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.

These students write something called CV'c user877. And recruiters are therefore well able to put achievements into context, if they choose to do so. My last point is that many went to an elite university despite having what you consider to be disadvantage but which is fact pretty standard for many Oxbridge students.

stone circle, give Oldie her due. I think she is referring to Bristol's rather odd approach which bases contextual offers on average results in a school. So a non selective private school which takes those that other London private schools have not taken (the sort of secondary modern of London private schools - with nothing to suggest that teaching is not good, classes small or parents are unable to pay for top up tutoring) is on the list, whereas our local comprehensive (despite having 93% on free school dinners and huge strains on their budget - but which has recently added a small academic sixth form whilst others continue to take BTECs etc at the local college) is not.

One group of kids is resource rich, the other resource poor. And I think what Oldie was saying was that this boy too appeared resource rich. According to the London Evening Standard last night the Sutton Trust claims that 50% on London secondary school children have some sort of tutoring. Homes with books, parents who prioritise education or who are educated themselves, money for tutoring, all help to maximise a child's grades. It is not just school or type of school.

Its difficult though. Even in the most academic private schools you will get kids who manage to float through doing enough, but not too much work. The ones who constantly get school reports saying they could make more effort. Others will have highly ambitious parents and tutoring schedules that would make even a hardened workaholic quake. From observation, some of the former go on to do very well at University, and can be surprised that they are more able than they thought they were. Some of the latter struggle, sometimes because their self esteem was so built on the praise gained from good grades and coming top of the class.

A level grades won't tell you whether they represent an optimal performance, involving hard work and good teaching, with a bit of luck on the day, or something sub-optimal either because of school environment or a tendency to coast. And whether a prospective student is interested enough and mature enough to fully engage when at University.

Just as a point of accuracy, the Bristol contextual offer is applied to all applicants who went to a school where the results were in the bottom quartile - regardless of sector. There are some private schools on the list, so it's not a state/private divide.

I meant to say that...

which means that the school the Beckham children attended was on the list but not our local school which has chosen to add a sixth form to provide academic options for their more able pupils not available at the sprawling local inner-city College. There are all sorts of reasons why average results from a school may be in the lowest quartile, given how much, certainly London children move around at this stage. But it says nothing about how the most able are supported both within a school or at home.

I suppose any qualification only tells you so much about a person and their skills and abilities.

I don't know anyone in academia or industry who considers class of qualification as anything more than part of the narrative.

However, time is short and applicants are plentiful, so qualifications are a useful filter. The rest has to come out in the wash.

Anecdata, but I buggered up my a levels (CEEU). Having put off uni for a bit, I'm now a mature student and on track (fingers crossed!!) for a 2:1, despite my study now being affected by illness, and having two young children. Same subject area.

Carl at the Bar (or at least the part of it I'm talking about) there's a threshold below which an applicant isn't regarded as up to the job. That threshold is exceptionally high as in: Oxbridge/ a First/ and or certainly or a BCL or LLM.

Messed that one up! I meant Oxbridge/ a First/ preferably a BCL or an LLM and certainly the latter in the absence of a First.

I know that goodbye but I have to say having worked in that sector for quite some time and having DH said still working in it, I do think that the folk who believe that are a bit daft.

It's really not rocket science. And the skills you need too make a good career of it ( as opposed to getting your foot on the ladder - because let's be honest, the push-out/drop-out rate is high) are of quite a different order.

DH is constantly asked what he redheads as the most important factors in being successful in his industry and academic ability would come fairly low ( although a certain level is necessary).

It certainly depends on the job what counts. My son has recentlys tarted has an ocado driver (and previously was a postman for 3 years). His physical strength and driving ability and being good with chatting to old ladies are very useful and common sense. Some of those things did come from his school - sport, social skills, perhaps even accent and ability to communicate but I doubt academic ability comes very high. Whereas for lawyers and doctors the law can be complex and it could be disastrous if someone isn't up to it intellectually.

Boy on tube with Bristol contextual offer : i did not say he didn't not deserve his place but the Bristol offer system is different from most of the other universities and does have its weirdness and unfairness. As both my sons got in to Bristol I don't have any complaints and I am sure all the boys whatever their A level grades will get on well and we will see how they all do in due course.

London children do indeed move around a lot for sixth form . My sons had a friend going to an inner London comp of some kind. Another went to a different private school. 2 boys in their class came from top 5 London private schools (having messed up GCSEs due to laziness - silly bright boys) - however that did not take my sons' prviate school down so far it ends up as being in bottom 40% or whatever Bristol's criteria is.

Mh dh went to a bog standard comp in the late 70's, had to resit 6th form to get required A levels for medical school( non Oxbridge/

• but Scottish!)...worked his way up the career ladder

aged 40 he went back to Uni (College of law and Man Met btw!) qualified as a barrister and had to start from the bottom of the heap Applied for dozens of pupillages before securing one ( not London)... it's been a slog but he's now got a very good practice in a niche area so he's doing well....however I don't think I'll be recommending a career at the bar for my dcs as unless you are the Creme de la Creme.....and tbh those that do best have usually not done Law as a first degree and have a bit of experience in another career before joining the Bar

As you know Carl I was in exactly the same sector (MC) and I'm not sure what you mean by 'folk believing that'. Not sure what 'that' is. I thought you said your DH was in an American firm anyhow, where the culture is slightly different. Apologies if that's wrong, it might be. As you also know I have one child (DD1) having been taken on after a training contract at a particular MC firm and another child (DD2) doing pupillage at that end of the Bar. And I obviously know loads of their Oxbridge friends all on the same track and the pathways of their non Oxbridge friends/ peer group too. In fact there have been remarkably few drop outs from the MC intake of DD1s but loads and loads of people on DD3's BPTC didn't get a pupillage at all and there are others who haven't been taken on for tenancy but are having to look for third sixes When DD3 had her Call Night the chief bod at her Inn said those doing the BPTC had a very small chance of finding pupillage let alone tenancy but would always be welcome to use the Inn etc even though they'd never practice. It is just a plain fact. At the top end of the Bar the situation is overwhelmingly Oxbridge and so if you think it's daft to believe that then you really need to check the backgrounds of the most junior juniors and the current pupils. Years ago when you and I were in the business there was a far greater spread (check the older barristers' CVs), but now it's a quite different picture.

Cross post but congrats to your DH stopyourhavering, he evidently has stamina! Very impressive to do that and be one of the very few mature entrants to actually land a pupillage. It's much much harder for the older set on the course.

That said, I completely agree with Gannet that an Oxbridge degree is a good starting point only (well, I'd say preferential starting point, Gannet would say otherwise but the point is about it not being sufficient on its own). DD1 and DD3 had loads of other stuff to recommend them besides an Oxbridge degree. So - almost necessary these days in that area but certainly not sufficient.

I hope your DH doesn't really select on colour of hair Carl, although positive discrimination in favour of redheads might well be regarded as ultra enlightened.... (my mother was an auburn Scot, I can say that :)).

There's no correlation, in fact those that have amazing a levels tend to struggle at uni because they don't seem to work as hard.

A few of my friends done pretty terrible in their A levels CCD went onto a foundation degree at Russell group unis and finished with 1sts/2.1s

goodbye I didn't mean it's daft to say it's overwhelmingly Oxbridge ( obviously it is), I meant those folk who say you need to be uber academic to manage a solid career are daft.

It's not that intellectually challenging I don't think. Certainly, I didn't find it so (my current career is much more brain straining) and I've never heard DH say so ( and he's hardly a genius). Clever enough will usually do.
That's not to say the job isn't tough. It is. For many reasons. Which is why there are oodles of associates and baby barristers and relatively few partners/silks.

DH is indeed now with a US firm. Though he started his career at the bar, then zipped around a few MC firms. He tells me he might end his (working days) in house, then he will have the full set of experience .

As for selection on hair colour... why not?

As horrible as it sounds, most junior lawyers won't make it through. So recruitment is what it is:a filtering process.

Back in the day, when DH was involved in trainee recruitment, he always used to ask them if they weren't a lawyer what would they do. I'm not sure what he was trying to discover!

These days it's easier. He's involved in deciding who will make partner. And if the partners who will make equity. As the song goes 'it's all about the kerching'

My dd got BCE and graduated with a 2.1

So Carl if you don't need to have very strong academic ability to be at the top end of the Bar, why is it wall to wall Oxbridge and crowded out with BCLs etc etc.

I agree the skills required at a MC firm are slightly different, but I disagree that you don't need to be especially clever. A middling ability really won't do. Looking at those of my own intake who were successful I can see it wasn't necessarily the very cleverest who were but everyone who stayed and didn't bail was certainly more than averagely able.

Dippingmytoesin that is a very sweeping statement based on what evidence?

DS1 got 6A* at A level and has never struggled at uni (he's just started his sixth year) and has been surrounded students with similar grades who have also never struggled.

goodbye I think the academic bar for entry is set so highly because they can.

In the same way that med schools can. And Goldman's can etc.

It's a filter. And why not? If you know that you're always going to have far too many applicants than places, and that the majority of successful applicants will not last the distance is any event, then filters are your friend.

From my experience and that of many many friends ( I'm going to a 50th on Saturday that will be very law heavy. DH laughed and said it will be like Friends Reunited for Slaughters, Links, CC etc) you only need to be smarter than the average bear.

Thereafter, different skills are more valuable.

In the spirit of fairness, I just DH just walked in from work and asked him how clever he needed to be to do his job and he said 'stupid enough to fucking do it' .

I asked him what was his most valuable skill and he said 'I am relentless.'

Yes, love, you are...

Our experience is clearly very similar Carl. I tend to think there's more to it than academic ability being a completely random bar. I'd also prefer that any doctors who looked after my family weren't merely averagely bright but then a very middling ability colleague of mine who is also a medical professional insists that academic ability doesn't matter in that field, it's all about people skills and stamina. I think he's partly flattering himself, because he doesn't quite get it, but there you go.

On Saturday, I will be very interested to find out what all the people who dropped out/ were chucked out along the way, ended up doing.

Depends what you mean by bright. There is always someone cleverer than most of us. Average IQ is 100 and half pupils don't even get 5 good GCSEs. I would be concerned if we let too many people who weren't fairly bright into law. My work is pretty complex and intellectual. I also write law books and lecture. I read a court judgment at least every day etc etc but more importantly I apply that law to complex problems. I expect there are areas where it's more formulaic but most people in these upper end law jobs we seem to have ended up talking about on the thread (and similarly my brother's doctor colleagues, consultants etc) are quick, bright - you mention a point and already they know what you mean. It's hard to describe what I mean in writing but you know it when you see it.

Then thereafter yes all kinds of things determine how you get on - even whether your health holds out, physical and mental, your ambitions and a range of things. I know a lawyer who has just joined that FT writer's teach last thing - he is going into teaching after law in his 50s.

I am relentless is right. Woody Allen was asked once why he did so well - he said I just show up. Lots of people dont's how up for work, they are constantly ill or late and unreliable. If you aren't unreliable and do show up day in day out and do what you say you will do and be where you say you will be that helps a lot. I've shown up just about every day for over 30 years. That alone helps.