Why on earth would anyone reject SPGS??

[newsibling123]

I've been reading through many threads with mums wondering between SPGS and G&L.

While G&L is a great school, why on Earth would there be a conflict in choosing SPGS, they applied in the first place, its not like they got cold called by the school and their DD offered a place!

If we applied to SPGS, we'd put G&L as back up, but if we had two offers there's no question we'd choose SPGS. The only way I can imagine conflict is if G&L offered a scholarship, or DD really didn't want to go SPGS, even then we would try and show her what a brilliant opportunity it was.

I know one chooses the best school for the DC, etc etc, but I can't imagine any scenario, all things being equal, how G&L would be 'better'. If DD was heavily tutored and parent was worried she'd struggle at SPGS now they have offer in hand, then G&L doesn't come to mind as an alternative to that! One of the less intense GDST schools or somewhere with broader selection, less high academic like Portland or More House maybe?

Don't mean to offend anyone here, choosing school is tough, but I just don't get this at all...It's like getting a place at Oxford and choosing Durham

of course, you must know @ForeverbyJudyBlume. friend!

I agree with you in that if you go to a top school, then you need to make sure you are in the top half of the class. If you are in the bottom half, then I don't think it's a good idea.

By that reasoning then, 50% of those girls shouldn’t be there

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

I agree with you in that if you go to a top school, then you need to make sure you are in the top half of the class. If you are in the bottom half, then I don't think it's a good idea.

By that reasoning then, 50% of those girls shouldn’t be there

How did you come to that conclusion?

SPGS (and Tiffins) take girls from all over the place. A girl in the top half of her Primary school, go for it, a girl in the bottom half, maybe not a good idea.

What's so hard about that to understand?

Read what was written by the PP:

I agree with you in that if you go to a top school, then you need to make sure you are in the top half of the class. If you are in the bottom half, then I don't think it's a good idea.

My understanding is just fine, thank you.

Last time I checked, “half” is equivalent to 50% and the schools alluded to were the secondary schools being discussed on this thread, not primary.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

Read what was written by the PP:

I agree with you in that if you go to a top school, then you need to make sure you are in the top half of the class. If you are in the bottom half, then I don't think it's a good idea.

My understanding is just fine, thank you.

Last time I checked, “half” is equivalent to 50% and the schools alluded to were the secondary schools being discussed on this thread, not primary.

Yes, they are secondary schools, with girls applying from primary schools, state and preps, if you are in the top half of your class you should apply, if you're not, you will probably struggle if you manage to get in.

The reference is to the feeder school. Do keep up....

The clue is in the thread title, girls who apply to go to SPGS and then rejecting their place....

I’m keeping up just fine. The comment wasn’t about girls turning down places or where children sit in the primary classes from feeder schools - it was about girls at those secondary schools and how they struggle if not in the top half of classes.

I’ve come across a few girls at close quarters from two of the schools people on this thread don’t understand anyone turning down a place at.

My own experience is that some dc at these schools are made anxious by the pressure. These are the dc who shouldn’t have been sent.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

I agree with you in that if you go to a top school, then you need to make sure you are in the top half of the class. If you are in the bottom half, then I don't think it's a good idea.

By that reasoning then, 50% of those girls shouldn’t be there

That is correct.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

I’m keeping up just fine. The comment wasn’t about girls turning down places or where children sit in the primary classes from feeder schools - it was about girls at those secondary schools and how they struggle if not in the top half of classes.

I’ve come across a few girls at close quarters from two of the schools people on this thread don’t understand anyone turning down a place at.

My own experience is that some dc at these schools are made anxious by the pressure. These are the dc who shouldn’t have been sent.

Jesus Christ...I give up...

Jesus Christ...I give up...

Please do - you completely misunderstood what had been posted.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

Jesus Christ...I give up...

Please do - you completely misunderstood what had been posted.

I don't want to out myself, but I know one of the schools mentioned and to say 50% of the school shouldn't be there is ludicrous. Can't speak for the other school. That's why I assumed the poster meant 11+ entrants who apply who aren't in the top half of their feeder schools.

Its true that at least 50% of the girls are pushed to attend the school by pushy parents, but all oversubscribed, academic schools suffer this. With a school full of clever girls, there will always be the exceptional and everyone else. And knowing one of the schools very well, its true mental health pressure is a worry, but that's in every highly selective, academic school.

Tops there's around 10-20% who maybe shouldn't be there but cling on till 6th form, but I'd say 80-90% are being the best girl they can be.

Maybe I've mis-understood the post. As you said, I should give up.....and I will.

I am honestly so lost at this point. 50% of something, I'm clueless. LOL

Yeah, me too.

It’s almost like commenting on someone else saying that if girls are in the bottom half of the class of a super selective then they might be better off somewhere else less pressured is a bad thing?

Thank Christ my DC’s state school was better performing than the local independents and we didn’t have to go anywhere near this nonsense (plus I can look at that £200k per child after tax dollars saved).

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

Yeah, me too.

It’s almost like commenting on someone else saying that if girls are in the bottom half of the class of a super selective then they might be better off somewhere else less pressured is a bad thing?

Thank Christ my DC’s state school was better performing than the local independents and we didn’t have to go anywhere near this nonsense (plus I can look at that £200k per child after tax dollars saved).

But that's not reality is it?

At university its the same, you'll have students who are flying through and others have to work harder , should they just drop out and go somewhere else because its hard?

If the DD goes into medicine, law, the CIty, media, IT, it's the same thing again, pressure, colleagues that are smarter, more ambitious than you are. And some thrive in that environment, some buckle.

There's a lot of space between working hard and having mental health issues.

I recognise very academic schools are tough, they are competitive, but these schools by their nature are for those that thrive under pressure ? The girls at the school I know well, many would be bored at a lot of other schools, they'd coast even.

And yes, I recognise some girls are better off somewhere else less pressured, but not 50% of the school for goodness sake!

The 50% comment was from someone else, as confirmed (see above for details).

And reality for us was our state school being excellent without ridiculous levels of hothousing, and if you lived in the catchment area or went to a feeder primary you had a place, regardless. The school sent as many children to med / vet / dental school / Oxbridge / RG / Ancients as the local independents.

DC’s contemporaries are everything from doctors to electricians (you’d be surprised how much the electricians are earning).

And like I say, £200k for us was much better spent elsewhere, given that it would not have improved academic outcomes.

I think OP is very naive and too focused on school’s reputations rather than the child. I speak from experience.

Firstly the selection process itself is part of the decision making process. If the school feels right for you and your child (or conversely wrong ) then it is wise to follow your instincts. I had a DD who wouldn’t go anywhere near SPGS after the interview, she felt that she had been patronised (this was before Sarah’s Fletcher’s time and I would expect her to have changed that culture for the better). She had an even worse experience at G&L where the admissions Officer was unbelievably rude and racist (about another culture assuming we would share her ignorance / prejudice). The Headmistress at a school the parental mafia would put on a level with G&L really engaged her in argument and made her feel like her opinions were valued so that was it.

Secondly and most importantly these schools have such good results because they select the girls who will get the best results. That does not mean that your child will get the best results they are capable of at that school. It may be that in some subjects at least the teaching can get complacent. Another DD moved to a less selective co ed school for sixth form, partly because of a dysfunctional alpha girl culture in her year (one of those years that all these girls’ schools get where the sixth felt empties out for whatever reasons), she felt encouraged rather than expected to perform well in exams and ended up with an A* in one subject that no one in that subject group in her former school achieved (costing one of them an Oxford place). Obviously can’t say for certain that she did better than she would have done if she stayed on but she was certainly happier and gained self esteem. She said afterwards that what she had learnt at her former school was how to recognise exclusive behaviour and developed the strength never to put up with it if she encounters it again. Though she did add “but it would probably only happen in a woman’s prison”.

I certainly now think the choice should not be the “best school” as determined by the reputation with parents but the best school that you feel (and it is an instinct) would enable your child to best achieve their potential. All things are never equal.

I agree with @morecookies that "There's a lot of space between working hard and having mental health issues". If a person wants to achieve something great in life, then it very often means that they have to work extremely hard at it. That level of dedication and perseverance is not for everyone. The best doctors, athletes, executives and academics (& many others) work extremely hard. Not everyone is suited to that, and that's okay.

I have had children at all these schools and (with the exception of a very small minority), there is no such thing as being “not in the top 50%” fgs! It’s hardly as clear cut as that. They’re being taught multiple subjects and all students will have their strengths and weaknesses. A student in the top maths set might struggle with languages, for instance - or whatever. Even students who don’t appear relatively “strong” anywhere across the academic curriculum, might be fantastic at sport or drama or something else. They all find their “thing” is what I’m saying.

I made it very clear to my kids from day one, that they do not need to be top across the board (or even in any subject) to be doing well. The schools reinforce this and they know they are ‘a bubble’ in terms of performance standards across the U.K. They don’t give grades in reports anymore because they don’t need to. They let students know that the vast majority of them will be roughly in the mid 80% of the cohort, give or take (with few very exceptional outliers at the top and some who may need some support at the other end). As long as you’re roughly in this 80% bulk cohort, you are in track for a 9 or 8. The rest is just splitting hairs which leads to unnecessary stress and hot air.

My DC was in one of the lower Maths sets of ten sets. Still got a 9. Very middling all the way through, really. Never got a subject prize or felt particularly ‘stand out’ in anything. Got all 9s at GCSE and was amazed - and at this point realised they were actually doing a lot better than they had previously perceived. All the friends got all 9s too (possibly the odd 8). All were amazed. DC then felt super-motivated and picked up the focus in sixth form. Got into Oxbridge with 4 A*. I’m not saying this to brag but to make the point that this was a very average student, relative to the cohort. The good thing (in retrospect), is that nobody told them all through school, “oh you are top in this subject - have a prize - you are the outstanding one.” So when they got to uni, they weren’t phased by intense competition and were less anxious than a lot of peers from schools where they had been told by teachers and parents that they were brilliant and exceptional since the age of ten or whatever! This is the best life lesson of these selective schools I think - they are used to being around other high-performing students as default, rather than having schools tell them they are amazing all the time. That may sound harsh, but it can be a big shock for some going from being a big fish in a small pond to a small fish in a big pond when they get into competitive unis. If nothing else, these schools prepare you for this reality.

It’s easy to knock selective schools and obviously they are not an option for the majority. But, in my view, too many schools in the U.K. today seem to celebrate mediocrity and treat any students who are performing above this as if they are see semi- geniuses. A local, highly-regarded, state school near us, puts anyone who looks like they might possibly get a top grade into the “Gifted and Talented” class! Many of these students, whose parents actually refer to them as “gifted,” (well, they must be, the school told us), come out with 6s or perhaps a 7 at a push at GCSE. How helpful is that? But because they perceive themselves as gifted, they still apply for Oxbridge and other top unis anyway because they have been sold a skewed reality. I have seen this a lot, I’m afraid and it’s a real problem in U.K. comprehensives. Particularly, when, at uni application stage, they are up against students from other countries such as China.

@renamer

I have had children at all these schools and (with the exception of a very small minority), there is no such thing as being “not in the top 50%” fgs! It’s hardly as clear cut as that. They’re being taught multiple subjects and all students will have their strengths and weaknesses. A student in the top maths set might struggle with languages, for instance - or whatever. Even students who don’t appear relatively “strong” anywhere across the academic curriculum, might be fantastic at sport or drama or something else. They all find their “thing” is what I’m saying.

I made it very clear to my kids from day one, that they do not need to be top across the board (or even in any subject) to be doing well. The schools reinforce this and they know they are ‘a bubble’ in terms of performance standards across the U.K. They don’t give grades in reports anymore because they don’t need to. They let students know that the vast majority of them will be roughly in the mid 80% of the cohort, give or take (with few very exceptional outliers at the top and some who may need some support at the other end). As long as you’re roughly in this 80% bulk cohort, you are in track for a 9 or 8. The rest is just splitting hairs which leads to unnecessary stress and hot air.

My DC was in one of the lower Maths sets of ten sets. Still got a 9. Very middling all the way through, really. Never got a subject prize or felt particularly ‘stand out’ in anything. Got all 9s at GCSE and was amazed - and at this point realised they were actually doing a lot better than they had previously perceived. All the friends got all 9s too (possibly the odd 8). All were amazed. DC then felt super-motivated and picked up the focus in sixth form. Got into Oxbridge with 4 A*. I’m not saying this to brag but to make the point that this was a very average student, relative to the cohort. The good thing (in retrospect), is that nobody told them all through school, “oh you are top in this subject - have a prize - you are the outstanding one.” So when they got to uni, they weren’t phased by intense competition and were less anxious than a lot of peers from schools where they had been told by teachers and parents that they were brilliant and exceptional since the age of ten or whatever! This is the best life lesson of these selective schools I think - they are used to being around other high-performing students as default, rather than having schools tell them they are amazing all the time. That may sound harsh, but it can be a big shock for some going from being a big fish in a small pond to a small fish in a big pond when they get into competitive unis. If nothing else, these schools prepare you for this reality.

It’s easy to knock selective schools and obviously they are not an option for the majority. But, in my view, too many schools in the U.K. today seem to celebrate mediocrity and treat any students who are performing above this as if they are see semi- geniuses. A local, highly-regarded, state school near us, puts anyone who looks like they might possibly get a top grade into the “Gifted and Talented” class! Many of these students, whose parents actually refer to them as “gifted,” (well, they must be, the school told us), come out with 6s or perhaps a 7 at a push at GCSE. How helpful is that? But because they perceive themselves as gifted, they still apply for Oxbridge and other top unis anyway because they have been sold a skewed reality. I have seen this a lot, I’m afraid and it’s a real problem in U.K. comprehensives. Particularly, when, at uni application stage, they are up against students from other countries such as China.

That's a great post, thank you. Just being in the pack in a strong group of students can be a tremendous life lesson. Spending years not getting awards and being told that you're top of the charts will likely serve a DC very well when they enter the workforce. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

renamer What an odd post. You write as if these schools are homogenous (I assume you can only mean you have experience of SPGS and G&L and haven’t produced a tribe who have also road tested LEH, LU and all the other schools mentioned here. The reality is that a pupils experience can be different between different cohorts at different schools never mind between the different cultures Heads try to cultivate. Though some Heads are better than others none can get their tentacles down to every teaching moment, need for pastoral care /discipline, and every selection process. It really is true that what works as a motivating environment for one pupil in one year can feel like the pressured hothousing that makes another pupils experience stressful and draining of self esteem, and that can be down to their peers as well as the school. It is why the decision on what is best for your child is so difficult and not just a case of this is the school other parents think best so it must be.

As to emerging into the real world of elite universities some embrace the chance to meet and value students from all sorts of backgrounds, and come to appreciate they have been in a weird narrow bubble. It gives them the skills to survive in workplaces that have the same diversity ( and those skills are particularly looked for by many organisations eg the big four, medicine, now). Others cling to the bubble and form exclusive private school cliques in the belief that the world of work will embrace that social skill set. In some cases it will but it closes down their options…..

Can someone please point out to me areas in the UK where the local state secondary school(minus grammars) does better or should I say gets better results(GCSE&A levels) than the local independent secondary school? I have this written plenty of times on Mumsnet.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying, Emily. Mine went to / are at G&L, SPS (boys) and LU between the four of them. Of course I’m speaking very generally, but I think these schools have far more similarities than differences. In my experience of these schools, children who feel academically pressured are very much in the minority. The schools simply don’t take pupils who wouldn’t cope in the environments. Sure, it feels very competitive getting into these schools at 11 plus (because it is), but if a school can choose from over 1000 kids (who were probably all among the most able at primary level) all to fill their 100 or so spaces, they don’t need to be taking children who won’t cope. Academically-speaking, once in the schools, it’s not that pressurised at all. They all find their niche. Yes, what you might call truly “gifted” children will emerge sooner or later, but they’re probably a handful in any year and they’re hardly going to be brilliant at everything. Most of the pupils just go with the flow and if they are occasionally outstanding at something - then bonus. But it’s not essential at all. The schools are not about comparing children against each other. They don’t even include grades in reports. In my experience, no news is good news (parent-wise) and it will be like this for the vast majority. They only get in touch if a child is not coping; or perhaps needs specialist support due to an SpLD.

The social side if things is a different matter and one you can never predict at any school. Anyone could show up in your DC class. Yes, people can take a view on pastoral care etc at individual schools, but so much depends on your individual child and who they happen to get plonked with. It’s very hard to gauge overall because everyone’s experiences will vary. For instance, I had a few not so great experiences with pastoral care at LU in the Lower School, but that wouldn’t lead me to conclude that ‘pastoral care is not good at LU’ because I know other people have had very positive experiences and also we found it improved as they moved up the school.

I would say, that of the very few children I’ve heard of who have dropped out the schools, its usually because problems caused by their home life or some other wider issues. I can’t think of a single one in all these years who had to leave because they couldn’t cope academically. Even the ones who perceive themselves academically struggling, still come out with at least 7s and As at A-level. Which is hardly a disaster! Anything lower than a 7 at GCSE is very rare and there not many Bs at A-level either.

So what I’m trying to say in a roundabout way is - if your DC has been offered a place at any of these schools, please don’t worry about them coping academically because, almost certainly, they will be fine on that score. The schools are not academically pressured for the type of children who go there. It’s just normal to them. Socially, well... teens are teens and they will all have their fall outs and ups and downs. But this will be the case in any school. Nowhere is perfect and this is life. Just hi where you think has the best atmosphere for your child (eg. co-ed or single sex). Mental health problems can strike anyone, in any walk if life, anywhere at any time. But notwithstanding this, once in any of these schools, they don’t need to compete. The academics will take care of themselves and average is good enough. Any of these schools will get them where they want to go and they just need to know this and make the most of the opportunities available to them.

Also, as for the different ‘vibes’ in different schools, this is impossible to pinpoint really as it’s so subjective. But (without sounding too mad hopefully), what I would suggest, is just position yourself outside the schools your DC has been offered at 4pm. Sit in that Cafe Cino outside LU as they come out and you will definitely get the vibe! Park up and watch them come out of G&L or SPGS and think about where you can visualise your child fitting in for the next seven years.

of course, you must know @ForeverbyJudyBlume. friend!

Sorry, I have no idea what this means?

For those saying my friend's daughter might have done "even better" at SPS, Tiffin, that was slightly my feeling and I advised her to give those schools serious thought (she thought all kids who went to them would turn out like Boris Johnson).

But my friend a) couldn't really afford the fees, b) had educated her other children at the local school and didn't want to single one out c) was a refugee who went to a comprehensive and ended up at Cambridge and is now a professor d) has political doubts that I fully understand about private schools e) thought the journey to Tiffin would be a stretch. She hadn't encouraged her dd to apply for the schools, the dd trained herself during lockdown when she found some past papers and asked to apply.

And when I say "doing fine" I don't know precisely how she's doing because tbh I don't track my friends' children's progress obsessively but I bet anything she comes out with all 9s, straight A*s and gets a place at Oxbridge with no problem because that's the kind of child she is. So I'm not sure how else she could "do better" in the thinking of the OP at least.

@ForeverbyJudyBlume

of course, you must know @ForeverbyJudyBlume. friend!

Sorry, I have no idea what this means?

For those saying my friend's daughter might have done "even better" at SPS, Tiffin, that was slightly my feeling and I advised her to give those schools serious thought (she thought all kids who went to them would turn out like Boris Johnson).

But my friend a) couldn't really afford the fees, b) had educated her other children at the local school and didn't want to single one out c) was a refugee who went to a comprehensive and ended up at Cambridge and is now a professor d) has political doubts that I fully understand about private schools e) thought the journey to Tiffin would be a stretch. She hadn't encouraged her dd to apply for the schools, the dd trained herself during lockdown when she found some past papers and asked to apply.

And when I say "doing fine" I don't know precisely how she's doing because tbh I don't track my friends' children's progress obsessively but I bet anything she comes out with all 9s, straight A*s and gets a place at Oxbridge with no problem because that's the kind of child she is. So I'm not sure how else she could "do better" in the thinking of the OP at least.

Your friend refused to send her DD to Tiffin , after the child had applied themselves ?? But she had put her forward to SPGS, knowing she couldn't afford the fees?? Didn't she qualify for bursary??

She had to go to the local comp because all her siblings had gone? She thinks sending her DC to private would turn them out like BoJo??

This all sounds completely nuts, sorry.

And what has her refugee status got to do with anything ? Einstein was a refugee. Mo Farah was too, the multi millionaire Saatchi brothers also.

Sorry if it sounds completely nuts, that's the way it is. She could JUST afford the fees but it would have been a squeeze, she didn't qualify (just) for a bursary.

The child applied to Tiffin and SPGS herself - if she had REALLY wanted to go to one or the other my friend would have let her but she was ambivalent.

I'm saying my friend was a refugee who arrived in the UK speaking very little English aged 15, went to a low-performing comp, still made it to Cambridge, she therefore is dubious about the added value private schools offer.

I may well not have made her choice and obviously you wouldn't either but I'm not sure why it makes you so angry.