AAB universities?

Most of the universities I have been looking at (Bristol, Warwick, Nottingham etc) all ask for AAA, some even boosting grade requirements to A*AA (damn you Nottingham).

In case I am unable able to achieve these grades, could anyone suggest any universities, that are still reputable for law, that accept AAB (not just sometimes), or perhaps even ABB. I'm really not sure how my AS's went, as I always seem to do a lot better in my exams than I do in the preceding weeks, but I cannot be sure if it'll be the case this time round.

Edit: Just to clarify, I will still be looking chiefly at universities accepting AAA, but am looking for one AAB/ABB university in case I don't do as well as expected!

x

You could study abroad you know... Nottingham or Leicester

I don't mean to put Reading down, it is actually an ok uni and has a good RAE rating for law, so maybe it wasn't the best example...but it isn't considered as good as any university in the Russell Group at which the OP may have a realistic shot. And this is a bit controversial but with the exceptions of a couple of universities like Bath, given recent defections, the Russell Group is to me more and more looking like the Ivy League of good universities in this country.

I'm not trying to start a debate here at all, but the Russell group isn't the Ivy league and cannot be compared to it. Of course it contains many of the best universities in the UK, however the group cannot be considered "elite" when one member ranked 42nd in a respected league table this year (QMUL). By claiming the RG is equivalent to the Ivy league is basically claiming that Liverpool, good university don't get me wrong (my mum studied there), is better than Bath and St Andrews.

You've taken my statement completely out of context. You have to take into account the language I'm using and the exceptions I've made; I mentioned Bath and was also particularly thinking of St. Andrews as well, (regardless both don't offer qualifying law degrees in England). I would also dispute that ranking, and I hardly think the Independent's is particularly respected; I think it's one of the worst league tables around, even perhaps worse than The Guardian's, because it is not honest about the criteria it uses to formulate rankings, (if you look at the criteria on the top of the main table and think universities are ranked by those alone, you would be wrong; that university which ranks at 42, ranks between 11-30ish for all of those criteria. What it doesn't tell you obviously is that how 'green' universities are as well as other awkward measures are taken into account). Regardless, that's a point for another time, perhaps.

You've taken my statement completely out of context. You have to take into account the language I'm using and the exceptions I've made; I mentioned Bath and was also particularly thinking of St. Andrews as well, (regardless both don't offer qualifying law degrees in England). I would also dispute that ranking, and I hardly think the Independent's is particularly respected; I think it's one of the worst league tables around, even perhaps worse than The Guardian's, because it is not honest about the criteria it uses to formulate rankings. If you look at the criteria on the top of the main table and think universities are ranked by those alone, you would be wrong. That university which ranks at 42, ranks between 11-30ish for all of those criteria. What it doesn't tell you obviously is that how 'green' universities are as well as other awkward measures are taken into account. In international league tables that university ranks around 15th in the country, and the Sunday Times has it around 20th - which, if anything, shows how volatile rankings can be. Regardless, that's a point for another time, perhaps.

QM actually ranks 'so low' only because of the Good Honours which nowadays has little to do with the quality of teaching, well-prepared students, etc. http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?v=wide
These are supposed to be all that measures taken into account. Without the good honours, Queen Mary would be in top 30.

But 'good honours' is something that it makes a lot of sense to include. Who wants to get a 2:2?

QM actually ranks 'so low' only because of the Good Honours which nowadays has little to do with the quality of teaching, well-prepared students, etc. http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?v=wide
These are supposed to be all that measures taken into account. Without the good honours, Queen Mary would be in top 30.

You've taken my statement completely out of context. You have to take into account the language I'm using and the exceptions I've made; I mentioned Bath and was also particularly thinking of St. Andrews as well, (regardless both don't offer qualifying law degrees in England). I would also dispute that ranking, and I hardly think the Independent's is particularly respected; I think it's one of the worst league tables around, even perhaps worse than The Guardian's, because it is not honest about the criteria it uses to formulate rankings. If you look at the criteria on the top of the main table and think universities are ranked by those alone, you would be wrong. That university which ranks at 42, ranks between 11-30ish for all of those criteria. What it doesn't tell you obviously is that how 'green' universities are as well as other awkward measures are taken into account. In international league tables that university ranks around 15th in the country, and the Sunday Times has it around 20th - which, if anything, shows how volatile rankings can be. Regardless, that's a point for another time, perhaps.

QM actually ranks 'so low' only because of the Good Honours which nowadays has little to do with the quality of teaching, well-prepared students, etc. http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?v=wide
These are supposed to be all that measures taken into account. Without the good honours, Queen Mary would be in top 30.

You've made som good points about QMUL internationally, I applied there myself, but honestly the independant guide is far more accurate than the gaurdian. Imperial college below Surrey? Heriot Watt above Sussex, Birmingham and Manchester?

The really dodgy entries are the spending entries. Rank the universities by the spending criteria and then apply some common sense to balance of cheap/expensive courses, library facilities, wage levels etc.

Then tell me how the highest facilities spend per capita in the country is by Hertfordshire with Bucks New 2nd, Cambridge 6th and Oxford 79th

I'm not trying to start a debate here at all, but the Russell group isn't the Ivy league and cannot be compared to it. Of course it contains many of the best universities in the UK, however the group cannot be considered "elite" when one member ranked 42nd in a respected league table this year (QMUL). By claiming the RG is equivalent to the Ivy league is basically claiming that Liverpool, good university don't get me wrong (my mum studied there), is better than Bath and St Andrews.

To be fair the Ivy League itself is hardly a flawless top 8 in America, it's a group based on commitment to academic standards in its sports teams (as many colleges will give out an offer to anyone who is a future NFL player). For exceptions similar to Bath and St Andrews I suspect Stanford, MIT, CalTech etc. would have something to say about the Ivies being the undisputed top 8.

The RG is a bigger group in a smaller country so it isn't as elite academically, but the fundamental problem of applying a grouping based on something not entirely related (purity of college sport and size of research budget respectively) to deciding which are the 'best' unis is the same in both cases.