How do A level grades affect Class of Degree?

[catslife]

There are loads of threads about GCSE and A level grades needed for university but cannot find any information that answers my question.
Would a university student with a grade A (or A*) at A level achieve a better class of degree to one who had a grade B (or possibly grade C). This would be for an "arts" subject if that makes a difference.
Trying to work out if B/C at A level is a suitable level to make it worth applying for unis. If a child does better than this can they make a late application/ go through clearing if they haven't already applied?
Any answers and thoughts welcome.

I'm a Uni Lecturer. I have had students who have had to do an access course because their a levels were rubbish get a first class honours degree. I have had students with AAA at A level who have failed/got a low grade. A level results are not indicative of your degree mark. (Excuse typing, on annoying phone)

I got top grades at A level with very little work and that bad work ethic meant I got a 2:2 at uni.
I think work ethic is more important than ability - combined with enjoyment of the subject.

Sofabitch recruitment into the top jobs on both sides of the profession says otherwise - that it's not an outdated assumption.

The number of firsts being awarded by universities has increased massively over recent years. Firsts = happy students = higher student satisfaction = higher rankings.

BBC article about this HERE July 2017

For example in 2010-11 19.3% of degree awarded by the University of Surrey were first class but in 2015-16 it rose to 41.2%.

"To put it into context, a student who achieves a first in law form the university of Essex would highly unlikely achieve the same first in law at Oxford. And employers are aware of this and do not view a candidate with a first from Oxford in law and a candidate with a first from Essex in law as having the same level of achievement or qualification. Even though technically both have a first in law"

Sorry that's total shit wrong. I went to a uni 88th in the league table and got a first, then went straight on to get a distinction in my Masters at a top ten uni.

Whilst A level results reflect hard work and intelligence, they are also a result of social factors. At university, memorising and practising won't get students as far as it does for A levels.
Schools that get the 'best' A level results do what it takes in terms of getting kids to memorise and practice (quite rightly - this is part of what parents pay them for and children sit the 11+ for).

I know that private and selective schools contain lots of children with ability and insight who go on to get a First. But in my experience these schools are better at finishing the curriculum earlier and setting lots of past papers and teaching students the key phrases and arguments that get A Level points.
Obviously this is more true of essay-based courses than maths.
And so many children work so bloody hard - regardless of anything else.
Another factor must surely be that degrees vary in difficulty between institutions.
But I can't believe that anybody would deny social factors.

I got 4 A's at A-level in 1993 and got a 2:2
I bloody loved uni! Hated my degree! I've done another one since mind!

I got just about all As and best in the school and won university prizes. My son got CCC and got a third - he did not work. I think there can be a co-relation. His sisters got mostly As and got 2/1s at good places. he isn ow driving Ocado trucks and they are City lawyers on 4 - 6x what he earns! (No one got a first in my year at unviersity by they way - they were like gold dust then and are still hard to get).

I think Bluntness above is correct.

quick, it's not totally wrong, and your experience doesn't disprove the claim, does it? It just shows you did well at your MA.

I actually think not enough students at very good universities get firsts, or high firsts.

holly - yes! It feels so cruel and depressing to be constantly saying 'yes, this would be an excellent A Level answer, but ...'.

One of the eternal issues is that students seem to be taught a particular structure of essay, where the introduction and conclusion are mirror images, and a particular style of argument that relies heavily on claiming things are 'relevant' or 'important' and making huge, exciting-sounding generalisations.

So, sometimes, success at A Level can be actively damaging in the early bit of a degree, especially if the student isn't adaptable. Same with undergrad and postgrad.

goodbyestranger it is an assumption made by recruiters and is 100% outdated and wrong.
Relying on a wrong assumption made by others to prove a point is the sort of fallacious reasoning would lead to a very poor grade on my degree course.
From my observations, the students that do well are those who are there because they WANT to be, have committed themselves to their studies and are passionate about their subject.

*"To put it into context, a student who achieves a first in law form the university of Essex would highly unlikely achieve the same first in law at Oxford. And employers are aware of this and do not view a candidate with a first from Oxford in law and a candidate with a first from Essex in law as having the same level of achievement or qualification. Even though technically both have a first in law"

Sorry that's total shit wrong. I went to a uni 88th in the league table and got a first, then went straight on to get a distinction in my Masters at a top ten uni.*

One example does not constitute data.

Cambridge takes a large number of students onto Masters programmes. In my own subject, students who come in with 85-90% from lower ranking Russell Group universities typically do worse than students from Oxbridge who have 70%. It is quite unusual for a student from a lower ranking Russell Group to get a distinction at Masters in my subject, even when their undergraduate average was 85%+. Meanwhile Oxbridge (and Imperial, Warwick) students with an undergraduate average of 70% are quite likely to get distinctions.

BTW nationally there is quite a strong correlation between A level grades in Further Maths and performance in Maths (and related) degrees.

i got one A and three C's at a level. went onto get a 2:1 and was one point off a first :)

@user7214743615 - The OU requires 80-85% as a minimum to get a first in my course (depends on the module). I know approx 20 first class alumnis of my course who have all gone onto masters and mscs at Oxbridge/LSE. They've all said their BAs at Open Uni were more vigorous and have all achieved distinctions with 'very little effort' in comparison.

What masters? Competitive entry ones or cash cows? The two are often not comparable.

nutty, the OU just marks on a different scale, though. Cambridge has 70 as the lower boundary for a first, but the top candidate in the year might only score 74 or 76. This isn't because they didn't do brilliantly, but because the scale doesn't really go up to 100 in practice (or even to 90).

OU degrees are pretty rigorous and do set people up well for postgrad, but still an 80/85 from the OU doesn't mean the same as an 80 from Oxbridge.

Nutty, I suspect there is a difference between quantitative subjects, where what you have done before provides the building blocks for the next stage, and qualitative subjects.

D'S will be taking a Masters at LSE. There are compulsory summer courses for those wanting to take specific, often technical, course options. He is fine as he took a lot of maths/metrics courses at UG level, but says others are rapidly reconsidering their options. If you have not mastered the content at one level it is very hard to make up ground when starting the next.

Very interesting so far but please bear in mind that we are talking about BBC to CCC type grades so references to RG group and Oxbridge aren't really appropriate.
The HEFC report is interesting does anyone know anything more recent given the "grade inflation" in both A levels and degree classification since then.
I am also interested in the social context situation as we live in a low participation area (or is that cancelled out by the fact that we are both graduates).

@user7214743615 - Wide variety really Mscs in management, economics, mathematics, MBAs etc. Most are competitative.

I got ABB and got a first.

You'll have AAA* students getting 2:1 and CCD students getting a 1st, it all depends on so many factors.

cats, there are no universities where A level grades could possibly affect degree class. It just doesn't work like that. They might or might not predict likely final marks, but even there, you're looking at trends discovered by looking at huge cohorts of students, not individuals.

As I said, cats, I got CCC and went to a RG university through clearing, and the Oxbridge for my MPhil and PhD. BBC certainly isn't appropriate for talking about RG if that's what the person in questions wants to do.

Then, not the - sorry, am on phone and trying to do ten things at once

Haha random bold fail there sorry

I think there are two issues here.
Performance once on a course and getting onto a course in the first place.

The stats prove that, on average (as always), the higher the A-level grades (or entry requirements) the higher the % of those getting 2:1+. I.e. before starting, on average, a student with AAA has more chance of getting 2:1+ than a student with CCC, just because they have access to Unis/courses where a higher % of students attain 2:1+.

Once on a course, however, as the cohort are roughly of the same ability then the hard workers, etc, will do better. Think of the course as its own exam board - it's not, too directly anyway, affected by other Unis/courses.