Common Entrance – an insider’s view

Every year, one reads a variety of articles discussing the relative pros and cons of the 13+ Common Entrance examination.  Many are critical and their objections include, to name but a few:

• The curricula are too prescriptive and result in the stifling of creativity and fun in the classroom.
• The required standards and expectations are too high, resulting in excessive demands being made on pupils, teachers and parents.
• The papers are marked by the public schools themselves, so there is a lack of consistency in marking and grade boundaries.
• A 13+ entrance exam that can be failed as well as passed puts undue pressure on the candidates

Yet the fact that the examination was established in 1904 and is still used as an entrance test by over 200 independent senior schools must mean that it has something worthwhile to offer; if it didn’t, both prep and public schools would have voted with their feet long ago.  Although a number of public schools have opted to set their own 13+ entrance examinations (which are invariably based on the C.E. syllabi), most of the country's leading independent boarding schools continue to rely on Common Entrance.


At the outset, it is important to remember that nobody wants their candidates to fail.  If realistic and sensible choices of public schools are made in the first place, and the pupils themselves continue to work hard, then they stand a very good chance of passing into their first choice school with strong grades behind them.  However, for this to work, it is crucial that prep schools, public schools and parents work together.  Many public schools now offer pre-testing in years six or seven in order to help with this selection process.  Equally, some public schools are fiercely competitive, and the higher one sets one’s sights the higher the risks involved – but risk is, after all, part of life.

Some would have us believe that formal exams at this level are intrinsically wrong.  I taught for several years in a school where we had exams twice a year, from year four upwards.  They were certainly taken seriously, but not unduly “hyped up”.  Contrary to widespread belief, they did not turn our pupils into gibbering wrecks (the parents were often more worried than their children), and many relished the challenge of effectively consolidating their knowledge then displaying this on the page as accurately as possible.  Quite a number of pupils really rather enjoyed the competition; others at least developed a familiarity with exam conditions and practice, and so Common Entrance in year eight was far less of a shock to the system.  Exams are traumatic only if one allows them to become so.

It is certainly true to say that some of the Common Entrance curricula are fairly prescriptive, but is that necessarily a bad thing?  A prescriptive syllabus need only be dull if the teacher allows this, and the C.E. syllabi allow plenty of scope for interesting, engaging and fun learning to take place.  A syllabus provides a framework, but teaching is not simply about coaching pupils to pass exams.  The fact that many subjects are being taught at a level approaching G.C.S.E. not only encourages academic excellence and intellectual curiosity amongst pupils, it also sets a high benchmark for the teachers.  It is worth remembering that this is in no way to the detriment of the non-academic disciplines.  Many prep schools have thriving Music, Art and D.T. departments, and also train successful teams that compete in a variety of sports (from football, rugby and cricket to swimming, squash, golf and judo).  They also organise a host of fascinating trips and excursions, both academic and non-academic.  High standards within the classroom certainly do not limit the number of sporting, musical and extra-curricular pastimes on offer.

The Common Entrance exam has so many advantages.  The fact that it is common means that thorough, rigorous and standardised curricula are being taught across the country’s prep schools, and these are revised regularly in consultation with teachers from both the prep and public school sectors.  The result is that all pupils have had the same solid grounding when they arrive at their public schools, and so time needn’t be wasted in playing “catch up”.  The fact that C.E. papers are marked by the public schools themselves means that they can organise their sets much more effectively, as they have seen and marked the pupils’ written work first hand.  The Common Entrance system also allows for an element of flexibility; those who have joined a prep school late on and so perhaps do not offer French or Latin might still be considered by their chosen public school.  It also caters for a range of abilities: many of the subjects have papers set at different levels.  Equally, the public schools understand that a pupil might take a higher level paper, achieve a comparatively lower grade, but demonstrate an ability to cope with a more demanding syllabus – and this is interpreted accordingly.

It would be narrow-minded to claim that the Common Entrance system was fault-free.  However, after over 106 years it still has a lot going for it.  Whilst not wishing to put undue pressure on pupils, we are surely failing them if we relax our high expectations and remove all possible hurdles?  For an exam to be worth the paper that it is written on, it has to be possible to pass as well as to fail; to get low grades as well as high.  Those who do best are the ones who are prepared to put in the hard work – and surely this is good preparation for life in general?

Most importantly, pupils who work hard, earn top grades and pass in to their first choice public school deserve to feel a genuine sense of pride in their achievements – and that is precisely what the Common Entrance examination allows.