7+ Entrance North London

[ScorpioMum]

Hi all, we're looking at 7+ entry for our DS for top North London independent schools. How would people rank in terms of difficulty of entry: Habs, UCS, Highgate, Belmont (Mill Hill), Merchant Taylors? Any recent first hand experience?
We don't want DS to sit too many exams so are trying to decide to which to apply...

Don't know MT. Of the others I'd say from hardest to easiest Habs, Highgate, UCS, Belmont,

I don't think Merchant Taylors has 7+ intake?

Son Year 5 now. Belmont the easiest by some way unless things have altered a lot. UCS next. The maths to get into Habs is certainly the hardest of all. Highgate seems to be in vogue of late - co-ed, new Junior School building, A level results getting better. We know children who got Habs but not UCS or Highgate. We know another child who got StPaul's but not Highgate. Can vary depending on exams/day/child. Pretendingtowork1 order pretty much how I would see it too.

I also looked at the running order of the exams. Wanted son to sit 1 exam first to get the hang of it. Then our favorite second as we felt that would/could be peak. Sensed he may be losing interest by exam 3 or 4. Good luck. Tough process. Worth it in end!!

Might also be worth looking at Northbridge House, the middle school is v good.

Thank you CB2009. From what you are saying i understand it would not be advisable to apply for more than 4 schools?

Guess it depends on your child. Timing of exams. If your school finishes at age 7+ so you must move or whether it carries on and you could stay. People recommend doing at least 3. A banker. A realistic choice you would be happy with. May be something aspirational in case they have a good day and so you know you tried! Know many children coming from pre preps sit 4 schools. More than that given their age is probably over kill

We only applied to Highgate, so don't know about the actual exam levels at the others. But we can tell you that the actual exam at Highgate is harder than the practice exam: there is one challenge question in maths and in the reading comprehension that is at Habs level. But presumably they don't have to get it to pass, it is more to judge the level for future coursework.

Also we agree with the assessment that Highgate of today is different from say ten years ago. Highgate is definitely in a different league from UCS (Highgate is now number 10 in the league tables right on the neck of Habs which is number 9, whereas UCS is somewhere in the twenties). A lot of that comes down to increased selectivity.

Where do you get the idea that Highgate is a powerhouse? I think it's up this year but last year was way below UCS/City etc and about the same as Channing (despite being more selective).

Just checked the current Sunday Times parent power list and it's:
13 Habs
33 UCS
55 Highgate

These league table results vary massively year on year as they can be skewed by a few weaker performances but generally I think it's true to say that Habs is the most academic and Mill Hill the least.

To add, I was looking at the Telegraph results for 2018 last weekend. Understand that a year of data is less valuable than multi year. Looked at A levels - % A*/A (Know that there are many metrics and many ways to judge every school and plenty beyond pure results).

Highgate 75.61%
UCS 69.17%
MTs 70.09%
Habs 79.73%
St Albans 65.68%
Mill Hill 38.58%

This shows quite a "gap" to Mill Hill on this single metric. No Channing data - sorry - as we have a boy. All of it available on Telegraph website and you can go back years. Hope helpful ScorpioMum.

Although a long way off.................................so much can change with the schools, heads and also the children!

2018 League Tables, just out last month.

Even these "pure results" can be highly irrelevant. When evaluating 7+ schools you might care about the A level results of the 7+ cohort. You care far less about the results of any children who join at 11+ or 16+.

To provide some color on a few of the top entries in the 2018 league tables above, SPGS doesn't accept any children before 11+, Kings College London Math School screens all its students at 16+, Westminster's and KCS's girls-only results are much higher than their boys-only results, possibly reflecting that these schools screen all their girls at 16+ while accepting boys from much earlier ages.

Numbers can be very misleading if they do not compare like for like. Which these league tables do not.

Agreed Expat

I'm not sure that looking at A level results is a priority at 7+, it is such a long way off whilst you might not want to move your child between prep/secondary school they may well want a change of school for 6th form anyway!

Re 'powerhouse' I think Highgate is very good at PR!

To add to @expat96 commentary. Virtually all prep schools with good 11+ results, either selective or non selective, manage their intakes throughout the 7 years - they will weed out in Year 1/2 by gently telling the parents that it will be challenging for their child to keep up, and they will not take any new children beyond year 4, unless they are guaranteed superstars (or in the lingo, are a "good fit" to the school). At the end of the day, you want the school that works for your child, so I do not have a problem with the selection or weeding out, and may in fact take the advice before it is too late and gets worse, but I have a problem with making a decision solely based on 11+ (or A levels!) results as this is a lot to do also with 1) quality of the intake (and the virtuous cycle it generates), 2) how effective the school manages in and out to improve results for every Year class - and nothing to do with how good the school maximises the potential of each child. After all, you don't get any of those top results without some permanent selection bias, where it is open or covert.

I'd put Habs and Highgate pretty level, UCS slightly below, Belmont significantly below. Agree with the poster above about how much Highgate has changed academically- the new JS also makes it more attractive and hence more competitive.

I know children at all four of these schools and I'd say they are all excellent (although different in vibe). Belmont definitely less academic but a great school for the sporty.

Don't know anything about MT.

My son was at MTS. I thought it started at 11+ (and my son when at 13+ when a lot of boys start) so that one may be off your list unless it's changed.

Order of ease would be
Habs,
UCS,
Highgate,
Belmont (Mill Hill)

(If it has 7+ I would put MTS just below Habs although UCS is very good so I am not 100% sure).

My daughter went to North London Collegiate at 7+ as in those days the school started at 7+. Then it changed to 5+ i think so do check the age of main entry as at unusual entry points there will be just about no places.

Westminster's and KCS's girls-only results are much higher than their boys-only results

This claim is a bit unfounded. if you look at the GCSE ranking for both schools, when they are both boys only, the rankings are comparable. And very often they both perform better at GCSE than A level. So the addition of girls does not necessary boost their results in terms of ranking.

A factor to consider as well, is that some of these 'top' schools have been known to enter 'weaker' pupils as independents in the final A-levels, so an not to tarnish their statistics.
Additionally, not judging purely by exam results, there is a whole level of 'quality and breadth' of education received at schools that is relevant. Some school, Highgate, have a more pressured environment. This may not be what you want from a school.

@hkks there is a genetal belief and some evidence that the A level results for girls at these schools are higher, not because they are girls but naturally because they have been selected more recently so surely they will on average perform better. Also you cannot compare GCSE results with A level results, the A*-A percentages for GCSE are generally higher for any school so the results are more compressed, not so easy to perform at same percentages level with A levels given that the offering comes into the mix too. Indeed there is careful management of the cohorts to try to top up the rankings, which I find silly. The school I know cares less about rankings is St Paul's boys and more recently, Westminster. Although I extremely academic sill, heir reputations allow them toa certain extent look beyond results and think about the overall education of each student.

Surely location also matters - this is a young child, traveling to school takes time. The best school will have a good standard of education but also be within a reasonable journey time, no more than 30 minutes.

princess, I've not seen that ever at Habs Girls or NLCS or MTS where our children were or my twins' school ever although I am not saying it may not happen elsewhere. If everyone at the school is very clever you don't tend to find academically weak people who might mess up league table positions.

I would not put location anywhere on the list . My daughter got a 30 minute school coach to Habs at 5+ and it was fine. At 11+ they put children in classes with children who live near them so it's a very good system and have coaches from across London, same with NLCS and MTS.

@Stilllookingfor

Yes, i didn't compare the % of A*-A, as it's not comparable, they are different paper. but I was comparing the rankings. For example, Westminter almost consistently have a higher ranking at GCSE than A level. If the girls they took in are higher achievers, why is A level ranking drops from GCSE?

It's difficult to compare Kings, as many students will be doing IB course, and A level results only partially reflect their academic result.

But of course, the ranking does not tell everything, they are just for reference. parents will need to look at other aspects of the school.

@hhks - have you actually looked at the difference between boys and girls A level results at Westminster and KCS?

Westminster
A*/7/D1/D2 - combined 57.5%, boys-only 53.3%, girls-only 66.0%

KCS
A*/7/D1/D2 - combined 49.4%, boys-only 47.2%, girls-only 54.9%
A* - combined 42.2%, boys-only 37.3%, girls-only 52.4%
A*/A - combined 78.4%, boys-only 71.4%, girls-only 92.7%

N.b., the table given above treats Westminster and KCS inconsistently with respect to IB and PreU marks. It includes IB scores of 7 and PreU scores of D1 & D2 for Westminster, but not for KCS. I'm providing the A level only results for KCS so you can compare with the table.

Both schools are very near the top of any such list so the rankings may not move very much, but the differences between the boys and girls score are both large and significant.

Thank you all. It sounds pretty scary I must confess. Tutoring when at a top school is crazy. Any good alternatives to the 5 top schools if DS fails to beat the competition? Any good preps in North London or Herts as backup?

Any good preps in North London or Herts as backup?

Manor Lodge - not for the fainthearted though! Their reputation for getting children into top schools at 11+ is well deserved, but the way they push the same children in Y6 is tougher than most schools.