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...

My ds is there and there are some very very clever boys there and some not so clever (usually ones who've come from the Junior Branch - not all of them, of course, but the ability is more even across the 11+ entry). All above average though since it gets whatever it does in GSCEs, 9s, A*s etc.

I would imagine that at all these schools those that are super bright are the same level of brightness but what varies is the proportions. The cleverest boy at Westminster is no cleverer than the cleverest at Habs, UCS, City etc because not everybody wants their child to go to the perceived best. I'd also say that the cleverest kid at these schools is no cleverer than the smartest at a normal local comprehensive either. It's the range and proportion of the very brightest that varies across schools. Personally I don't want my children at a school with two narrow a range of ability as that's not great for self-esteem.

On the other hand, at their primary (state with v deprived intake) the range was, for me, too big as there were kids who weren't literate by the end of y6. Interestingly though, this disparity made much less difference to my children's progress than you'd have expected.

Thanks Hothouseorflophouse.
Is it then the case that the junior branch is not as academic?
You are correct that the proportions is key. So is there a higher proportion or clever in the senior school and junior school? I also assume that all the children in the pre-prep move on to the junior branch? Is this correct?

If it is like other preps most children go on to the seniors and some very bright children compete for 11+ places. I don't actually think the girls who were with my daughters in Habs and NLCS in the juniors are any les bright than those who came in at 11+ facing perhaps more competition and sometimes the 11+ joiners have come from state schools are may be not quite as advanced as those coming up from the juniors but I get the point that perhaps in choosing children at 5 or 7 it may be a bit harder to vet them as they are so little. I am not sure the schools agree however as they have found they can ascertain who might do well at these schools as much at 7 or younger than at 11. The junior branches of these kinds of schools tend to be 2 years ahead of state schools so I am not sure they are less academic really.

I don't believe that the junior branches are two years ahead of state schools, judging by the kids I know from state schools who've gone to St Pauls, Latymer, UCS, City, SHHS, NLCS, Highgate etc, etc. They really aren't two years behind and in maths seem to be slightly ahead. I think that's a bit of a con that private schools tell parents. If it were true, then how would any state school kids gain entry? Mine have and aren't even particularly bright (top table but not top of top table).

It's not that the junior schools are less academic, it's just that nobody can argue that it is as accurate to measure kids' ability at 3 as at 11. You wouldn't give out Oxbridge places based on 11+ performance and so it is that a child that gets into, say Highgate pre-prep at 3, might be the brightest kid in the year but equally might be a child that wouldn't have stood a chance at 11. I also get the sense that the prep schools that feed into senior schools (not UCS particularly, but all of the north London ones) can be a bit complacent because parents are so keen to shell out the vast sums to avoid the 11+ bunfight. When perhaps it's not as bad as they think...

I don't believe that the junior branches are two years ahead of state schools

The average private school student certainly used to be about two years ahead of the average state school student. Back when most private schools still administered SATS, the average private school student was working at NC level 5b when the average state school student was working at level 4b. The difference was about two years expected progress. Those were averages. Some state primaries outperformed some private primaries, and many state educated children outperformed many privately educated children. But the average child at a state primary performed about two years below the average child at a private primary.

If it were true, then how would any state school kids gain entry?

A far smaller fraction of state primary students gain entry at the top private secondaries than private primary students. The state primary children who do gain these places are far more exceptional at their schools than the private primary children at theirs.

I am not sure why all of us are prepared to put up with all this!! My DS now complains that he is bored at his state school because he is taught what he already knows (or so he says)! I realise it's unavoidable but I also feel that the whole system is wrong. Perhaps not enough good schools.

The private schools use positive discrimination to make sure they take from state schools at 11 and 7

I think the polite term now is 'contextual admissions'

Personally I don't want my children at a school with two narrow a range of ability as that's not great for self-esteem.

Doesn't that depend on which end of the range they would be at?

Yup absolutely User (and obv I meant too not two, the shame). But generally speaking I don't think a very narrow ability range is healthy even if you're at the top of it. It's not going to kill any child to deal with people who don't share their exact IQ. And when we're talking of selective London schools, I don't think they're going to be held back by any other pupil anyway.

Do private schools use positive discrimination? I've never heard them say that. I expect if all things were equal they migh,t but do you have any evidence?

I suppose averages are just that, averages. When people say private schools are working two years ahead they're forgetting that loads of state school kids will also be working two or three or four years ahead, especially those from similar sort of backgrounds to those at private schools. There will also be those working two years behind but not, IME, the ones that will be considering private secondary.

Honestly my children weren't particularly exceptional academically at their 60% FSM primary and have got into schools that loads of kids from private primaries haven't got into. Maybe they were positively discriminated for or something but I do think that there are myths around 11+ and how utterly impossible it is.

11+ into the North London grammars... now that is tough.

Do private schools use positive discrimination?

I have been at information sessions and open days at multiple schools where similar questions were asked. The answer was invariably that the senior school tries to evaluate the "whole child" and consider the raw scores in the context of the child's background and opportunities. They would not necessarily expect a child from a state school to be as familiar with their exam formats as a child from a school which did mock tests in these formats for a year. They would not necessarily expect a child from a school where most children had low math scores to be as familiar and facile with the most advanced concepts in KS2 math as a child from a higher performing school. Some schools, SPGS, in particular, ask an applicant to write down any and all tutoring they received. My personal belief is that most applicants use creative license in their responses to that question.

The head of ucs junior used the exact words positive discrimination at a recent open day in answer to a question about getting in from a state school.

Also, a friend sitting the 11+ at UCS was told that they take private:state in approximately the ratio that they apply - state applications make up 5-10% of all applications and 5-10% of all places offered.

I would be surprised. I woudl think they mark the papers without knowing who has taken that paper and those with the top marks get through to interview and the marker doesn't know if that person is state, private prep or anything else about them and as there are many more applicants than places it is pretty much done on merit.

It's speculation because none of know the inner workings of admissions tutors, but I think Xenia is right that the papers themselves are marked blind. I can't imagine they put a little 's' or 'p' at the top of them.

At the interview stage loads of things come into play of which school sector is only one. I wonder, for example, how much they look at the ethnic balance of a school. If it were on merit alone, I suspect these schools would look a lot more like QEB, for example, vast majority Chinese and Asian students. However, the brand requires that there be a certain amount of more traditionally 'British' public school types so I'm sure it's easier to get in if your surname is Forsyth than something Russian or Chinese or whatever. I'm sure there's an element of unconscious (or even conscious) bias.

I also suspect that there's data easily crunched by the schools themselves. They want the best results more than any redistribution of places to those who went to state primaries (who often are as posh as those at privates and clustered in the low-FSM honeypot primaries). It's easy for them to look at the GSCE and A levels results in comparison to how children performed at 11+ and they'll adjust accordingly.

Oh and I don't believe state applications make up only 5-10% of UCS applications. In my son's class, of the 8 or so new boys, at least 4 had been to state primaries.

In fact, if you're right about 5-10% then there would only be 2 or 3 state school educated boys in the whole year.

I don't know if it's true, but it was told to a close friend by ucs admissions office within the last six months.

At the time of the test, the children are grouped together as "from state" and "from private" and sit accordingly in different classrooms. So the schools surely have separate bundles of paper from state & private school children.

If it were on merit alone, I suspect these schools would look a lot more like QEB

That depends on how you choose to define merit. I would share your suspicion if selection were done on exam scores alone. But let's not forget that exam scores reflect both ability and effort. A definition of 'merit' which places more weight on ability (and potential over 10+ years) might yield a very different looking school.

@theLondonSchoolSearch - in which school did they separate the state and independent school exam sitters?

Does anyone living in NW london have experience of commute to St. Paul’s Juniors.
We wonder if it is doable and Wonder if it makes sense to turn down St. Paul’s juniors for ucs because of the distance. Or perhaps consider moving. Any advice will be appreciated please.

Yes, there are parents who do the commute to St. Paul's, usually because they didn't get their first choice in North London. It can be done - it is done. Get up at 6 AM, basically. Not so bad the earlier you do it.

Thanks Hoverparent. Did they use the school bus or just the tube/train?

In terms of general commuting my older daughter took a fairly long school bus ride to Habs aged 5 and loved it. I used to get the tube to put her on the coach and older girls also helped out on the coaches and it was fine. I took daughter 2 into London on my way to work to Kensington Prep (until she got into NCLS at 7 and then too the NLCS coach) and thatwas fine too - we always got a seat as we were fairly ealry and even used to read stories on the way in because we got on fairly far out.