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.

Chacha says: "My child loves to read, so I encourage her.

She loves science so I buy her science books."

And what is your child didn't like to read? You have 0 expectations, you say. I guess you don't encourage her to read?

Honestly, this sort of permissive attitude toward being a parent is a wonder to me.

Do you reject all forms of authority? Whatever your kid wants to do, that's fine, and whatever she doesn't that's fine as well?

What is your role, really? I don't suppose you're looking at Westminster for sixth form.

Statesmom, you proved earlier in this thread that you are au fait with a dictionary (your description of the word 'dunce' was a delight). Please look up 'encouragement' and 'expectation'. Very different meanings.

I'm not looking at Westminster for sixth form. I live in the countryside by the sea. I have a job that I love. It's not hugely well paid. My only hope for my child is happiness, not money or power. This type of parenting unfortunately has more to do with the ego needs of the parents rather than the needs of the child.

statesmom, genuine question (the Sword Of Naice hangs over me)

What will you do if your son turns out to not be 'academic'? One of your posts yesterday gave the impression you weren't yet sure of his abilities in this area.

Not all parents at the Westminster type schools are uber pushy. And at 8, yes you do know if you have an academic child imo. But the academic child who really and truly thrives at such schools doesn't need tutoring - they just need to be entered for the entrance test and they do the rest. When my DS sat it, oh more than 10 years ago, the most important part of the test I always thought was the unscheduled bit at the end when the Head came in announced there was an extra half hour and handed out a pile of board games then sat quietly at the the back of the room and watched how a bunch of 8 year olds played.

What parents do is provide boundaries, provide good food, a loving home, a quiet place for homework, lifts, support, a hug when they have a bad day apart from that we never had to get involved with the academic or even the pastoral life of the school - they could be trusted to get on with it. Very, very different from dd's two years in a top 100 comp!

Nearthe I agree that these schools are on the whole very good at spotting ability over cramming (another distinction Amy chau statesmom may struggle with) and select the pupils who will do well there. SPGS make that plain in the section of their website on preparation

"Places at St Paul’s are highly sought after and the entrance procedure will therefore always be competitive. The school’s purpose is to provide an education suited to girls of outstanding intellectual potential and in selecting candidates, we take great care to gather as much information as we can on which to base a sound judgement. We want girls to be happy and thrive once they arrive here.
It is also important for us to be able to identify over prepared candidates who may perform well in our assessments but who are unable to sustain the required pace when they join the school."

However those of us who have gone through the admissions process for these very selective schools do know that a sort of madness descends on the parent body. They may not be a blatant as statesmom but I am quite sure many lose sight of the importance of providing a secure loving and above all relaxed environment for their DCs because they really cannot cope with the fact that they cannot influence the outcome, they cannot trust that their child will end up at the school that is right for their ability, or that perhaps their child actually is not right for the school they want for them. I don't think it is entirely down to vicarious ambition, some of it is down to the Chinese whispers that go on about what is needed to get in to these schools, mostly not rooted in reality, which ratchet up parental anxiety levels. When the results come out, sure enough the pupils get to the schools that are right for their level of ability, and all the pressure, hothousing and tutoring makes no difference whatsoever, but in the process I am quite sure that the self esteem of some DCs has been damaged, and some have been made to feel that parental love was conditional upon success. I am afraid I have witnessed the fallout, it keeps the Priory's teenage wing busy (statesmom the Priory is where the teenagers with drug problems, eating disorders and depression are treated)

Well I would say 8 is a bit to young to know for sure if your DC are academic.

At 4 my DS was behind his peers.
At 8 he was pretty average.
At 11 he showed. signs of being clever.
At 13 he entered public school on an academic scholarship.
At 14 he took a few GCSEs...

When I say that parents can buy good results at A'level, what I meant of course is that if you have a lot of money you can send your child to a school where they are more or less guaranteed excellent and not overstretched teachers in each subject, in exam technique, and in how to get into Oxbridge or other good universities (including help with personal statements, interview technique etc), a lot of small group and individual attention, the best materials, the best academic trips, no real disciplinary issues, an ambitious and talented peer group (which is very important in encouraging children to work hard). A child who gets all that, and almost certainly parental encouragement too, with everything geared towards his/her doing well, will almost inevitably get good results. Even fairly unintelligent children will likely get into a decent university.

Drom I knew what you meant.

And I think it's disingenuous to say that these types of education aren't an advantage in life. Of course they are. And yes, I'm buying it.

It isn't right. It isn't fair. But I'm programmed to seek out the very best for my DC (as I perceive it)...

Of course the DC at these schools are clever and of course they work their arses off (much of MN is allergic to DC working anywhere near as hard as mine)...but yes, it's an unfair advantage.

Dromedary.....one thing you are ignoring when you say a "fairly unintelligent child will likely get into a decent university" is that all the best (i.e. highly academic) private schools are also highly highly selective and vastly oversubscribed in terms of applicants to places - they don't take you based on how money you have, but yes, you need money or a bursary to afford it...but unlikely to let in the "fairly unintelligent child"...as they also look at much more than written tests because unlike the grammars, they not only test on reasoning, English and Maths, but place a lot of store on interviews and Headmaster's in depth report which covers things like your child's sets, extra-curriculars, school exams performance, behaviour, midyis scores etc. so they have a wider set of information to select from than even the superselective states which cannot interview or ask for reports.

Then after competitive pre-testing at 11+, the "best" indie schools set a bar of at least 70% grade on common entrance for entry at 13+. Having got in, a lot of them also cull at end of fifth form if you don't get the requisite A*s .

Not taking away that they may get more help and resources to get into the best unis than at state schools......and yes, sure the specialist teachers and peer groups of like minded children also is a big factor...but even without those advantages, it is not surprising that private schools that are uber-selective in the first place also achieve stellar results. Perhaps the other factors you mention and the fact that they can use a wider criteria for selection in the first place than the superselective grammars, explains why the best privates are still way ahead on Oxbridge entrance than the best state.

bally to be fair though, there are unslective private schools that do an incredible job with a mixed intake. Dd attends one and Oh My Word, the results are unbleievable for girls of mixed ability!

Drom but it isn't necessarily a silver spoon. Around here we have some excellent state schools (if you can get a place) . If you are a clever pupil in top sets there there will be very little difference in your outcomes, exam wise and university wise. And my DDs peers who have come out of those schools demonstrate that. I might add at my DDs very competitive course at a very competitive uni she is finding being amongst students who come from all different sorts of educational backgrounds (obviously overseas as well ) really stimulating. Being in a classroom with pupils of the ( in her case) same sex and broadly similar social background is a bit stifling. Oxbridge often comment that they reject candidates from private schools with excellent results because they do not have that breadth of thought.

If you are from a poor school you will actually get contextual factors taken into account in your uni application. The greatest challenge for university fair access strategies is not levelling the playing field for those who apply, that bit is easy, it is reaching those clever pupils that do not have the knowledge and motivation to apply.

ok granted...but we are posting under Westminster thread, so I was focussing on those types of uber selective private schools...there are a fair few top privates that get 30% plus into Oxbridge but no state (even super-selective) grammars that come close to that.

Using Westminster as an example of independent secondary education is not valid. It is a super-selective. The vast majority of independent schools do not send significant numbers to Ivy League or Oxbridge.

Whether this group add educational value based on the baseline CAT / CEM ability levels is the real question. When you strip out the multiple variables that affect educational outcomes (that these children probably already enjoy), it is not that clear that these schools add much.

They do provide lots of other opportunities but turning a pigs ear into a silk purse. Don't really think so.

agree...and as trying to make the same point .... they do add other things - extra curriculars, sport, music, self-confidence etc. more personal attention (or cosseting if you like) ...even where non -selective for non academic or even struggling children who may sink without a trace otherwise outside the private sector.

Surely one has to acknowledge that the "advantage" starts long before a parent "buys" an education for a child? By the time they get to Westminster - or any other "super-school" - these particular children are already the winners.

There was a young man on the radio a few months ago who said that, growing up, he didn't even know that people went to university at 18. I still can't get it out of my head. In my own family I've witnessed at least two generations of pre-reception age children happily chatting, unprompted, about their university hopes.

But I don't think I even realised how polarized things are until I found Mnet. Do you remember the "elite education" threads? (And this one has developed nicely despite its I auspicious start...) At the exact same time, there have been threads where people have reacted with horror to the prospect of a child not leaving school to go straight into work.

Life isn't fair - but it isn't schools that "cause" this.

bally I think the issue of the super selective grammar school results is an interesting one because I am quite sure that our local super selective grammar schools who supposedly take only the top 3 % of the ability range do nothing of the sort. Otherwise given their exam results something is going wrong once they arrive, teaching, peer pressure, whatever.

However I think the most likely problem is with their selection process. VR and NVR tests can be very good tests of ability when used correctly with constant maintenance and development to ensure the questions are not predictable. However there is a huge tutoring industry nationwide that responds to the fact that the tests they are setting are predictable. So quite simply they are not getting the most able pupils, nor are they getting a socially representative range of pupils. The private schools we are talking about go to great lengths to build up a complete picture of their candidates during the selection process. Obviously with 2000 applicants the grammar schools cannot be so thorough but they could do an awful lot more to ensure their admissions tests were a fair test of ability.

I think the OP is correct in thinking that at somewhere like Westminster your chances of an Oxbridge place are increased... because they know how to play the game.

They look closely at popular/unpopular colleges, and direct the, er, less stellar pupils towards degrees in (ahem) Geography, Education, Nordic Studies etc. It does slightly grate that someone I know ponces around still droning on about Cambridge and they did indeed do the Nordic thingy degree. Talk about being desperately shoehorned in. (Apologies to anyone who does have a real passion for Scandinavian languages and actively chose this course as opposed to seeing it had 3 applicants and thinking it looked a good bet.)

zero you are right of course.

I'm from a fairly disadvantaged background, but through a mixture of luck, judgement and sheer graft find myself able to pay for private school.

And when DC began at prep I was astounded at the privilege of the pupils. Not just financially, but everything.

They lived in a beautiful, safe, clean, prosperous area, close enough to London to have decent cultural lives. They had educated, articulate, supportive parents always on hand to help out in anyway they could.

This was before education even started to heap up their advantage.

Small wonder that when they pop off to secondary school they are well on their way to achieving highly. Schools like Westminster are just a small part of the privilege of these DC.

lainiekazan, In our experience this is not the case. The process is far more pupil centered, and certainly not Oxbridge or bust. There is absolutely no pressure on would be lawyers, economists or engineers to become geographers, though obviously you don't apply for a very competitive course without being aware that chances of a place are reduced. It is also not assumed that Oxbridge provides the best undergraduate education for all degrees, and pupils are strongly encouraged to look at course content rather than count dreaming spires.

Westminster have a number of students who go on to study subjects like classics, history of art, or philosophy/theology but, despite what Bonsoir said up-thread, I doubt these are chosen as soft subjects. Westminster teaches these subjects well and students then want to continue.

Shooting I agree with you on the top grammars. I recently went around one in London. It was mono cultural and much, much less diverse than Westminster. The children had no sparkle and I left seriously underwhelmed.

But State schools are only allowed to use objective measurements and the Tutoring Industry has worked out the entry process.

It's getting a bit heated and off point here. Staesmom is rather clumsy I think in the articularcy of her ambition for a 'good' school for her ds. Statesmom speak to the head of his school and talk it through. But it might be a bit early to tell. Precocity at 8 isn't always a hallmark of future academic talent, depth of thought, great curiosity, any more than keeping up with one's peers without particularly shining (hello ds2) means the opposite. Wait and see but above all don't tutor. If your son is capable, W will spot it.

Ragusa dh and I have 14 years of state education between us, four degrees and a comfortable lifestyle. We can afford private education, and because where we live the state provision at secondary is at best patchy, we are paying for our dcs education. Not to give them an unfair academic leg up or to facilitate social climbing (we are comfortable in our own skins as are our dcs) but because in return for our money our children are getting a stimulating education which we hope will bring out the best in them. They would 'survive' a comp (as did dh) but, well, it's not what we wanted.

Other side of the coin, a local friend (we're in N London) decided to send her 3 dds to the local bog standard comp because she wanted them not to be pushed the way her parents had pushed her. She wants them 'to find their own level'. Admirable, but they will find that level because she's equipped to help them. There are lots of bright kids at that school, many recent immigrants and/or from homes where English isn't the first language. They are given no guidance whatsoever about choosing GCSEs, Btechs or A levels, so many promising candidates are choosing subjects which won't enable them to have the chance of getting into a decent university. Oxbridge and Russell Group aren't the holy grail for everyone, and many of those kids are in fact better off doing less academic subjects, but I think is unforgivable that a large state school in our capital city has such poverty of ambition for so many teenagers.

Saganoren would you consider a school like Westminster for a bright son or daughter?

needs I think there is a bit of Oxbridge or bust to be honest. But it's not a huge thing. As we can see from the leavers results, plenty are choosing medicine, law, economics etc They're not dissuaded at all, even if it means they have to go second tier ...

And the students studying history, English and MFL will probably all go on to jobs in the city, foreign office etc. We have a joke in my department that we're training the next generation of investment bankers ...

The thing is, these schools have very scholarly atmospheres. Pupils are encouraged to study all manner of esoteric subjects. There is deep regard for literature, history, art etc.. small wonder some boys leave with a passion for Ancient Greek or whatever.

l'm amazed that only one person has picked up on statesmom's weird contention that top US universities are better than top UK universities. In the three main rankings out there, the top few places always comprise a mix of US and UK universities. So: Harvard, Caltech, MIT, Imperial, UCL, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. See:
www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking
www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities

Statesmom, you will struggle to get your son into Westminster if you bring along this level of preconception to the process. You need to be able to be more fact-based.

You are also using a pretty narrow and odd set of criteria to judge the school (of which the weirdest has to be meeting royalty: what American lawyer cares a fig for unelected rulers?). Your son's happiness should surely figure into it somewhere, and it is very definitely true that only a certain type of boy is happy at Westminster. It is a school with a lot of very clever sensitive boys who are pretty unhappy due to the pressure.

My DS had a fighting chance of getting in and doing well academically. But he is sufficiently sensitive that he cares how he's doing relative to others, and so he goes to an academic school where he's near the top of the class and feels proud of his achievements, vs Westminster where he would have been no more than average at best. Works for him.

On a side note, the Standard published a scary-but-funny article about the mad mad world of tuition in London now. It rings true with all the driven parents I meet in NW London who simply cannot countenance any type of failure on behalf of their kids' academics, despite being bright enough to do the maths and realise that 70% rejection rates mean there's a good chance they'll have to swallow that particular bitter pill.

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-highclass-tutors-who-know-how-to-give-your-child-an-educational-bonas-9055654.html

Word, you have summed up DS's Westminster experience. He has found some unexpected interests, and has been encourage to explore them. Results are important but education is much more than that.

I am not sure that academically Oxbridge is always seen as first tier, and elsewhere second. However once you throw in other factors it normally ends up looking more attractive than London, fields outside Coventry or wherever.

Home if you're son didn't apply, let alone get in, how come you know all the boys are sensitive and unhappy?