First tier, second tier

[chopc]

I have seen several threads in which some independent schools are thought to be first tier, second tier, top 50 etc

Please could I ask who decides on the Tier and if anyone could refer me to the data/ article etc?

Thanks in advance

I have just realised that St Pauls is the only top tier school from SM's list which is a day school.

75% of Westminster students are day pupils.

this list can't be very old

The book oxonian cites was published this year.

Correction: the book oxonian cites was published last year, in April 2018.

expat, Westminster was and still is part boarding. It still operates on a boarding school schedule including Saturday school, St Pauls doesn't.

Just because the book was published this year doesn't make the list current. The book is meant to be a history of public schools. Another reason his list doesn't make sense for 30 years ago is because I know 2 brothers now in their 50s. The elder was very bright and sent to Eton but the parents were worried about the younger and he was sent to Harrow because it was seen as much less academic then.

Expat - that list cannot possibly be current unless it was written by a mad ghost writer. Latymer is the top performing co-ed in the country. It is not a third league school and it is not the equivalent of Bedales.

cake The list is current. The ranking it specifies may refer to a time gone by, but it is his current view of that ranking.

Would oxonian (or anyone else who has read the book) please clarify what the ranking is supposed to represent.

Have you read the book expat?

And no Hampton!

The school that has taken over from St Pauls as the top achieving maths school in the UK with a ridiculous number of Olympiad victories in recent years. But not good enough even for the third division, unlike Bedales!

Interesting how irrate people get about these lists.

The thing is, they are by nature controversial and open to debate. We have no idea on what basis or criteria that list is compiled and if we were to identify our own criteria and apply them, very different rankings might come out.

I think the key is to decide what really matters to you and find a school that delivers it and see it it's a viable option for your child.

Some might look at A Level results in the last year or over the last 5 years or the last 20 or 30 years. Some might do the same for GCSEs. And then there's the question of what you're measuring in their results is it %s getting A or A/A or A-B or A-C.....and can you actually acces that data for the period of time you want in formats which allow you to compare the same thing for each school, to compare it over the period you want to? Probably not.

Some might look at no.s going to Oxbridge or 1, 5 or 100 years, or be interested in those going to RG Unis. Some might be interested in the sporting achievements and what is offered in this area. Some might be interested in the no.s from that school represented in government, law, business or whatever over the last 5,10,50 years. Some might be interested in the staff qualifications over the last 5,10 years. Some might be interested in which has the most applicants per place or requires the highest standard to get in last year, over 5 years. Some might be interested in how long the school has been running or how many famous people went there.

The thing is, you might be interested in any or none of these things. Actually measuring most of them, especially over time and especially in formats which allow you to compare like measures with like measures is next to impossible. So with that borne in mind, any rankings are rather spurious, however expert they claim to be. That is why it's not possible to have categorically correct 'tiers' Of schools and why there will always be disputes about any that are created.

Any ranking system needs to state very clearly what the basis of the ranking is and what data was used to produce it. It is possible to produce league tables for individual years based purely on measurable results, although how accurately that information is submitted and used is questionable in itself. It might be possible to say X school was the top achieving school at A Level in X year, but it's not really possible using measurable criteria to come up with a definitive list or ranking of schools in a general sense. We have to recognise that place in League tables can vary significantly across the years, plus more importantly, what is measured in their tables can only be a very narrow range of information and the things that parents value top schools for in terms of co-curricular and a rounded education and all kinds of other opportunities just can't be measured in those league tables.

As parents, we can look at league tables of academic results. We can draw conclusions about schools in X year from those, and we have to choose based on the other things which are important to us, which vary from family to family, but for most need to include things like location. And in the end we have to recognise that any of these 'figures' expressed don't speak of the impact of the school on individual pupils - some will do better and others worse in all schools. We have to choose what looks best for OUR child who is unique. They can go to the so called best school in the world and if they have a terrible time or have a breakdown or perform significantly worse than they might have been hoped to, all the rankings in the world probably mean nothing for you as a family.

Gather the information which seems important to you and choose a school. Don't be so bothered about a spurious ranking table which is pretty meaningless.

People who want Eton don’t look at day schools. People who want day schools don’t look at Eton. At least splitting them into day and boarding makes sense. Within that, there are clear divisions and some fairly murky ones! The bottom line is: choose what suits your child. (And your purse!)

Martin Stephen offered his rankings on the basis of his views "at the time of writing", so presumably it's his current (or within the last two years or so) appraisal of boys' and co-ed schools.

From reading the book, I get the sense he judges first and foremost on academic reputation.

He also notes that girls' schools "are a separate story".

Oxonian - thanks you have confirmed that he is a complete muppet and I can understand why St Pauls dumped him.

His list is ridiculous and he is probably trying to point score as I find it interesting that the obvious schools he has ignored/incorrectly placed are those physically closest to St Pauls. Latymer, 5 minutes away and as I have previously mentioned has been the top performing co-ed for years, but only third division for him. Similarly, Hampton is local and they play regular sports fixtures against St Pauls but despite being one of the best schools in the country it didn't make the list, but Manchester Grammar did! With glaring errors like this I cannot believe for a minute this was based on academic reputation. His list is very Tatler.

And the reason I get irate about the exclusion of girls schools is that he wrote a book about public schools and couldn't be bothered to include them. I can understand bigging up his old school and trying to make out that it is part of an Eton/Harrow elite but why dismiss all of womens education as a separate story? He was writing about public schools, he should have specifically called the book Boy's Public Schools (because educating girls isn't worth writing about).

I do apologise to those reading for getting in a spin but it is only recently I have realised how ingrained sexism still is in the private sector.

Tiers of schools isn’t just academic results though! There is cachet too. That’s difficult to quantify but everyone has heard of Eton and Harrow. Many people, nationally, won’t know Hampton or Latymer. It has nothing to do with sports fixtures. Some people, who live in Manchester, are likely to think MGS is a high ranking prestigious school and will not be familiar with London day schools.

I think it's a very public school as opposed to independent school list. Ampleforth is not a better school than UCS or Latymer or Hampton on all the measures that matter to me but it's a public school, beginning at y9, with boarding etc.

It's a snobby list. Latymer and Hampton are schools that have always had y7 entry with lots coming from the state sector; Hampton was a direct-grant school until the mid 70s (Brian May went there!); UCS was specifically set up as a secular school by University College so that non-Anglicans could get a good education etc.

FWIW in London most people think top tier as St Pauls boys/girls, Westminster, Kings, City Girls, NLCS I suppose. It's a bit bonkers because the next tier (Latymer, Highgate, City Boys, UCS, Godolphin, SHHS, Hampton, LEH etc) are as sought-after in terms of sheer numbers. Maybe more so.

Personally I'd always prioritise ease of getting to school over perceived prestige.

I imagine a large part of the weighting given is whether they're public schools or merely independent schools. Of course girls'schools don't feature much- lots of boys' schools date from Tudor(ish) times, whereas girls' had to wait until the Victorian era...

What springs to my mind for the schools named as top tier in that list
Cachet (for want of a better word), history of school and longevity of reputation, buildings, extracurricular package, (advantage for full boarding here and much better in those boys’ schools unfortunately than any girls’ school), calibre of outside speakers due to alumni and reputation, funds to attract and maintain highly qualified teaching staff who provide an Oxbridge tutorial type system, sixth form experience worth paying for (for all of the reasons given above), reasonable endowment funds

I completely agree with names in top tier.
Other schools will have at least some of the components including academic pupils and excellent results.

By way of response to the St Paul's headmaster list, our London (boys) prep head told us recently that he thought top tier currently was Westminster, Kings, Eton and Winchester with St P's now lagging a bit behind .

It's a bit bonkers because the next tier (Latymer, Highgate, City Boys, UCS, Godolphin, SHHS, Hampton, LEH etc) are as sought-after in terms of sheer numbers.

People self-select. Parents who are uncertain about their child's academic brilliance might avoid the schools with the most academic reputations. And I know that prep schools also steer fewer of their students to the most academic schools than to the slightly less academic ones. Bute House, for example, allegedly only "allows" half or so of its girls to apply to SPGS while nearly their entire class applies to Godolphin & Latymer.

Have you read the book expat?

No, that's why I asked for clarification. Have you read it?

If I remember the book also had a list of schools which could have been in tier 3

I think it's a very public school as opposed to independent school list.

To be fair, his book is titled The English Public School and subtitled An Irreverent and Personal History: An Irreverent and Personal History.

I hadn't been aware that there were so many public schools. As an outsider, I'd always thought the term applied to the likes of Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Winchester. Boarding schools, like cake mentioned earlier. I hadn't realized that St Paul's and Westminster were considered public schools.

I think I can conclude it's a matter of snobbery?

What is a matter of snobbery?