A100 Medicine Admission Statistics

Mr Choudhary made this Freedom of Information request to University of Leicester

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear University of Leicester,
I would like to ask for some information regarding the 2011/2012 admissions cycle. I hope you can comply with my requests as listed below.

1) How many of the students admitted were studying A Levels?
2) How many of the students admitted were international?
3) For each applicant who was unsuccessful in obtaining an
interview, can I get a list of their UKCAT score, their GCSE's, and predicted A Level results and subjects studied.
4)For each applicant who was successful in obtaining an interview, can I get a list of their UKCAT score, their GCSE's, and predicted A Level results and subjects studied.
5) Can I get a list of criteria that the interviewers looked at during the interview to determine a candidates suitability?
6) How was the interview scored? Was it a score out of 10 by each interviewer or anything along those lines?
7) For each applicant who was successful in obtaining an offer, can I get a list of their UKCAT score, their GCSE's, and predicted A Level results and subjects studied as well as their score in the interview stage?
8) I would also like any scoring or grading system used to assess interview performance and if a form or such is provided to interviewers to record performance is available
I would also kindly request this. This specific request is for this years admission cycle, ie 2012/2013.
9) Can I also get details of successful and unsuccessful
candidates that studied the IB and their various predicted results and UKCAT scores?
10) Can I get the interview scores for each successful candidate as well along with the interview scores for unsuccessful candidates in the spreadsheet requested above?
I'd like all of this information if possible to be in a spreadsheet or word format if possible. Thank you very much

Yours faithfully,

Mr Choudhary

Information Assurance Services,

Dear Mr Choudhary,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your request, dated 10th October 2012, made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please note the effective date of the request, i.e. date of receipt of your request by the University of Leicester for processing, is 10th October 2012 and that the latest date by which the University must respond under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is 7th November 2012.

I will arrange for the information to which you are entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to be supplied to you as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event within the period set out by the Act.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding your request.

Regards,

------------------------------------------------------
Paul Starkey
Senior Information Assurance Officer
Information Assurance Services
University of Leicester,
University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH,
Tel. 0116 229 7945
mailto:[email address]

Elite Without Being Elitist

Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/uniofleicester

show quoted sections

Information Assurance Services,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Choudhary,

 

With reference to your request for information dated 10th October 2012,
whilst the University is able to provide you with some of the information
requested, it is unable to provide all of the information either because
the information is not held or, in the view of the University, it is
exempt from disclosure.  The information in each of these categories is
detailed below.

 

Information the University is able to provide

 

Information in response to the following questions has been provided:

 

1) How many of the students admitted were studying A Levels? - 139

 

2) How many of the students admitted were international? – 15

 

5) Can I get a list of criteria that the interviewers looked at  during
the interview to determine a candidates suitability? – The following areas
are assessed during the multiple-mini-interview process: Verbal
communication, Written communication, Listening, Problem solving, Review
of Personal Statement

 

6) How was the interview scored? Was it a score out of 10 by each
interviewer or anything along those lines? – The students invited for
interview take part in a multiple-mini-interview process. They undertake a
number of short exercises and are given a score for each exercise and the
sum of these gives a total score for the MMI process. In the 2011/12 MMIs,
applicants undertook 6 exercises and were scored out of 10 for each
exercise, giving a total score out of 60.

 

Information not held by the University

 

8) I would also like any scoring or grading system used to assess
interview performance and if a form or such is provided to interviewers to
record performance is available I would also kindly request this. This
specific request is for this year’s admission cycle, i.e. 2012/2013.

 

we cannot provide detail on the scoring or forms used for the 2012-13
multiple mini-interviews because we do not hold it. The stations to be
used have not been created yet. It should be noted however that, if they
had been created, or if the request was for historical information, that
we would most likely consider using an exemption in order to withhold this
information given its release would give an interviewee an unfair
advantage over other interviewees.

 

General information on the interview process is available on our website,
at
[1]http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/msce/un...
and in the document on application scoring, attached.

 

 

Information exempt from disclosure under section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act

 

With reference to the following questions the information is held but in
the opinion of the University is exempt from disclosure under Section 12.
Section 12 does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the
request would exceed the appropriate limit. With regard to the University
the approximate limit is set at £450 or approximately 18 hours’ work.

 

3) For each applicant who was unsuccessful in obtaining an interview, can
I get a list of their UKCAT score, their GCSE's, and predicted A Level
results and subjects studied. - We would not be able to provide this
information. This is because the UKCAT scores and academic qualifications
of the applicants are not transcribed from their UCAS forms onto a
database. There are too many different types of equivalent academic
qualification for them to be accommodated in one spreadsheet. Instead,
applicants’ paper forms are individually scored then filed according to
their score out of 60. To reread a student’s form, extract their UKCAT and
academic qualification score and enter this onto a spreadsheet would take
approximately three minutes per student. We received approximately 2,500
applications for the A100 course in 2011/12. At three minutes per
application form, with 2,500 forms, this gives a total time taken of 7,500
minutes (2500 x 3), or 125 hours. This is in excess of the 18 hour limit.

 

4)For each applicant who was successful in obtaining an interview, can I
get a list of their UKCAT score, their GCSE's, and predicted A Level
results and subjects studied. – We would not be able to provide this
information as collating it would exceed the 18-hour limit. This is
because the UKCAT scores and academic qualifications (grade and subject)
of the applicants are not transcribed from their UCAS forms onto a
database. Instead, applicants’ paper forms are individually scored then
filed according to their score out of 60. To reread a student’s form,
extract their UKCAT and academic qualification score and enter this onto a
spreadsheet would take approximately three minutes per student. We
interviewed approximately 750 applicants for the A100 course in 2011/12.
At three minutes per application form, with 750 forms, this gives a total
time taken of 2250 minutes (750 x 3), or 37.5 hours. This is in excess of
the 18 hour limit.

 

7) For each applicant who was successful in obtaining an offer, can I get
a list of their UKCAT score, their GCSE's, and predicted A Level results
and subjects studied as well as their score in the interview stage? – We
would not be able to provide this information as collating it would exceed
the 18-hour limit. This is because the UKCAT scores and academic
qualifications (grade and subject) of the applicants are not transcribed
from their UCAS forms onto a database. Instead, applicants’ paper forms
are individually scored then filed according to their score out of 60. To
reread a student’s form, extract their UKCAT and academic qualification
score and enter this onto a spreadsheet would take approximately three
minutes per student. To include an applicant’s interview score would add
another minute per applicant, making four minutes. We made 326 offers for
places on the A100 course in 2011/12. At four minutes per student, with
326 students, this gives a total time taken of 1304 minutes (326 x 4), or
21.7 hours. This is in excess of the 18 hour limit.

 

9) Can I also get details of successful and unsuccessful candidates that
studied the IB and their various predicted results and UKCAT scores? – We
would not be able to provide this information as collating it would exceed
the 18-hour limit. This is because the UKCAT scores and academic
qualifications of the applicants are not transcribed from their UCAS forms
onto a database. There are too many different types of equivalent academic
qualification for them to be accommodated in one spreadsheet. Instead,
applicants’ paper forms are individually scored then filed according to
their score out of 60. To reread a student’s form, extract their UKCAT
score, ascertain whether they were applying with the IB and extract their
score for this and enter this onto a spreadsheet would take approximately
three minutes per student. We would have to recheck all of the
applications to ascertain whether they were applying with the IB. We
received approximately 2,500 applications for the A100 course in 2011/12.
At three minutes per application form, with 2,500 forms, this gives a
total time taken of 7,500 minutes (2500 x 3), or 125 hours. This is in
excess of the 18 hour limit.

 

 

10) Can I get the interview scores for each successful candidate as well
along with the interview scores for unsuccessful candidates in the
spreadsheet requested above? – We would not be able to provide this
information as collating it would exceed the 18-hour limit. This is
because we don’t have a spreadsheet of the applicants we received for the
A100 course in 2011/12. We would need to create a spreadsheet including
each interviewed applicant in order to fulfil this request. Creating a
spreadsheet with anonymised data for the 750 interviewed candidates and
then entering their interview scores would take approximately two minutes
per applicant, or a total of 1500 minutes (750 x 2) or 25 hours.  This is
in excess of the 18 hour limit. We could provide a range of interview
scores but these would not be linked to any other applicant data such as
academic qualification or UKCAT score.

 

If you have any concerns or wish to complain about any aspect of this
response then in the first instance please contact the University's
Freedom of Information Officer (Mr Colin Atkinson: 0116 252 2412,
[2][email address]).

 

Please be aware that it is also your legal right under Section 50 of the
Freedom of Information Act, to apply to the Information Commissioner for a
decision whether a request for information made to the University has been
dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  It should be
noted that there is a requirement that there will be no undue delay in
making the application and there is an expectation that the complainant
will have exhausted the University's internal complaints procedure.

 

Complaints to the Information Commissioner should be addressed to:

 

FoI Compliance Team (Complaints)

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

I hope you find this response helpful.  Please don't hesitate to contact
me if you have any queries regarding the above.

 

Regards,

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

Paul Starkey

Senior Information Assurance Officer

Information Assurance Services

University of Leicester,

University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH,

Tel. 0116 229 7945

mailto:[email address]

 

Elite Without Being Elitist

 

Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

 

Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/uniofleicester

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Information Assurance Services,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Regarding Question 8:
I understand that the request for the 2012/2013 entry interview form will contain sensitive information so had it existed, it would be perfectly reasonable to get an exemption. However, in place of the 2012/2013 form, I would like the form for the previous UCAS cycle including details of the interview format and what the stations were. I do not see any possible method through which the university can apply an exemption for this. I have applied the public interest test regarding this and have come to a conclusion that there is a significant public interest in disclosure and should outweigh the public interest in applying the exemption. As well as this, applying the exemption on the basis of sensitive information for the previous cycle does not have a strong standing because the information I am asking about is time sensitive, therefore one year past its publication date, it is no longer as sensitive.

With Respect to Questions 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10:

Firstly, I would like to point out that three minutes time per applicant is far longer than it should be taking. In a sample trial I ran of a number of virtual candidates statistics, recording the paper data to Excel took an average of 45 seconds per candidate. The data I recorded in the timespan was A Level (predicted) results, UKCAT score, pre interview score, interview score and offer or rejection. With all due respect, I find the 3 minute estimate to be largely inaccurate and in a worst case scenario, I will imagine it will take a minute and a half per applicant which is still a safe number.

Bearing this minute and half per applicant in mind, I will amend my request instead asking for a randomised (and anonymised) sample for the applicants to the University of Leicester with information on their A Level (predicted) results (subject choice not needed), UKCAT score (average or total), pre interview score (if applicable), interview score (if applicable) and offer or rejection. Using the 1.5 minute per applicant estimate, it works out that I can ask for the information on a sample of 720 applicants. However, to give the university time to randomise the data, I will ask for a sample of 600 applicants. The method of randomisation should be the cheapest and most time effective within reason; the only request regarding randomisation for the sample is that I want a mix of data on applicants who were either not interviewed, interviewed but rejected and interviewed and given an offer. There needs to be no other randomisation.

Thank you very much for your time. I hope my request should not be too difficult to deal with.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Choudhary

Information Assurance Services,

Dear Mr Choudhary,

Thank you for your recent email. We will deal with this in two parts. With regard to your request for the information relating to interview/stations for the previous cycle, we are treating this as a new Freedom of Information request. Please note that the reference number for this request is F685 and our deadline for responding is 30th November, although I hope we are able to respond much sooner.

With regard to the second aspect of your email, there is clearly a difference of view with regard to the amount of time that would be required to collate the data requested. As I was a party to the original decision not to disclose the information, and in accordance with the complaints procedure as set out in the University’s Freedom of Information Code of Practice, I have referred your complaint, and your revised request, to the Registrar & Secretary for review.

The University will endeavour to review your complaint as quickly as possible. In line with the Code of Practice, review of the complaint and any decision will be made within 30 working days from receipt. Where it is not possible to respond within this period you will be informed of any revised timescale and the reason for any delay.

If you have any queries or concerns regarding the process please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

------------------------------------------------------
Paul Starkey
Senior Information Assurance Officer
Information Assurance Services
University of Leicester,
University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH,
Tel. 0116 229 7945
mailto:[email address]

Elite Without Being Elitist

Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/uniofleicester

show quoted sections

The Vice-Chancellor, V.C.,

Dear Mr Choudhary

 

Firstly can I stress that this communication only relates to your new
request for information, submitted on the 3^rd November which was assigned
the reference number F685. The other aspects of your last communication
are still being dealt with as an internal review, and you will be
contacted with regard to this in due course.

 

With reference to your request for information dated 3^rd November 2012,
whilst the University does hold information relating to previous UCAS
cycles, including the interview format and stations, we consider that it
is exempt from disclosure under Section 36 (Prejudicial to the Effective
Conduct of Public Affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

 

For Section 36  to apply it must be in the reasonable opinion of a
qualified person that such disclosure would prejudice the effective
conduct of public affairs.  As Vice-Chancellor of the University, I am
designated as the ‘qualified person’.   After careful consideration, I
have formed the opinion that the information referred to above is exempt
under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as its disclosure
would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (Section
36(2)(c)).  I have reached the view that its disclosure would have the
adverse effects specified below and that the public interest in
withholding the information outweighs the public interest in its
disclosure. 

 

It may be helpful if the reasoning behind this opinion is explained in
more detail, particularly in view of the provision under section 2(2)(b)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) for the public interest in
maintaining the exemption to be weighed against the public interest in
disclosing the information:

 

1.       Knowledge of the scoring systems would give an interviewee an
unfair advantage over other interviewees.  As the stations and interviews
are similar each year, providing information on previous years would also
give a an unfair advantage.  Clearly, interviewees gaining an unfair
advantage would prejudice the University’s effective conduct of the
recruitment process.    

2.       Any unfairness in the process would result in a loss of integrity
which would be highly damaging to the reputation of the University and its
academic standing.

3.       The recruitment process is designed to identify the best
potential students.  As an institution the University’s standing depends
greatly on the calibre of students it admits to study and the standards
they achieve.  If less able students were able to obtain entry at the
expense of better qualified applicants this would result in a lowering of
achievement standards and be damaging to the standing of the University. 
 

4.       The recruitment process is also designed to ensure that potential
students have the ability to undertake the course.   Knowledge of the
scoring and grading systems could impair the proper assessment of
candidates abilities and result in unsuitably qualified applicants
obtaining a place which could result in a higher failure rate which would
be damaging to the University’s standing, be wasteful of resources, and
not in the best interests of the student.

5.       As section 36 is a qualified exemption we are required to
undertake the Public Interest Test.  In my view we can determine no
significant public interest in releasing this information.  There is,
however,  a strong public interest in the University maintaining rigorous
selection procedures and admitting the best candidates possible, and
especially so given that this request relates to the A100 medical
course.  

 

If you have any concerns or wish to complain about any aspect of this
response then in the first instance please contact the University's
Freedom of Information Officer (Mr Colin Atkinson: 0116 252 2412,
[1][email address]).

 

Please be aware that it is also your legal right under Section 50 of the
Freedom of Information Act, to apply to the Information Commissioner for a
decision whether a request for information made to the University has been
dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  It should be
noted that there is a requirement that there will be no undue delay in
making the application and there is an expectation that the complainant
will have exhausted the University's internal complaints procedure.

 

Complaints to the Information Commissioner should be addressed to:

 

FoI Compliance Team (Complaints)

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

I hope you find this response helpful.  Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have any queries regarding the above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Professor Sir Bob Burgess

 

 

 

sent by Jo Wood
Assistant Registrar
Vice-Chancellor's Office
University of Leicester
Fielding Johnson Building
University Road
Leicester
LE1 7RH
Tel : 0116 252 5353
Fax : 0116 255 8691

 

Elite Without Being Elitist

Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Follow us on Twitter [2]http://twitter.com/uniofleicester

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://twitter.com/uniofleicester

Hall, Dave,

Dear Mr Choudhary,

 

I write further to your e-mail of 3^rd November 2012 in which you lodged a
formal appeal against the University’s response to your FOI request dated
10^th October 2012.  In accordance with University policy and its Freedom
of Information Code of Practice, I have now considered your appeal and my
decision is detailed below.

 

Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act allows a public authority
to refuse to comply with a request for information where the cost of
compliance is estimated to exceed a set limit known as the appropriate
limit. Regulation 3 of the Fees Regulations states that the appropriate
limit for Universities is £450 and that all public bodies should calculate
the time spent on the permitted activities at the flat rate of £25 per
person per hour. £450/£25 = 18 hours.  The fees regulations quote the
following as permitted activities; determining whether the information is
held; locating the information, or a document containing it; retrieving
the information, or a document containing it; and extracting the
information from a document containing it.

 

You do not dispute the use of Section 12(1) and the appropriate limit,
your complaint relates to our estimate of the amount of time required to
locate and extract the information required.  You claim that you have run
a sample trial of extracting/collating information that disproves our
assertion that  a minimum of three minutes would be required to extract
the data of a single applicant.  Having considered your evidence I find it
unlikely that during your trial you will have been able to replicate
exactly the process of location and extraction without detailed knowledge
of the physical set-up of the relevant office, the filing systems, and the
staff undertaking this work.  As such, your calculation will not be an
accurate estimation of the time needed to fulfil your request.  Having
considered the evidence supplied by the Medical School I find I must agree
with their judgement given that they have working knowledge of the systems
and skills that have been taken into account in arriving at the 3+ minute
figure.

 

As I have upheld both the use of Section 12(1) and the calculations of the
Medical School, it will not be possible to supply you with a reduced
sample of even 600 applicants within the 18 hour time period.

 

The matter is now further complicated as the Medical School have made
separate student files for the successful 2011-12 applicants who have
taken up places and started the course, which means it would now take
longer to collate information for these students.  The student files are
in a shelving system, stored alphabetically, in a different part of the
office from the boxed files of the unsuccessful candidates.  To retrieve
the information from these students it would be necessary to identify the
first year students’ files, take the file out of the shelving, extract the
student’s UCAS form from the back of the file and transcribe their scores,
and then put the files back.  In addition, unsuccessful applicants’ files
have now been archived.  As there is no single database that holds the
full range of information on all candidates, it would be necessary to
cross-reference different databases, spreadsheets and forms thus adding to
the time.

 

However, taking the above into account we estimate that we would be able
to provide a sample of 300 applicants within the 18 hour timescale.  If
you would be happy to accept this can you please email our Information
Assurance team via the [1][email address] address and they will process this
request.

 

This completes the University of Leicester's response to your appeal.

 

May I take this opportunity of reminding you that it is also your legal
right under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act, to apply to the
Information Commissioner for a decision whether a request for information
made to the University has been dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of the Act.  It should be noted that there is a requirement
that there will be no undue delay in making the application and there is
an expectation that the complainant will have exhausted the University's
internal complaints procedure.

 

Complaints to the Information Commissioner should be addressed to:

 

FOI Compliance Team (Complaints)

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

David Hall

Registrar and Secretary

University of Leicester

Leicester LE1 7RH

 

Tel: +44(0)116 252 2411

Email: [2][email address]

[3]www.le.ac.uk

 

Twitter [4]http://twitter.com/DaveHall9

 

Elite without being elitist

 

Times Higher Award Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.le.ac.uk/
4. http://twitter.com/DaveHall9