UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
University Offices, Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JD
Ref. FOI/2017/July
11 August 2017
Reply to request for information under Freedom of Information of Act
Your Ref
Email dated 14 July 2017
Address
What do they know.com
_
Request
Please could you send me copy of spreadsheets, forms, assessment tools and/or
criteria that are used to select which applicants are chosen for interview for Chemistry,
Physics, Maths, PPE, Economics, Law and English. Also the same documents/criteria
used when assessing interviewees for an offer.
Dear Mr Pattison,
I write in reply to your email of 14 July 2017, requesting the information shown above.
The selection criteria for each subject are available on the University website here.
I attach additional information, where available, on the criteria used to shortlist applications and assess
interviewees. Information that falls outside the scope of your request has been redacted.
Yours sincerely
(Max Todd)
FOI OXFORD
General Enquiries Tel: +44 (0)1865 270000
Fax: +44 (0)1865 270222 Email: xxx@xxxxx.xx.xx.xx Web: www.ox.ac.uk

Chemistry UCAS form grading
Each candidate will be given a mark 1-5 on their UCAS form (5 = high) by tutors in the C1 college
Guidance for grading:
Grading will be based on the following 4 criteria
(i)
A level grades or equivalent (obtained or predicted)
(ii)
AS grades (if applicable)
(iii) GCSE grades or equivalent
(iv) Reference
Contextual data should not influence the grade given, but must be considered carefully if a
recommendation is made not to interview. University policy is that if a candidate is predicted grades
consistent with our standard offer, and has both a prior school flag and a postcode flag, then there is a
strong recommendation that they should be interviewed. There is a similar recommendation for
candidates with a care flag.
ADSS provides a statistic which analyses the GCSE score in comparison to other applicants in all subjects
from Schools with comparable GCSE performance. This may pick out students who do not look stunning
but have performed much better than expected, and the converse.
A* grades at A level correlate reasonably well with our interview assessments, although we reject a
large number of candidates who ultimately gain 3 or more A* grades. The number of A*s gained is also
a reasonable predictor of success at Prelims and Part IA – better than any other measure we have at
present.
Since the standard offer is now A*A*A candidates who are predicted A*AA are unlikely to be
competitive; occasionally schools will not predict A* grades as a matter of policy: if this is the case then
they should say so in their reference. An additional complication this year is that this is the first cohort
taking the new linear A levels, and Schools are finding prediction more difficult. Such candidates
should not be ruled out automatically, as predictions are not always accurate but should be considered
carefully. It is also worth pointing out that the proportions of candidates gaining A* grades varies with
A level subject – in 2016 it was Chemistry 8%, Maths 18%, Further maths 29%, biology 8%, physics
9% (candidates selecting further maths are a self-selecting set).
You can only grade on the basis of the information provided. Some overseas students will not have
equivalents to GCSE or AS and this should not be a reason to exclude them from the shortlist. The
criteria below are typical rather than restrictive.
A 5/5 candidate would typically have: predicted or achieved grades of 3 or more A*s in chemistry,
maths and one other A level or equivalent; all AS levels at A grade (if applicable); a large majority of
GCSE at A* including all important subjects and a reference recommending them as an outstanding
candidate.
A 4.5/5 candidate would typically have at least 3 A* grades predicted or gained, including chemistry
and maths, no obvious weakness at AS, a majority of GCSEs at A*, including the important subjects, but
with lower grades in non-scientific subjects.
A 4/5 candidate would typically have most of the attributes of the 5/5 candidate, but might fall down
in one area only: there must be a confident prediction of A*A*A at A level, or equivalent, with the A*’s
in science or maths, but the GCSE results might be good but not outstanding (still with A* in the
important subjects). Such a candidate would be expected to have a strong rather than an outstanding
reference.
A 3/5 candidate would typically be predicted at least A*AA at A level or equivalent, but there may be a
good reason to suspect that the candidate has the potential to be better than this. Such candidates may

or may not be invited for interview, but should be considered carefully before excluding them from the
shortlist. Last year we made 5 offers to candidates predicted A*AA, 4 of these were successful, two
outperforming the prediction, and indeed one gaining A*A*A*.
A 2/5 candidate would be expected to have: at least A in Chemistry/Science double subject and maths
GCSE; predicted or achieved grades of at least A*AA in A level or equivalent. Experience shows that
candidates graded this low are extremely unlikely to be successful and we would not normally
shortlist them unless there is a good reason to consider them.
A 1/5 candidate would typically have predictions of AAA or lower at A level or equivalent, or be offering
insufficient science. We would not normally invite these candidates for interview.
Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be gratefully received.

Economics and Management Admissions

Candidates are shortlisted for interview according to the factors in the following table with
weights – High/Medium/Low – as indicated. For those shortlisted, performance at interview
is an additional assessment factor considered alongside those shown which remain important.

Factor
High
Med
Low
Thinking Skills Assessment (TSA) Test


GCSE (or similar) profile


Predicted performance at A-level (or similar)


UCAS reference



AS level module grades


UCAS personal statement



ENGLISH

ELAT scores
ELAT marks will be uploaded to the system by 5pm on Monday 21 November
(MT Week 7).

Candidates will sit the ELAT at test centres round the world on 2 November 2016.
The test consists of a single writing exercise and is marked out of 30. Each test is
at least double marked and the candidate will receive a final score out of 60, on
the basis of which candidates will be banded into 4 bands.

ELAT marks will be uploaded to the system by 5pm on Monday 7th week, and the
banding meeting will take place 11am-1pm that day. The score (out of 60) is used
in  pre-interview  ranking  and  allows  fine  discrimination  between  candidates.  The
banding (1-4, where 1 is high) is a broad categorization which makes comparison

6

between different years’ cohorts possible (because the actual spread of scores on
ELAT differs from year to year depending on difficulty).

The 4 bands will indicate the following:
The  top  Band  will  identify  those  candidates  who  should  definitely  be  called  for
interview (unless other indicators strongly suggest otherwise)
The  second  Band  will  indicate  candidates  who  should  be  invited,  provided  other
information supports this
The third Band will contain candidates who may not be called unless there is other
convincing evidence to suggest they ought to be interviewed.
The  fourth  Band  identifies  those  students  who  are  unlikely  to  be  invited,  though
other factors may outweigh the evidence of the test.

Tutors will be able to view a scanned image (PDF) of the ELAT script by clicking
on the link associated with the candidate’s first name on the ELAT  page.

7

Pre-interview Ranking and Banding
All marks are standardized against the applicant cohort. Unified rankings are
created using each standardized mark in different proportions (as in 2015):
  40% ELAT mark out of 60
  25% Written Work mark out of 10
  17.5% UCAS score out of 10
  17.5% Contextualized GCSE score.
English is for the second year trialing a new model for contextalised GCSE (rather
than GCSE A*) in 2015. Where the Contextualized GCSE score is unavailable,
imputation is used (a ‘best guess’ at what the candidate’s GCSE score would have
been, based on their other scores). There is no need to perform the same
upranking where there is no ELAT or WW score, as failure to sit/submit these is
grounds for deselection. However, tutors are free manually to rescue any
candidate who has a genuinely good reason for having failed to take the ELAT
(please alert the Admission Co-ordinator to this).)

Once ranked, applicants will be placed into one of ten bands, where 1 is high.
These bands serve as the tutors’ guide to shortlisting.

Shortlisting and deselecting candidates
Decisions on reserving and deselecting candidates must be made by the
deadline of 6pm on Wednesday Week 7.

Pre-interview banding will be done by Tuesday morning 7th week. Colleges then
have until 6pm on Wednesday to make shortlisting/reserving/deselection
decisions.

Guidelines are as follows:

  Shortlist bands 1-5 inclusive.
  Shortlist or deselect band 6 (unflagged) at tutors’ discretion; shortlist all
Access-flagged candidates in band 6.
  Shortlist Access-flagged candidates in lower bands unless strong negative
indicators suggest otherwise.
  Please contact the Admissions Co-ordinator if you are concerned about
selecting/deselecting any particular candidate.
Strong negative indicators which mean that candidates may not be selected for
interview include: missing ELAT (although tutors may summon such candidates if
they consider there were very strong mitigating circumstances; ELAT band 4;
written work marked below 5; not predicted at least AAA or equivalent at A2. Such
conditions only come into play with WP flagged candidates, as non-flagged
candidates in the lower bands need not be considered for selection unless tutors
wish to ‘rescue’ them.

8

The Faculty goal is that all colleges should shortlist to the same standard across
the university; once Access flags have been taken into account, no college should
shortlist any applicant they would not wish to interview themselves (within the
parameters of automatic shortlisting for bands 1-5).

9

Interview Week Arrangements
Some colleges may call candidates earlier than the dates given in the prospectus.
Colleges with higher quotas, who find the number of interviews very strenuous, are
recommended to explore the possibility of beginning interviewing on Sunday
afternoon.

The alphabetical principle is entirely discretionary – colleges should prioritize filling
up Sunday/Monday, so that exporters have as clear a picture as possible by
Monday evening, and importers can keep second interview slots free on Tuesday.

It is strongly recommended that all importing colleges preserve slots on
Tuesday for second interviews; the situation whereby the assigned second
college can only see a Monday applicant on Wednesday, leaving other colleges
wondering whether to risk seeing them on Tuesday (and thus not seeing other
applicants), is as far as possible to be avoided.

EML and CLENG candidates will also sit tests during the interview period.
Interview  performance  should  be  judged  according  to  the  published  interview
criteria  (see  Appendix  1:  English  admissions  criteria,  p.12).  Colleges  should
enter their interview scores onto ADSS using a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the
highest  score.  The  sooner  interview  scores  are  entered  into  ADSS,  the  more
helpful  this  information  will  be  to  colleges  looking  to  arrange  second-choice
interviews.  College tutors should enter interview scores by 7.00pm each day
for the candidates seen that day.

10

Appendix 1: English admissions criteria
The English Faculty seeks:
•   To  provide  challenging  undergraduate  courses  that  engage  the  critical
intelligence,  imagination  and  creativity  of  the  students;  that  develop  their
independent thinking by drawing on technical skills in literary analysis; and that
increase their sensitivity to the critical and linguistic issues that lie at the heart of
English literature.
•   To  promote  in  all  its  students  skills  and  aptitudes  which  are  transferable  to  a
wide range of employment contexts and life experiences.
Our  admissions  procedures  are  designed  to  select  those  students  best  fitted  by
ability and potential to benefit from the intensive, tutorially-based learning methods
employed  by  the  Faculty  to  achieve  those  goals.  While  academic  staff  will  be
guided  in  their  decision-making  by  the  criteria  that  follow,  it  is  important  to
remember  that  selection  involves  complex  professional  judgements  and  that
selection for places at Oxford takes place in a highly competitive environment. On
both counts, mere possession of the qualities indicated below does not guarantee
a candidate the offer of a place.
The  following  criteria  are  to  be  applied  in  the  assessment  of  candidates  for
English. In the case of candidates for the Joint Schools with English, these criteria
are to be applied in assessment for the English side of each school.
Written Work Criteria
•        Literary sensibility
•        Sensitivity to the creative use of language
•        Evidence of careful and critical reading
•        An analytical approach
•        Coherence of argument and articulacy of expression
•        Precision, in the handling of concepts and in the evidence presented to
support points
•        Relevance to the question
•        Originality.
Interview Criteria
•        Evidence of independent reading
•        Capacity to exchange and build on ideas
•        Clarity of thought and expression
•      Analytical ability
•        Flexibility of thought
•        Evidence of independent thinking about literature
•      Readiness and commitment to read widely with discrimination

13

Candidates will be assessed on the basis of information derived from the following
sources:
•  UCAS forms, including, in particular, personal statements, school reports,
qualifications achieved and qualifications predicted
•  Performance in the ELAT
•  Written work submitted by candidates
•  Performance in interviews
•  Comparison, in all these areas, with other candidates
Every  effort  will  be  made  to  take  into  account  the  special  needs  or  particular
circumstances of candidates in making judgements on these matters.

14

LAW

(j) Selection for Interview

1. Criteria for Selection for interview

The required standard in school leaving qualifications is as follows:

A-level

AAA in any subject except for General Studies.

Internat. Baccalaureate  38 + inc. Bonus points.
(with at least 6,6,6 in higher level papers)

European Baccalaureate An  average  of  85%  or  above,  with  scores  of  between  8
and 9 in specified subjects.

Scottish Candidates
AA  in  Advanced  Highers  plus  either  a  B  in  a  third
Advanced Higher or an A in a Standard Higher (where that
Standard Higher is in a different subject from each of the
Advanced Highers)

Required  achieved  or  predicted  grades  in  respect  of  other  qualifications  can  be
obtained online:
www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/international_applicants/internatio
nal_qualifications/index.html

If a candidate has not achieved, or is not predicted to achieve, the required standard
in  A-Level  or  equivalent  examinations  (or,  where  relevant,  in  a  first  undergraduate
degree), then, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, that candidate will not be
invited  for  interview.  It  is  often  the  practice  of  colleges  to  contact  candidates  with
missing predictions and ask for such predictions to be provided by a relevant person.

If this occurs, and such evidence is received, colleges should be aware of the
need to pass such information on to the Faculty Selection Committee (via the
Student Administration Officer: xxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xx.xx.xx) if the candidate in
question is not pre-selected.

Applications  for  standard  (ie  not  Senior  Status)  undergraduate  courses  should  be
assessed in a single gathered field, irrespective of whether the application is for a first
or a second degree. This means that 2nd BA applications no longer exist as a separate
category and hence that, if a college offers undergraduate places in a subject, it must
also consider applications from those who already have a degree.

Candidates will normally be invited for interview if they meet the following criteria:

(a)  Results  in  official  examinations  to  date,  especially  GCSE/A-
levels/examinations in the first degree, are at the highest level (Appendix
A);
(b)  The school report/reference is entirely positive and contains no negative
aspects relevant to the admission criteria (above, p.10);
(c)  Results in the Law National Admissions Test are at the highest level.

Candidates may still be invited for interview if their applications do not display
all  of  these  factors  if  the  paper  application  reveals  a  clear  and  objective
justification  for  the  shortcoming(s)  and  strong  and  convincing  alternative
evidence of the candidate’s future promise. In particular, outstanding strength
in one field may compensate for weakness in another.

These criteria are modified as necessary to apply with similar effect to candidates who
are  not  in  UK  secondary,  further  or  higher  education.  There  will  be  no  overseas

interviews  this  year,  therefore  no  overseas  interview  scores  will  be  available.  All
overseas candidates will be assessed based on the same criteria as above.

Some  non-UK  candidates  may  not  have  completed  any  formal  assessments  at  the
point of application. In the absence of existing academic qualifications, colleges are
free to adopt their own policies with regard to these candidates. Colleges should be
aware that the Faculty Selection Committee, when considering such applications, will
necessarily place particular weight on the candidate’s LNAT performance. Candidates
are encouraged to include all relevant existing academic qualifications when making
their  application.  If  colleges  receive  evidence  of  existing  academic  qualifications
beyond those mentioned in a candidate’s UCAS form, colleges should be aware of the
need to pass such information on to the Faculty Selection Committee (via the Student
Administration Officer: xxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xx.xx.xx) if the candidate in question is not
pre-selected.

2. Criteria for assessing interviews

Interview questions may include legally-related questions as well as more general
intellectual puzzles calling for analysis of a type similar to legal analysis. Many law
tutors will present candidates with a short extract from a judgment or newspaper article
(two or three sides of A4) and discuss this with them during the interview (having given
them half an hour to read the extract beforehand). Knowledge of the law, other than
such knowledge as can be learned from such an extract, if any) is not being assessed
and is irrelevant to the assessment of the interview). Interviewers will be looking for

21

evidence relevant to each of the general admissions criteria. Reflecting these criteria
in turn, high scoring interviews will normally exhibit:

(1) Application: a high degree of concentration on the matter under discussion,
free  of  distraction  and  digression,  and  a  clear  enthusiasm  for  pursuing  a
problem to its solution;

(2) Reasoning ability: thoughtful reactions to novel problems or novel versions
of a problem posed by the interviewers, an ability to maintain a line of argument
free  of  contradiction  or  equivocation  (evidence  of  which  may  include  quick
detection  by  the  candidate  of  contradictions  or  equivocations  in  what  the
interviewer or the candidate has said), and an ability to break free from a line
of thinking which is proving unproductive;

(3) Communication: clear responses carefully articulated.

Interviewers may ask questions about the candidate’s interests and enthusiasms in
order  to  ease  the  candidate  into  the  interview  proper,  or  in  order  to  assess  the
candidate’s motivation. The candidate’s general accomplishments, tastes and virtues
are irrelevant except insofar as they bear on one or more of the general admissions
criteria.

Appendix B(a): Example of Admissions assessment form

LAW ADMISSIONS
Candidate Evaluation Notes1

UCAS Form

GCSE results

A – Level predictions

Reference

Personal Statement

Disability

LNAT/Law
Faculty  Score
Written Test

Multiple Choice

Essay Part

Pre-Interview
Decision
Justification
Decision
Invite
for

Interview/pass  on  to

Faculty
Selection

Committee
(please

specify)


1 This form is provided for use in conjunction with the Faculty of Law Criteria for Admission to the BA programme
in Jurisprudence (including Law with Law Studies in Europe).

43

Appendix B(b): Example of Interview assessment form

Candidate Name:           Assessor Name:

Interview
Additional Comments
Evaluation
Score 1 - 102
Application:

Concentration
and
enthusiasm

Reasoning:

Ability  to  make  a
sustained and cogent
argument

Ability  to  distinguish
relevant
from
irrelevant

Ability  to  identify  and
explain  weaknesses
in argument

Creativity, flexibility of

thought,
lateral
thinking

Communication:

Ability  to  give  clear
and
carefully
articulated responses

Overall
evaluation

of interview3


2 Evaluation Scores: 1-2 Very poor; 3-4 Poor; 5 – 6 Average; 7-8 Good; 9-10 Very Good.
3 Please give general evaluation of interview with reference to the Faculty of Law Criteria for Admission.

44

Post-interview report form for candidates applying to
MATHEMATICS, COMPUTER SCIENCE, and JOINT SCHOOLS
Interviewing college:
Candidate's name
Interviewers
Date
Time
Course
Year
"X" and
3 yr
A-level
School name
"Y"
GCSE summary
record
predictions
statistics
---
Test
Rank &
Questions
Total
PSI
Notes
Subrank
REPORT ON INTERVIEW (for each criterion circle score in range 1 low to 9 high)
Technical (ability to manipulate mathematics, independently apply known techniques)
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]
Reasoning (clarity of logical argument, ability to argue independently)
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]
Capacity to generate new ideas and adapt known techniques
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]
Capacity to absorb new ideas and techniques
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]
Motivation and enthusiasm
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]
INTERVIEW COMMENTS
OTHER INFORMATION AFFECTING OVERALL GRADE (e.g. written submission)
Interview grade
[1 2 3 4 5 6 6+ 7– 7 7+ 8 9]
(First college only)
PROVISIONAL OVERALL GRADE
[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]
An evaluation of all the information available on the candidate, including UCAS form, test and all interviews.
Numerical grades: 9: exceptional accept, 8: accept, 7: borderline, 6: below borderline, 5: probably reject, 4: reject, <4: clear reject.

Candidate Name:

College:

Physics Admissions Interview Assessment Form

(a)  Motivation: a real interest and strong desire to learn physics

1 2     3 4 5

(b)  Ability to express physical ideas using mathematics; mathematical ability

1 2     3 4 5

(c)  Reasoning ability: ability to analyse and solve problems using logical and
critical approaches

1 2     3 4 5

(d)  Physical intuition: an ability to see how one part of a physical system connects
with others, and to predict what will happen in a given physical situation

1 2     3 4 5

(e)  Communication: ability to give precise explanations both orally and
numerically
1 2     3 4 5

Comments

    Interview number       Overall Interview Grade

1 2    3 4    5 6   7 8   9 10
Unacceptable Problematic Acceptable       Good Excellent
  D   C     BC B−   B B+ B++ AB   A−   A

Maths   Physics Total

Candidate Name:

College:

Physics Admissions Interview Assessment Form

(a)  Motivation:

   1
2
3
4
5

(b)  Mathematical
ability:
    1 2 3 4 5

(c)  Reasoning
ability:
    1 2 3 4 5

(d)  Physical
intuition:
    1 2 3 4 5

(e)  Communication:     1 2 3 4 5

Comments

    Interview number       Overall Interview Grade

1 2     3 4     5 6   7 8     9 10
Unacceptable Problematic Acceptable       Good Excellent
  D   C     BC B−   B B+ B++ AB   A−   A

Maths test   Physics test Total

PPE
4.1 Shortlisting criteria
The  criteria  for  shortlisting  for  interview  are  specified  on  the  university
webpage as follows:
“We  only  interview  those  who  have  a  realistic  chance  of  getting  in,
when  judged  by  past  and  predicted  exam  results,  school  reports,
personal  statements  and  the  pre-interview  test.  Candidates  from
overseas may be considered without interview.”

The TSA results (and the banding of candidates according to TSA) are only a
component part of making the decision to interview a candidate. Research by
Cambridge Assessment on the correlation of the TSA with prelims has shown
a correlation between the TSA and economics and philosophy prelims but not
with politics. Therefore, it is important that the TSA informs our picture of the
candidate rather than determining it. The weighting given to the information on
a candidate should be as follows:

Factor
High
Med
Low
Pre-interview Admissions Test


GCSE (or similar) profile


Predicted performance at A-level (or similar)


UCAS reference



AS level module grades


UCAS personal statement



To  achieve  consistency  of  short-listing  decisions  across  colleges,  all
applicants will be allocated to bands according to their TSA overall score, as
follows:

Band
1
Almost certainly shortlist
2
Probably shortlist
3
Marginal – use other information.
4
Probably Deselect
0
TSA score currently Unavailable;
use other information.


1 This is the ratio of interviews per place agreed for PPE under the Common Framework.

The band for each candidate will be displayed on the  ‘PPE Reserve Shortlist
and Deselect’ screen in ADSS.
In addition to the band for each candidate, each college will be given a target
number  of  applicants  to  deselect.  The  cut-off  scores  for  each  band  will  be
chosen so that, if colleges follow this shortlisting guidance, the target of  2.75
interviews  per  place  for  PPE  as  a  whole  will  be  achieved.  The  college’s
individual target will be calculated according to the number of applicants it has
in  each  band.  Each  college  must  meet  its  Deselection  target  by
deselecting the indicated number of candidates. This is a requirement for
the automatic  reallocation procedure of  candidates  to first  interviews  to  work
(see section 4.4).
Colleges that wish to interview candidates above their quota may do so,
by  rescuing  the  candidates  after  the  reallocation  has  taken  place  (section
4.5).

“Pending”.  You  should  be  able  to  change  the  status  of  a  candidate  from
“Pending”  to  “Reserved”,  “Shortlisted”  or  “Deselected”  by  clicking  on  the
appropriate blue button.
In  general,  a  college  that  has  more  than  2.75  candidates  for  interview  per
place after deselection should expect to  reallocate (export) candidates, while
a  college  with  fewer  than  2.75  should  expect  to  receive  (import)  candidates.
The expected number of imports or exports will also be displayed.
A college that expects to export candidates may Reserve some candidates as
unavailable for reallocation. Following consultation with the College Groups in
December  2007,  the  PPE  Committee  has  agreed  that  number  reserved
should be no more than 1.5 X the number of places at the college.
! De-selection  and  Reservation  decisions  must  be
entered on ADSS by 3pm Tuesday of 7th week.

! The deadline for final Rescue decisions to be entered
on ADSS is 1pm on Wednesday of 7th week.

5. Interviews and decisions
Interviews at  the first-choice  college are held between  Monday and Tuesday
of  9th  week.  Candidates  are  required  to  remain  in  Oxford  until  the
morning of Wednesday of 9th week, in case they are required for interviews
at other colleges.
5.1 Criteria for the conduct and content of interviews
Under the Common Framework it has been agreed that for PPE:
  applicants will normally have at least two interviews at their first choice
college, although some colleges may have a single longer interview
  most  colleges  will  have  a  minimum  of  two  interviewers  per  interview,
and require interviewers to have received basic interview training
  colleges  normally  wish  to  involve  tutors  from  all  three  subjects,  but
since there are no specific subject requirements, and the content of the
interviews is not subject-specific, it is not necessary to ensure this.
What  is  expected  to  happen  at  interview  is  described  on  the  university
webpage (http://www.ppe.ox.ac.uk/index.php/interviews), as follows:
“The interview is aimed primarily at assessing the candidate's potential
for  future  development.  Interviewers  will  be  looking  for  evidence  of
genuine interests and enthusiasms, and the motivation to work hard at
them.  The  candidates  should  listen  effectively,  absorbing  facts  and
ideas  presented  to  them  and  assessing  their  relevance.  They  should
be  ready  to  respond  to  problems  and  criticisms  put  to  them.  They
should  present  arguments  and  reasoning  in  a  clear  and  carefully
articulated manner.
The  interview  is  not  primarily  a  test  of  existing  knowledge,  and  in
particular,  is  not  a  test  of  philosophy,  politics  or  economics,  unless
these  subjects  have  been  followed  at  school.  The  candidates  are
expected  to  show  reasons  for  their  expressed  interests  in  PPE.
Candidates'  general  accomplishments  are  not  relevant  except  insofar
as they bear on one or more of the general admissions criteria.”
5.2 Interview scores
Up  to  three  interview  scores  can  be  entered  on  ADSS.  These  may  be
separate grades for the politics, economics, and philosophy aspects, or non-
subject-specific grades for different interviews.
! Enter first interview scores for all candidates by 5pm
on Tuesday of 9th week.

Mark scheme for interviews
Interviews  are  marked  on  a  scale  of  1-100,  and  marks  are  interpreted  as
follows:
70-100
Excellent
A mark above 70 is a strong indicator for admission
65-69
Positive
Most candidates admitted will have interview scores above 65.
60-64
Neutral

A candidate with interview and test marks consistently below 60
50-59
Weak
is in a weak position
49 or
Very poor
Interview strongly suggests that the candidate is not suitable
less

Standardization of scores
In order to improve the comparability of interview scores across colleges,  the
PPE  committee  has  agreed  to  standardize  the  individual  college’s  scores.
This is mainly to help with the allocation of Second Interviews as some tutors
had  previously  noted  that  some  Colleges  (or  subjects)  marks  deviated
significantly  from  the  pattern  elsewhere.  To  this  effect,  a  new  column
‘Interview  Stand.  Average’  has  been  added  next  to  the  previous  ‘Interview
Average’ in the relevant ADSS views (see section 5.4).
The  standardized  score  is  a  reworking  of  the  z-score  of  the  raw  average  of
interview scores. A z-score is simply:
𝑅𝑎𝑤 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 − 𝜇
𝑧
𝑐
𝑐 =
𝜎

𝑐
where 𝜇𝑐 is the mean of the raw interview average marks within each college
and 𝜎𝑐 the corresponding standard deviation. This score is dimensionless, so
ADSS reports a  re-scaled interview mark by using the mean 𝜇 and standard
deviation 𝜎 of the population of applicants (all colleges):
𝑧 = 𝑧𝑐 × 𝜎 + 𝜇
This effectively forces the standardized scores within each college to have the
same  average  and  standard  deviation  as  in  the  whole  population  of
applicants.

APPENDIX B: Admissions Criteria for PPE5
PPE tutors are looking for evidence of the following qualities in applicants:
Application  and  interest:  capacity  for  sustained  study,  motivation  and
interest, an independent and reflective approach to learning;
Reasoning  ability:  ability  to  analyse  and  solve  problems  using  logical  and
critical  approaches,  ability  to  assess  relevance,  capacity  to  construct  and
critically  assess  arguments,  flexibility  and  willingness  to  consider  alternative
views;
Communication:  willingness  and  ability  to  express  ideas  clearly  and
effectively  on  paper  and  orally;  ability  to  listen;  ability  to  give  considered
responses.
Throughout  the  admissions  process,  tutors  will  be  seeking  to  detect  the
candidate's  future  potential  as  a  PPE  student.  Existing  achievement  (as
revealed  in  official  examinations,  predicted  examination  results,  and  school
reports),  as  well  as  performance  in  the  written  test  and  interview,  is  relied
upon mainly as evidence of future potential.
Candidates  are  not  expected  to  have  studied  any  philosophy,  politics  or
economics  at  school,  but  should  be  interested  and  be  prepared  to  put  their
minds to problems of philosophy, politics and economics presented to them.
In the case of candidates whose first language is not English, competence in
the English language is also a criterion of admission.
Final  decisions  about  offers  of  places  will  use  the  full  range  of  evidence
available,  including  past  and  predicted  exam  results,  the  school  report,  the
personal  statement,  the  pre-interview  test  and  the  interviews.  Entry  is
competitive,  which  means  that  not  all  candidates  who  satisfy  the  admissions
criteria will receive offers.

5 The Admissions Criteria are publicly available on the PPE website (www.ppe.ox.ac.uk)

Document Outline