Westminster School Scholarship?

[silverflowers]

My dd is going into year 10 in her grammar school. I know this is early but she's set on getting a scholarship to Westminster School for sixth form. She got full marks in the 11+, has been on the gifted and talented seem since she was old enough and is predicted all 8s and 9s (straight a*s) for her gcses. (a lot brighter than I am haha). I was wondering how hard the scholarship exam is, and what it contains, there is barely any information anywhere and she wants to be prepared.

Given how very competitive it is to get a girl's place at Westminster at all, one has to assume that it is spectacularly difficult to get one of the 4 scholarships.
But why is a scholarship necessary? Unusually, the Westminster scholarships do bring significant fee reduction, but scholars have to board, this still leaves a big bill. But I don't believe that you need to have a scholarship to apply for a bursary, so might that be a possiblity.
And if targeting a scholarship is chiefly for "glory", then I think winning a girls' place would fulfil that alone!
But, as with all these things, worth a bash! Call the school when they open later in the month and they will be happy to explain what is involved, I am sure.

Girl scholars are new, the first awarded this year, so you are probably best asking the school about them. I am not sure if there are separate Scholarship exams in the way there are for boys joining at 13.

Do you really mean bursaries? If so, you need to be good enough to get a place, and then meet the bursary criteria, and hope there is enough money in the pot.

My observation, which may be wrong as people tend not to talk about bursaries, is that Westminster do like to see diversity amongst there sixth form intake, and so will take several from state schools, of whom some may well have bursaries. (And will also offer bursaries to some who are in receipt of bursaries at their current private schools.)

I am not convinced you need to be super bright to get into Westminster sixth form, though some clearly are. You need to be A/A* material, but as importantly I think they look for girls who will make a contribution to school life and who will benefit from what the school has to offer. Applicant numbers are high, but someone has to get in, and it is fab school so is worth a shot.

michaelahpurple, yes, westminster is just one of the few my dd is considering but I am worried about how tough it is to get into. Thank you, I'll sit down with her and call the school because I do think it would be good for her to have something to work towards.

needmoresleep, primarily I do mean scholarships. Dd is predicted all a*s at gcse and should be on track to get that, but I know there will be other factors. She is at a state grammar school and if she got a scholarship she would hopefully qualify for a bursary on top (the school's website says they do do this for scholars) and we could be able to hopefully pay the rest as it would only be for two years. Thank you very much, I've always told her she's got nothing to lose so I will let her try for what she wants.

You don't need a scholarship to get a bursary. This is the case everywhere. So t tort that be a constraint

Bursary is for families with lower incomes who would not be able to afford the fees without assistance. There is a sliding scale of help available.

Scholarship is an academic competition and doesn't necessarily come with bursary help. I'm told that (historically) the scholars were regarded as rather odd

I understand that the school are launching a fundraising campaign so that they can increase the number of bursaries on offer in the future. The new headmaster seems to be very keen on diversity

I have researched the school a bit more recently and I feel like it could suit my dd really well. Does anyone know how hard the exams are?

They are really hard. But if your child is clever, not so tough. Only one way to find out.

Scholarships for sixth-form girls at Westminster aren’t new - I’m ancient and I got one (in the 1980s - John Rae’s era). Due to means testing it didn’t come with much remission of fees, and we weren’t Queen’s Scholars which was only a boy thing. Bursaries even then were a separate concept.

The system in place now is probably entirely different so I don’t have any practical advice, but I would say that the best of the teaching I experienced at Westminster was the most inspiring I ever had.

I am not sure that asking whether the exams are ‘hard’ is the right question. Westminster is a very academic school so they will be looking for pupils who will fit comfortably into the classroom. However I think they are looking for more. Not getting in does not mean you are not clever enough.

There are about 70 new sixth form places. There are a huge number of applicants, both in the UK and overseas. About 10 will probably go to boys, a third are ear-marked for boarders, and Westminster will want a spread of girls across subjects and across co-curricula activities (music, drama - they need that female lead!, sport, debating, school leadership). It would be easy for them to fill the places with super clever girls, but being cynical I don’t think it would do the boys egos much good if the top maths set was entirely female.

They also need girls who can hit the ground running and who they think will adapt quickly to a co-ed environment. Clever boys can be cocky, and to some, intimidating. Though in fairness most were welcoming - indeed having clever hard-working girls in the classroom was often quite a shock for the boys as well. UCAS and US University references need to be drafted in the summer term of Yr 12, so girls have to make their mark quite quickly.

When DD got a place some of the Paulinas she knew could not hide their amazement. Apparently the ‘cleverest’ girl in that year at SPGS had been rejected. Clearly DD was not nearly as clever.

That said it is a fabulous school and it is worth having a go. DD enjoyed the process. The exams had a maths challenge feel. Not what you know but how you applied it. And the interviews were friendly and encouraged engagement. She was initially wait listed, so disappointed, but proud of how well she had done. I don’t know about others, but she did no special preparation. It meant she had to opt for a relatively hard question in one exam because she had not covered the other topic, but got to explain this at interview.

silverflowers, I just finished reading your other current post: ' To move dd school during yr 10? (school cant cope with mental health)'.

It sounds like your daughter doens't handle pressure very well, esp academic pressures, even though she's naturally bright. If this is the case, a competitive, high-pressured environment like Westminster School may not suit her. It might even be detrimental tp her mental health. I would think twice.

My DD moved to Westminster School for 6th form, and although it is a fabulous school in many ways, I would urge caution. The first term of y12 was incredibly stressful as she had to make friends and get used to the university style of teaching. Although my DD ended up I doing very well, a couple of her friends did not do as well as expected.

On the question of who gets in, it is a bit of a puzzle as they rejected some very clever girls from my DDs school. Also my DD changed her A level choices after getting a place at the school, so it’s not as if subject choice is that relevant. It is hard to know for sure what they look for.

The school looks for a 'type' - curious, passionate, quirky, confident, articulate... Make sure that the child isn't 1 dimensional 'studybot' and has passions outside of schoolwork. I'd also advise charity work too /Duke of Edinburgh type things.

Id also suggest that (very much like Oxbridge and medicine) successful DC will be doing those things because they want to, ie it’s already part of their make up, not because it’s what they’ve been told to do to get in.

I agree with jeanne. In our case we had not seen DD as an obvious Westminster but she took to it like a duck to water. This was not true of all her contemporaries, indeed one almost left during the first term and she suspects some, who did not fully engage and who retained social lives centred around their previous schools, got less from the school and probably regretted moving.

I am not sure DD's results benefitted from being at Westminster. Her wider education did, as did her ability enjoy her subjects through looking beyond the syllabus, but her determination to make the most of every minute of those two years probably got in the way of revision. Her immediate peers at her previous school got impressively good results and almost without exception went to Oxbridge.

The diversity and level of accomplishment cannot be understated. One of DDs year was a finalist in the BBC young Musician of the Year, another represented her country in sport at the World Championships, another won an international debating contest. One of DS's contemporaries sat sat some of her A levels in Cannes where a film she starred in was showing, and this is only a sample. Yet "ordinary" achievements, like progression in an interschool sports competiton, or volunteering for the annual residential week for disabled people were just as celebrated. A lot happened at House level so there were plenty of chances for the less accomplished to engage in sport, drama and music. My view is that though the education was great: fun, interesting and challenging, what DC really learned was to engage, follow your interests, give your all, and aim high.

Another of DS' peers: www.formulascout.com/why-renaults-top-student-can-continue-his-momentum-in-f2/41640 In typical Westminster fashion his schoolmates were largely unaware of his sucess outside school.

I have to agree that the culture and teaching can be quite a shock to the system - it's very 'grown up' (treated like adults and a high degree of maturity and common sense is assumed). Better for older teens I suspect - tougher on 13 year old boys!

Patrick Derehams philosophy - if you have been given the privaledge of a good education there are two things you have to do - take every opportunity offered to you and give something back. If you read his story perhaps it will make sense as to why.

I also had a scholarship (mid 90s). They used to set old oxford entrance questions for the exams just to see what 15/16 year olds made of them (and obviously because what they want are girls who are likely to get into Oxbridge). I LOVED doing the day of exams, honestly it was pretty much the most exciting intellectual experience I had ever had at that point, they were so interesting and different to the boring horror of GCSEs. It is a weirdly wonderful memory. The day of interviews was fun too but it is the exams I remember most. The teaching when I got there was top notch and incredibly generous - I remember reading Rilke and Celan in the evenings with a teacher just for fun, I wasn't even doing German a level - and it was two years of feeling blissfully not-a-freak, a feeling I didn't have again until I was a doctoral student. I would absolutely not send a child there though who didn't get in easily, quite a robust atmosphere. Absolute heaven though for the true outlier. Much much more influential upon me intellectually than my undergraduate degree.

I do not have first hand experience. But I have a good friend of mine with a DD currently in the sixth form. Can't fault it academically, it is a great place, with a lot of opportunity, she is doing great and very happy, has adapted, and all that. But. Quite a strong environment which can bring out the best or the worst of your DC - independently of whether they can cope intellectually and even emotionally, there is also a "view of the world" and a view of what is their position vis a vis the rest of the world that is consistently passed on to students. There is a bit of irreverence in the air that gets back home in the form of different values, possibly less kind values, that makes them more assertive but leaving behind other things or at a price. Perhaps anyone with more knowledge can challenge what I am saying, but what I saw and heard happening at my friend's family home, I was not able to forget. If I had a teenager I would check on the school's values, and how they overlap with what you want your DC to take away and keep when they leave home.
I may be completely wrong so please chip in, but I thought I should mention since no one has mentioned this dimension which clearly exists.

I think that's pretty usual teenager stuff from my experience of the school and other schools. Which teenager doesn't disagree with their parents or push their boundaries?

They are told that they have been given great opportunities at the school and should use these to give others opportunities too. There is a good focus on charity work.

So yes, as with most teenagers, they can be vocal and opinionated but they aren't turning out little Jason Reece Moggs.

Good point Asapro and I agree the tendencies are typical teenager stuff but the point is what values the school applies to manage and educate those tendencies. This mum currently has more kids at the "other" two top schools in London, so the observation is made by comparison of the environments fostered in the schools and not the teenager behaviour as such. But I take your point and the influence will also come from the cohort and the particular youngsters that made it to that year too.

Though parental background tends towards the affluent and sucessful, as you would expect of a private school in Central London, it is also diverse. London is a big place, pupils come from all over, you have boarders and a good number of bursaries. Like London, it is very international.

Patrick Dereham, as suggested up thread believes in education giving responsibility. This fitted well with the existing school ethos. Unlike comparators which are governed by City Guilds etc, the school is essentially governed by the Abbey so perhaps gives more prominence to the Christian ethos. (Not for everyone and others will prefer schools like City which don't have Saturday monring school. A large number of pupils are not Christian but they still get a heavy dose of Latin prayers and Abbey.)

It is always hard to describe a school as each pupil's experience is different. Both mine had pretty down-to-earth sciency friends with straight forward parents. Neither were into partying, it was not cool to display wealth, and they enjoyed a culture that celebrated learning and involvement. However other groups contained some very accomplished arty girls, or rather arrogant boys etc (rowers were always a disctinct group) and there were some worrying levels of partying. DS formed his friendship group quite early, whilst DD, though she got on well with most of the girls, tended to hang out with boys/girls from her subjects. We/they may have thought quite differently about the school had either been part of a very social and monied crowd. In fact the reverse has happened and at University DC were happy to similarly seek out their own people and were relatively immune to peer pressures there. Plus well prepared for the step up to independent learning.

The degree of cleverness of Westminster pupils is exaggerated. Yes they are bright but on a par with the bright cohort of any reasonable academic school. There is a huge parental investment of time and focus in their education. This is the crucial difference.

Dotbod. Again I dont disagree. There were some who were extremely bright. But boys who were selected at 7+ were a bit of a mix, and girls were often came from middle of top sets in selective London day schools, rather than top of the year. I am not sure I agree about huge parental involvement. DS used to go in for breakfast and do his homework at school. Add in Saturday morning school and Saturday afternoon matches and it was very much up to pupil/school to organise themselves. More like a boarding school than a London day school.

No more parental investment here than anyone else I know. We did the same types of things that our parents did with us.

You can tutor a kid 24/7 but schools are very wary of hothouse kids who are likely to crack under the work or teaching culture (there's the library, off you go and find what interests you).

I’m not really referencing tutoring specifically or how independent they are once they’re in. Just more the emphasis on education amongst the family. That sort of thing. Otherwise they wouldn’t have a hope of getting in. Lots of bright children everywhere. Lots in Westminster. Mostly hard work though. In my experience it’s exaggerated.