TO END the 'am I good enough' questions.

Hope this helps

Hi everyone, I've seen so many repeat 'do I have the grades to do law' and 'what universities can I apply to' questions, I'll just give a definitive guide to answer all of them.
Please note this is a rough guide, and uni's take into account more than just grades, e.g. personal statement and the LNAT. But here:

GCSE:
6A*+ - won't hold you back at oxbridge
4A*6/7A's+ - will be fine for UCL, LSE, KCL, providing LNAT and A levels go very well. Will struggle at oxford.
Less than 4A*, or >2B's - Will struggle for oxbridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, durham. Bristol, Warwick, notthingham etc will not hold you back.

AS levels. (in top 3 subjects)
AAA over 90UMS - Ideal for oxbridge, LSE, UCL
AAA under 90UMS - should be ok for UCL (if lnat is good), KCL, Durham etc. Struggle for LSE and oxbridge
AAB- Struggle for UCL, LSE. KCL, Durham at a stretch with good GCSE/LNAT. Ok for bristol, warwick, nottingham etc.

A2 Predictions
A*AA+ - Ok for anything
AAA - Bristol, warwick, manchester. No chance of LSE, UCL, oxbridge
AAB and below - any not top 10 law uni.

Hope this helps

No it simply gives a lot of fatuous and misleading information.

@nulli tertius is right. Different admission tutors and colleges/departments have different requirements and expectations of applicants.

Isn't this the law section? Most colleges share fairly similar admissions methods.

Not really. What might seem a very good applicant by one college is seen as inadequate by others. That's why Cambridge has the pooling system and Oxford interviews you at two colleges. That's also why UCAS lets you apply to five universities/courses, along with other reasons.

Isn't this the law section? Most colleges share fairly similar admissions methods.

You have said that AAA at AS with under 90% UMS will struggle for Oxbridge admissions. Oxford has never collected UMS scores, so they wouldn't even know. Likewise the reference to UMS scores for universities other than Cambridge ignores the fact that this information is not collected by these universities.

This posting could only be for the benefit of applicants for 2017 or afterwards, but those candidates will not have AS as part of their A levels. They will be doing linear A levels at the end of year 13. Accordingly all the information about AS is irrelevant.

Oxbridge admit students every year with fewer GCSE A* grades than you regard as the minimum.

Your suggestion that someone without a prediction of A*AA stands no chance at Oxford is nonsense.

Your passing reference to LNAT distorts because it underplays the significance of that test for those universities which use it.

1.Reference ums scores naturally do aid your application, and also with Less than 90 at AS, it's less likely you'll achieve over 90 at A2

2.the AS results are useful for those taking a gap year this academic cycle

3. For law that is unlikely, yet not impossible as there are exceptions to every rule, hence this is a rough guide

4. Cambridge minimum requirements are A*AA and they will get a tonne of applicants with much more. Oxford is officially AAA but again most candidates had much more

5. Nowhere do I play down the importance of the lnat

You did not read what I said. Universities don't have the information so cannot take it into account.

Teachers often mention high ums scores in the reference, meaning universities do have this information. There are also FOI requests which give the average ums scores of successful candidates, and for one reason or another, it's above 90 in the top 3 subjects





Those people already have their A level results and see 1 above.

Yes so it's helpful for them to look at both the as and a2 section, as they've done both



It isn't a rule and we are not talking about odd exceptions here. A significant minority will score no better than AAA.

Cambridge won't allow anyone in who hasn't scored A*AA, aside from extenuating circumstances. Therefore, it is a rule for Cambridge. If you wish I will revise the Oxford comment, as it Is less clear cut with them




Most candidates will have more, but let me remind you what you said

"No chance of ...oxbridge"

That is simply untrue

No chance of Cambridge yes, not sure how you're disagreeing with that.



Playing down the importance of something does not involve someone saying that they give something little importance. Saying little about something of extreme importance is ipso facto playing down its importance.

I am not aware of any successful FOI request other than to Cambridge and Cambridge is exceptional because it requires this information.

Whilst some teachers mention UMS scores in references, universities know that this is incomplete and partial data and that they cannot draw any conclusions from a failure to give this unrequired information. That means you cannot draw the conclusion that you wish to draw that a UMS score of below a certain level hampers an application.



Moreover, as it would have been very easy for UCAS to have sought this information from candidates routinely, what is shows is the relative lack of interest in this information from any significant number of universities.

I'm not sure where I mention a large number of universities interested in high ums. Of course it is limited to a very small minority of top uni's, mainly Cambridge,and lse (who do recommend candidates displaying ums scores'.






Be careful. You are confusing three things here. The key thing is that Cambridge will make A*AA offers. If there are any schools left that do not predict A* grades, then candidates with AAA predictions will receive A*AA offers. The Cambridge summer pool is for candidates who do not achieve their offers and some candidates will be fished from that pool despite not getting A*AA.

I'm not sure what you think I'm confusing. This post is not about those who already have offers, surely by now you're aware of that.
If candidates have already done their A2's and apply late with AAA, they will not get into Cambridge law, aside from extenuating circumstances.
Very few schools do not predict a*'s, and it is very unlikely to receive an offer unless you meet the entry requirements with your predictions. Thus it's more of an exception to the rule.

The same principle will apply to other universities that make A*AA law offers. They may still be faced with schools who refuse to predict A* and they may let in candidates who fail to reach those offers. Queen Mary requires A*AA but has been in clearing at AAB.

You mention queen mary, however Oxbridge and lse do not use clearing, and ucl have very few spaces, so your example is irrelevant to my original post.

..


I'm not sure where I mention a large number of universities interested in high ums. Of course it is limited to a very small minority of top uni's, mainly Cambridge,and lse (who do recommend candidates displaying ums scores'.

'AAA over 90UMS - Ideal for oxbridge, LSE, UCLAAA under 90UMS - should be ok for UCL (if lnat is good), KCL, Durham etc. Struggle for LSE and oxbridge'

Are you quoting this to support your argument or mine? I only said struggle for LSE and oxbridge, and make the point that under 90ums is fine for KCL, Durham, etc. 3 universities is certainly a big minority.




Because you said:-


I think you are being deliberately obtuse here, Cambridge's summer pool proves that Cambridge accepts "near misses". I was using the example of QMU to show another A*AA university accepts near misses. On occasion, other leading universities also accept "near misses". However, as they do not operate a pool or enter clearing, there isn't the same visibility for the fact they take students who miss their offers.

I would suggest it is a minority figure who are accepted, and those who are have extenuating circumstances.

Cambridge will likely not have this issue.

Of course it is a minority. A minority means fewer than 50%



Not only does Cambridge have the issue, it has a unique system, the summer pool, for managing the issue.

I don't think many people would rationally argue that cambridge has a notable problem of law candidates rejecting their university, its much more likely that QM will have more rejections.

Judging by the level of nit picking I assume the arguments over?

You have worn me down. You are spouting rubbish. You are changing the goalposts, every time I tell you are spouting rubbish and I will leave it to the judgement of readers of the thread whether you have any clue about this.

How come you're so heated? I thought you're a lawyer. Aren't you supposed to be calm, cool and collected?

Probably!

I got annoyed when something went wrong with a complex response (not the OP's fault).

I do not think the OP is a troll, but I dislike folk who send an argument off on a tangent.