Is Westminster School the best school on Earth?

[statesmom]

Just looking at their website and they have 97 places for their students at Oxford and Cambridge this year?!

We have an 8 year old son and want to focus on getting him into this place, just next to the Palace of Westminster. It looks amazing! Any thought on parents with children at the school very welcome indeed, especially any thoughts on the application process. Thank you for someone new to London.

Indeedy - that might have kept us out of the indy sector .

aah but that could never compete with being in the best school on earth next to Palace of W with Her Majesty possibly dropping in and with a DS inevitably destined to go up to city of the dreaming spires to swan around Christ Church quad in subfusc, Sebastian Flyte like.

poor little bugger is probably in some rubbishy expensive prep school in some ridiculous out of town state...

no hope whatsoever.

Ahem.

Unless he is a reasonably bright little lad with something about him which appeals...

who knows?

Eastpoint Ah but one at least had a place at St Pauls' Girls' School even if she refused to go there. Since this year it has I gather 53 Oxbridge offers and a sixth form half the size of Westminster ( denuded by several of the glamour posse having decamped to Westminster to bolster it's Oxbridge entries) then by statesmom's criteria it must be the greatest school in the world, but then maybe a school can only be the greatest school in the world if it has a better view than Brook Green and the slightest possibility of a minor royal in the vicinity.....

I wonder if there is something in the fact the all of my friends who are ex SPGS ran for the hills the moment they could? ie, refused to go on to sixth form. (all very succesful, it that matters!)

madame defarge and my DDs peers confound the view expressed by several here that parents choose the most selective school their DCs get into. I know several 11 year old girls who refused to go to SPGS in the first place.

I know so many parents who swerve the whole SPGS thing because they just don't want their girls to be pressured and moulded like that.

because, quite honestly, any decent school will get your kid into a decent university, state or not.

If that is the right outcome for them, should have said!

However, if you feel you or your child needs the whole social networking thing, which I do not discount, but do disapprove of, then hey, go for it.

Just don't pretend its about academic performance!

The OP's whole stance seems to be based on snobbism in any case with the assumption that Oxbridge or the Ivy League must be the best regardless of course and disregarding other universities that regularly appear in the top slots according to various league tables. Places like UCL or MIT clearly don't have the same elite cache to her. I'm surprised that she'd not thinking about Eton, Harrow etc.

My father went to Westminster, as did my brother for a while (my parents moved him because they weren't impressed). It was on my list for sixth form but at the time it had a terrible reputation as being pretty foul to girls and I went to Kings, Canterbury instead (partly I have to confess because I thought that the boys looked very sexy in their penguin suits - an attraction my girls school just didn't have). There was a lot of poaching the brightest girls to 'civilise' the boys and up the grades, of course this was a long time ago but the reason for the poaching is still as true today. I'd certainly want to see the value add before committing all that cash.

For Oxbridge entry I suspect that the best way to up your child's chances would be to send them to a standard state school and hope they stand out, which if they are very bright is fairly likely. In general parental support is still the most important factor in educational success.

I think that OP is with Gove, you get your child to the 'right' school and the school does the rest! I can't see the point in getting excited about how many get to Oxbridge when your own child might not be Oxbridge material and, considering how young he is at the moment, he may not wish to go anyway.

OP is an Amy Chua admirer....can't wait for her next book...it tells you everything you need to know.

Many of those academic schools, girls and boys, are absolutely fine for many children. Mine never found loads of pushing. the schools tell you to relax and do your hobbies. We know people at SPGS too who are very happy and not pushed. If you are bright it's not being pushed to do work to the standard you are at.

I agree Laura. That’s why I maintain that even if furious tutoring somehow gets a child over the fence and into a very academic school, that child will struggle and be unhappy. If they have a normal childhood and attend a school which will prep them in the course of its normal curriculum, that’s the way to get in and thrive. 2 of my dcs were at W and another is at a top girls’ school. Plenty of time for hobbies, hanging out with friends, going to parties.

And for better or worse, it’s a statement to the thrall of Westminster that so many have commented on this thread. In most other contexts states mom’s comments wouldn’t have generated half as much interest.

And who are all these driven parents anyway? I'm sure they are in a minority. Take child to school, kiss child (until they refuse) nod and smile - go home or to work. My DC's friends' parents are all lovely, normal, grounded people.

I don't think it was anything to do with Westminster that drew the attention, MadAriadne....more the way statesmom out her point across ...it could have been any school she was commenting on...Eton, Harrow, Winchester, St Paul's ....

Yeah it's not specific to Westminster, she could have said that some North London grammar school was 'clearly best' based on stats and ended up with similar arguments against

I think it's the idea that there is a best school that's daft. And I say that as someone who is extremely happy with the education DS receives there.

All I can say is it works very well for him and many of his mates. That it's the right school for him. Day to day it gives him what he needs (this is where the value added lies). His results and university destination are less correlated.

That said, I suspect he'd have been fine at a number of places. He's very laid back and underwhelmed by school .

I think it was the use of the word 'dunces' that led to the interest.

Although that comment may have been deleted.

I'm amazed this thread has bubbled along for so long, although there have been some very good and interesting points made (although not by the OP, obviously).

To me the significant statistic is not what percentage of the total number of pupils are offered Oxbridge places, but what percentage of those who actually applied to Oxbridge are offered places. I think if you looked at that figure the percentages would be pretty much the same at most of the good schools.

The main rise was to the suggestion that any school could be the best school on earth, rather than the best school for your child. Then the fishing hook just kept being dipped in with the "dunce" and "Amy Chau" references and then trying to argue with a bunch of well educated articulate parents that 97 offers to Oxbridge was "statistical" proof of the school's superiority as opposed to the highly selective intake, and indeed arrival of a couple of coach loads of extremely able girls educated else where until sixth form.

Most of us have actually gone through the process of choosing a London School with our DCs, or indeed have DCs at Westminster or went there ourselves, so I don't think there is much chippy ness at all. Just realism. Appreciating the school may be the best school on earth for those with the right personality and level of ability. The school is good at identifying that too, so it is a wise parents job to identify which school is the best match for their child's ability and personality. OP asked for advice on entry and that is what she has been advised. She just doesn't want to hear it.

We are going through the whole process for my DS who is bright ...in the decision making there is a wide range of factors mainly: which (private) school would best suit his personality being a bright quirky not so super sporty but musical boy, what extra curriculars do they have compared to his interests, what is the pastoral care like, what is the geographical distance for his daily commute or would we be prepared to move for it (since he does not want to board), and what is its academic standing and next destinations for uni (since he is academic), is it strong enough in the sciences, what will his cohort be like (as much as you can tell from current children), is it single sex... We wouldn't even consider Westminster because of location, nor Eton because it's boarding ...but we will be looking for the best school for him ...and one where he can best thrive and will likely achieve as much if he had gone to one of those other schools. There are some very very good top schools out there and they are all competitive to get into and are capable of bringing out the best for children that are right for that school. A boy that is right for Winchester may not be right for Eton and vice versa. One might be the best school for him and the other not.

in other words, you take the boy first and then look at the school, rather than the other way round

As a Westminster parent I found the following odd:

1. That it is assumed that I studied league tables and Oxbridge entry rates before deciding to send our son there. We did not. My son simply loved the feel of the place. He did not like St Pauls.

1. So much of the debate has focussed on outputs not outcomes. To the extent that parenting is a project I am concerned with outcomes, eg that my children develop into happy, well-rounded, kind, educated adults, who are achieving their potential and have careers they find rewarding. Results are not worth it, if the adult is insecure, anxious, or unable to take decisions without direction from Tiger Mom.

1. Some assumption that a majority of Westminster pupils are overcoached and unhappy. Our experience is that Westminster pupils do well because they are engaged and stretched, and enjoy the challenges presented to them.

1. That Oxbridge places are some sort gold standard. Competition levels for different degrees vary markedly. Cambridge economics and engineering seem to be looking for UMS scores of over 96%. Some Westminsters, along with pupils from all sorts of other schools, will be taking their AAA*A predictions to London Warwick and elsewhere. A school that gets say, three geographers or anthropologists into Oxford, is not necessarily better than a school that gets three engineers into Imperial. In our experience Westminster does not try to steer pupils into less competitive degrees, but supports their ambitions, even when this effectively means Oxbridge is off the table. (That said the results are extraordinary. It is not just 97 Oxbridge, but roughly 20 medics and 20+ good US Universities, plus places like the Courtauld.)

Though I wondered at times, I think Statesmom is real. There are a few like her floating around in central London. It is almost as if money entitles you to status and access, and that you then go on to buy schooling and results. MadameDeFarge summed it up well.

Looking back it is hard to think of our son being happier anywhere else. So perhaps true to say that Westminster has been the best school in the world for our son. I think he could well have got the same results elsewhere, but I don't think he would have enjoyed his education as much or have been as engaged both in his subjects and in a broad range of Extra Curricular.