[Lumos]

you don't need 5 a levels... for anything... ever.... you don't even need four.
take three and aim to get an A* in at least one of them. A*AA > AAAA, because 3 subjects is all universities require, any more are supplementary

[Ursin]

This is wierd, because I know someone who applied to York and they wanted AAB, but because he took 4 A-levels into A2, they wanted at least 3 As, because you have more chance of getting As when you take more subjects. Although that was just York, and I think that's actually quite ridiculous, because it would be more difficult to take the pressure and workload of more subjects.

[gunner4lyf44]

(Original post by hackashaq)
I took 5 AS levels and I think I'm going to get AAAAB in them. Would I be at an advantage or a disadvantage if I was applying to top universities (e.g. LSE/UCL/Oxbridge) with AAAAB instead of AAAA if I only took four subjects?

id rather have the AAAA, a B at AS is a poor grade - the top unis know theyre a joke which is why cambridge look at 90 percent ums.

[RibenaRockstar]

(Original post by hackashaq)
Yeah but it's just the fact that it is a "B" and when top universities look at applicants with a B at AS...

Shut up, I got AAAB at AS Level and an interview at Oxford for PPE.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Hilarious. You can go on believing what you want, but getting that B shows you are not a straight A student (obviously other things are taken into account in the admissions procedure, but seeing as this thread is simply comparing grades, this point is appropriate). The UMS point makes no difference. They can see it is a B without seeing the UMS. Unless you mean if the AAAAB has much higher UMS in the A's than the AAAA? Seems highly unlikely that you would get lower UMS doing fewer subjects.

At the end of the day I couldn't care less if you don't believe me, but OP can either listen to you (you're at Bristol I believe?) or me with experience of the oxbridge admissions process (being an offer holder) and having many relatives who have been to either Oxford or Cambridge and some relatives holding faculty positions there.

What leads you to assume that I have no experience of the Oxbridge admissions process?

The point about UMS concerned average UMS, which would be pulled down by a B no matter how many As had been achieved. However, Cambridge only measure this average across three subjects: the best three, in the case of arts applicants, and the most relevant three in the case of science applicants. So in the event that you were to apply for NatSci with AAAAB in maths, physics, geography, English and chemistry, respectively, you might have been better off dropping geography or English and focusing more on your chemistry. Of course, this is a pretty niche set of circumstances and an unlikely one to arise for a Cambridge NatSci applicant.

[cooldudeman]

lol what do you think.

[Aylish]

Changed my mind it's up to you which you think is suitable. I think personally after reading all your responses that maybe aaaab would be better as it shows you can cope with big workload and still do well. Sorry to anyone I upset on my last post it was just my opinion that's all but this is a new and revised opinion.

[301lw]

(Original post by JohnSimmons)
I know for medicine at Birmingham, they will not consider you if you have less than all A's in your AS levels.

So in this case it would be better to have 4 A's.

I'm not sure on the views of these universities but either way, you have very good grades

just want to point out that's not true, my friend had a medicine birmingham interview with AAAAB

[The Polymath]

(Original post by RibenaRockstar)
Shut up, I got AAAB at AS Level and an interview at Oxford for PPE.

Great. About 50% get interviewed at Oxford.

(Original post by TurboCretin)
What leads you to assume that I have no experience of the Oxbridge admissions process?

The point about UMS concerned average UMS, which would be pulled down by a B no matter how many As had been achieved. However, Cambridge only measure this average across three subjects: the best three, in the case of arts applicants, and the most relevant three in the case of science applicants. So in the event that you were to apply for NatSci with AAAAB in maths, physics, geography, English and chemistry, respectively, you might have been better off dropping geography or English and focusing more on your chemistry. Of course, this is a pretty niche set of circumstances and an unlikely one to arise for a Cambridge NatSci applicant.

I think the person you replied to is right. Getting a B shows you're not a straight A student. Someone with As in less subjects could potentially get As in more subjects, and they can then be tested by the university, but someone with AAAAB in more subjects has already shown they're incapable.

[Alex Bampton]

I think it is interesting that the initial question provoked loads of "obviously AAAAB!??!" but there are a sizeable amount of people on the AAAA side.

I am in a potential similar position at AS as I think I may get AAAAB (B in critical thinking). I would be very annoyed at anyone making the suggestion that this B would take me out of the running for "top universities". At GCSE the percentage A* grade is probably a better indicator of a candidates academic ability than simply there A* tally because different schools offer a large range of numbers of qualifications students can take over 2 years. However at AS (in my opinion) this is different, 4 AS levels being the norm, a candidate demonstrating 4 A grade A levels with exactly the same UMS scores as another candidate plus an extra AS level at a grade B (Which I think anyone suggesting this is "poor" is frankly rather ignorant) can only be a bonus.

However I can see where the opposing argument is coming from, lacking 100% A grades, lacking perfection mentality etc. It's a fair point and I must admit I think like this on occasion. I can obviously not speak for top universities, but thinking about this logically why should an extra time-consuming intellectually rigouress AS level (not in my case) at a grade 1 below the maximum be a "con" when it comes to viewing applications?

[tooambitious]

(Original post by Brutal Chav)
Lemme give you a counterexample to your logic

(and I'm fully prepared to be negged by the lurking retards of this thread)

-I took 4ASs and got consistent results (lowest was 95%, highest was 100%)
-I could have taken a 5th AS that was still very relevant to my firm uni course (Biology)
-If I would have got a B in Biology (70%-80%) my entire 'consistency' would have broken down
-I would never have come across as an exceptional all-rounded 'scientist'
-I would have definitely been asked "Why the **** did you get a B?" at interview
-I would have had a significantly lower chance of making it into my firm

As much as you might not like the sound of the above, it's the harsh truth...

Sometimes, a B isn't good enough

Exactly my thinking! I think it's important want the B is in as well, if you're applying for Natsci with 4As in maths, fm, phys and chemistry a B in bio won't look great I that B is in English on the other hand maybe ita not so big a deal but definitely if the B is in a related subjec 4As is better

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
What leads you to assume that I have no experience of the Oxbridge admissions process?

The point about UMS concerned average UMS, which would be pulled down by a B no matter how many As had been achieved. However, Cambridge only measure this average across three subjects: the best three, in the case of arts applicants, and the most relevant three in the case of science applicants. So in the event that you were to apply for NatSci with AAAAB in maths, physics, geography, English and chemistry, respectively, you might have been better off dropping geography or English and focusing more on your chemistry. Of course, this is a pretty niche set of circumstances and an unlikely one to arise for a Cambridge NatSci applicant.

This post by Brutal Chav explains the situations w.r.t Cambridge NatSci and UMS:

Lemme give you a counterexample to your logic

(and I'm fully prepared to be negged by the lurking retards of this thread)

-I took 4ASs and got consistent results (lowest was 95%, highest was 100%)
-I could have taken a 5th AS that was still very relevant to my firm uni course (Biology)
-If I would have got a B in Biology (70%-80%) my entire 'consistency' would have broken down
-I would never have come across as an exceptional all-rounded 'scientist'
-I would have definitely been asked "Why the **** did you get a B?" at interview
-I would have had a significantly lower chance of making it into my firm

As much as you might not like the sound of the above, it's the harsh truth...

Sometimes, a B isn't good enough

edit:

Something else I just remembered. In the admissions process for Medicine at Oxford, they look at the percentage of A* grades you achieved at GCSE rather than the number. I know GCSEs are not A levels, but why not apply similar logic? In their eyes 10A*'s is better than 10A*'s and 3 A's.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by JOR2010)
But since the person who achieved AAAA did not attempt any further subjects, we cannot know if they would have performed at the same level, eg, better than AAAAB. At least the AAAAB candidate has shown they can work well with a larger than average workload, and are not afraid to do so.

But the AAAAB candidate has shown that they cannot work to an A grade standard in that many subjects. The AAAA candidate has shown that they can work to an A grade standard in all of their subjects. To repeat someone else's point earlier, sometimes a B is not enough.

(Original post by GreenLantern1)
Yes despite indeed!

Seriously?

[GreenLantern1]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Seriously?

Oh Seriously. I never kid

[GreenLantern1]

(Original post by Lumos)
you don't need 5 a levels... for anything... ever.... you don't even need four.
take three and aim to get an A* in at least one of them. A*AA > AAAA, because 3 subjects is all universities require, any more are supplementary

You don't need them but I am taking 6 purely because I enjoy all of them enough to not want to drop them! Though 1 is Additional Further Maths so it probably really only counts as 5.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by GreenLantern1)
Oh Seriously. I never kid

haha ok

[SpicyStrawberry]

Surely an extra AS-level is better than no extra AS-level if you're not compromising your grades in the other subjects. Most people do 4, not 5.

I cannot believe this thread is 5 pages long, you don't half get yourselves into a stress over such trivial matters.

[SpicyStrawberry]

(Original post by hackashaq)
Yeah but it's just the fact that it is a "B" and when top universities look at applicants with a B at AS...

Don't be ridiculous. Loads of people get interviews and offers from the likes of Oxford and Cambridge with a B grade at AS-level. One guy I know got an offer from Oxford with AABC at AS-level for History, so clearly his grades didn't have to be perfect. Leave the judgemental thinking to the admissions tutors.

[GreenLantern1]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
haha ok

Lol I actualy weren't joking!

[RibenaRockstar]

(Original post by Junaid96)
Great. About 50% get interviewed at Oxford..

Closer to a third for PPE.

My point was that anything is still possible with a B on your transcript.