what else has gone wrong at Westminister (branching off from Westminster Maths thread)

[boys3]

A separate thread so as not to detract from the maths focus on the original thread.

The answer to the question posed in the title would appear to be "absolutely nothing" as far as the most recent available stats are concerned.

However Summerends cheeky request will be provided below shortly.

needmore yes indeed.

W could certainly cherry pick 60 girls to boost their Oxbridge stats, but they seem to take a nice mix.

DD has been offered a place and isn't from overseas, won't be boarding and isn't a genius .

My comment was not specific to Westminster: if one looks at a large group of "top" co-ed schools women are under-represented in top maths sets. Of course any one school might be an exception, as might one particular year.

For further reading see the Sutton Trust Degrees of Success

I can't help feeling that The Sutton Trust et al are barking up the wrong tree.

It's rather obvious why fewer pupils overall in, eg, Rochdale get to top universities and why more from Sutton do. You need to compare like with like. Does the grocer's daughter in Rochdale do worse than the grocer's daughter in Sutton? Or, even, does the grocer's daughter in Grantham have less of a chance than the Sutton one?

Molio

88 schools sending at least 15 to Oxford but less than 15, and in some cases, just 1 applicant to Cambridge. Overall cohort size 19772 and overall cohort success rate 3.5%

None come close to Westminster in terms of cohort success, however using the same bands as for those schools sending at least 15 from each.

25% to 30%

1 school, Stephen Perse Foundation, 29.7%. Only 12 schools in the group above bettered that. Uilen made the good point that the 15+15 cut off could be misleading, although hopefully accepts why I started from that limited number. The results for this school support her point, however I do think there will only be a handful that do have high cohort percentages. I'd also add that looking (so far) at just one years' data could also throw up some anomolies

20% to 25% - none

15% to 20% - 3 schools, ranging from 15.3% to 16.7% and all with relatively small cohort sizes of 60, 87, and 59

10% to 15% - 7 schools, weighted average 11.8%

5 to 10% - 29 schools, weighted average 6.8%

0.1 to 5% - 46 schools, weighted average 1.9%

One of the 88 schools is in Scotland, George Heriot, so no cohort data on the DoE site, it had 6 successful so unlikely to be a high cohort percentage.

This is all a bit rough and ready but hope to maybe spend an hour or two looking at things properly tomorrow so can expand the range of schools looked at. Summer would also like to pick up on the GS performance aspect. I know the 164, however if anyone can point to info showing which are super selectives that would be very useful.

As far as the 87 quoted above goes, they are listed below in cohort success order. Numbers for each should be Total Oxbridge applications, total accepts, accept &, cohort size, cohort success rate. Apologies for the truly awful formatting, is there a better way to import a table?

School Name - Tot Appls - Tot Accepts - Success - Cohort - cohort success

The Stephen Perse Foundation - 38 - 19 - 50.0% - 64 - 29.7%

St Marys School, Ascot - 27 - 10 - 37.0% - 60 - 16.7%

The Lady Eleanor Holles School - 30 - 14 - 46.7% - 87 - 16.1%

South Hampstead High School - 27 - 9 - 33.3% - 59 - 15.3%

University College School - 42 - 20 - 47.6% - 149 - 13.4%

Highgate School - 66 - 20 - 30.3% - 150 - 13.3%

Colyton Grammar School - 36 - 14 - 38.9% - 114 - 12.3%

Kingston Grammar School - 33 - 13 - 39.4% - 107 - 12.1%

St Albans School - 47 - 16 - 34.0% - 148 - 10.8%

Nottingham Girls High School - 28 - 11 - 39.3% - 107 - 10.3%

King Edward VI School, Southampton - 35 - 12 - 34.3% - 120 - 10.0%

Wallington County Grammar School - 26 - 13 - 50.0% - 143 - 9.1%

Bristol Grammar School - 36 - 13 - 36.1% - 150 - 8.7%

Shrewsbury School - 44 - 15 - 34.1% - 174 - 8.6%

City of London Freemen's School - 23 - 8 - 34.8% - 95 - 8.4%

Abbey School, Reading - 28 - 7 - 25.0% - 89 - 7.9%

Oundle School - 55 - 15 - 27.3% - 192 - 7.8%

Downe House School - 34 - 7 - 20.6% - 91 - 7.7%

Clifton College - 32 - 11 - 34.4% - 147 - 7.5%

Eltham College - 35 - 7 - 20.0% - 97 - 7.2%

Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School - 27 - 10 - 37.0% - 139 - 7.2%

Solihull School - 26 - 10 - 38.5% - 140 - 7.1%

King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls - 36 - 9 - 25.0% - 127 - 7.1%

Ampleforth College - 32 - 9 - 28.1% - 127 - 7.1%

Chelmsford County High School, Chelmsford - 42 - 10 - 23.8% - 144 - 6.9%

Bishop Wordsworth's Grammar School - 27 - 10 - 37.0% - 145 - 6.9%

Forest School, Snaresbrook - 24 - 8 - 33.3% - 117 - 6.8%

St Peter's School, York - 29 - 8 - 27.6% - 117 - 6.8%

The Portsmouth Grammar School - 35 - 10 - 28.6% - 147 - 6.8%

The Blue Coat School, Liverpool - 42 - 12 - 28.6% - 182 - 6.6%

Hockerill Anglo?European College - 22 - 7 - 31.8% - 107 - 6.5%

King Edward VI High School for Girls - 26 - 5 - 19.2% - 82 - 6.1%

Bradford Grammar School - 25 - 8 - 32.0% - 134 - 6.0%

Stockport Grammar School - 29 - 7 - 24.1% - 123 - 5.7%

Brentwood School - 28 - 8 - 28.6% - 141 - 5.7%

Cranleigh School, Cranleigh - 26 - 6 - 23.1% - 111 - 5.4%

Warwick School - 37 - 7 - 18.9% - 131 - 5.3%

Saffron Walden County High School - 24 - 13 - 54.2% - 244 - 5.3%

Marlborough College - 50 - 10 - 20.0% - 189 - 5.3%

St Georges College, Addlestone - 21 - 6 - 28.6% - 119 - 5.0%

The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial RC School - 51 - 8 - 15.7% - 162 - 4.9%

King Edward VI Handsworth School - 21 - 6 - 28.6% - 124 - 4.8%

Adams' Grammar School - 23 - 6 - 26.1% - 127 - 4.7%

King Edward VII School, Sheffield - 24 - 9 - 37.5% - 194 - 4.6%

St Michael's Catholic Grammar School - 33 - 6 - 18.2% - 132 - 4.5%

Hurstpierpoint College - 23 - 6 - 26.1% - 133 - 4.5%

Radley College - 35 - 6 - 17.1% - 134 - 4.5%

Redland Green School - 18 - 8 - 44.4% - 181 - 4.4%

Repton School - 25 - 6 - 24.0% - 141 - 4.3%

Queen Mary's Grammar School for Boys - 22 - 5 - 22.7% - 123 - 4.1%

Malvern College - 31 - 6 - 19.4% - 155 - 3.9%

JFS - 33 - 9 - 27.3% - 235 - 3.8%

Torquay Boys Grammar School - 29 - 6 - 20.7% - 157 - 3.8%

Aylesbury High School - 34 - 8 - 23.5% - 215 - 3.7%

Stratford Girls' Grammar School - 25 - 4 - 16.0% - 110 - 3.6%

King's School, Worcester - 19 - 5 - 26.3% - 139 - 3.6%

The Skinners' School - 23 - 4 - 17.4% - 112 - 3.6%

South Wilts Grammar School - 32 - 7 - 21.9% - 199 - 3.5%

Birkdale School Sheffield - 24 - 3 - 12.5% - 88 - 3.4%

Bournemouth School, Bournemouth - 24 - 5 - 20.8% - 149 - 3.4%

Yarm School - 20 - 3 - 15.0% - 96 - 3.1%

The London Oratory School - 32 - 5 - 15.6% - 161 - 3.1%

Bexley Grammar School, Welling - 24 - 7 - 29.2% - 226 - 3.1%

Heckmondwike Grammar School Academy Trust - 24 - 7 - 29.2% - 249 - 2.8%

Cheadle Hulme School - 24 - 4 - 16.7% - 146 - 2.7%

Alcester Grammar School - 28 - 6 - 21.4% - 220 - 2.7%

Sherborne School - 22 - 3 - 13.6% - 110 - 2.7%

Sir William Borlase's Grammar School - 25 - 5 - 20.0% - 187 - 2.7%

St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School - 26 - 5 - 19.2% - 188 - 2.7%

Bishop Veseys Grammar School - 25 - 4 - 16.0% - 152 - 2.6%

Millfield School - 27 - 6 - 22.2% - 255 - 2.4%

Alton College - 41 - 14 - 34.1% - 607 - 2.3%

St Edward's School, Oxford - 32 - 3 - 9.4% - 133 - 2.3%

Clitheroe Royal Grammar School - 31 - 7 - 22.6% - 312 - 2.2%

St Aidans & St John Fisher Associated Sixth Form, Harrogate - 33 - 8 - 24.2% - 520 - 1.5%

Aquinas College - 34 - 12 - 35.3% - 812 - 1.5%

Godalming College - 37 - 10 - 27.0% - 687 - 1.5%

Worcester Sixth Form College - 23 - 6 - 26.1% - 495 - 1.2%

King's High School Warwick - 20 - 1 - 5.0% - 86 - 1.2%

Cirencester College - 30 - 5 - 16.7% - 556 - 0.9%

Reigate Sixth Form College - 18 - 5 - 27.8% - 704 - 0.7%

Holy Cross College, Bury - 28 - 6 - 21.4% - 878 - 0.7%

John Leggott Sixth Form College - 37 - 5 - 13.5% - 736 - 0.7%

Mander Portman Woodward, School - 27 - 1 - 3.7% - 154 - 0.6%

Barton Peveril College - 39 - 6 - 15.4% - 1051 - 0.6%

The Sixth Form College Colchester - 28 - 5 - 17.9% - 1297 - 0.4%

Sir John Deanes College - 31 - 1 - 3.2% - 635 - 0.2%

boys. Blimey you've been busy!

I realise that you're focussing on 'cohort success'. I've already made it very clear that I'm in awe of Westminster on all sorts of levels but 'cohort success' is as problematic a criterion as 'applicant: offer ratio' where the fact of very low numbers are completely disregarded. Westminster is hugely selective with huge resources and hugely ambitious parents and teachers. My initial point was: why so little difference between it (and other very selective independents) and certain state schools who put in 'good' numbers of applicants without the advantages that Westminster has. The numbers on that score are fairly approximate. Westminster is still in the lead by some way, but not massively, massively so. That surprises me still. I'm far more surprised by the fact that so many Westminster kids get turned down, than the fact that so many get in. But I'm not losing sleep over it - it seems quite positive in fact. And that's said with the very clear caveat that I have no quarrel with independent schooling at all. What I find most interesting/ concerning about your numbers are how few pupils get entered at so many schools.

Molio, I agree. I wonder if there's a limit to how many pupils from one school Oxbridge can and will accept, I'm not suggesting an actual cut-off just do they just expect more from them?

A friend's DS who got a place at Westminster for sixth form was told by a staff member that Oxbridge would be much easier and less competitive than achieving his spot at school. He is a genuine super-brain and went on to do so and is flying high at Uni too, I'm sure he gained hugely from the education there and he loved it but equally he would have done brilliantly in a comprehensive in special measures.

I am always dubious about the extent to which private schools can really be "highly selective". Most of the kids are selected at 11+ or 13+, but you can't pick out the "top" kids so early and selection at those ages is heavily affected by earlier education. I suspect that the "highly selective" schools get a lot of top 5% children but not so many top 0.1-1% children.

Schools which cost 20k+ per year also manifestly exclude huge chunks of the population. For example, as a family of academics, we can just about afford two sets of day school fees but we couldn't stretch to two sets of boarding fees, even with 10-20% scholarships. (Yet we earn well above the thresholds for bursaries.) That means that my children (who are very high achieving) could only go to a handful of boarding schools which offer larger academic scholarships or day schools within reach of our house. Looking amongst my colleagues' children - many are extremely high achieving, as you might expect for academics' children, but very few are attending "top" private schools. Those who are typically have one parent working outside academia pulling in a much larger income.

And then there are large numbers of families who just wouldn't apply to places like Westminster, even though they would be eligible for financial assistance.

uilen I don't think any highly selective school claims to only take DC in the top 1%.

Certainly W does not!

And I don't think any highly selective school claims that the entrance test is infallible or that there are no DC as or more clever outside its hallowed doors.

What these schools mean is that there is a bar that must be reached by all applicants. And some schools set that bar higher than others. W is pretty high.

It's a bit like Oxbridge. These universities select rigorously from those that apply. However, IMVHO the process is still fallible and of coruse there are many people as or more clever that never do apply. Does that mean that Oxbridge is not highly selective?

But the question raised was why do many students from Westminster not get into Oxbridge. The answer seems simple: Oxbridge can select from a much larger pool than Westminster and is therefore more highly selective than Westminster.

I do think that people over-estimate how selective the "top" schools are. So yes they are "highly selective" but nowhere near as selective as top university courses. Roughly speaking Oxbridge probably is taking students from the top 1% while the top 5% go onto a wide range of good universities.

And just like for universities the admissions statistics for schools are often misleading: x applications for y places is not meaningful unless you know how many other schools the x candidates applied to.

boys3 lots of , that is the most useful data format so far (albeit limited to that particular cohort). I'm afraid I would n't be able to list all the superselective state grammar schools but ones like the Tiffins, Camp Hills, Colyton, Colchester ones, Reading / Kendrick, Pate's, Wilson etc come to mind.

Myths to dispel from this and other 2013 data snapshot

Independent 'comprehensive' schools or even partially academic selectives co-ed ones like Oundle do not get a better offer / application ratio from Oxford (or indeed Cambridge from raw data) than state schools despite potential subject bias and academic boost from international sixth form applicants.

Selective state education in most cases might result in better exam grades but not in prorata numbers of students wanting to apply to Oxbridge.

Uilen I would question whether Oxbridge does select or even have access to applications from the pool of top 1% of students. That is quite a claim.

I said the top 1% (of the whole population), not the top 1% of university undergraduate students. This is quite a soft claim when you look at the % of 18 year olds going to university at all or getting AAB or above at A level.

However, Oxford takes around 3000 undergraduate students each year. There are around 500,000 new undergraduates each year in the UK. Given those statistics, suggesting Oxford select mostly from the top few percent of undergraduate students would not be an unreasonable claim.

But you are supposing that Oxbridge have all those students applying to them or selecting them or, even for those applying, that the application process is watertight to select the 'best'

I don't think I'm saying that - clearly there will be people who don't apply and the definition of who is "top" is a grey area. Change 1% to 2% or 3% or 5% if you like, but it seems to me irrelevant for the original point - Oxbridge are selecting from a much bigger pool than Westminster so why should one be surprised if some Westminster students don't get in?

Yes, I agree. Sorry, just quibbling with absolutes.

I think the only real answer is the one you've already given uilen - that I must be overrating the selectivity of Westminster. Even so, given the fabulous education the kids receive and all the home support, I'm still determined to remain a little surprised. I think I'm also going to be surprised by SPGS too, for the same reason. DS3 could hardly move for girls from there at his interview and I dented his confidence on the phone by saying they were all slam dunk.

boys, if you're thinking of compiling a grammar table, I would say that only three year averages make sense. Cohorts can differ quite markedly; a single year may be unreliable. Also, some super selectives are vastly more selective than others, so you can't really lump them all in a pot.

Westminster Under School sends 80% of its leavers to Westminster. I know that progression is not automatic but very few fail to get in if they want to. Now WUS is a great prep but W's available talent pool is presumably limited by taking so many from one school (about 40 a year).

Aren't you making the massive assumption that the top achieving kids in a school always want to and do apply to Oxbridge?

I really don't think that is the case - it's very hard to make a 17y old do something they dont want to do, I imagine. I know of a boy at a competitor of W who was being pressurised to apply to Oxford, went on to get 4A* at A level but refused to apply and happily went to Durham. Equally, I hear a lot of noise about people wanting to go to the London universities or even the US over Oxford, certainly, possiibly not Cambridge, if they are scientist/maths/academic career bound.

forago good point that has already been made

• as has the point that Oxbridge is percieved as a pressured option that not all want

• as has the point W actively open their boys eyes to other options

• as has the point that Oxbridge is now so competitive both nationally and internationally, combined with the widening of access, that the selection process can feel to pupils like a lottery they do not necessarily want to put themselves through

• as has the point that these pupils may in reality be open to a subjectivity which may indeed, not without good reason, favour state school applicants (And have not seen any Oxford tutors come on here and say, or heard it from any IRL either, they think they are 100% effective in selecting the "best" pupils, certainly not to a "top" 1% by any way you might want to define it, simply that they aim to select the candidate's they believe will be best suited to what Oxford has to offer and make best use of the opportunity - Cambridge admit as much by putting so many pupils "of Cambridge standard" in the pool).

One look at the entries and the success rates for London day schools does suggest a disparity with where they lie in terms of selectivity / position in A level league tables. However there could be other factors (the inadequacy of A levels as a measure of academic ability for one) and numbers are so small you'd be pressed to get any sort of meaningful correlations. Maybe next year W will have a cohort who lemming like throw themselves at Oxbridge and the tutors lemming like take them all in some subjective backlash, as Word says there is a concern they are missing bright applicants from schools they know produce successful students to other Unis where they may be / are getting firsts. A single dysfunctional cohort could see a school plummeting down all these tables.

In the Context of the aim of our society being (since it is the policy of all shades of political party) to make it a fairer process for those without the advantages of a W, or other private school, education it isn't a bad thing.

The schools encourage the pupils to see other options as being potentially as good even better for individuals depending on their ambitions and the pupils see other pupils going to other institutions and doing well and having good experiences so there is not much angst there. And they have had an undeniably good education that sets them up to realise their ambitions whatever they may be.

It seems to me the main problem in adjusting to this environment is those parents who are so wedded to seeing Oxbridge at the head of a hierarchy, sine qua non, rather than one excellent educational opportunity for students to realise their potential, amongst many, some of which may better suit individual students, that they post threads titled "what has gone wrong at Westminster / SPGS / Hampton /LEH /JAGS (Delete as appropriate, to name just a few threads / posts I have seen in the past) manifesting the angst being expressed over dinner tables across London.

Discuss

Poison that angst is one reason amongst many that I've been delighted not to bring up DC in London.

I too see and hear lots of comments about the merits of options other than Oxbridge but the numbers applying from Westminster speak for themselves - the message appears not to be getting through.

I don't think the two things are incompatible molio.

One can apply, give it a punt, whilst not being remotely wedded to the idea and perfectly open to other posibilities.

Of course Word, and that's exactly the approach any sensible DC applying to Oxford or Cambridge should adopt. My point is merely that the sheer wall of numbers still applying suggests that the culture hasn't shifted that much.

For the life of me, I've never seen such intense obsession anywhere on earth before. Didn't read through everything - you must be joking, there's life out there for me - just half a dazen or so and I'm already convinced there are people who have some very serious problems . . .

I heard a funny story from a friend of mine who teaches at Oxford. A Professor was about to retire recently. The great and the good of his subject laid on a dinner for him and asked if he'd like to invite three of the best undergraduates he'd ever taught. He did. The assembled Oxford glitterati were stunned when it turned out that the three guests had all been undergraduates at Durham where the Professor had taught previously!

You CANNOT be serious, grovel . . . Oxbridge is categorically, undisputedly, absolutely the BEST in the universe! The Professor must be out of his mind!