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 I was surprised to receive an email today from City of London Girls that their offer to DD is now withdrawn.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

wombat since City didn't know this was going to happen and I only knew from MN that I had a few days, I'm not sure why ordinary working parents who are not in the know should know that this time it would be 9 hours.

As it happened, I got there. But somewhat "illegally" as I was off sick at the time. As a single parent with very unwell parents to care for, I'm not sure what contingency you think should be in place. In any case, it's unnecessary -as all the other schools demonstrate - and a bit unpleasant.

It is top choice for more applicants than it has places for. However, it is a back up for lots of people due to there being closer schools or state schools available,

And I agree that no-one knew it would be 9 hours - the school didn't know either and will never know when places will be 'sold out' until it happens. Given that no-one knows and no-one can predict, it would seem safe and necessary to be there at the opening of acceptances - doesn't that seem logical. Anyone arriving any later faces a risk of places being 'sold out'.

Where something is limited and there is an 'opening time' even without knowledge of previous sell-out points, I would have thought that the risk of sell out was pretty clear.

Single parents, people working, people on holiday etc etc all have the same information as everyone else. Yes, it might be more difficult for them to put plans in place, but no more difficult than accessing anything else which has an 'opening time' and is in limited supply - if you really want it, you sort it in advance and think ahead. I bet lots of those who accepted places had decided not to go on holiday, to take a day off work or to get someone else to take it in for them - they had planned ahead, because they knew there was a risk that delay would mean no place.

It's interesting that the 'justification' for this shitty system is repeated so often. But in a context-free way. The context being that every other school faces the same problems and difficulties but manage to get the right number of the right calibre pupils

There is absolutely no need for a school to use this system.

It's a question of ethos. What level of integrity do you want? If you want a place that stands by its offers, then think hard about schools which don't.

Because if you had queued up, registered to buy your new build, gone through lots of hoops to qualify, and finally been accepted you would be horrified if 9 hours later you were told 'sorry, all gone'.

Absolutely - if the situation had not been made clear.

City applicants have it made clear that more offers ar made than places and offers cease to stand when enough deposits have been received.

The school has decided it does need to use this system. Their unique position in terms of geography and restrictions on their listed building and limited physical space and the consequences of these for applications, ability to judge who has the school as first choice and to handle particularly over-acceptance have all been covered.

In the end, the information was clear. People didn't have to apply this year if they didn't like the terms and in future, if they don't like what has happened, they don't need to apply either. People who say they didn't know are simply abdicating responsibility for reading the paperwork carefully and realising and planning ahead that anything which can 'sell out' leaves you at risk of missing out,if you're not there at the start of the acceptance period.

It isn't the gentlest, fluffiest approach. The school has decided that the approach used by other schools affects or potentially affects them so detrimentally that it cannot be used anymore. They have developed a new one and made it clear. If people decide that this approach shifts them from seriously wanting the school to absolutely not wanting it....so be it. Most serious people who really want the school won't decide this, but work with the system and the school will fill as it has this year. No one is obliged to apply, but I would say everyone is responsible for understanding the terms and implications of the terms if they do apply,

Even when it is made clear, and no-one gas said it isn't, it remain the case than offers are made that will not be honoured.

How this sits with your ideas on integrity are a question of morals and ethos.

CLSG needs families who support this system (rather than the ones which get the same outcome in terms of the right number of desirable pupils but where offers are made in a way which means they can be honoured) . London is a big place, there will be enough. Diversity in the marketplace and all that.

But none of that makes offers, made when you know you cannot meet them, a practice which looks honourable or reflects well when seen from POV of the lack of need to do it al all (as evidenced by majority practice)

It is not unique in having listed buildings and no space for more classes. And those schools can still honour offers. It seems, from the wider persoective that CLSG just comes up with one justification after another, none of which stand up to scrutiny, especially when you look at all the other schools getting their numbers right without recourse to this.

Opting for this, when they could instead have opted to implement a well known, tried and tested system at the standard where it works well (ie nearly every other school) is of course their prerogative. But that does not make it beyond reproach, and doesn't answer the question of why the school could not meet the admin standards of all those other schools who have same pressures and constraints but do it well.

I'm interested in how many "unhonoured" offers they made but I doubt we will find out about that

The story is in tonight's Evening Standard

What City did is completely unprofessional - no matter whether they said "first come, first serve" or not.

All top academic schools are oversubscribed. St.pauls is oversubscribed. Godolphin is oversubscribed. Latymer is oversubscribed. The list goes on and on. Yet ALL these super academic schools somehow manage their offers, do not resort to exploding offers and stick to their firm deadline (5th of March this year).
Have City never heard about statistics? Why other top schools can manage the number of their offers and City can't?

It is highly unethical to close the books in 9 business hours. What next? Renting an ambulance to submit your acceptance forms, because traveling by tube may get you there too late? City talk SO much about equal opportunities, etc, etc and yet in this case they clearly disadvantage single parents, people working shifts, people who can't afford to lose the deposit, people who are waiting for grammar school offers, and so on.

Bottom line - they made way too many offers. As simple as that.

My daughter also got a City offer this year. I am glad it was not her first choice. I was on holiday anyway and would not have been able to come on Monday. Imagine the heartbreak if it was her top choice?

Two years ago they closed the books around a week before deadline. About the same or a bit earlier last year. So anyone who applied this year would Be right to assume they have time at least until the end of holidays - especially the offers day being the 20th!!

This is a very bad publicity for the school, I am afraid.

I think it’s completely callous to argue that “if you really wanted the school then cancel your holiday/take a day off work/drag yourself from your deathbed etc”. I am sorry but these girls and their families have just gone through an absolute wringer with the stress and hard work of 11+ prep, writing papers, being interviewed etc. And now the school takes the implicit view of “oh well, we’ve found it a bit annoying using the waitlist and want an easy shortcut so go ahead and cancel your holiday that you have been looking forward to for months and months ( cause you spent xmas revising and stressing ). This was meant to be your carefree break from it all - offers in etc . Time to relax - oh, not so fast! Cause our admin are an absolute shambles ( sending emails and retracting them straight after , rejecting girls who didn’t even apply, not returning phone calls and emails ...) and can’t get our shite together ...

As I have said previously there can be no defence of emails sent out in error. However, there are a number of misnomers on this thread which I do understand parents of disappointed offer holders might be perpetuatied but as a current CLSG parent I think should be challenged in the interest of balance to the discussion.

1. There are apparently 'no local people' to the school despite the school being in the middle of the city's largest residential estate 🤔. There are MANY girls currently attending CLSG who live in the Barbican itself.
2. CLSG is somehow a 'back up' school to those who are unsuccessful at gaining a place at a Grammar school. Including my own child, I know of girls in her Year who gained and turned down places at Grammar schools in Essex/east London/Kent and Henrietta Barnett in favour of City. In fact, Grammar schools for many were back up to not gaining a place at City. Not the reverse.
3. CLSG is not 'first choice' for the majority. I can only speak from experience again that most parents in my DD's year turned down both Grammars and other Indies (London and otherwise) in favour of City. It was unequivocally first choice owing to the diversity in student type and emphasis placed on non-academic prowess (music/drama/art/sport) as well as academic prowess. My own child only sat other schools on the basis that 75 places and 850 girls sitting the exam are not fantastic odds if your child has an off day.
4. No child Is offered a place who fails to meet the required standard considered high enough to keep up. No one knows who received the 'highest' score so it is not correct to suggest that it is possible that the 'brightest' students go elsewhere. It is however possible that the difference between girls who gained a place and those who didn't was down to parental action once the offer information was received. All successful candidates received the email at the same time. Not in order of score achievement.
5. All paperwork and payment could be returned via email/bank transfer if parents had checked. No time off work for any parent was necessary to gain a place.
6. All schools over offer. Not all schools occupy a listed building with literally no space to expand anywhere. Not all schools are as popular- hence first come, first served.
7. My own child attended a prep. We didn't know about exploding offers at the time. Nor did our head. We did however read that it was an easyJet style offer system and drew our own conclusions on what we needed to do.

Also I’m not buying a house or trying to get a bargain in the sales. These are transactions where buyers and sellers don’t care about each other and are literally just trying to effect a one off transaction. This is an organisation I’ll be having a 5-7 year relationship with where hopefully we will be collaborative and work together. It’s a business transaction but it’s also an ongoing relationship. I would never treat customers in my business this way. It would damage the relationship of trust between us.

Your point 6 keeps getting raised but clsg isn't unique at all in this fact

Ive got all this to come in a few years (currently going through the boys system which has different stressors!) but I'm coming away from this thread feeling there is an overwhelming sense of arrogance from clsg

I'm sure City isn't the back up choice for most of the girls currently in the school. They accepted offers either before the exploding offers system or since it, precisely because it was their first choice. They are popular and rarely if ever will have to go to WL. WL is less the problem than the risk of bulge classes, given the severely restricted site. That site is different to most Lomdon schools.

So, most of the girls (70 per year) have it as top choice, but when 800 apply, large numbers don't. The geographical location makes it a possibility if not the best location for many, and inthis age of people wanting several back ups, it's easy to see that its reputation and fact it could be travelled to (albeit in a nightmarish fashion for many of those people using it as a back up) lead to many applying, who will only accept a place if they don't get their higher preferences. But the school don't know whose those people are - are if not able to over offer by very much at all due to the risk of a bulge class, they could give most of their offers to people who don't want to come. It's a reality, which is minimised as a problem by over offering, because then more of the people given offers will be true first choice people who will accept. However, the only way to over offer to the extent needed and to avoid a bulge class is by using exploding offers. The EasyJet analogy is a good one. Bargain prices are offered from a given start date, but once the seats sold at that price reach their limit, the offer is no longer there.

Is it morally wrong to make offers which are then withdrawn or exploded? I can't see why it's wrong if it's made clear that this can happen. Would people prefer if City didn't use the word 'offer' and instead sent letters saying the candidates had 'qualified' and now could reserve their place by paying the deposit - first come, first served? Is it the word 'offer' that is problematic? I agree that usually offers aren't rescinded for other things.

All schools over offer, yet they do not all resort to exploding offers. Like I said, top academic schools like GL, LU, StP, FH do not do that.

There are schools that are just as popular - if not more popular- than City, yet they manage to stick to the fixed deadline.

This is a case of clear mismanagement on City behalf. I would not trust a school that treats it's "clients" so unprofessionally so early on.

The AntiBoop. Good luck with your DS. I would say though, that have found no arrogance at City at all. Quite the reverse. However, it is not the right place for Parents used to a high level of instantaneous contact with their child's school. They encourage independence very early on from the girls and as a result, outside of very serious issues, girls are expected to deal with lost kit/forgot my homework/teaching/what do I need for this trip queries for themselves. It is really quite liberating for Parents.

And no callous telling people to cancel their holiday they had looked forward to for months occurred. All the literature makes clear how offers work. Most people start looking at schools in Yr4 or early in Yr5. This will have given well over 18 months to appreciate the date of offers and make plans to get the deposits in - as people have said, electronic was fine. Lots might have gone in person, but lots will also have sent the money and forms electronically.

Only people who didn't read the literature or seriously consider the impact of offers only existing until places were full, would suddenly find themselves having to make a last minute arrangement that is talked of here. City did not spring the system on unsuspecting parents part way through the process. It was always there and by applying, they were agreeing to it. There weren't a load of protests about it back then.

Formally, they are right. They did say "first come, first serve", so 9 hours or 30 seconds don't make a difference here.
Ethically, this is wrong. Professionally, it's a mess.
All they needed to do is analyse statistical data and make an appropriate number of offers - like any other self-respecting school does.
They chose to hedge their bets, alienate a lot of people and stain their reputation (and end up in Evening Standard). If they want to be compared to RyanAir - fine, their choice and their right. But big mistake.

Saw this thread in today’s evening standard!

Keepcalmteach - I am saying that versus Grammar schools non-academic prowess is definitely a consideration. And yes, I do know of at least one child who rejected SPGS and several in my DD's year who rejected NLCS. Not everyone wants rolling fields and a gothic building for their child. Sometimes proximity to home/office etc is important What I did encounter at City on the open days (and other visits) above all else were teachers who were genuinely encouraging and excited about their subjects. The music department however is exceptional and from what I can see the standard and opportunity to participate at all levels, outstanding.

Can we not let Channing off the hook here? Less sought after perhaps but their offers rescinded yesterday.

We’d intended to go to offers morning anyway assuming there would be some wriggle room, but they’ve cancelled it.

user8957365 - many possible reasons SPGS was turned down I guess... lack of scholarship? Fees? Commute if you don't live in west London? Or very possibly, Clarissa Farr leaving and being replaced by the ex-head of City Boys who in turn had only been in that post for two years. Deciding between two or three top ten schools is not exactly 'Hobson's Choice'

Channing is just as bad, frankly. As one of the Consortium schools that is trying to eradicate tutoring for the 2019 intake - for which I salute them - I think it's pretty bad they lower themselves in this way. I can't imagine their Consortium partners are impressed at all.

Channing will be a nightmare next year. They have 2 classes coming up from the Prep so a much reduced intake at 11+. Expect to see their list close very quickly indeed, and with it the goodwill of many locals.