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.

experienced tutors to help draft stellar personal statements

it doesn't happen

Yes, it does. Schools themselves may or may not provide help, but there are dozens of consultants out there flogging their services for cash and even more parents prepared (nay, begging) to pay for someone to help their child.

BTW 120k is on the high end, as many male academics have wives who work part time for far less than 60k per year. In my own department I only know of 2 other academics that have kids in private schools.

I agree that some people use consultants to write personal statements, but they are not "stellar". It is also simply not the case that private schools get consultants to write statements, because the better schools know perfectly well that what is required is authenticity, honesty, depth from the candidate themselves rather than "perfection",

Academics are quite often opposed to grammar schools too! Most academics across the country almost certainly have their DC at state schools but I expect it would be a close call in Oxford.

Yes that's absolutely right, that DC should be looked at as individuals and I've every reason to believe that that's what's done. Nevertheless, I think grammar school DC can suffer from falling between two stools - regarded as privileged but when the surface is scratched, lacking a great deal of the advantage of top independently educated DC - although admittedly perhaps rather less so in London.

User - we do know the UMS scores actually, it's in the 2011 Sutton trust report I linked.

You can see that several Grammars with better UMS score performing behind Indies.

IMO UMS isn't a great indicator as lots of comps & grammars boost it through the useless general studies.

Goodbye - interesting! So the people saying that it's all on the great A level results (including Oxbridge!) aren't giving great advice? What is it that HBS pupils aren't getting that NLCS pupils are - intensive interview prep? College links? A soft bias towards assuming that NLCS girls are just better? Something else?

Alyosha what do you think is the reason that NLCS gets 3-4x more pupils into Oxbridge than HBS?

They don't consistently get 3-4x more pupils into Oxbridge as is evident in the data on the University of Oxford web site (unless you have more recent figures that suggest otherwise).

North London Colliegiate

35 applications, 14 acceptances (2015)
125 applications, 43 acceptances - 34% acceptance rate (2013-2015)

HBS

23 applications, 4 acceptances (2015)
86 applications, 25 acceptances - 25% acceptance rate (2013 - 2015)

The article you linked to made it clear that 2015 saw a drop in acceptances across state schools. However, it also states that there has been an increase since then.

It is also worth noting that over that three year period NLC had a higher number apply to Oxford in the first instance than HBS.

I'm not really getting that info from my own DC user615!

User - so what do you think the reason for the gulf in access between NLCS and HBS is?

Two very similar schools, with similar parental profiles, similar parental expectations and similar A level results & UMS scores?

Mumtrying - your info misses out Cambridge, unless you know where we can find that info too?

Yes I'd be interested to know what explanation user615 has for that too Alyosha.

Although (and this is not directed at user615 whose DC have every reason to be off the scale!) when asking independent school parents for their views you have to remember that the entry procedure for independent schools is calculated to persuade the fee paying parent how talented their DC is to secure a place. Just because grammars can't interview etc doesn't mean that the DC wouldn't show intellectual curiosity etc in them.

Alyosha as you are the one stating that HBS gets fewer in, I'm assuming you have that figure?

Certainly, according to a quick scan of the 2016 university destination lists, NLC had 30 Oxbridge acceptances and HBS had 29. If I have read the information wrong or miscounted, I'm happy to stand corrected.

www.hbschool.org.uk/userfiles/henriettamvc/pdf/academic-life/University%20Destinations%202016%20as%20at%2030-8-16.pdf

www.nlcs.org.uk/1971/senior-school/exam-results/destinations-of-leavers

NLCS sixth form is much smaller, Mumtrying.

Their Oxbridge % is 34% (30 out of 89). HBS has 131, so more like 22%. A gap of 13 ppts, or 54% more NLCS girls getting in than HBS girls.

Alyosha - 54% more NLCS girls getting in than HBS girls.

I'm pretty sure they're not going to get in if they don't apply in the first instance. If you question is why don't the same number apply, then that is a little different to why are NLCS girls more successful in getting in.

Sorry - you don't know how many applied to Oxbridge from both schools. You know for Oxford, but that's it! It's not usually an even split in applications, most schools prefer one over the other.

Mum's correct about the numbers. So we know how many succeed from Westminster each year but how many apply? Pretty much the whole cohort isn't it? I gather that the question there is 'Why are you not applying to Oxbridge?' as opposed to the much more timid approach in so many other schools, ringed around with warnings of the level of competitiveness etc. It's the old thing about not getting a place if you don't apply, and that is to a great extent fuelled by parental expectations. The whole culture is different in grammars, or has been - hopefully that will change, but the problem with resources remains.

What I have said repeatedly was that one has to look at each case carefully. A kid from HB who shows every sign in their application of being very heavily supported (lots of evidence of co-curricular and enrichment activities, opportunities to go to summer schools, attending lots of events in London related to the subject etc) has to be viewed as differently from a kid from a low achieving school who has had none of these opportunities.

Absolutely agree, I've got a child in a top comprehensive who will go to a RG university, along with 80% of the rest of his year, there's no doubt about it. He won't go to Oxbridge, although plenty of his year will, he's simply not the right type and I'm not going to push him in that direction unless he decides he wants to. He absolutely should not be treated in the same way as children from a low achieving comprehensive when to all intents and purposes he has had EVERY opportunity that a private school child has had other than his parents parting with £150k for the pleasure of it. We can throw tutors, consultants, revision courses, sport, DofE, homework support, work experience pretty much anywhere he would be interestest in etc etc at him. His school has some of the best state school teachers in the country working there motivating already motivated children and his peers are competitive as he is. He'll meet his Habs / Merchant Taylors / City friends in halls on the first day of university, of that I have no doubt.

He absolutely does not need any kind of dispensation for being at a comprehensive but I do think that those children who don't have the opportunities that the children in this school have then there does need to be a system to widen access, without a doubt. You simply can't compare what the parents at my child's school are able to give to their children with what those parents at a comprehensive with a much more deprived community can offer.

When looking at HBS and NLCS and their Oxbridge applications and acceptances (which personally I can't really get my knickers in a twist about) I suspect that there are deeper social issues around this. All the girls will come from interested and engaged families who put education at the top of their lists. However, I would think that there are number of issues surrounding these numbers. Some of them will be that a larger proportion of the parents at HBS will have a more limited income than those at NLCS and won't have the resources to support some of the extra curricular enhancements that those parents at NLCS are able to do and many won't see it as a priority, academia will be the only priority. Cultural expectations may mean that actually, parents aren't overly keen on their daughters leaving london to study and would prefer them to stay at a london university so although the applications are made to oxbridge they may not be prioritised over London applications and thuse the commitment to preparation may not be so robust. What are the numbers moving towards medicine? Oxbridge isn't necessarily the best place to study medicine and therefore may not be on the radar for that reason. Certainly colleagues of mine with children at HBS who are first generation Indian / Sri Lankan put a much bigger emphasis on their daughters studying business and living at home during university and are much keener on places like UCL than they are Oxford.

Having been at a highly selective private London day school myself I can honestly say that none of my colleagues or myself have ever had any contact with an admissions person, I'm not aware that any of the teachers at my school had particular links with any oxbridge colleges and none of the parents I knew had been to any oxbridge colleges. The girls who went to Oxbridge from my year were simply the ones who were the cleverest, the rest of us went to Russell group and did very well from that too.

NLCS has 89/90 girls taking A levels - I don't think the IB or Pre-U girls have been included in this figure. Government stats for 2016 state 118 pupils at NLCS and 126 for HBS.

tovelitime yes, one of my posts above said look at the subjects - both those offered and taken at A2 and those applied for through UCAS.

But I don't think HB is necessarily representative of grammars and their demographics so apart from being a good comparison to the London independents isn't the best example to give when looking at why across the country top independents do significantly better at Oxbridge entrance than (most) top grammars.

Although tovelitime I do think you must be generalizing - what you describe as being able to give to your DC you assume other parents at your DS's school can give. I certainly haven't been able to provide my DC with anything like that sort of support, nor have the majority of other parents at my DC's grammar. It's just plain wrong to make the assumption that everyone else at good comps and grammars are in your fortunate financial position.

Oops - DCs'. There are eight of them.

It's not always about money. It's about privilege. They are not the same thing.

Money is less relevant than parental education. That's why the UCAS form asks students to declare whether their parents had higher education. DCs whose parents went to universities such as Durham, qualified as lawyers etc, are inherently privileged, even if the family don't have the resources to send them on residential trips or to do paid co-curricular activities.

Unfortunately it is not obligatory to complete the box about parental higher education.

No I accept that Bertrand. I was using finance as shorthand.

Yes I accept that too user615 :) But it still remains that the list posted - tutors, consultants, revision courses, homework support, work experience pretty much anywhere - are not things my DC have ever had access to or could have had access too, similar to most of their school peers. Sport and DofE I'll give you.

My DC have always ticked the box about parental education/ occupation - I agree it would be better if everyone did.

I find it very hard to believe that tutors, revision courses, consultants etc are relevant in considering entrance to the very top university courses. If you need a tutor before you get there, you are almost certainly not going to cope once you are there and you are unlikely to get through the entrance procedures, which almost always rely on you being able to answer challenging questions that you have never seen before in interview/pretests.

Work experience is pretty much irrelevant for most courses too - except for courses such as medicine.

Actually experience of higher education is relevant in that parents with HE themselves are often more confident that tutoring, consultancy on personal statements and interviews etc is not needed.