The Common Framework was developed in the light
of wide consultation across the collegiate university on the report by the
Working Party on Selection and Admissions entitled "Undergraduate Admissions:
Policy and Procedures" published in November 2005. In this document the word
"faculty" is used as shorthand for both faculties and departments,
depending upon how individual subjects are organised. The Framework was ratified in July 2006.
(a)
Admissions procedures in all subjects and in all colleges should be informed by
three high-level objectives:
To attract applications from the most academically able individuals,
irrespective of socio-economic, ethnic or national origin;
To ensure applicants are selected for admission on the basis that they are well
qualified and have the most potential to excel in their chosen course of
study;
To ensure that the prospects of admission are not affected by the college an
applicant has chosen or been assigned to through an open application.
(b)
For each subject, the procedures and criteria for deciding on shortlisting and
admission should be agreed by the relevant faculty in consultation with the
relevant subject tutors in colleges.
(c)
Procedures may vary between subjects, depending on the number of applications,
whether there is pre-interview testing, whether they are part of a Joint School
and other factors that the faculties in question may regard as relevant. In all
subjects, procedures should be seen to be fair for candidates and should ensure
that the best candidates are selected.
(d)
All colleges should apply the agreed procedures and criteria for each subject
consistently.
(e)
In every subject, there should be a high degree of coordination by the relevant
faculty and amongst the colleges. This should include robust arrangements for
redistributing candidates between colleges before interview and at the final
offer stage, so that the strongest candidates are able to find a place
somewhere in the system.
(f) All subjects should have an agreed standard conditional
offer.
(g)
Contextual information in a common format (in particular, concerning school
performance) should be provided to colleges by the Undergraduate Admissions Office so that this may be taken into account as systematically as
possible.
(h)
Final decisions on who should be interviewed and who should be offered a place
should rest with individual colleges, giving due consideration to the guidance
of the relevant subject faculty (see (i) (v) and (xii) below).
(i) In deciding on what procedures are appropriate
for particular subjects, faculties and colleges should have regard to the
following:
Shortlisting for interview
i) The potential for the
more popular subjects to be more stringent in their shortlisting so as to
allow adequate time for interviewing those who have been shortlisted.
ii) Where pre-interview testing has not
yet been introduced, the potential for pre-interview testing to assist with
shortlisting.
iii) The need to plan such testing carefully in accordance
with the principles set out in paragraph 33 of the Working Party's report,
especially to ensure that as far as possible they test for aptitude and do not
dissuade good candidates from applying.
iv) The benefits to be had from central banding of candidates
by the relevant faculty, based on information in application forms,
pre-interview test results (where these exist), written work where requested
and the assessment of ability and aptitude. For very large subjects, such
banding for logistical reasons may need to be done for groups of colleges.
v) Colleges to be guided but not bound by such
banding; but where a college wishes to interview a candidate below the
shortlisting threshold, it should explain this to the relevant faculty.
vi) Faculties should provide guidance to colleges on how they
should consider submitted written work (both at shortlisting and at interview
stage).
Final offers
xi) The benefits to be had from central banding by the
relevant faculty at the final offer stage, based on the information already
used for shortlisting and the additional information available as a result of
interviews and any testing during the interview process.
xii)
Colleges to be guided but not bound by such banding. However, where a college
wishes to offer a place to a candidate below the selection threshold, this
should be done only on the basis of additional qualitative information that may
not have been picked up in the banding exercise. It should not result from the
application of criteria different from those that have been agreed by the
faculty. Where a college wishes to offer a place to a candidate below the
selection threshold it should explain this to the relevant faculty by reference
to the selection criteria.
xiii)
Where a college wishes to take a candidate who falls below the agreed standard
conditional offer, the college should inform the relevant faculty and explain
the individual's case with reference to the selection criteria.
xiv)
Whilst successful candidates will normally be made an offer at a college where
they have been interviewed, it may be necessary to redistribute some candidates
to colleges where they have not been interviewed. In such cases, the candidates
should be given the opportunity to visit the college offering the place prior
to their having to make a decision.
(j) Timely sharing of all relevant information about
candidates in each subject is critical. To achieve this, a common, effective
and properly resourced IT system should be made available to all faculties and
colleges.
(k)
The collegiate university should monitor the applications from and offers made
to UK students according to socio-economic background, ethnicity, gender, age,
and school type. Where these do not reflect the qualification profile of
particular groups, colleges and faculties should consider how the position
could be addressed.
(l) Colleges and faculties should maintain
well-targeted programmes to improve access for under-represented groups, with
these programmes to be coordinated centrally.
(m)
In considering overseas candidates, colleges and faculties should aim to apply
the same criteria and as far as possible the same procedures as in the case of
UK applicants.
(n)
In all subjects, faculties should give serious consideration to the possibility
of open offer schemes. Colleges would be asked to
opt in to these schemes.
To show that they are complying with this Common Framework,
faculties will be required to report annually to the Admissions Executive
(reporting to the Education Policy and Standards Committee (EPSC)) on the
procedures in place for their subjects. Faculties will be expected to provide
data on how their procedures are working in practice: one important indicator
might be the extent of redistribution of candidates between colleges. It will
be for EPSC to "sign off" on each subject or Joint School; and where EPSC
feels unable to do so, it will indicate in which areas action is needed. EPSC
will expect divisions to identify clearly the person or persons in their
faculties who are responsible for admissions for their subjects. Faculties will
also be required to agree any significant changes in procedures which they wish
to introduce with the Admissions Executive.
Colleges already have to provide an annual "certificate of
assurance" that they are operating their admissions systems fairly and
efficiently. In future, colleges will be expected to state in this annual
"certificate of assurance" that they are in compliance with the Common
Framework as it affects them.
1 Blind interviews are interviews
conducted without tutors knowing their interviewees' college preference.
2 Open offers are offers of a place
without a college specification. Subject based open offer schemes reduce and
may obviate the need for colleges to "over-offer" in particular subjects
against the possibility of candidates failing to meet their offer
conditions.
