We took the scholarship and have been very pleased we did.

There is also the perspective that some people actively choose a comprehensive education for their children. We chose not to live in a grammar school area and not to send dd to a selective independent school, even though we could have comfortably afforded it. I was confident that she would do just as well wherever she went and I felt that a more socially diverse, inclusive environment was more in line with the upbringing that I wanted for her. So it isn't always a choice between grammar/independent with comprehensive lagging far behind. Some of us actually prefer the comprehensive approach.

A pretty high IQ is necessary but surely not sufficient. It doesn't capture other aspects like motivation, interest, capacity for hard work etc etc.

The thing is, if there was a definitive way to select the ‘most able’ students, schools and universities would have hit on it by now and would all be doing the same thing already.

The thing is though, universities don't need to. So long as they can select enough who are sufficiently able (a combination of intelligence and other factors) and well enough suited to that uni/course learning style, that's fine. Oxbridge/other top unis have an excess of sufficiently able applicants. They don't need to precisely stratify them, and our university sector as a whole is all the better for that.

I don't think anyone is saying that @AlexaShutUp but so much depends on what the comprehensives are like. I'm pretty sure mine would have done extremely well in a standard leafy comprehensive but sadly where we lived there was a polarisation in schools and the comprehensive options were pretty dire and I'm talking not safe. Knives in classes etc. Much as I believe in equality in education, I am not prepared to sacrifice my children's future to that extent. I believe that in the non-selective state options we had, my children would at least have been bullied for being so different from the norm and would have been in the realms of achieving against all odds. Why would I set them up in that situation? @ErrolTheDragon exactly what I said - so much depends on the natural intelligence of the child and their ability to achieve.

@opoponax

I don't think anyone is saying that *@AlexaShutUp but so much depends on what the comprehensives are like. I'm pretty sure mine would have done extremely well in a standard leafy comprehensive but sadly where we lived there was a polarisation in schools and the comprehensive options were pretty dire and I'm talking not safe. Knives in classes etc. Much as I believe in equality in education, I am not prepared to sacrifice my children's future to that extent. I believe that in the non-selective state options we had, my children would at least have been bullied for being so different from the norm and would have been in the realms of achieving against all odds. Why would I set them up in that situation? @ErrolTheDragon* exactly what I said - so much depends on the natural intelligence of the child and their ability to achieve.

I guess I never saw it as sacrificing anything.

It wasn't a moral decision about equality in education - much as I would like to think that my decisions are principled, I will freely admit that I'd have been the first to throw my principles under the bus in the interests of my child, so I am not judging anyone who decides to go private or selective or whatever. We all do what we think is best.

I am merely saying that, for me, best was about putting dd into a more socially diverse environment. Not the roughest failing school around but not a posh leafy comp either. Just a bog standard comprehensive.

I'm happy to say that she positively thrived in that environment. Perhaps I would have made a different judgement if I had thought that she would be bullied, but she has never struggled socially so that wasn't a consideration for us.

The grammar was our nearest secondary school by a few miles. No downshifting or anything. DC picked up by the local council bus at no cost at my kitchen door at 8.10am and returned to it at 4.10pm. It was a very attractive offer!

Alexa I would have to positively inconvenience myself on the school run front not to send my DC to the grammar. That would certainly have compromised my principles.

@goodbyestranger

Alexa I would have to positively inconvenience myself on the school run front not to send my DC to the grammar. That would certainly have compromised my principles.

And that is entirely fair enough. There is a lot to be said for living near school!

Lots of interesting points on this thread.

Totally agree with the posters who point out that kids who get into the top day schools in London, St Paul’s, SPGS etc are already incredibly bright and hardworking. The competition is fierce for these schools and the preparation some of the kids and parents put in to pass those exams is intense. In my oldest DCs year, we just didn’t see some of those kids from Y5 onwards - parents pulled them out of clubs, no play dates, no family holidays etc for well over a year until those exams were done. With that kind of work ethic and dedication is it any wonder the kids get all 9s, straight As? (Whether you think that’s good for the kids or good in the long run is another thing but it gets the desired result which is a place at these top schools).
I was in awe of it myself - and if they can keep up that pace of work and have the natural ability to go along with it, is it any wonder they get into Oxbridge in high numbers. And I say this as someone who went to Oxbridge myself but from a normal state school. I was naturally good at my subject and worked hard but nothing like from as early an age as these kids.

One of the things that has changed (hopefully) from my Oxford days is the interview system and the way in which individual tutors picked from the applicants. I knew of tutors who just always picked applicants from certain schools (always independent schools) just because they liked the school, knew the teachers there, went there themselves, the applicant played a sport they liked etc. Basically it just all seemed very corrupt and I was struck by the number of fairly ordinary 2.2 type students who’d didn’t seem to have much of a passion for their subject and came from fairly mid-ranking independent schools. I think that is one thing that has changed now. The only applicants from independent schools that get in now are the genuinely highly academic ones.

And virtually no one gets a 2:2!