When parents are slagging off the local comp...

[Everyoneafter3]

I've posted before about my concerns over the local secondary, which, thanks to comments on this board and an excellent recent Ofsted, are very much allayed. I had a very good read of school newsletters etc and am much happier. Dd1 (Y4) is musically gifted and will also audition for a specialist music school.

The area in which we live is very affluent: many children round here go to fee-paying independent schools. These dc are going to school and telling my dd (and others) that the local secondary is rubbish ("my mum and dad say..."). One particularly stupid parent has said at home that "no child of mind will set foot in x school" which of course is coming back home with our dd.

Dd1 has now got it into her head that the local school is terrible, that she's really upset to go to not a good school, that she wishes we weren't poor (we're not! But no, we can't afford independent school fees without having to sacrifice other stuff we prioritise as a family). She's been researching exam results and all sorts.

For our part we've said well look at any local school she'd like to, although as we live across the road from the school in question it'd be unlikely that she'd get in.

I'm heartily sick of parents telling their dc how awful the local school is. It's simply not fair. My dc won't receive a 'lesser' education. They aren't going to a 'rubbish' school. If this continues I'm tempted to speak to their current primary school tbh. What else can I do? I've told dd to not listen, we've looked at the school website, talked about results (!) but I'm at a loss.

It's all just the hard work from Eton pupils who all 100% totally deserve to be there over kids from state schools or even lesser private schools with identical results?

Alyosha I repeat part of my above post
the top independent schools do some things very well, probably due to a combination of the type of pupils and type of teachers they attract. They foster higher level independent study and thinking skills and provide a university type experience at school for those who are ready for it and can take advantage (not all pupils will at those schools). That is not the same thing as helping students achieving high exam marks, indeed it may not result in any difference in A level exam grades

Most academics are actually pretty left wing after all agree or/ and international without any so called loyalties to certain schools apart an interest in making sure pupils from that school can perform at the level beyond expected from their education.

User, Gloria

How on earth can you say you are not biased when you come out with this:

"Yes, this is a big factor. Top schools tend to send only their very best students to my college."

How is that not biased?

As you seem to be from a science discipline, are you aware of the huge body of research that shows that yes, everyone is biased - even researchers and scientists who think they aren't?

Papers by women are less likely to get published than if the identical paper has a male name, research funded by pharma reports disproportionately favourable results even when the researchers state they are "unbiased".

It is not possible to be unbiased when you think that private schools "only send their very best students" to you.

The only way you could be unbiased is if you could not see the school the candidate was applying from.

Would you support that system?

But I want to know why, since according to you my school has ties with various colleges, no one was told about them when we were applying. What's the point of secret handshakes if you don't tell the people who will benefit from them?

alyosha did you just make up your post of 20.03 last night?

Because it's nonsense.

The selection process at LGS is not as tough as at Westminster. No where near the same level of testing. Especially at sixth form.

And I've no idea why you said HB got the same A level results as W. They clearly are not. In 2015 around 35% of A levels at HB were A*, whereas it was over 55.% at W.

At HB 18 students attained all A*s, W had over double that.

Similarly Tiffin STEP scores were not in line with W's.

Either you're very confused or you're just making shit up.

So of course W are likely to be more successful than those schools. And that's before we get into the sorry subject of pretty green and how it is spent by either school.

It is not possible to be unbiased when you think that private schools "only send their very best students" to you.

You're misinterpreting that statement. This is part of the 'service' that top schools provide. They manage expectations of their students, and dissuade them from going where they have no real chance of success.

I'm so hoping someone from NLCS reads that they're described as 'mediocre' private school.

My dc failed to get into Latymer and did get into various pretty selective (but not Westminster, we didn't apply) private schools. I know kids for whom the reverse is true. I would generally say that the North London grammars are much more selective, certainly in terms of numbers, however I'm not sure what they are selecting translates to Oxbridge entry.

a) the tests tend to be multiple choice and some kids are very highly trained for these tests without necessarily having a depth of knowledge or the potential for that depth. Especially since they're tested at 11.

b) the children who tend to go to QEB, HBS often prize the course (eg medicine) over the university (and so wouldn't apply for, say, theology as lots of public school kids do)

c) something like Classics has lots of Oxbridge places but few schools study Latin/Greek.

d) I don't think that those attending the highly selective London grammars are of the same socio-ethnic-economic background as those attending privates and therefore often choose to study in London because it's cheaper. I think they're probably less likely to be the children of Oxbridge graduates and so aren't so obsessed with entry.

e) I think the teachers at private schools are more likely to be Oxbridge graduates and so more encouraging.

I'm not saying, btw, that either are better nor whether Oxbridge entry should be prized above all else. I would say that I think my children's chances of Oxbridge entry (with two Oxbridge graduates as parents) would probably be reasonably high wherever they went to school because it's something that feels assailable.

Ontopof - I didn't go to whatever school you went to, but I suppose I assumed that like SHHS & Westminster they NLCS had links to various colleges. Perhaps they don't!

Lots of people on this thread have admitted to the links between some colleges and schools though, although they are insisting that this of course has no bearing on admissions. One wonders why these links even exist..

Curl - so according to your data, Westminster get 36% more A* A level grades. However they get far more than 36% more Oxbridge offers?

~80-90 Westminster pupils get Oxbridge offers last year, vs. only 20-30 for HBS.

So Westminster get 200% more places at Oxbridge but their results are only 36% better.

Why do they get a disproportionately higher number of Oxbridge places?

"You're misinterpreting that statement. This is part of the 'service' that top schools provide. They manage expectations of their students, and dissuade them from going where they have no real chance of success."

So you don't think that pupils from the top Public school that apply to your college are the best of the best?

Would you support a system where you couldn't see the school that pupils went too, just some generic data about how privileged it was and whether it was private/state?

"d) I don't think that those attending the highly selective London grammars are of the same socio-ethnic-economic background as those attending privates and therefore often choose to study in London because it's cheaper. I think they're probably less likely to be the children of Oxbridge graduates and so aren't so obsessed with entry."

Strongly disagree with this. I would say that the majority of private school kids also apply to grammar schools, and grammar schools are almost always their 1st choice.

Of course lots of kids apply to grammars whose parents can't afford private schools, but the process of getting in involves a lot of money (tutoring, usually - but not always) - so the demographics are very similar.

I think grammar schools are just less "in there" with the colleges.

Re: medicine - that could be a factor but private school leavers also dominate medicine, vet & dentistry!

All private schools are mediocre when compared to Eton & Westminster :p

Actually more like 85-100 Oxbridge places from Westminster each year.
All completely on the individual child's merit, of course.

Have you checked the size of the year groups for these schools? Eton especially is massive.

Clavinova - good point.

I haven't...I think it's around 140 pupils per year for the 6th form in HBS (93 pupils a year + 50 external), for Westminster about that, maybe 200 max?

Either way they don't have 3 times the no. of pupils of HBS but get 3-4x the number of Oxbridge places.

Alyosha do the same number of DCs at HBS, QE Barnet & Tiffins apply to Oxbridge compared to Eton or Westminster?

Also look at the subjects studied at A Level/Pre-U - eg how many pupils at the grammars are studying classics, languages, religious studies, history, music etc. as these are the degree subjects with the least number of applicants (therefore less competition for entry) for Oxbridge.

Not that I'm suggesting that boys at Eton are looking for an easy way in to Oxbridge but I expect that subjects like classics and history are exceptionally well taught at the top public schools whilst science and maths will be more of a focus at the grammars.

Mum - I would think so, yes! These are schools with very similar demographics to private schools, they are the most elite grammars in the country. Lots of oxbridge parents & aspirants among them.

Clavinova, surely that's exactly what the Westminster & Eton boys are doing, they apply, all the admissions tutors "know" that only the "very best" pupils from their schools apply to Oxbridge, then they get in.

Easy-peasy!

And they do teach Latin at those Grammars, btw.

www.hbschool.org.uk/387/academic-life/departments/classics

The same numbers of pupils do not apply.

The grammar schools are more conservative.

Numbers of applications at Westminster and Eton are high. Pupils don't expect to get a place. And are regularly rejected.

It's also common at both public schools to make a second application if the first fails.

Alyosha the differences in Oxbridge intake between are to do with the type of selection (including interviews for Westminster etc) for the schools, the type of teachers that can be recruited, the teaching style and management of expectations.
Also as others have said a broader range of subject choice (not just STEM subjects) for degree choice.
These are unfair advantages but nothing absolutely nothing to do with an old boys network which for most Oxbridge interviewers does not even appear on their radar unless it is to disprove.
For example I know of a boy who got 5 D1s at preU (5 A**), Olympiad teams for certain subjects but did not get an Oxbridge offer. He is one of numerous examples of rejections from suoerselective independent schools that you would perceive as unfair if he came from a grammar school.

whilst science and maths will be more of a focus at the grammars.

It is considerably easier to get PhD educated maths/science teachers at top independent schools. These teachers can then teach above and beyond the syllabus, deepen students' thinking and so on.

Nonetheless schools such as Eton and Westminster send relatively few to study pure science/maths - their students are more likely to apply for mathematical subjects such as Economics which are correlated with highly paid jobs.

Curl - 50% get into Oxbridge from Westminster, hardly likely to fail!

And yes, they do expect to get a place.

How could you not expect to when you know you have a 50-50 chance?

2ndly - most of the top Grammar schools mentioned have the same range of subjects and are well aware of how "easy" it is to get in on MFL etc - you should not assume they are all applying for STEM. They aren't. My HBS mates who got in to Oxbridge were advised to go for MFL, classics & theology - but they were still less likely to get in!

There 100% is an old boys network and I find it staggering that anyone could look at Westminster's 50% going into Oxbridge and think that was entirely down to merit!

user - the top Grammars mentioned will have no problem attracting very well qualified members of staff.

However, as you mention, this doesn't really matter as most apply for humanities - and that is also the case at Grammars, they aren't all applying for STEM.

Again, I would ask anyone who denies the existence of connections between colleges & schools to answer...

Why do so many Westminster & Eton pupils end up at Christ Church? Is that a coincidence?

Why have self declared admissions people on this thread first denied connections and then said they do exist, but it doesn't matter because they know the pupils they are sent will be the best?

That's exactly why the connections are so pernicious - even the admissions staff themselves can't see the bias inherent in how they are interviewing.

Of course if you think that pupils from x school will be the "very best" it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The data doesn't bear it out though.

There 100% is an old boys network and I find it staggering that anyone could look at Westminster's 50% going into Oxbridge and think that was entirely down to merit!

It's selective to begin with, and has an even more selective sixth-form. It is more selective than Eton. It is possibly the hardest secondary school to get into in the world. You seem unwilling to accept this.

How could you not expect to when you know you have a 50-50 chance?

It's not 50-50 when you consider the scholars have a much higher chance than the average W population.