[Space Jockey]

When you don't have any extenuating circumstances that can be evidenced?

I have BBB at A-level - usually the bare minimum for a lot of decent firms, or too low for others.

Should I explain away or at least address my mediocre A-levels in vacation scheme/training contract applications?

I am achieving high 2:1s, attend a top 15 university and have some good extracurriculars.

So it's quite annoying to see my A-levels somewhat tarnish my application.

There's no excuse for me not doing better than I did, but I would say personal issues at home (basically warring parents) affected my revision for A-levels.

So would you mention this?

Also, a couple of years ago I got into my uni through clearing, even though they still wanted AAA for clearing students. I managed to persuade the admissions tutor that I was a worthwhile student (mentioned some extracurriculars, etc.).

Would you mention this?

Or just be completely silent on the A-levels matter?

[M1011]

If you meet the basic requirements, don't mention it. A-levels are just a filter to keep down applications. I highly doubt anyone will be looking at your A-levels once you pass that filter.

If you don't meet the basic requirements, you're probably wasting your time. Rules are rules and all that.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by M1011)
If you meet the basic requirements, don't mention it. A-levels are just a filter to keep down applications. I highly doubt anyone will be looking at your A-levels once you pass that filter.

If you don't meet the basic requirements, you're probably wasting your time. Rules are rules and all that.

But there are some firms that don't have A-level requirements so I guess they must look at your application as a whole.

[M1011]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
But there are some firms that don't have A-level requirements so I guess they must look at your application as a whole.

Well I imagine they'll put more weight on a 2.1 from a strong university then A-levels from 3/4 years ago. The fact that a firm doesn't even have an A-level requirement suggests that they don't put much weight on it right? I assume they still have a 2.1 requirement? Shows where their emphasis is.

In my eyes, you're only drawing attention to it if you bring it up. BBB isn't a bad set of results, nothing special but they're fine. Leave it be. In the 'real' world outside of academia nobody cares about your 'extenuating circumstances'. That's the hard truth of the matter IMO, they want to see your achievements not your excuses. If I was an employer (I'm not, but bear with me), I would much rather see 'BBB' and move on, then see 'BBB', then have my attention drawn back to it, then see a lame excuse which just makes the candidate look weak. That's my opinion on the matter anyway.

[lyrical_lie]

I wouldn't it would just sound like you're making excuses. Put more emphasis on your good points rather than the bad.

[tdkr]

i've looked at most firms' (slaughters, CC, nabarro, wragge, freshfields, DLA, CMS, etc etc) websites and they clearly state a minimum of AAB - AAA at A Level

[sleekchic]

(Original post by tdkr)
i've looked at most firms' (slaughters, CC, nabarro, wragge, freshfields, DLA, CMS, etc etc) websites and they clearly state a minimum of AAB - AAA at A Level

Slaughters don't have any A level requirements but they expect 'good' A level grades. Whatever that means to them.

Addleshaw Goddard and Edward Wildman Palmer require a minimum of BBB.

Wragge don't ask for any particular grades at A level and I'm sure there are a few others I've missed out.

[tdkr]

(Original post by sleekchic)
Slaughters don't have any A level requirements but they expect 'good' A level grades. Whatever that means to them.

Addleshaw Goddard and Edward Wildman Palmer require a minimum of BBB.

Wragge don't ask for any particular grades at A level and I'm sure there are a few others I've missed out.

slaughters - "we look for in our applicants is three very strong A-levels"
cc - "You will be expected to meet or exceed our benchmark criteria, which for graduates means 320 UCAS points at A-level"
freshfields - "We are looking for a consistently high level of achievement at A level"

(i'm not certain but i'm pretty sure other firms will be like this too.)

aka, A Levels of AAB - AAA. You are also EXPECTED to exceed these basic requirements.

[kashim91]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
But there are some firms that don't have A-level requirements so I guess they must look at your application as a whole.

Wouldn't trying to 'explain your A-levels' just draw more attention to them? Extenuating circumstances are usually explained by referees aren't they? I'm pretty sure you're 2:1 is more important, like the other posters said, just exaggerate your strengths and try to hide your weaknesses. Its far more important that you maximise the strength of your application.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by tdkr)
i've looked at most firms' (slaughters, CC, nabarro, wragge, freshfields, DLA, CMS, etc etc) websites and they clearly state a minimum of AAB - AAA at A Level

Don't you mean most Magic Circle/upper-tier firms? I wouldn't say most firms across the country demand only AAB-AAA, although I recognise that it's a common requirement.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by kashim91)
Wouldn't trying to 'explain your A-levels' just draw more attention to them? Extenuating circumstances are usually explained by referees aren't they? I'm pretty sure you're 2:1 is more important, like the other posters said, just exaggerate your strengths and try to hide your weaknesses. Its far more important that you maximise the strength of your application.

What about the bit about the admissions tutor accepting me despite my A-levels? Wouldn't that hint that the law firm should consider doing the same, or is that too cheesy?

[kashim91]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
What about the bit about the admissions tutor accepting me despite my A-levels? Wouldn't that hint that the law firm should consider doing the same, or is that too cheesy?

'Should consider' ? With all due respect, do you think that your royalty? Just focus on hiding your flaws and exaggerating your strengths.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by kashim91)
'Should consider' ? With all due respect, do you think that your royalty? Just focus on hiding your flaws and exaggerating your strengths.

Not at all, you have misinterpreted me.

[Clip]

I said my A-levels were rubbish and there was no excuse for them.

[MrBlueMo0n]

I hate it when external sort of things **** up your life and you really do feel like you genuinely have been held back, or couldn't fulfill your potential...

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
...........

Remain silent. The only employers that would listen are the ones that will also look at your later achievements and invite you to interview anyway. Explain honestly if asked.

[Clip]

The problem I see with most excuses and mitigation is that they set you up to be an unattractive candidate.

Look on the TSR boards and you'll find dozens of posts every week with someone who contracted a mystery illness or whose cat died or had some other difficult personal circumstances.

What this person is then going to say is: "I had such a bad time with my life that I got these A levels/degree instead of AAA/1st."

The person reading it could well think: "Okay, but I have 50 other candidates who actually did get AAA/1st and don't have a chaotic personal life." You're really asking a lot to be given a shout on the basis of what you think you might have got - and also that your rubbish life won't interfere with your future employer's overriding priorities.

[InnerTemple]

It really does depend on the circumstances. I cannot comment on the solicitor side of things, but every barrister I have spoken to has said that they would expect the reason behind any poor academics to be explained to them. The important thing is that there should be a real reason - or at least something you can justify.

Saying something like: "At college I liked getting off my tits on weed every night and therefore didn't do as well as I could have done" will not cut it.

Saying something like: "At college I went through a really bad time (family problems, death of a loved one, terrible illness) however despite this, I was able to achieve [insert results]..." is better. However it will be helpful if you can show that you are academically able but for the problem you experienced...

What you should be doing, therefore, is making sure you get a good degree - a high 2:1 or a 1st. If you get a good degree, you can show signs that you are academically strong, despite your A level results.

You can then say something like: "At college [insert catastrophe here] which led to me achieving [insert results]. I do not believe that my A level results are a true indication of my academic ability, and point to my performance at university where I achieved a 1st bla bla bla."

Mitigating circumstances do not have to be illness/death/disaster. A barrister from a leading London criminal set once said that he found it completely reasonable for a candidate to state that at college, they did not know what direction their life was heading in and had no real aims, hence poor results. However because of some life changing moment, they realised they wanted to be a barrister and came out with top results at university. I would add that if you are in this position, trying to build your CV to show your dedication to the law will be useful in bolstering the above mentioned claim.

(Original post by Clip)
What this person is then going to say is: "I had such a bad time with my life that I got these A levels/degree instead of AAA/1st."

The person reading it could well think: "Okay, but I have 50 other candidates who actually did get AAA/1st and don't have a chaotic personal life."

I can see where you are coming from, but it would depend on how the applicant words their mitigation. If it is clear that the problem which caused the bad A level results is no longer 'active', it should be no concern to the employer that the applicant once went through a rough patch.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by InnerTemple)
It really does depend on the circumstances. I cannot comment on the solicitor side of things, but every barrister I have spoken to has said that they would expect the reason behind any poor academics to be explained to them. The important thing is that there should be a real reason - or at least something you can justify.

Saying something like: "At college I liked getting off my tits on weed every night and therefore didn't do as well as I could have done" will not cut it.

Saying something like: "At college I went through a really bad time (family problems, death of a loved one, terrible illness) however despite this, I was able to achieve [insert results]..." is better. However it will be helpful if you can show that you are academically able but for the problem you experienced...

What you should be doing, therefore, is making sure you get a good degree - a high 2:1 or a 1st. If you get a good degree, you can show signs that you are academically strong, despite your A level results.

You can then say something like: "At college [insert catastrophe here] which led to me achieving [insert results]. I do not believe that my A level results are a true indication of my academic ability, and point to my performance at university where I achieved a 1st bla bla bla."

Mitigating circumstances do not have to be illness/death/disaster. A barrister from a leading London criminal set once said that he found it completely reasonable for a candidate to state that at college, they did not know what direction their life was heading in and had no real aims, hence poor results. However because of some life changing moment, they realised they wanted to be a barrister and came out with top results at university. I would add that if you are in this position, trying to build your CV to show your dedication to the law will be useful in bolstering the above mentioned claim.

I can see where you are coming from, but it would depend on how the applicant words their mitigation. If it is clear that the problem which caused the bad A level results is no longer 'active', it should be no concern to the employer that the applicant once went through a rough patch.

But do you think BBB and then a first would speak for itself? Would the employer not recognise that the A-levels do not reflect true academic ability? Or should it still be explained to them?

Also, does this not make it that you are admitting that your A-levels are bad? BBB is mediocre, but not a bad result in my opinion. Would it make an employer take a moment and think 'well actually, BBB isn't very good' that they may have been indifferent to had you not highlighted the A-levels in a negative manner?

[InnerTemple]

(Original post by Space Jockey)
But do you think BBB and then a first would speak for itself? Would the employer not recognise that the A-levels do not reflect true academic ability? Or should it still be explained to them?

Possibly. It would depend on whether you felt that highlighting the fact that you overcome whatever problem you faced and enjoyed success at uni is useful.

(Original post by Space Jockey)
Also, does this not make it that you are admitting that your A-levels are bad? BBB is mediocre, but not a bad result in my opinion. Would it make an employer take a moment and think 'well actually, BBB isn't very good' that they may have been indifferent to had you not highlighted the A-levels in a negative manner?

(Original post by kashim91)
Wouldn't trying to 'explain your A-levels' just draw more attention to them?

I think it is a risky strategy to hope that an employer will not question poor A levels. The employer will look at them, and if they are not great they will be asking themselves why they are not great... with no mitigation, the employer has nothing to go on. With mitigation, they can form a better picture of you as a candidate.