News

Boy who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer during his A-levels is now going to Oxford University to study law

By on
72

It’s turning into a very uplifting results day

Lead12

Today is A-level results day when students find out whether they’ll be going on to study law at the university of their choice.

Across the country, thousands of aspiring lawyers will be jumping for joy this morning — but none more so than Ben Atkins.

The 19-year-old has secured a place at one of the country’s ivory towers, Oxford University, following a long, hard battle with cancer, and even an original diagnosis that it would be terminal.

According to local media reports, Atkins was diagnosed with blood cancer when he was 14 years old when doctors found five tumours in his body.

Having sat his GCSE and AS-level exams whilst having chemotherapy and stem cell transplants (courtesy of his brother), Atkins then received some heartbreaking news. He was told his cancer would be terminal.

Too ill to go back to school to finish his A-levels, Atkins refused to give up, and was finally given the all clear last year.

He had received an offer to study at Sussex University, which he declined. Atkins has now achieved two A*s and an A in his A-levels and is off to study law at Oxford University.

He told local newspaper get bucks:

I didn’t expect these results, I’m so happy. I though I was just going to scrape through with As. I’m so excited to go to university and to learn something new, I’m just so excited for that!

Elsewhere, soon-to-be law students are sharing the positive vibes, as these tweets show:

Tweet

Even Big Brother runner-up Joel Williams is celebrating!

Congratulations to all those students who have secured the grades to study law this September.

And for those of you who haven’t, well…

72 Comments

Anonymous

Who would ever be ‘unbelievably happy’ with three B’s?…or studying at Lancaster?

Magic Circe, here you come, girl.

(55)(24)

Not amused

What a sore loser.

(4)(8)

Anonymous

A ton of people. I know I was.

(3)(5)

Anonymous

Don’t be a dickhead.

(9)(2)

Anonymous

Yeah, she’s dead in the water. I’d not bother going to uni at all with anything less than AAB, because you will simply not get a training contract. It is a highly competitive environment.

(9)(7)

Anonymous

Who even says this girl wants to get a training contract?! Maybe she’ll do the degree and want to do an alternative route, or shock horror- may not want a law career at all. Stop being so judgmental and let people celebrate their success

(11)(3)

Anonymous

Three B’s is not success, that is abject failure.

Must try harder.

(7)(8)

Anonymous

Get a grip

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Of my cock?

(4)(2)

Anonymous

I got a TC last year with ABB.

Perhaps 1sts at top-5 universities, work experience, vac schemes and extra-curriculars help to counteract average A-level results. It’s difficult to say.

(1)(1)

Dr Bongo Chumbo

Obvious humblebrag is obvious.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

As anon at 1.35pm says, the TC route is pretty much dead to her as she won’t get through all of the automatic grade filters that pretty much every major City firm uses. Bar is almost certainly dead with BBB as well. High street law remains open, though that has become increasingly competitive in recent years.

(4)(2)

Anonymous

Lancaster has totally gone to pot over the past few years- used to be an AAA uni for law!

(3)(0)

Tumescent Tommy

Nah mate, you can still bag a TC at top City powerhouse DAC Beachcroft. Last time they checked, they only required BBC (LOL) at A-levels.

(10)(0)

Inspector Feggit

Brutal bantz mate, well done.

(0)(1)

Quo Vadis

‘Magic Circe’? It’ll take an odyssey to get there!

(2)(1)

Anonymous

No GCSEs, only 2 A-Levels, went to a university ranked circa 60 for law and 80 overall in the league tables – obtained TC with a Magic Circle firm and am still there as an associate. Hard work and determination can get you further than you’d think, regardless of where you went to school and what you achieved before university. Don’t be a douche!

(15)(3)

Anonymous

Well said Anon 4:12pm.
So many bitter douches spout utter nonsense about the TC/ pupillage prospects of undergrads on this website.

Unless you’re gonna provide some factual basis for your uninvited opinions, do us a favour and do one

(2)(0)

Anonymous

It’s Clifford Chance though, isn’t it?

(3)(0)

Tory Powerhouse

Yep, you’re the perfect role model mate – I bet there’s literally hundreds of people just like you, who are essentially illiterate and then go and bag a TC with Slaughters.

MEGA LOL

(1)(4)

Anonymous

I received CCD at A-level (plus a BTEC worth three A-levels, which thankfully got me into uni). I went on to receive a 2:1 in BSc Biotechnology, and a PhD in Biochemistry. I’m also now studying the GDL and have made it into the final 3.6% pool of GLS TC applicants. Your A-level results can just as easily reflect your upbringing and social environment. It isn’t very clever to judge or pigeonhole people based on something they do at such a young age. So again, don’t be dicks.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

iI you have a 2:1 and can read English, GLS will take you.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Yeah sure, tell that to the 3745 applicants that didn’t pass the GLS 3 stage psychometric testing and assessment centre this year.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

If you have a 2:1 and can read English, GLS will take you.

(0)(0)

Jokes, Bantz 'N Harmony

Quality.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Apparently god took some time out of his busy schedule of letting kids die and helping athletes secure gold medals to help some students get into Uni. What a bloke.

(22)(6)

Anonymous

REPORTED!!

(2)(8)

Anonymous

What for?

This isn’t a troll, I am genuinely interested why you reported this comment.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Isn’t it #bantz?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

They were joking about the reporting… It was obviously sarcasm.

(0)(5)

Anonymous

Amazing well done Ben!

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Wow. You actually deleted the god comment. Unbelievable.

(3)(1)

Anonymous

Lol at thanking God. People who believe in God, and especially that he would care about exam results, are idiots. I respect people’s belief in God less than I respect people who believe in unicorns and goblins and fairies.

(7)(7)

Anonymous

Obviously there is the idiocy, but what gets me more is the arrogance. That some supreme being would help you with your exam results while allowing thousands of children to die, despite their prayers and the prayers of their families…

Actually, leave the arrogance for a moment. How could you possibly want to follow a creature that would interview in your exams, or help an athlete win a medal, but not save children from starvation? Why would you possible worship that?

Also, well done to Ben, amazing achievement considering all he had to deal with.

(5)(5)

Anonymous

Agree with all that. But I am truly horrified that LC deleted the earlier God comment and my follow up comment just because some fascist moron reported it. I expect this comment will also be deleted.

(3)(1)

Anonymous

Agreed. It was actually pretty mild, I thought.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

And now it’s back! Without any explanation from those that take these decisions.

I am the wanker though because I still frequent this shitty site. I expect this comment will be deleted.

(1)(0)

Simona

I hope you’re joking, but if you really think there is any comparison between the argument for the existence of unicorns and the equivalent for God then you are rather stupid.

It’s depressing how many seemingly intelligent people come out with this rubbish, which they pick up from charlatans like Dawkins, Harris etc. There are reasonable arguments against God’s existence, made by reasonable atheists, but unfortunately people prefer the ‘fairies, Zeus, ‘then who created God?’ crappy arguments over using their brain.

Rant over!

(6)(7)

Anonymous

Are you kidding? Any argument against God’s existence is fine by me. Personally, I long for the day that I can join Harry Potter and his wizarding chums at Hogwarts. A bit like Christians longing for the day they can join God in heaven. Same thing. Amirite?

(0)(0)

Simona

Yes dear, it’s exactly the same thing. Now be a good boy, mummy’s going to pick you up at 3, not 4 today.

(3)(0)

Jokes, Bantz 'N Harmony

Weak bantz, try harder.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Dawkins and Harris charlatans? You had the first, was religion not invented when the first charlatan met the first fool? You are quite correct about one thing though, there are reasonable arguments for the non-existence of gods, many of them. But I think you are missing the point of these other “arguments” that you dismiss are without merit. You see, they are not actually arguments against the existence of gods, they are simply to show the utter stupidity of the so-called arguments for the existence of gods.

(0)(2)

Simona

Ask any serious academic atheist philosopher about Dawkins and Harris and he will tell you they are an embarrassment to atheism.

The central argument in The God Delusion is ‘then who created God?’. Honestly, this is schoolboy stuff – these guys are so far out of their depth.

Yet genuinely intelligent people fall for their guff. It’s incredible.

(4)(1)

Anonymous

But the question “then who created god” is simply a response to the assertation, made by the religious, that everything must have a cause. It has been sometime since I read the God Delusion, I much prefer Dawkin’s scientific writings, but I think it is an exaggeration to say “then who created god” is the central argument of the book.

it goes something like this. “well, the universe had to come from somewhere, it had to have a cause, that cause is [insert your god name here]” To which the quite reasonable response is “ok, if everything needs to come from somewhere or have a cause where did you god come from?”

it isn’t difficult and again, I think you are confusing arguments against the existence of gods with rebuttals of arguments for the existence of gods.

(0)(0)

Simona

I understand the argument, and it is superficially attractive, but it has never posed a problem to philosophers because it is accepted that there must be one eternal cause for the universe which is without a cause itself (for theists – God, atheists – something else).

Dawkins is a great scientist, but an awful philosopher. The fact that he even uses this counter-argument shows this.

Another of his arguments (against the fine-tuning principle) is that although we live in a highly improbable world, it is more improbable to suggest that a god created it. No academics accept this – it’s a massive non-sequitur. In fact, the consensus among philosophers is that the existence of God is possible, then he must necessarily exists. Atheists argue that his existence is impossible.

I dislike Dawkins, Harris et al because society believes they are the authority on this subject, when really they are charismatic amateurs.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

LOL. Basically you are saying “it isn’t a problem for my thing cos I just say it doesn’t apply to my thing”. Special pleading much?

(0)(0)

Dr Bongo Chumbo

You need more Hitchens in your life you dong.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

I don’t respect you at all, you twat

(0)(1)

Anonymous

feeling’s mutual, moron

(0)(0)

Christian of Counsel

I’m turning the other cheek

(1)(0)

Christian of Counsel

…of my big booty.

(2)(0)

Christian of Counsel

That was an imposter!

My booty isn’t very big anyway.

(0)(0)

Recovering Paralegal

Good for him!

But if I had a terminal disease, I would not choose to spend my short remaining days studying law.

Art, English, music, history, even science…

(3)(1)

Anonymous

I wouldn’t study anything, I’d take a load of drugs and f*ck anything that moved.

(2)(0)

Lol banta

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(5)(0)

Jokes, Bantz 'N Harmony

Looks like LC got warned by Jones Day about the comments, interesting…

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Well done Ben. I wish you every success.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

So is he terminal or is he in remission?

(0)(0)

Tumescent Tommy

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Wow, the comment midly criticising God was deleted. What the fuck is this?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

aaaand, it’s back.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

At least it wasn’t a comment about Mohammed…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Mohammed had a six year old bride, and consummated their “marriage” when she was nine.

It’s in the Qur’an.

Now delete comment for being controversial, even though it’s scripturally verifiable.

(1)(0)

Fanta Banta

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(1)

Trumpenfuhrer

What was wrong about this comment? Fascist bastards.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It suggested that certain elements of a certain faith might be unattractive. That’s thoughtcrime as they are a protected minority even though some of them have used scripture to justify suicide bombing and sex with “unbelieving” underage girls.

(0)(0)

Tory Powerhouse

Lock up the lot of them, I say!

Trainee

Well done to all with places but seriously take stock before accepting a non-Russel Group offer.

You aren’t guaranteed a job anymore and will come out earning 10% less because of student debt.

Sit down and do your sums. Will your degree, taking into account the future tax losses via student loans company, be worth it? Will it guarantee or give you a very good shot at a job with better prospects and at least 10 ish percent better pay than where you could be after working on the school leavers schemes at places like John Lewis and the like?

I don’t want to discourage anyone or diminish their achievements, but uni just isn’t what it was 20 years ago. Many Russel Group courses are naff and the quality of meh unis can be really terrible sometimes (not always).

(1)(0)

Anonymous

These results are depressing. I did my Alevels about 12 years ago, before we had A*s and I did better than 3B’s and I thought that was rubbish. (Got into a ‘top’ Russel Group uni tho lol sorry couldn’t resist…) I guess standards aren’t really going up then?!

(0)(1)

Tory Powerhouse

Nah mate, there’s just plenty of idiots who do badly but still feel the urge to brag about it on Twatter.

Jesus wept.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

I’m slightly confused.
Oxbridge, LSE,UCL and even KCL, do not except applicants doing there A-levels in there second sitting. This means redoing as or A2 means that you’ve done a second sitting.

This person who got the Oxford offer is 19. Which means he’s most likely did not do his A-levels in one sitting. This makes sense seeing he was going through an incredibly traumatic and challenging period and so if anyone should have qualified for extenuating circumstances, this person should. However, I don’t understand this Sussex thing. Was that his insurance? Or did he apply last year, got an offer at Sussex, then refused it, then re-did his A-levels apply to Oxford and claim extenuating circumstances, which then allowed him to get an offer from Oxford even though he was taking his A-levels in his second sitting.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

*accept
*their

(0)(1)

Comments are closed.