HBS Waiting List 2017

[expat]

On 1st of March we were WL 37

141 is more likely as it is October, month she is born in.

141 is being inferred from the FOI released ranking of round 1&2 scores. Waitlist 37 on 1st March would be consistent with the report that 104 offers were made in the first batch (141-104=37). But that would seem to imply that no girls needed to be offered places under oversubscription criteria 1&2 (looked after children and children eligible for Pupil Premium funding ranked in the top 300), that all offers were (or could have been) made in rank score order. Does that sound right?

Why does it imply that?

The 104 girls who were offered on 1 March may well include eligible PP or looked after children. They would not then need to be on the waiting list.

Am I missing something?

Suppose that there was only one single looked after or PP eligible girl who took the second round but finished outside the top 104 in scores. Then she should have been allocated a place in the initial batch of 104 along with the top 103 ranked girls. In that case, the first girl on the waiting list would not have been 105 in the ranking, but 104; and the 37th girl on the list would not have been 141 in the ranking, but 140. And this also assumes that all the top 104 ranked girls placed HBS first on their CAF forms, as nyr has pointed out before.

If (a) 104 places were allocated on 1st March and (b) waiting list position 1 on 1st March was immediately after the first 104 places and (c) either any looked after or PP eligible girls were ranked outside the top 104, or any of the top 104 did not place HBS first on the CAF forms; then TT_Green's DD would not be the October born girl at rank 141 but, rather, one of the October born girls ranked below that. Which is of interest only to TT_Green or someone like hbsseal who is trying to guess how far down the rankings HBS went this year.

[expat]

I think maybe the confusion is around what actually has been provided under the FOI request.

It looks to me as if it's the birth month of eligible children in the order that they are prioritised on the waiting list. Not necessarily a list of children in order of how well they did in the test.

It doesn't seem to include children who were eligible to apply (ie took the second stage test) but chose not to. There are no gaps in this list.

Which document are you looking at? The one I have has 300 rows, which I interpret as the results of the girls who sat the second round test. I interpret the birth month as that of the girl associated with the scores.

[streathammum]

Yes, I agree that this table will correspond to scores in the test.

However, as you have said, the 300 girls will be in a different priority order for admission to the school because of the pupil premium/LAC categories.

Also, the waiting list won't correspond to either of these lists (the test list or the priority order list) because not all children who sat the test will have applied to the school or want to be on the waiting list.

I had assumed that the list posted earlier up the thread was of children on the *waiting list* - if it's actually just children ranked by position in the test, it's not very meaningful.

[ToadMum]

I think maybe the confusion is around what actually has been provided under the FOI request.

It looks to me as if it's the birth month of eligible children in the order that they are prioritised on the waiting list. Not necessarily a list of children in order of how well they did in the test.

It doesn't seem to include children who were eligible to apply (ie took the second stage test) but chose not to. There are no gaps in this list.

Which document are you looking at? The one I have has 300 rows, which I interpret as the results of the girls who sat the second round test. I interpret the birth month as that of the girl associated with the scores.

And therefore, from that list, someone who was even 1st on the waiting list on March 1st could literally be any of those below rank 104, down to rank 300.

The former assuming that all the ranked scores from 1 - 104 represent girls who are not LAC or PP (or with an EHCP naming the school) - or if they are, their scores are within the top 104 anyway - who put the school on their CAF above any other for which they qualified.

The latter describing the highly unlikely scenario in which 195 girls took the second round exam but named HBS below the school they were allocated.

[streathammum]

In theory, the first girl on the waiting list could have been ranked in the 80s on the test, if (a) all the children above her were offered HBS and (b) 20-25 PP/LAC applicants who ranked below her on the test named HBS high on the CAF and leapfrogged to the top of the priority list.

That's an unlikely scenario I know, but shows how you can't derive waiting list positions from ranks in the test.

[thisisnuts]

That's an unlikely scenario I know, but shows how you can't derive waiting list positions from ranks in the test.

This point has been made, and ignored, earlier in this thread!

Only 235 out of 422 "applicants" placed HBS first on their CAF.

We don't know how many of the 300 2nd round girls, who were actually eligible to apply, placed the school first - and we certainly can't assume that all of the top 104 ranks placed it first. Combined with not knowing where the PPs were ranked in the top 300, it is impossible to say how far down the rankings the waiting list has reached.

[hbsseal]

May be it has already been discussed, and perhaps someone can highlight to me on why such a big deal is made to keep the rankings secret until 1 March if the results are known to the school in October prior?

Just release the ranks to everyone in October - would make the process efficient as parents can then focus, and list schools, accordingly in the CAF? I fail to see what purpose this entire exercise of keeping ranks secret after round 2 is done achieves.

[tiffinboys]

Only DAO gives score as well as rank, which is very helpful.

[Adelina]

May be it has already been discussed, and perhaps someone can highlight to me on why such a big deal is made to keep the rankings secret until 1 March if the results are known to the school in October prior?

Just release the ranks to everyone in October - would make the process efficient as parents can then focus, and list schools, accordingly in the CAF? I fail to see what purpose this entire exercise of keeping ranks secret after round 2 is done achieves.

My understanding is that some of the schools don't want to have the danger of children showing off about the fact that they were position 4 whereas their friend was a "lowly" position 102 and so on. Personally I think this is quite a low risk. You do hear the odd tale of children (usually boys, for some reason, so wouldn't apply to HBS anyway) boasting in this way but it's rare.

Really what the parents need to know is (a) is their child in the top x that would definitely get them a place if they want it - so for HBS the actual top 93, QE top 180 etc, (b) if they aren't, what is their actual rank, (c) what ranks have got places on allocation day for the last few years and (d) what ranks have got places from the waiting list by the start of the school year in the last few years. That would help them decide and if (a) didn't state the exact rank it would avoid the whole boasting scenario.

The info that is not released at all by some schools until after allocation day is the full list of scores and so on that people ask for via freedom of information requests. Again, some do their best to release these asap whereas others claim there is some reason they can't do it until after allocation day. Personally I'm not convinced they really do need to delay, but actually the full lists of scores aren't what parents need for their own decision-making anyway.

[hbsseal]

In the above explanation, the only 'reason' provided is that children may boast about their ranks.

Firstly, why is that a risk? In any event, children (and adults) are otherwise encouraged to compete and succeed - right from intra-school competitions and work promotions to Olympic events- the entrance test is merit based, why not see the result as celebration of success. The suggestion that a child who did well to finish within top 2-5% of all candidates will be negatively affected by another who finished within say the top 0.1% is a bit ridiculous. Is there any evidence that those who end up initially in WL (and therefore are aware that are probably 1 or 2 marks below the ones who got through the initial list) feel such scars?

Secondly, even if I am wrong on this point, and somehow a child who has done well enough to rank 150 develops negative complex to find out that another child has ranked 1, then is avoidance of such imaginary complex proportionate given all unnecessary inconvenience caused to every one of the 300 girls (and their families) who make it to the second round? To me, it is downright silly to keep 300 families in suspense for more than 5 months until March, and then add a further 6 months of anxiety for those on the WL. A transparent process (where the ranks are released for all involved in October) would be undoubtedly positive, as a whole, for the welfare of the children involved.