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.

@nearthewindmill, I meant the best universities in the US are better than the best universities here. I hardly think that is controversial when you look at research, funding, physical plant, course offerings, etc.

I actually think the private primary education system is better in the UK.

The best you can do is a top UK private primary and secondary and a top US university.

And I have to say, going to school across the street from the Palace of Westminster has got to be pretty cool!! I don't know, I guess I have to see whether our DS is . . . . . academic.

states my DDs have friends at the school. The results on the website are for 2013, the 2014 round of offers have only just been made. I am talking from direct feedback from the DCs who applied this year.

Not that it matters, as I say there are plenty of other unis that will give clever pupils the opportunity, whichever school they went to. You can't buy those opportunities, your DCs earn them by hard work and ability. My DD just left a school in the top 10 in the school tables to study A levels at a school that is "only" in the top 50. She has absolutely flourished and just achieved excellent AS results. She says that she would not have done as well at her old school because she didn't feel valued or encouraged. We are so pleased to see her grow in confidence because she is so happy at the new school.

My Older DD is now in her third year of uni and it has been interesting to see how the opportunities her peers have had have really matched their ability and personalities regardless of where they went to school, whether indie, super selective state grammar or state comprehensive. We didn't choose an indie school because we thought our DDs would get better results and to better unis, we chose it because it was the right choice of school for them .

Interestingly one of her friends who wasn't the most able academically at school, just landed an amazing job. The alpha girls in their year are all clearly shocked and even have asked her for advice on how they can improve their CVs. As I commented to DD, they are missing the point, she got that job because she has an amazing personality.

NeartheWindmill - I think the OP, in that particular post, is using "schools" in the US sense, that is institutions that the UK calls Universities.

Indeed she has the sword of niceness

Unless one lives close to the Palace of Westminster I think it would be pretty tiresome actually. Can't park in an emergency, ie, child ill at school, crowded tubes in the rush hour - can you just imagine the poor teenager battling in with his cello or euphonium on games day when he also needs a cricket bag? And unless you actually know anyone at the Palace of Westminster you will hardly be able to drop in for tea you know; if you do know them you can do that regardless of where your child attends school.

ShootingAtPigeons - it has become politically unacceptable for a handful of London independent schools to bag such a high proportion of places at Oxbridge. Maybe that means that deserving candidates from those schools won't get a place at Oxbridge and less deserving candidates from St Bogstandard do? Who knows?

Bonsoir...Why. I doubt very much that your statement is true.

My understanding was that universities were required to give candidates equal opportunity, rather than discriminate against particular candidates.

My reading of the Oxbridge thing is that London Day schools are still picking up their share of Oxbridge places in less popular subjects like MFL. However Cambridge in particular, and subjects like engineering and economics, have become immensely competitive. My guess that disappointed candidates result not just from an increase in contextualisation, but competition from European students, who count as home students and who have equal access.

These subjects select as much as anything on mathematical horse power. A look at Student Room suggests there is now a significant number of super-bright Europeans (Greeks, Lithuanians, French, Germans, whatever) giving Cambridge a shot. For many a Cambridge degree is a first step into a career into Investment Banking.

Oxbridge is not everything. Many would argue that Imperial, LSE, UCL and Warwick offer better courses. From the chart posted earlier Westminster students are well represented at London University.

The problem is needmoresleep is that the selection process is less than transparent and there are strong suspicions that the bar is being raised for the indy applicants due to their greater privilege. My son's school said there was no point applying with less than 8 A* GCSEs, yet I am also aware that boys and girls from the local comp have been accepted with 6.

I know quite a lot about mathematically inclined French pupils applying for Engineering, Economics etc to Oxbridge and top-ranking Russell Group universities and I do not for a second believe in the equal access thing. The bar is much higher for French candidates than for English candidates.

Can see now that 97 offers are for this year, but that's offers not places. As USA unis are "so much better" lots of these are probably rejected and the DCs head off to the states instead. It is even possible that a few won't make the grades! Does anyone have last years numbers actually going to compare against the previous just to see if it was up or down?

Just interested, because we keep getting told that they are widening access and you wonder who is losing the places.

I also find it interesting because they do so much better than the super selective grammars which take in at 11. But it is very hard to compare because Westminster has such a large 6th form intake and you can't tell how many places are given to the newbies and how many from the original cohort.

I am really annoyed so much of this thread has been deleted, it's classic mumsnet.

near this will give you insight into the process of contextualising offers. www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work it is reasonable to regard 8As from a good school (state or private) as equivalent to 6 from a poor performing school and I don't see how anyone can argue that a pupil who has had all the benefits of an education at a school like Westminster wouldn't be expected by Oxbridge interviewers to display superior knowledge and thought to a pupil who has come from a poorly performing school with high staff turnover etc. as highlighted in the article. As to why there has been such a dramatic shift this year, I think Needmore* is probably right that there are a number of factors, and since the process is opaque we can't know, it may even just be a blip, and certainly no pupil is going to be disadvantaged by "only" getting to UCL or LSE

However from the point of view of OP don't choose Westminster because it will get your son to Oxbridge, or you get to stare out at some lovely buildings and may even get a glance at someone important, and then subject your son to some sort of bootcamp to get him in, choose it because it feels right for your child, somewhere he will fit in, flourish and be happy.

Cake - I don't think you missed much.

Bonsoir - I don't get it. There should be discrimination against privately educated Londoners, but not against French candidates?! Mon dieu.

My sense is that competition for places in maths orientated subjects has grown tremendously. Not dissimilar to the problems in Scotland where no fees for European students and equal access has meant Scottish students are struggling to get into local universities. I am sure there are efforts at contextualisation, and don't see this as unfair - Westminster's maths teaching is fantastic whereas other candidates may not have been able to take Further maths. However my guess is that the sheer numbers of very strong candidates is causing the problem. Good for British Universities in a way. Good for Warwick, and London as well.

cake that was 2013 offers, the 2014 offers are only just out. needmore and I are commenting via the experience of candidates we know. And it isn't just Westminster there has been a shift in the number of places and the quality of the rejected candidates at all the West London selectives to my knowledge.

The problem for interviewers into making selection as fair as possible is that it has to take into account that some candidates have the advantage of coming from schools where the skills of extended thinking and debating points are practised daily whilst another candidate may be just as able and have the potential of innovative work but has not been enabled to the same level by their school or family background.

I know of two children who were rejected outright (no interview) at Latymer and called back for interviews at Westminster (13+).

Cake - applying to American Universities is quite a faff. People tend to do one or the other, so it is likely that most if not all offers are taken up.

I understand that Oxbridge offers for Westminsters are actually higher this year 2014 than last. But stick to my thesis that in some subjects the competition is such that even for the very best candidates it is a lottery. (And agree with Shooting that the same seems to be happening across West London schools.)

I am not complaining. I'm stating a fact.

It's a good school. It is a bit crowded though as a site and very Central London-ish which does not suit everyone.
My son's old school has 16 Oxbridge offers this year.
Can't find my daughters but usually 40% to Oxbridge and does often pip Westminster to the post on exam results.
I don't think my daughter who went to Bristol is doing any worse in the City than had she had a go at Oxbridge and got in (not that she necessarily would have got in).

To Cake Sorry I don't have numbers only anecdotes and mutterings / grumblings at the cricket pitch sidelines from parents. A friend of mine was quite upset as his 10A GCSE boy has not had an offer despite projections of 3A /1 A at A2 from the AS grades. There are now regular sessions on the USCAT exam, I understand.

The bar is definitely higher for privately educated pupils at elite schools IMO. I know personally of several exceptional boys turned down at Cambridge, IQ 150 plus, well rounded, 5 A* at A level types. They went on to do extremely well elsewhere but it did leave several of us rather perplexed and puzzled as to why they hadn't made the grade. I know of other similar children who were pooled, again privileged and at the elite schools. Perhaps this is as it should be to give others, less privileged, a chance?

I disagree clifftop. Rather than lowering the bar for the state school children, state schools should be expected to raise their game and there perhaps needs to be greater recognition of the fact that the comprehensive system, complete with its inability to deal with persistent low level disruption, does not fit all and is particularly inadequate for challenging those who fit into the potentially high achieving catergory.

It all smacks of an education system sinking downwards to the lowest common denominator.

If you read the article I linked to the Cambridge admissions people comment that some candidates that look brilliant on paper don't have the depth of thought at interview. That they have been well trained to pass exams but not necessarily to have the thought processes Oxbridge are looking for. The Cambridge pool is filled with A* candidates who just failed to shine at interview for whatever reason. It is after all a subjective process that rests on a few conversations. You are interviewed by the same academics who will teach you which adds in another layer of subjectivity.

My DD came out of her Cambridge interview saying she didn't want to go there even if they offered her a place as she had found one of the interviewers, the one researching DDs area of interest as well, deeply obnoxious and rude (not just challenging )

The schools and the pupils are used to the fact that the Oxbridge process always throws up some odd results. It's just this year they appear odder than normal

There are almost three times the number of applicants to these two universities than there were thirty years ago. They have increased by 46% to Oxford alone just in the past ten years.

There is considerable luck involved, especially in the most competitive subjects where the bar is set very high. A 10 A/3AA applicant from a top school is a decent candidate for the least competitive subjects but won't look out of the ordinary for the more competitive ones.

I just don't understand why parents are thinking about how to get their kids into Oxbridge from this young age? Why this need for their children to perform superbly at academia? Does this equal happiness? What happens if they 'fail'?

Surely happiness comes from having a parent who supports and nurtures you in whatever you are good at or enjoy. A parent who truly understands who you are and who does not put you on an academic treadmill. In no way am I saying that all parents who send their kids to private school are like this but there seems to be so much emphasis on getting into Oxbridge on here. Some kids are suited to high achieving academia, the majority are not.

Does this need have more to do with the parents meeting their peers expectations?

Oxbridge doesn't make you happy! Being loved, understood and nurtured does.