Super bright kids

[Abirdinthehand23]

Where are all these super bright kids who are getting multiple offers at 11+ coming from? It seems from reading all these threads that there are so many super bright kids who seem to pass these entrance exams with ease.

Is it innate ability or have most been highly tutored or prepped and how are these children so compliant and willing to sit down and be willing to prepare?

Surely statistically the distribution of intelligence means that there is a disproportionately high number of uber intelligent children.

Are CAT scores really a determinant of future success or provide some form of proxy for how well children will do at the school?

Regina - a few decades out of touch.

As for your questions OP I think the handful of posters you see on here - how many are there in total really? About 10? They are pushy parents. There'll be all sorts of protesting that they're not but if you look up a St Paul's 11+ paper you'll see that it really does require a very switched on child to plough through all of that and come up with some decent answers. I have no doubt they are all naturally inquisitive but the nature of the papers means you have to practice.

There's no way any one of them has breezed in and aced the entire thing without doing at least some prep/tutoring.

Yes some kids certainly naturally brighter than others but I do appreciate the honesty of @leeloo1 who demonstrates that natural intelligence alone is not enough to pass these papers with flying colours.

Our experience: DS1 is 99th centile for maths in his age group nationally according to one test he recently did at his secondary - some sort of midyears thing - but without a phase of tutoring when he was 10 to help him understand the way some of those 11+ questions are structured, he wouldn't have got a scholarship. He may well have passed and got a place but he wouldn't have got an award. (He was at state school before).

So I think for naturally bright kids it may well help them get a scholarship. And for the next tranche of bright kids below that it helps them secure a place vs the ones who did less tutoring.

However you have to be careful with over-tutoring as some kids tutored to within an inch of their lives get a place but then can't sustain the pace of secondary school if it's very academic. They are then tutored all the way through. Psychologically it's better to be a big fish in a small pond. So it's better to be at a slightly lesser academic school and be top, than a super-selective and be middling.

Have heard of a boy at Kings for example who 'only' got approx 5 A*s and the rest As at GCSE couple of years ago and this was deemed horrifyingly poor performance. Which really is ridiculous when you consider it. Very bad for mental health. Another boy at Hampton kept saying to his DM that he was stupid because he got a couple of Bs in his mocks. You have to be careful about these environments....

Confidence shot to pieces with both of these poor souls.

” it's better to be a big fish in a small pond.”

True, to a fair extent. However, learning to manage challenging situations, having a minimum amount of discipline/work ethnic and getting yourself back on the horse in the face of some failure is also important to develop resilience and pure, simple GRIT.

Grit/resilience is a life skill. Agreed.

It depends on the child. Some kids don't need to shine. Others do. If you're happy being middle/bottom that's cool. It may start to get to you after a while though, like 5 years of never being good enough, never getting the lime-light like the boys i mentioned above.

Neither of these boys were 'failing'. It's not about grit. It's about being bottom of the pile constantly. Or middle of the pile constantly.

Some would rather choose to be top of somewhere less academic and feel better about themselves.

Others will take the prestigious school instead. It all depends...

Human psyche will usually choose to feel good. Parents may disagree though!

Already seeing this with DF's daughter at SW London super-selective. Been a huge shock to no longer be top of class in everything. Heavily tutored. Averagely bright. Not in any A or B teams for sports. Another big shock and lots of tears. I'm sure she will adjust. She's a sweet kid but has a very competitive mother who is equally hurt on her behalf.

@Atomic who are you implying is a pushy parent but is implying they’re not?

Don't understand

If you can’t deal with not being the best in every situation in life you’ll avoid challenge and are unlikely to reach your full potential for fear that won’t be the best if you go outside your comfort zone. That’s incredibly sad way to live.

No one is top at everything in life. It’s a good lesson to learn that you are in a race against yourself not others. That’s true psychological well-being IMO

my kids are bright.
They did the 11+ and passed easily. I tutored them myself and they resisited the process! (but are glad now that we we did it.)
They are at a superselctive grammar.
BUT at that school they are middling. There are super intelligent kids above them who walk off with 10 or 11 top grades at GCSE.

Those kids are inately clever, and then well prepared, but the intelligence has to be there to start with

In your post earlier:

As for your questions OP I think the handful of posters you see on here - how many are there in total really? About 10? They are pushy parents. There'll be all sorts of protesting that they're not

atomic - we did think long and hard about dd1 (dc2) and grammar school, whether she would be better off in a less academic school, but top of the class. ironically she is probably the cleverest of my 3, but she is a more reserved personality.

But for a hundred other reasons, including the fact that she is gender questioning (which we didn't know at the time) the caring supportive all girls school has been an amazing choice.

So, it isn't always about the academic. We have always told ours that we have chosen the grammar in order to give them as many choices as possible in life.

I'm overseas moving to London - so some of this (maybe all of this) is so new and overwhelming

I must say - my daughter must have done well because we got an offer from cheltenham ladies college, she was invited for an interview at South Hampstead HS, and is waitlisted at Channing.

She is an exceptional interviewee. Well versed , global and confident.

So - we are deeply disappointed that we got NO offers in London day independent schools. (Obviously we don't qualify for grammar schools)

It makes me question the system as a whole? Why are the 11+ consortium test result (or any ind schools results) publicized ? Why is the WL process also "unquestionable"?

Makes me think that factors other than the applicant's performance and abilities are more important.

Is it so?????

Do any Brits question this too???

Super bright kids exist, you must know that from your own experience from your school days. Some children are more determined. More interested in learning. And if they are lucky, they have parents who are interested in children's education. I just don't think there are many children who can figure out things by themselves, but with parents' help and their willingness to learn, they can learn things way ahead easily.
I think innate ability do matter, but also the environment matter a lot.

Honestly? She’s very bright.

We had no need to tutor, however she was at a private prep which did NVR and VR as standard in the curriculum.

We did zero prep bar turn up on the day of the exam (she took one, in addition was offered a place at a local indie on the merit of her report from primary before she took the exam - she actually withdrew from taking it)

hairyhattie that’s really helpful. Even with 4 A-levels as standard, 75 per A/A* at A-levels would be extremely good.

I’m curious if their definition of the cohort is flexible so that they can exclude pupils originally included if they don’t progress as expected

Oops, posted on wrong thread! Ignore my last post

My DD got high scores in grammar tests for superselectives with minimum prep. BUT she is an all rounder - naturally good at maths and has devoured any book in sight since age 3/4. She does cross words for fun, likes strange puzzles and art so verbal/non verbal reasoning come naturally to her. She likes writing stories to destress- this wasn’t tested. She is a certain type who would do well in these tests and as she also has 2 instruments at high grades, head girl status, some sports, good drama and is compliant she would likely have passed some selective independent tests too. However, she is no genius at all and she isn’t even that intellectual. You might get a child who is totally amazing at maths and will rock the academic world in the future but wouldn’t pass these tests. They favour a certain type of child. You might get a kid that has read tons of science books and will end up with a first at Oxbridge etc in the future who wouldn’t pass these tests as s/he reluctant writer and don’t read fiction. I wouldn’t define passing these tests equal to super duper bright.

Re CAT scores, have checked old school reports for you and these have always been between 135-145 since year 2. So one year she might get 143 for general maths and another year 139. You get the gist. So yes, I think high CAT scores (consistently over a number of years) can give an indication as to how a DC might do in these tests.

I know that currently the maximum CAT a child can achieve is 141. Was it different earlier?

Re Cats, in year 4 and 5 our max is 141 but in previous years we had higher than that (having just checked). No idea if it has changed or not. Never even paid any attention previously as buried at back of school report and teachers always said they are just an indication for them. So if they have a child with a high Cat score who is underperforming in class they know to intervene.

I think that I might talk to DS’s school about that... DS got 141, 139, 139 and...111 in verbal reasoning...? Is that usual...?

That is not usual at all re the verbal reasoning. Was it the first time he did verbal reasoning? Was it on the computer - glitch?

I am not , Ox... Will raise with the school... I was surprised at both ends - the extremely high and the low... Although he is bright, I do not believe that he is substantially brighter than my DD, whose mean is 133 and quite level across all CAT4 aspects...

I think it’s also worth discussing what ‘bright’ actually means in terms of how it translates to exams/tests/interviews.

My DD did ok in the Wandsworth test (VR/NVR) but nowhere not well enough for a selective school using that test. She then didn’t get through to second stage WHS which again was VR and NVR.

But then got offers from schools with a more traditional mix of English, maths and then interviews... and one school that does include VR and NVR and one that includes VR. But maybe her maths and English and her interviews pushed her up? Do I think she’s ‘not bright’ because VR and NVR are not her strengths? No, absolutely not.

There is no perfect system in all this and the differences between some of these children who get a place vs don’t will be absolutely tiny. Every year, schools will have to turn down kids who would do brilliantly there. The head of LEH has said this.

Ds age 15 (August baby) is predicated all 8’s and 9’s for GCSE’s this summer - he failed his 11 plus. It was for the Surrey (Wallington / Wilson) grammars which are super competitive. Didn’t matter as he goes to an outstanding school anyway. But it’s not the be all and end all. Ds was 2 marks under the pass mark, but even at pass mark he wouldn’t have got in as the pass Mark is super high. A friends son did get in and she’s spent last few years trying to get him into DS’s state secondary, as he doesn’t like the test test test environment. We didn’t tutor DS as I didn’t really feel it’s right tutoring a child to pass the test if that would mean he would struggle. I also don’t think it would have suited him being an average student instead of one of the best. Not because he’s big headed as he’s really not, but he does enjoy being a top student in his school

I think you are right OxOwl2, these exams do favour a certain type of child - but I wonder if that is good in the long run, especially when in some schools getting a few As and not A* or nines or whatever is not just good enough.

And like we have all seen as well - having the highest scores at A levels doesn't translate into success/job satisfaction etc.

There are so many other attributes that a person needs that are just not seen in a NVR/VR, maths and English tests.

As someone not from the UK the London entrance exam 'scene' is totally baffling and scary. It has totally made me question alot.

Like all parents we want the best for our children but I'm not sure this is it.

DD was adamant of her school choice and so only sat one school. She received an academic and co-curricular scholarship on minimal prep. But I was told by her prep school that she would be over - reaching as her CAT score was only 127 this yr although it has swung anywhere from 100 to 141 since yr 2.

The system seems to write-off children too early and also favours those who mature earlier or who have parents with resources and who fit ar certain cookie-cutter

Of course there will always be those who are exceptional at something by nature but the results that are seen at these entrance exams are too over-inflated. The schools instead of trying to circumvent parents paying huge amounts of money to get their children in are perhaps perpetuating a system that is creating something that can't be sustained.

Our child has now notched up 3 high scoring grammar passes and 3 scholarships. Has never ever been tutored or prepped...but has consistently had almost maximum CAT scores across all batteries. Not studious, barely reads...finds maths a breeze. Yes of course there are children like that. Our other child was not like this at all, but had many other skills which thankfully stood them in good stead. Bring naturally ‘clever’ doesn’t guarantee success. It might secure places at schools..but that’s only the start of a very long journey.