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 I was surprised to receive an email today from City of London Girls that their offer to DD is now withdrawn.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.

Last year it was poorly handled as well so I don’t buy that the school was just taken by surprise. If anything they should have learnt from last year experience.

ChocolateWombat - may I ask why you feel that you know so clearly what City is thinking and their reasons? And why has your opinion on their offer system changed so dramatically since last year? See below what your thoughts on this practice were on last year thread:
“I think it is an unreasonable practice. People should be given the chance to hear if they have received a state school offer. They should make fewer offers to start with and should be able to make some kind of judgement about what is appropriate based on previous year's experiences of take-up of offers.
I haven't heard of this before and hope it doesn't become more widespread. If it does, people who can afford to lose a term of fees will accept and later decline their place....but not everyone can afford to do this, and they may well lose some excellent candidates. An offer should be an offer until acceptance day. If the only emails sent saying they were near their limit were yesterday and today, that wasn't enough time for anyone to gather more information and it would be very possible to miss all of those messages and miss out. I can see why they do it, but don't think it is necessary to fill their places and do think it is unreasonable.“

You are right that I changed my mind. I mentioned this upthread.
During and after last year I thought about it a lot. I thought about it in terms of City being a such a space restricted building and site which I think does make it different to even most London schools. I also thought about it in terms of who was applying,mfrofrom where and how many had it as top choice. Many of these girls travel in and past other girls and co-ed schools, which have more space flexibility and for many, City isn't first choice, but one of several back-ups in this age of multiple applications, which I also thought about more. Basically I thought about it more from a school viewpoint and I decided I understood why they did it and for them it made sense.

However, the lack of really clear communication from the start isn't acceptable. People need to know a year in advance if being around over half term is necessary. If they are told, then they can decide they don't want to be put under pressure to choose so not apply, or they can decide to apply and push themselves to decide if City is their top choice or not. I don't think all the schools need to follow the same system, as long as the approach is clear.

I know my view is a minority on this thread, although others support things about City too. I think I am now looking at it from a school perspective as well as, as a parent. I would be annoyed if I'd missed a place because the info wasn't clear. If the info had been clear about D first come first served, and I then missed a place, I'd be annoyed but would kick myself too. I'd like to think I wouldn't just see it in terms of myself.

As I said before I think some of the righteous indignation is over done....notice I say some and not all. Of course people who didn't know and missed out have a right to be angry. But many others mention time and time again that City wasn't probably their top choice and this helped them to decide on somewhere else.....it is exactly these people that City has decided they can't afford to wait on....most say no in the end. And those people feel outraged about a system to benefit the school and it's future, rather than them, the people who paid to apply, but didn't want to accept.

Sometimes we do change our views when we think about things further....sometimes we don't. I still think the system can't last and another one will be in place for next year......I suspect it might be another unconventional one. And we will see if we all agree about that one.

"I think any school can choose it's own admissions policy - it should be made crystal clear - which this wasn't, but if they choose something different to others, it is up to them. It maybe that they choose something different to others."

As long as it leaves ISA. CLSG is currenly in breach of its members code of practice.

Other schools are choosing not to make such a breach, and are running perefctly competent admissions within the agreed sector rules. And they get the numbers right. There is absolutely no reason (other than disinclination) for a school to abandon a system that works.

Others schools, apart from channing and highgate, two schools with a very significant overlap in catchment with CLSG. Something is clearly broken in the system, at least in north London, and although I do not condone the approach taken by CLSG, the fact that it is also going on in other schools with a north London Intake must suggest that there are unusual factors in play.

ChocolateWombat,

I agree with you that any independent school should be able to choose its own admissions policy as long as the policy is crystal clear, though others have a fair point that the one they have chosen appears to contravene the spirit, if not the precise letter of the ISA. However, it is for the ISA to decide whether they wish to stop cooperating with the school, not us parents.

I do not agree with you that the CLSG is that special compared with other central London schools but, again, my opinion is neither here nor there.

Where we disagree is whether the exact mechanism they have been using for the last three years was ever acceptable. I feel it was not because its "successful" operation depended specifically on a significant number of parents not being crystal clear on its full implications.

Many of us predict that, if they keep the same mechanism for next year, the places will be allocated in order of a queue which may well be full before 09:00 on the Monday. Why do we predict this? Because more of next year's parents will have been informed of the full implications of the mechanism, whether from the newspapers, from their primary schools issuing more warnings or from warnings from the large number of parents who were disappointed this year. The reason it took fully 1.5 days to clear this year (rather than 0) was that a very significant number of parents were not crystal clear on the implications. If all parents had been crystal clear on the issue, our prediction for next year would have been realized this year.

So I assert that the mechanism that CLSG has operated for the last few years was always flawed and that they have been relying on most parents being uninformed or unable to think through its implications, i.e., they required that most parents not be crystal clear on the issue. If the school changes mechanisms, it will be because they have realized they can no longer mask the flaws by relying on most parents being unclear on the consequences.

Wombat, I dont agree that it is really "You clearlydo think it is awful", but that it is unacceptable given the greatest impact is ion 10 year old children.

If polled I suspect many parents and teachers would say the trickiest years for girls are Yrs 6-8. All those friendship issues, all that insecurity, all those hormones. City must know this.

What has happened to Highgate and Channing this year? I can see how any action by City would lead to Channing, and to a lesser extent Highgate, having to follow suit, especially the first year City left the consortium. As in if City explode you run to Channing clutching your cheque and forms. Have either exploded this year? Or having learned from previous years has their approach to offers been more conservative?

Needmoresleep, Channings offer exploded Thursday during half term week and they used exploding offers the previous year too. I believe Highgate was the original school to use this practice some 3-4 years ago, although I don't know if they did the same this year.

I heard from a friend yesterday that highgate did explode this year.
A typical list of schools to apply for in the case of a North London girl might be:
NLCS
CLSG
Highgate
SHHS
Channing

Of these, 3 have allegedly used exploding offers this year. NLCS are probably in a different position in that like SPGS the can probably assume a high acceptance rate and be cautious in the number of offers they make, although I did hear (third hand) that last year they had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed. SHHS is interesting. They are obviously cautious in their offers without the ability to be confident that they will be first choice for most. I think they have in the past topped up after the normal process.

I did hear (third hand) that last year [NLCS] had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed.

There were reports on a different forum last year that NLCS went all the way through their waiting list and ended up making offers to girls whom they had interviewed but had not placed on the list. This is the first I’ve heard that they had to reach even further than that.

Expat, it is possible the person who told me read it on the forum you are talking about and miscommunicated the story to me - it is not something she would have direct knowledge of. It came up in the context of a discussion on use of exploding offers by north London schools!

SHHS are doing well. Perhaps it is within the GDST to put girls first. A decade ago when DD was applying there was a financial crash and parents were rubbing their hand thinking private school places would be easier to come by. I assume schools were equally keen to avoid empty places. But it was more nuanced than that. DD had two offers including a GDST. We went to the open day where the Head rather strangely suggested that if she were a sporty girl she might do better at the other school. The same was said to someone else we know.

The school she went to had to take on a bulge class, not what they wanted as they had a year of major building work and so were already adapting the timetable and reducing the lunch break to find enough classroom space. The GDST apparently had to take on two bulge classes. As one City dad explained to me. If he were to lose his job, he reckoned he could put enough of his redundancy aside to cover GDST fees till his DD finished her education. But did not want to commit to a more expensive school.

I did hear (third hand) that last year [NLCS] had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed.

This was utter fiction.
Beware certain posters on 11+ Forum who have a professional interest in making parents confused.

All schools have to accept that they are not first choice for all applicants. There are lots of very good academic girls schools. There might be one or two which are seen as the absolute top tier, but they won't be everyone's top choice, often because if geography. Once you get to the extremely good but next tier down, those schools know that people applying to them are probably applying to 2 or 3 or 4 more. Postcodes might give guidance on top choices, as might siblings or asking people, but people make all kinds of choices which are hard to predict and will drive past another great school to get to their chosen one, which just seemed to 'fit' their child. All of the London schools will be struggling with judging making offers and will have years of a bulge class or having to go far down the WL or beyond it, because things don't turn out as they predicted. A school like NLCS has space for a bulge if it comes to it. Of course, they don't say much about these things, especially using WL because a big part of their appeal is people's beliefs that the school is taking the very best students and that its most people's top choice. Many parents are pretty sure the school they want is most applicants top choice - it might be for the handful of other parents from their Prep school that they have spoken to, but it's very difficult for parents or schools to know and when asked, parents are not always honest or open about these matters. Schools try to gather the info from application forms, from interviews and asking the children often inappropriate questions, but they still often don't get accurate answers.

Interstingly, I knew one popular girls school last year, who in September had to spell staff that there were no academic scholars in the 1st Form - they had made plenty if academic scholarship offers, but all of those girls had chosen to go elsewhere. It's a popular school which does fill or close to fill its year group, but is has to offer 3 or 4 times the number of places it has in order to do that - it simply isn't the top choice for probably 3/4 of applicants, but a back-up. They fill from those who do have it as first choice and from those who didn't get their first choice. And you'll find too, that many of these schools get close to filling but not completely and then take a good last minute applicant who has just come back from abroad or wherever, maybe in May or June or even later. Even some of the most popular schools will do this.

Perhaps it's hard to feel sorry for these schools with their struggles and uncertainties when they are charging vast fees and don't seem to be hard-up. Fair enough. However, exploding offers are a sign of the difficulties within the system. The level of the difficulty does vary from school to school. Being really popular reduces the risk on one level, but also makes even more people use you, many as a back-up. Being in a location many can reach, even if not easily, again makes more people choose you, but for many as a back-up. This is the very anxious time for schools now - because the numbers they attract and the quality of those candidates will have a big impact on the financial strength if the school and it's academic success at GCSE and A level in a few years time. Every year group isn't equally able and yes of course they should be able to do good things with any ability, but the bottom line determining academic success is how selective it is on entry ...and a lot of it depends on whether the WL has had to be used and by how much. You can see why schools are keen to avoid it if possible.

I think that the system which worked for many years when people applied to a couple of schools, might not be workable for much in days where many apply for 5 schools, creating huge uncertainties.. Schools breaking away and doing their own thing and looking for ways to reduce the risks of not knowing how many of the vast numbers applying are actually serious about attending, is a sign of this. Maybe a new, better co-ordinated approach will emerge or perhaps more and more schools will do their own thing.

It's a peculiarly London thing because of the urban nature and existence of many schools close together, plus the ratcheting panic which seems to grow amongst parents and drives them to apply to larger numbers if schools. Even a few miles south or north in the outer zones or the Home Counties, schools can use the traditional system with much more certainty because schools are spread that little but further apart and the numbers applied to not quite so high.

Most schools behave honourably. I'm afraid that CLSG doesn't feel beholden to cooperate within the London schools ecosystem and this has lead to the situation some families find themselves in. A few years ago, they moved their 7+ entry to November where the rest of the schools do it in January. In my opinion, this was a cynical move to entice parents to take the offer and not sit the January schools. Exploding offers are just behaving in character.

*I did hear (third hand) that last year [NLCS] had to use the waiting list extensively and even contacted some girls they had not interviewed.

This was utter fiction*

Errmm no, it did happen.

horsemad I think you have dds at NLCS so it is understandable that you defend them. But that particular year, NLCS was less popular than HBS (where not all Band A girls were offered places). It just goes like that sometimes, it changes every year. The fact is, all indie schools are clearly struggling to offer the 'right' number of places, NLCS offered too few, CLSG too many.

I do wonder whether things have changed that much to justify the changes in behaviour. I grew up in North London and sat 11+ myself more than 30 years ago, from a prep school. It wasn't so unheard of for people to sit 5 schools and people tended to do at least 3. So not a new problem. Populations and the school "pecking order" do change a bit in that time, but it ought to be manageable. As for size of site etc. knowing both sites pretty well, I think SHHS has even less options for additional bulge classes or at least the same as City. It certainly has less available grounds/outside space. There isn't much excuse here. Channing and Highate are different again - I think these are both ambitious schools, slightly less well prized, who are hoping that by forcing the issue they can attract a few better pupils than they might get otherwise. Both are on reasonably spacious sites where size is not the answer. Highate ran a one off 9+ entry this year which as far as I can tell was wildly oversubscribed. It will have got them good students that might have gone elsewhere at 11+ with parents who were thinking it might be attractive not to have to go through the full 11+ round.

horsemadmom,

Which claim do you assert was utter fiction? That NLCS called girls whom they had not interviewed, or that NLCS called girls whom they had not placed on their waitlist?

For state school you name 3 or 4 or 6 schools in priority order.
Then the LA works out which you qualify for and allocates you the highest.

For universities, you apply for 5, get offers reasonably in advance, then have to firm and insure 2 offers rejecting the others.

I can't help feel from reading this thread that the private schools in London could cooperate somehow to everyone's benefit.
Though probably not as they are competing businesses. (Or are they given that they have charitable status?)

expat96- Both claims. Just because someone said it, doesn't make it true . This stuff is really pernicious. Every year, I get PMs from parents who are convinced that their DD still has a chance of a place even if they weren't interviewed. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Sometimes I am sympathetic- English is not everyone's first language and the guidance on the school website is clear but not brutal. Some parents are just flummoxed as to how their DD's genius was not demonstrated in the exam and want to know how to appeal. And some, have read rubbish on this forum and others. Untruths give them false hope.It's just cruel. NLCS wouldn't take a girl who will not thrive.
DDs who are interviewed after the block interviews have finished are afforded one for two reasons only. Candidate was travelling from an insane distance or candidate was ill for the other interview dates.

horsemadmom,

Are you asserting that NLCS will not and has never called girls who were not included in the waiting list in the event that all girls who were on the waiting list have declined and places remain? Or is your assertion limited to last year's 11+?

But Perhaps they did offer spots to all 300 girls who interviewed

Does anyone know a girl who was interviewed who did not receive an offer?

NLCS wouldn't take a girl who will not thrive

No they shouldn't and wouldn't. But if they don't receive enough acceptances, what else are they doing to do other than go down the waiting list?

I think the girl in question WAS interviewed but not put on the waiting list.

I would say that, as with all fiercely selective schools, there is a large gap between 'the score in the selection process sufficient to get an offer' and 'the lowest actual ability that allows a child to thrive in the school'.

So even if the school had to give a place to a child who did not score QUITE highly enough in the application process to get onto the waiting list, in order to fill their places, that child is almost certainly still of 'high enough ability to thrive'.

I agree that schools usually have enough applicants to pick those who will thrive. That's a term schools use for why they use interviews as well as exams. Thrive, of course is a very open ended term, which can be adjusted according to circumstance and need.
And yes, the most academic schools will have loads and loads of applicants who are clever if not stellar and could achieve a very good if not exceptional set if GCSEs. Other schools might have to take a broader interpretation of thrive and will see a broader range of GCSE results to reflect the broader ability intake. Of course this is true.

Even within highly sought after schools, some cohorts will have higher ability than others on intake and it will have an impact on results. They might thrive, but sometimes it might be a struggle to get the GCSE results out if them that will match the league table results that schools know future parents look at. They all say that League tables are meaningless.....but still love to be high up and know that's how they are measured by many parents. Not having to go far down a WL or to even use one is a key way to secure this.

I think its a deplorable thing to do to a child. However, I do wonder if its a reflection on the increase in the number of schools applied to these days. It use to be 2 or 3, now 5 or even 6 seems to be the norm. I suspect it means that some girls have much more choice then historically, so it may mean that the percentage of offers being accepted has dropped across the board in the last few years and schools are struggling to figure out how to deal with this.

A waiting list of 88 seems, simply, bonkers.