Clearing courses 2026 (with grades)

[HPFA]

Links to the pre-92 universities who have published their clearing vacancies with grades. No snobbery intended - post 92s don't tend to publish their grade requirements.

Spot the subjects dropping in popularity - Warwick offering English and Modern Languages at BBB.....

If anyone knows of others please feel free to add.

Will try and update as more unis publish their requirements.

https://www.dundee.ac.uk/clearing/ruk-vacancies

https://www.essex.ac.uk/clearing/entry-requirements

https://vacancies.exeter.ac.uk/clearing/home/?_gl=11uqq6dv_gaMTcwNDYxMjA3Ny4xNzgzNTk0MDA4_ga_D45K1N753JczE3ODM1OTQwMDckbzEkZzAkdDE3ODM1OTQwMTAkajYwJGwwJGgw_gcl_awR0NMLjE3ODM1OTQwMDguQ2owS0NRandqYjNTQmhEZ0FSSXNBTUtpV3poMmUteVB5clo3WmdMWEVOSFFqcl83M1ZwWUoxdVNtanhGdXNVZHJoanRPWndpTVM3eWk2VWFBblgxRUFMd193Y0I._gcl_au*MTQyODkwMDk3NC4xNzgzNTk0MDEw

https://www.gold.ac.uk/course-finder/results/?collection=goldsmiths~sp-courses&query=&f.Course%20level%7Ccourselevel=Undergraduate%20and%20Integrated%20Degrees%3Cbr%20%2F%3E(BA%2C%20BSc%2C%20BMus%2C%20LLB)

https://www.keele.ac.uk/clearing/current-vacancies/

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/clearing/courses/

https://www.qub.ac.uk/clearing/clearing-vacancies/gb/

https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/studying-here/applying/undergraduate/clearing/

[Individual courses not listed but says most courses will be available at CCC or equivalent]

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/clearing/course-vacancies?subject=All+Subjects&filter=&studentType=uk&availableOnly=true

https://warwick.ac.uk/study/results/clearing/

Liverpool has BBC for Philosophy if he likes cities.

If he's had a real disaster DD and I really liked Essex when we visited - the campus had a great vibe. Although it's lucky she changed her mind on the course she visited - it was vocational and her recently diagnoses arthritis would likely have meant her having to drop out.

I

Sorry I didn't quote you in my reply to you but see above.

Brilliant.

Well done to all the YP today, and sending fortitude to those dealing with clearing.

Well done to all the DC's and good luck in clearing to those who need it. I know from 2 years ago when I was on the GCSE threads that it's awful when you think your kid is the only one who didn't get brilliant grades. I was that person and dropped off the threads.

I was going to add that you soon realise your child isn't the only one and it's not the end of the world. Just another way round.

Bloody hell, Warwick are offering Linguistics at BBC? That's crazy isn't it? I think a lot of the lower ranked unis are screwed over the next few years if the top ranked ones are offering that.

I hope all the kids of posters on here got the places they wanted.

It's interesting, DBro's offer from Warwick (for Business Studies) was BBC back in the day (before A stars!) and that was a high offer at the time!

Thanks!
Liverpool Biochem offered Typical offer: BBC same as back in late 80s and I got in with BCD.

There are a couple of different things happening here.

Back in the 1980s, only around 15% of pupils took A level. Today, that figure is about 45%. So, even those getting an E at A level were still in the top 15% of people in the country.

There was also, up until 1987, more or less a 'quota system' so that only a certain percentage of candidates would get each grade. (This wasn't strictly the case but it's close enough to what happened).

After 1987 this changed to the system that is used these days.

So, back in the day, if you got a B then that might mean that you are in the top 4% in the country (eg a B requires getting in the top 25% of people who take the exam and only the top 15% of all pupils take the exam in the first place so it is 25% of the top 15% who took the exam).

But exam grades these days have to cover a much wider spectrum of ability - it is no longer the top 15% of pupils, but now it is the top 45%. (In a similar manner, when O Levels and CSEs were combined, the single GCSE exam had to cover a much wider spectrum of ability).

So, if a B at A Level used to put you in the top 4% in the country back in the day, the equivalent today to put you in the same top 4% would be an A Star (the latest figures show that 9.7% of passes were A star in England this year and either A or A star was 28.7%).

So, that's a very roundabout way of saying that even an E in the 1980s would likely be an A today - or a B at the very least.

Even if you look at the 1990s when many more pupils were staying on to do A levels, then a B in the early 1990s would likely be at least an A today and perhaps even an A star.

Thanks @Another2Cats that’s really interesting!

That makes me feel better! I got CEE in 1987 and was accepted onto a course requiring CDD, at the time I thought I'd completely chosen the wrong A levels including Maths which I absolutely hated.

I loved my degree, got a 2.1 and then a PhD so I've never believed that you needed fantastic A levels to succeed at uni.

So interesting

But there were other things at play like women not doing STEM as much, selective & private schools being the main A level pipeline. No doubt many able people never had the chance. I think assuming an E was a B is a massive leap!

I totally take some of the points that you make. However, not all of them.

In the mid 1980s around 3% of pupils were at grammar schools and around 7% were at independent schools but, between them, made up I believe around 30% of undergraduates.

However, I would argue that grammar schools and selective independent schools back then contained a higher proportion of more academically able pupils than non-selective schools did which would explain this (I speak as someone who was in the first ever comprehensive intake in an ex-secondary modern).

I don't see how that affects things really?

Likewise when you talk about women not doing doing STEM.

I did a statistics related course at a university which is regularly ranked as being one of the top 10 universities in the world. There was roughly an equal 50/50 male/female split on the course.

However, to be fair, on other courses such as maybe Physics & Astronomy, yes it was almost totally men - although I would guess nothing has changed since then.

"No doubt many able people never had the chance."

Now here I totally do agree with you. Increasing the number of people who stay on to do A levels has been enormously beneficial in widening access to university education, albeit with a decrease in academic standards in some situations.

Back in the 1980s, everybody had the chance to study for O Levels or CSEs at the age of 16. But staying on beyond 16 was very much a cultural thing - those who valued education wanted their children to stay on if at all possible. Those who did not value education so much weren't so bothered.

But, even so, I met many people at university, like myself, who were the first from their family to go to university and, typically, the first to stay at school beyond 16. So there were plenty of people who were not part of the whole grammar or independent school background.

It wasn't until 2015 and the requirement to stay in education until 18 that, I believe, things really changed.

However, I would argue that the very large majority of those children that would have been able to attend a university prior to 2015 did do so. Don't forget that in the 1980s and 1990s there were explicit limits on how many students could be admitted to each university. There was a different regime limiting student numbers from the 1990s up until 2015.

"I think assuming an E was a B is a massive leap!"

Perhaps, perhaps not. As I understand it, the 2026 figures show that 55.8% of all A levels were at B or above.

So around 45% of all 18 year olds took A levels. Of these, 55.8% of the passes were at a B or above.

Compare this to a situation where 15% of 18 year olds (the ones who did well at O Level and stayed on to A Level) got an E or better.

Does that theory work on basis that the 85% who didn’t take them were all consistently less able? That relies on a very meritocratic and robust system which didn’t and doesn’t exist

I think the point that 10% got As and now it’s 30% shows grade inflation snd could be used to show an A then is roughly an A* now etc. But I don’t think the growth in numbers doing A levels csn be used to demonstrate they got easier. How do we know if it had been eg 30% the same standards would not have been achieved??

I agree. It doesn't take into account developmental differences either. If you were deemed not able to do O Levels at 14 you would have done CSE's. It was then extremely difficult to move to O Levels and almost impossible to get into University. There could be an equivalent cohort of children who could have gone to University ( and many who did as mature students) who only did CSE's. Especially girls who were funnelled into secretarial work at 16. Boys also mature later than girls so there is a possible large cohort of boys who were funnelled into CSE:s who could have gone onto further and higher education.

"That relies on a very meritocratic and robust system which didn’t and doesn’t exist"

Yes, what I said was very much an over simplification. Was that group who took A levels and the group who were the most academically able exactly co-terminus? No.

However, was there a very great deal of overlap between the two groups? I would suggest that there was. So, the simplification I used was not unwarranted.

"But I don’t think the growth in numbers doing A levels csn be used to demonstrate they got easier."

That wasn't the argument I was making (sorry if my post was unclear).

My point was not about how hard or easy A Levels are or were, but that the exam itself grew from grading around 15% of the school population (who, I argue, were mostly at the very top of the academic ability scale) to around 45% of the school population today.

My argument is that somebody who was on the 85th percentile of academic ability will likely outperform somebody who is on the 55th percentile.

Somebody who was on the 85th percentile in the 1980s (and so be at the bottom of those taking A Levels) would likely achieve a similar result as somebody on the 85th percentile today.

As you say, that relies on there having been a very meritocratic and robust system for it be exact.

No that didn't exist, but I would still say that it was close enough that this simplification holds up.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan mentions some reasons as to why it may not (and I'll address those below).

"If you were deemed not able to do O Levels at 14 you would have done CSE's."

This was true at a subject level (I did mostly O Levels and one CSE), not a person level. I think the figures from back then show that around two thirds of pupils got a mix of both O Level and CSE qualifications.

"...almost impossible to get into University."

The argument here isn't so much as to university entrance but how A Level grades compare between then and today.

"Boys also mature later than girls so there is a possible large cohort of boys who were funnelled into CSE:s "

But that still happens today. You mention about people being entered for O Levels or CSEs. This was done at a subject level. Teachers still make assessments of pupils at the end of KS3.

There used to be formal SAT exams at the end of year 9, nowadays there are informal assessments.

The teachers making decisions on O Level or CSE at subject level were no different to teachers nowadays making GCSE predictions at the end of KS3.

I haven't seen any research on this but I would guess that it is very likely that for those predicted a 3/4/5 GCSE at the end of KS3, very few if any at all went on to get an A star in that subject at A Level.

And the converse will likely be true. Those predicted a 7/8/9 GCSE at the end of KS3 were much more likely to get an A star at A Level.

There won't be an exact correspondence of course, but I would suggest that there is likely going to be a strong correlation between predicted GCSE grades at the end of KS3 and eventual A Level grades.

If teachers are able to do this today, why would they have not been able to also do it back then?

Of course, these predictions are and never were perfect. But, for most pupils, they were likely reasonably accurate (although I have never seen any research on this topic, so stand to be corrected).

Also, don't forget that, typically, those with five passes at O Level or CSE Grade 1 were encouraged to study A Levels. So, even those with some CSE Grade 1s could study for A Levels as well.

.

So, all of the above is to argue that while there is not an exact correspondence between the 15% taking A Levels and the top 15% by academic ability there is enough of a correlation to say that a pupil who was at the bottom of the A Level grades back then would likely have been in or around the 85th percentile.

That 85th percentile would put that person on an A grade at A Level today.

.

"Especially girls who were funnelled into secretarial work at 16."

I'm not entirely sure how true that was.

If you think back to then, when I took my O Levels (and one CSE), unemployment was over 10% and youth unemployment was upwards of 30% - almost one in three young people were unemployed.

Those figures are double what they are today.

Going now into anecdote rather than data, I was part of the first comprehensive intake into an ex-secondary modern. Back then, people were very aware of how high unemployment was (and how bad things like YOP and afterwards YTS were).

I recollect that most people who did well stayed on at sixth form - although this was only around 15%. The sixth form was split equally between boys and girls.

Certainly, just as my own anecdote, girls being pushed not to do A Levels doesn't seem to have been the case.

Had a look to see what was still around in clearing.

Birmingham and York now closed for home students but still some places available at Leeds, Warwick, Southampton, Liverpool....

Or they could just be slow at updating!

I was too young for all of this, so I'm just using anecdote from people I have spoken to who experienced it. But I was more saying ( probably badly) that if we are looking at %ages and looking at societal issues, not just aptitude ( lack of value of education at home, deliberately ' not getting above your station' etc) the percentage with potential for higher grades has also gone up. Re the secretarial- I wasn't thinking about girls doing A Levels but more the girls who were doing CSE's with low aspirations who were clever but didn't try not through lack of ability but through lack of family aspiration at 14. The girls overwhelmingly were funnelled into low paid ' girls work' whereas the boys doing CSE's would be funneled into trades which were more lucrative, and a place where clever boys who didn't try at school could progress as they got older into self employment etc and are now the legendary ' I never did well at school and it never did me any harm' older men which isn't as much the case for older women ( as I said anecdotally from conversations and teaching adults) Even now on Mumsnet it's noticeable that the ' My child did an apprenticeship and is earning £££££ and no debt' there is a larger cohort of boys doing things like engineering, trades etc which are higher paid. Whether that's to do with still entrenched beliefs about and from girls about STEM or a bias by apprentice hirers in those fields, who knows? I did 2 of the same A Levels as DS. I would say the content he had to cover was higher than mine 35 years ago. For a start I only remember doing 2 papers whereas he had 3 for each subject. My GCSE English was 100% coursework?
Although the research has been done about correlation between sats and GCSE/ A level results shows you are correct, what I don't think can be measured is effort levels both from parents/family expectations and the child themselves. Much attainment comes from effort not simply inate ability. It doesn't take into account maturity levels/ wake up calls etc. It can't.

The pressure to leave school and get an income, was very very different in the 1980’s too. I did A levels in 1987 - and our cohort was around 10% of our original school year, but as well as needing O levels to enter 6th form you needed parents who were able and prepared to continue to fund your living expenses. So even for my pretty rubbish comp - it’s still an RI school today - those of us who did A levels were relatively privileged.

UCL also showing as having clearing places in a number of courses, e.g. History. Grade requirements (3 As) seem unchanged but obviously they still have spaces on course.

Both courses have now been removed from Clearing so I guess we were right!

Yup, a sixth former at my school just got his UCL place (Classics) with ABC . His offer was AAB.

Really we are witnessing the slow death of the arts and hums (the liberal arts I guess) even at elite institutions

I wonder if, in the future this will make them more desirable. The creative industries are a hugely important part of our economy. But they will become even more elite if there aren't people encouraged to study arts, literature and music. We also need people who are social scientists now that things like terrorism and security become more intelligence based.

It’s an interesting question isn’t it @Desperatelyseekinglazysusan.
Studying classics at undergraduate says to me got parents willing to fund a none career related degree and likely to be on board with funding postgraduate eg law conversion.
I see a huge amount of young graduate CVs and something different does catch my eye.
One of DD’s school classmates did Norse and Anglo Saxon at Oxbridge. It was a calculated choice as it had a high acceptance rate. He didn’t get top grades (school give a prize if get certain grades and he wasn’t on that list) but his CV would catch my eye.
Durham has a table on website of acceptance rates. But it takes a savvy parent to know that if goal is a competitive profession/graduate scheme scheme that Anthropology or Classics from Durham (97% acceptance rate) might be a better route than a more career focused degree at a lower ranked uni.