How does UCS compare with City, Westminster and St Paul's?

[theultimatepushyparent]

It has amazing DT, music and drama departments and good local sports facilities. It prides itself on its liberal attitudes and its scruffy uniform, and it doesn't teach RS/ have hymns at Assembly.

However, it does the worst of the league tables. Is it slipping further down the tables lately? Is Mark Beard making any positive changes? I have heard that the entry requirements get tougher as you go up the school, i.e. easy from the prep school; hard at 11+; harder at 13+; really hard at 6th form (and mostly girls). Is this right? Can anyone elaborate on the academic standards and whether they are getting more selective? Are they clamping down on lazy teachers? Do they need to? How many children are there in each year from year 9 upwards?

They're changing it so there's no longer a 13+ entry, presumably because the boys coming in at that stage weren't as academic as those coming in at 11. That means they'll be far more places on offer for y7 which is a good thing.

I think there's about 120 in the year from y9.

It was lower than City this year in the league tables (City was amazingly high) but I think for the past few years it's been the higher one. It's much of a muchness for schools like City, Highgate and UCS as they're all close enough for the differences to be down to individuals rather than systematic. I don't think it's slipping down at all.

It's definitely seen as 'second-tier' relative to St Paul's and Westminster, but it depends what you're after. We wanted a local-ish school so didn't apply to those others, plus we liked the fact that it didn't feel so 'public-schooly'. Like City, it's got an independent day school feel rather than a faux-tonian vibe. We choose it above City mostly because we liked the head more (City had that female head who promptly left) and the grounds/fields. We'd have been happy with either to be honest.

I think that scruffy uniform thing is a bit exaggerated, but the school is privileged enough not to have to worry about being strict about sock length which was another thing we liked. Our state alternative was one of those academies that measures how many stripes are visible on ties. We also liked the fact that there's absolutely no uniform in sixth form. I hate that 'business attire' code as it doesn't seem to be treating pupils as being in a transitional phase between school and university.

What can I say, we're happy with it but no doubt would have been happy with others too. I think one can angst too much - they're all ridiculously privileged, academic places and I'd prioritise ease of journey/friends' locations above league tables.

Thank you, Huff.

I heard they were scrapping the 13+ entry. Perhaps they are sick of being second tier to St P and Westminster, like City (although City has shot up the tables lately).

Do pupils attending UCS prep school automatically get a pass to the senior school, or do they compete in the 11+ exam along with everyone else? Otherwise, how do they keep the standards up?

I think at 13+ they are probably seen as a lower than St P and West, but at 11 they're much more of a top choice for those looking in North London - all the kids from state primaries, private schools that stop at 11 etc. Those who choose to send their children to traditional prep schools are more likely to want a more traditional public school.

The Junior branch boys do get an automatic pass to the senior school unless they're falling way short. Loads of them are, according to my son, super clever, but there are a few who no way would have got in at 11+. It's creates a longer tail of academic ability though it's all still pretty high evidently. Personally we quite liked that as it's not healthy to have a very narrow band of ability, which is shown to be bad for self-esteem. It's why I'm a bit surprised that City always had such similar results - I'd have thought they'd be loads higher as they don't inherit these less academic boys.

Thanks that is all really interesting and helpful. It's sounding more and more appealing.

Some boys do get asked to leave UCS pre and post GCSEs if they are struggling academically.

God really? I presume we'd know about this by now if it were relevant to us (and to be fair, ds not struggling). I haven't heard of any of his friends being told this and the grades needed to stay on in sixth form aren't particularly high. But I'm sure you're right, I think private schools are very adept at suggesting that children might flourish elsewhere...

Faux-tonian vibe?