City of London Girls withdrawing offers

[Leo12345]

Hello! I was surprised to receive an email today from City of London Girls that their offer to DD is now withdrawn. I opened their original email with the offer and read that indeed this is their policy: first-comes-first-gets.
We are much more prone to go to LEH or if not Kingston Grammar, and now I bless this decision as I learnt something about City of London Girls character and aptitude towards its pupil.

My question is: do other schools (in particular LEH and Kingston Grammar) practice such policy?

We would accept the offer in LEH today then, though we are waiting for the tour in there.

Needmoresleep hit the nail on the head - it is not that complicated and it is not a function of a simple ratio of acceptances vs offers made. Once you drill down the postcode, prep vs state, which prep (usually combined with a postcode) - it really is quite straightforward. I can see a bit of an unknown with private vs state grammar element, but prep school combined with the postcode with the exam score achieved would give them a rock solid yield that's unlikely to deviate year on year.

Instead of doing all of the hard (ish) work above, they just chose a shortcut that works (seemingly - let's see what happens after state offers and corresponding domino effect on the waitlists elsewhere) for them rather than for the girls, parents and the overall independent schools' ecosystem.

The irony of this is that by doing what they are doing they are actually depriving themselves of useful stats for 2 years in a row. Which is especially important that they now broke away from the consortium and that would drive change in stats as well (e.g. Bute House girls not sitting it anymore as it has always been a back up to SPGS, G&L and Latymer but given they were sitting a consortium paper why not throw it in).

Fortunately, all of this 11+ nonsense is well and truly behind me and my DC, but a couple of friends' (who all come from state schools) got caught out and were absolutely shell shocked. Fortunately, they all have JAGS, SHHS and the like as alternatives (and potentially grammars) so all is well that ends well. And by the way, spending hours on Mumsnet and 11+ forums and being in the know about all of this from last year is not being switched on parents - it's borderline OCD. If I actually told my friends with DCs affected by this that they need to cancel/not organize their half-term holidays, go to the school on Monday with a deposit in hand and just part with that without knowing about grammars school, they would've laughed in my face and think I was being paranoid.

I personally find this approach abhorrent, indefensible and inherently lazy and self-serving.

Some very good points and ideas nvcontrolfreak.

Personally speaking my children are worth my (literally 10 mins) time on google to become aware and have a heads up.

Better that, than have to deal with anger, disappointment, failure, devastation and other emotions I have read and I fully sympathise with.

Also, this heads-up doesn't help the parents that as others have posted were playing the system and gambling on waiting for other offers whilst this clearly communicated CLSG offer might become a wait list option.

Soya, all Dancer was asking was for your to explain:

"because they are not just like any other school"

A not unreasonable question. There is potentially all sorts of information on the internet. Since you insist the truth is out there, I will throw in one, rather naughty, anecdote. Westminster boys were regularly banned from supporting Westminster girls when they played home matches against City, for fear they would start chanting "Westminster rejects". This did not happen with any other school, and seemed based on a belief that a large number of City girls apply for other sixth forms, though only a minority are successful.

My assumption was that this is because it is quite a small school and might become a bit claustrophobic, especially for those who started at 8. It is a good school, but nothing we heard suggests that it is in some way "not just like any other school". A lot is about fit. Some girls seem to love it, others were more lukewarm.

This process definitely works for the majority of families given offers and helps the school take more girls who are super keen to join rather than are still deciding CLSG against other great schools and options.

I'd wait until 18 April before I drew this conclusion. What if it turns out that, this year, a large number of places are being held by parents who would prefer a grammar or another independent? And that a large number of girls, local or otherwise, for whom CLSG was the first choice (but whose parents aren't so familiar with game theory or aren't so able to part with £1500 quickly) are being forced to accept other options in the meantime?

On a different note, is there some historical reason why exams happen so far in advance of the state allocation deadline? Wouldn't it be more logical to have these closer to the state allocation deadline? So the system could go something like that:

1. Have an ISEB/CEM style computer pre-test that you sit once and the results are available to all schools (i.e. current CE system for boys). Each secondary sets a minimum and a guidance target. Separate test for children with SpLD (i.e. either papers based with extra time or EdPsych report with cognitive scores as a substitute). This whittles down the number of sitting completely unrealistic schools. Probably won't help much, but will help a bit and given lots of selective schools are moving to having a pre-test anyway, might as well make it universal and sit it once for all schools. I believe that's how it also works in NYC with private schools, at least at kindergarten level.

2. Head writes maximum of 4 references (with a carve out for special circumstances, e.g. family might be moving due to jobs, but not sure on timing etc). Prep discloses to all secondaries the list of these 4.

3. Hold exams early to mid-Feb and issue offers close to state school offers so that there is a very short period of uncertainty for schools and parents.

4. Only start taking acceptances from the date of state school allocation so no stampede, fist fights, etc. In conjunction with 3) - this should be doable.

5. Oh, and don't let people accept more than one school - easy to enforce with 2)

expat you could be right, you could be wrong.

I could like you conjecture, but the opposite - a small number of places are being held by parents who would prefer another school.

Or I could base opinion on facts.

Speaking with other parents who went through the process but daughters didn't make the grade, super keen families prepared and organised themselves accordingly. Not so fussed families understandably choose not to.

Speaking with other parents who have accepted, CLGS is clearly first choice and other offers are back ups that thankfully can now be rejected.

3) Hold exams early to mid-Feb and issue offers close to state school offers so that there is a very short period of uncertainty for schools and parents.

The presently insurmountable problem is, of course, that the schools in question are independent and can do whatever they like. However, if we're envisioning a world where we can play God, why not issue offers on the state school allocations day?

expat96 exactly! Why not issue the offers on the same day and hold exams later?

I know that they are independent, but the above would help the schools themselves as they wouldn't have movement after state school offers.

That's why I asked if there is a historical reason of some kind as I can't see a logical or logistical one.

soyalatte, you have indeed presented facts but facts which could also be fairly described as anecdotes. I too know of families who have already declined other places in favor of CLSG. But I also know of three families this year who have paid the deposit but for whom CLSG is not the first choice. All three would be happy to send their daughters to the school, but two would be happier to send them to HBS and one to SPGS if a waiting list place comes up.

If you wish to condescend, at least back it up with something solid.

Dancergirl, those who believe that CLSG's current acceptance system is the least bad option usually cite that its unique location and premises make it extremely undesirable, if not physically impossible, to have oversize forms or to add a bulge class. Whether these constraints are that much more painful than at other schools is a matter of opinion, but I believe that is the justification the school itself uses.

Defenders of the system sometimes also assert that, because of its unique location (central but not very residential), CLSG gets many more applications as a backup school than other independent schools. They allege that this causes more uncertainty in the acceptance/offer yield so that, in combination with the prior point, the school is best served with the current system so they can control the exact number of students enrolled.

"the school is best served with the current system so they can control the exact number of students enrolled."

Well, they'll find that this is a pretty bad way of doing it. Last year, City of London Boys had an overrun of £70k in the admissions process from parents who paid deposits but ultimately didn't take up places. (Noticed this in minutes of governers meeting where they were debating what to do with the money). That will be from 4 points of entry (10,11,13 and 16+) but represents 14 no-shows paying £5k deposits, presumably to keep options open with other waiting list places and/or those who had changes of circumstances or relocations.

If 14 do that with £5k deposits in the boys school that actually does wait until the agreed deadline and manages to get their over-offering just about right, a lot, lot more will be doing it at the equivalent girls' school with a £1.5k deposit (so less disincentive) but faster deadline (so more unknown variables post-deposit). I'll be interested to see what kind of cohort CLSG gets come September.

I have been patiently discussing this for days but this:

Personally speaking my children are worth my (literally 10 mins) time on google to become aware and have a heads up

is so smug and passive aggressive that I do actually now feel quite cross.

I did get my child in. I did also give someone else the heads up so that their child didn't lose a place. However, I am nothing but sympathetic to the three families from our school who have lost out. I have not told them that, unlike them, I care about my children enough not to allow this problem to happen .

Backingvocals you are right. Rereading the text i can see how it can read as cold and blunt and that certainly was not my intention - my intention being to point out that in my experience it did only take 10 minutes and in doing so I do not think that blanket makes me and the many other parents ocd which in itself is rude and insulting.

It feels like I am being bullied for looking out for my daughter and posting our experiences on here to balance out some of the unfair and negative comments so I will respectfully bow out here and sincerely wish good health and happiness to everyone and I do hope the girls caught up in this get positive outcomes.

[Off to burnish the CV for Head of PTA, I'm guessing.]

As an impartial observer (going through boys this year so only interest in clsg is that my son may be mixing with the girls!) I have to say that you are not coming across as very pleasant soya and It's a bit odd that you think you are being bullied.

Thankfully my daughter takes after my wonderful wife so your son will be fine!!

I think CLSG needs to impose a max travel time in the same way as SPGS. This will reduce its "catchment" which will help, and I also think there are other benefits to this.

I also think it would be great if the private schools could make their offers on the same day as the state schools. That should significantly reduce the prospect of people rushing to accept an offer they do not ultimately want. I doubt CLSG would do it unilaterally because it will be worried about losing girls to other schools, but if the NLC as a whole agree to change their offer date, that would help things.

If the school is that popular, then admissions should have only offered the 70 seats and waitlisted the rest. Give the initial 70 a set amount of time to accept (even if it’s a crazy quick 72hrs) and move down the list.
If it really isn’t that popular and is thought of as a back up plan b, then the whole exam interview process needs revamping.

Thank you needmoresleep

soya you have been quite rude actually.

Although I do agree that this is not a great system, I am not sure that it is as easy for them to work this out by looking at postcodes. For, example, in my DD’s year there are more girls with Essex postcodes than Islington (including in Islington N1, N5, N7 and stokey), one girl from Cambs, at least 3 from Surrey etc.

Ahhh people use grans or aunties postcode...postcodes are too easy to manipulate. People just need to be honest, either it is or isn’t your first choice.

Two PPs, I think we are talking about completely different things.

The suggestion was that City should be able to drill deeper into previous acceptances to more accurately forecast likely acceptance rates. And adjust the number of offers accordingly. There seems no reason why they have got these so very wrong two years in a row.

Coming from Essex should not impact on the model.

Their acceptance rates have significantly increased in recent years as I understand it, and the fact they came out of the NLC indicates that they are targeting, at least on part , a different catchment than historically in which they do not have obvious competitors like NLCS and SPGS.

It is recent and it looks like the trends are very different than previously. Unfortinately their exploding offers will make it even harder for them to get the full picture as they won’t have complete data on acceptance levels - they do not know how many would have accepted if their offers had not exploded.

Btw I am not excusIng the practice, just suggesting that past data does not always give the full picture.
Someone who went to the offer Day this week said that one of the teachers indicated that they had made far fewer offers than last year and still had the problem.