We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Toby Bowman please sign in and let everyone know.

Admissions Statistics for 2022 UCAS Cycle

We're waiting for Toby Bowman to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear University College London,

Please can you provide undergraduate admissions data for the 2022 UCAS application cycle.

This should be:
Broken down by individual undergraduate degrees
Presented in a spreadsheet

and should include:
The number of offers made of each individual type (i.e. the number of A*A*A* offers made for Archaeology, the number of A*AA offers made for Archaeology, etc.) for each undergraduate degree UCL offered in 2022, including both A Level and International Baccalaureate offers for each degree.

The actual grades secured by offer holders who went on to enrol, divided in the same way (i.e. 27 students achieved A*A*A*A, 5 students achieved A*AA etc.) for each degree.

The total number of students who enrolled in each degree, divided by degree.

The total number of students who applied to each degree, divided by degree.

Thank you for your time and efforts,

Finance.FOI Requests, University College London

If you have submitted a Freedom of Information request please accept this
email as acknowledgement that your request has been received. You should
expect a response from us within 20 working days. 

For details on how we use your personal information, please see UCL's
general privacy
notice: [1]www.ucl.ac.uk/legal-services/privacy/general-privacy-notice

Data Protection Office
Office of General Counsel 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/legal-services/pri...

Temrawi, Layal, University College London

 

Dear Toby

 

Thank you for your request dated 13 November 2023.

 

We have completed the compilation of information in response to your
request the following information in relation to undergraduate admissions
data for the 2022 UCAS application cycle.

 

We have completed our analysis of the information requested and we can
confirm that we do hold information of the description specified in your
request, however the information requested is exempt from disclosure
because they are available to you at a cost from UCAS Exact and JISC/
Higher Education Statistics Agency’s (HESA).

 

The information requested is exempt from disclosure on the basis of
Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) – Commercial
Interests.

 

Section 43(2) states that:

 

“Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would,
or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person
(including the public authority holding it).”

 

This information has been withheld owing to the prejudice that would occur
to UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s, commercial interests on account of the
provision of such specific and bespoke statistics being part of these
entities’ commercial activity.

 

Section 43(2) is a qualified exemption, and as such, a public interest
test must be performed to establish the harm that would occur from
disclosure, and where the balance of interest lies.  Please see below for
the outcome of this public interest test.

 

Public interest test for the application of Section 43(2):

 

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

 

• There is an inherent public interest in ensuring openness,
transparency and accountability with regards to UCL’s quantitative
information.

 

Arguments against disclosure:

 

• UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA both provide Higher Education statistics to
members of the public, and they provide these services at a cost.
• UCL already provides general statistics for free to members of the
public in the interests of transparency.  If UCL were to also provide
its statistics for very specific and bespoke requests, no one
interested in UCL’s statistics would use UCAS Exact or JISC/HESA.
• UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s provision of Higher Education statistics
are their commercial activity.  To disclose specific and bespoke
statistics which support UCAS Exact and/or JISC/HESA’s commercial
activity would prejudice their commercial position. 
• Undermining UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s positions in this way would in
turn be likely to have a detrimental impact on UCAS Exact and
JISC/HESA’s commercial revenue.  Such an impact would prejudice UCAS
Exact and JISC/HESA’s core business functions and even undermine their
abilities to fulfil their respective roles, which is not in the public
interest.

 

Outcome of public interest test:

 

• On this occasion, we consider that the public interest arguments
against disclosure outweigh those for disclosure in this instance.

 

We are sorry that we are unable to provide you with the information you
have requested.

 

The data you have requested in relation to applications can be found on
UCAS Exact’s website via the following link:
[1]https://www.ucas.com/providers/our-produ...
. Similarly, the data you have requested in relation to the enrolled
students can be found on HESA’s website via the following link:
[2]https://www.hesa.ac.uk/.

 

If you are unhappy with our response to your request and wish to make a
complaint or request a review of our decision, please email
[3][email address]. Emails should include the words ‘Internal
Review’ in the subject and be marked For the Attention of the
Vice-President (Operations), alternatively you should write to:

 

Vice-President (Operations)

University College London

Gower Street

London

WC1E 6BT

 

Please note, complaints and requests for internal review received more
than two months after the initial decision will not be handled.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner by using the following web
address: [4]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints. You should do this within two
months of our final decision.

 

If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me using the details
provided in this letter and including the request reference number.

 

Further information on the Freedom of Information Act is available from
the Information Commissioner’s Office:

 

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

SK9 5AF

 

0303 123 1113

[5]https://ico.org.uk/

 

Kind regards,

 

Layal Temrawi

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Adviser

University College London

Legal Services

E: [6][email address] Data Protection: [7][email address]
FOI: [8][UCL request email].

Telephone: +44 (0)203 108 7862 (internal 57862)

 

Working hours: Please note that I work from home on Mondays.

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ucas.com/providers/our-produ...
2. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
5. https://ico.org.uk/
6. mailto:[email address]
7. mailto:[email address]
8. mailto:[UCL request email]

Dear Temrawi, Layal,

I am in the process of drafting a formal complaint as I believe there is a substantive case for public interest and against commercial interests (to be elaborated therein), and claims of exemption from paid availability of the data are spurious in view of Section 21(3) - however none of the email links provided in your response are working.

Please can you provide a valid, working, email address for the Vice President (Operations) at UCL so that I may contact them with my complaint?

Yours sincerely,

Toby Bowman

Temrawi, Layal, University College London

Dear Toby

Thank you for your email.

I would like to apologise for the oversight in my initial email. Please forward your email to [email address] . Please note that we are treating your complaint as an internal review, and someone will be in touch with you in due course.

Kind regards

Layal Temrawi
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Adviser
University College London
Legal Services
Data Protection: [email address] FOI: [UCL request email]

show quoted sections

Chapple, Aimie, University College London

1 Attachment

Dear Toby,

 

We have thoroughly investigated the internal review.

 

Attached is a letter outlining the relevant actions that currently being
undertaken.

 

Kind regards,

 

Aimie Chapple | Vice-President (Operations)

t: +44 (0) 20 3549 5076

 

I am sending this at a time that is best for me, please feel free to
respond at a time that is best for you.

 

 

 

 

Dear Aimie Chapple,

Thank you for your response.

WhatDoTheyKnow.com has censored your email address - and my complaint shall be registered here instead.

UCL's primary ground for refusing my request is " the prejudice that would occur to UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s, commercial interests on account of the provision of such specific and bespoke statistics being part of these entities’ commercial activity."

If this is the case, and the sole commercial interest purportedly impacted by this request is the interest of UCAS Exact, this also seems irrelevant. UCAS Exact is explicitly a service provided to UCAS's "Partners" - according to UCAS Exact, this means Businesses and Universities. Members of the public are not included in the service recipients for this service - further evidenced by the fact that UCAS Exact fees run into many thousands of pounds, far beyond what might ever be deemed a reasonable fee under the terms of the Act. UCAS Exact provides these data alongside countless other data not required in this request, and to equate UCAS Exact's services to a FOI request seems unreasonable. This FOI request does not represent even a fraction of the data and insights generated by UCAS Exact, and would not represent any kind of competition. The capability of UCAS Exact to generate income from businesses and universities would be unaffected by members of the public having access to admissions data which is freely available from all other universities, and which is not representative of UCAS Exact's product.

It is for this reason that other universities in the UK freely give out this information to members of the public through the medium of Freedom of Information requests - including requests which are of similar scope to the request which this complaint is the subject of.

UCL "must show that because [the information] is commercially sensitive, disclosure would be, or would be likely to be, prejudicial to the commercial activities of a person (an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity)". I maintain that any commercial sensitivity has not been demonstrated, let alone proven "likely", for the data requested.

If the claim of commercial interest was incomplete or incorrectly filled out and the commercial interests are not that of JISC/HESA or UCAS Exact but instead those of UCL - the withholding of this data cannot be adequately demonstrated to represent a commercial interest, given the widespread availability of such data (and in response to the same requests) from other universities in the same bracket, city, or country.

The public interest test leveraged in UCL's refusal to comply is similarly insufficient. It should factor the additional argument in favour of disclosure that admissions transparency will "protect the public from unsafe products or dubious practices" within the higher education industry. Said test should also factor in the fact that any prejudice towards UCAS Exact's commercial interests is not, in fact, likely - given the vast differences between the subject of the request and their product, UCAS Exact's explicitly business-based clientele, and the unreasonable costs for access to the data for members of the public. I would also like this test to be carried out with the consideration that similarly competitive universities have conducted their own public interest tests with substantially different findings to UCL's, and this difference, if maintained, would require further explanation.

In terms of outcomes of this complaint, I would like my request to be honoured, and for the data to be provided to me - as the exemption under section 43 is invalid. In the event that UCL chooses to conduct a second public interest test anyway, despite section 43 being found invalid, I would like it to be conducted with a reappraisal of the scale of arguments in favour of disclosure as outlined above, and with a suitable re-evaluation of the scale of conflict between UCAS Exact's commercial interests, and providing data to individual students or parents.

Kind regards

Toby Bowman

Potts, Alexandra, University College London

Dear Mr Bowman,

 

Thank you for your email. I am looking into this and will respond to you
shortly.

 

Kind regards

 

Alexandra

 

Alexandra Potts

Chief Privacy Officer

Data Protection Officer

Head of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Team

Data Protection Office

Office of General Counsel

 

UCL (University College London)

The Times and the Sunday Times University of the Year 2024

 

Office phone: 020 3108 7676 (internal ext 57676)

[mobile number]

[1][email address]

 

Wednesday is my non-working day

 

Confidentiality and Legal Privilege: The contents of this email and its
attachment(s) are confidential to the intended recipient and may be
legally privileged. They are not to be disclosed, copied, forwarded, used
or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee. If you
believe that you have received the e-mail and its attachment(s) in error,
you must not take any action based on them and you must not copy or show
them to anyone. Please respond to the sender and delete this email and its
attachment(s) from your system.

 

  

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

From: Toby Bowman <[2][FOI #1047728 email]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 2:29:52 PM
To: Chapple, Aimie <[3][email address]>
Subject: Re: FOI 023-864 Internal Review

 

⚠ Caution: External sender

Dear Aimie Chapple,

Thank you for your response.

[4]WhatDoTheyKnow.com has censored your email address - and my complaint
shall be registered here instead.

UCL's primary ground for refusing my request is " the prejudice that would
occur to UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s, commercial interests on account of
the provision of such specific and bespoke statistics being part of these
entities’ commercial activity."

If this is the case, and the sole commercial interest purportedly impacted
by this request is the interest of UCAS Exact, this also seems irrelevant.
UCAS Exact is explicitly a service provided to UCAS's "Partners" -
according to UCAS Exact, this means Businesses and Universities. Members
of the public are not included in the service recipients for this service
- further evidenced by the fact that UCAS Exact fees run into many
thousands of pounds, far beyond what might ever be deemed a reasonable fee
under the terms of the Act. UCAS Exact provides these data alongside
countless other data not required in this request, and to equate UCAS
Exact's services to a FOI request seems unreasonable. This FOI request
does not represent even a fraction of the data and insights generated by
UCAS Exact, and would not represent any kind of competition. The
capability of UCAS Exact to generate income from businesses and
universities would be unaffected by members of the public having access to
admissions data which is freely available from all other universities, and
which is not representative of UCAS Exact's product.

It is for this reason that other universities in the UK freely give out
this information to members of the public through the medium of Freedom of
Information requests - including requests which are of similar scope to
the request which this complaint is the subject of.

UCL "must show that because [the information] is commercially sensitive,
disclosure would be, or would be likely to be, prejudicial to the
commercial activities of a person (an individual, a company, the public
authority itself or any other legal entity)". I maintain that any
commercial sensitivity has not been demonstrated, let alone proven
"likely", for the data requested.

If the claim of commercial interest was incomplete or incorrectly filled
out and the commercial interests are not that of JISC/HESA or UCAS Exact
but instead those of UCL - the withholding of this data cannot be
adequately demonstrated to represent a commercial interest, given the
widespread availability of such data (and in response to the same
requests) from other universities in the same bracket, city, or country.

The public interest test leveraged in UCL's refusal to comply is similarly
insufficient. It should factor the additional argument in favour of
disclosure that admissions transparency will "protect the public from
unsafe products or dubious practices" within the higher education
industry. Said test should also factor in the fact that any prejudice
towards UCAS Exact's commercial interests is not, in fact, likely - given
the vast differences between the subject of the request and their product,
UCAS Exact's explicitly business-based clientele, and the unreasonable
costs for access to the data for members of the public. I would also like
this test to be carried out with the consideration that similarly
competitive universities have conducted their own public interest tests
with substantially different findings to UCL's, and this difference, if
maintained, would require further explanation.

In terms of outcomes of this complaint, I would like my request to be
honoured, and for the data to be provided to me - as the exemption under
section 43 is invalid. In the event that UCL chooses to conduct a second
public interest test anyway, despite section 43 being found invalid, I
would like it to be conducted with a reappraisal of the scale of arguments
in favour of disclosure as outlined above, and with a suitable
re-evaluation of the scale of conflict between UCAS Exact's commercial
interests, and providing data to individual students or parents.

Kind regards

Toby Bowman

show quoted sections

Potts, Alexandra, University College London

Dear Mr Bowman,

 

This is a quick update to say I am still looking into this complaint and
hope to get a response to you this week.

 

I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

 

Kind regards

 

Alexandra

 

Alexandra Potts

Chief Privacy Officer

Data Protection Officer

Head of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Team

Data Protection Office

Office of General Counsel

 

UCL (University College London)

The Times and the Sunday Times University of the Year 2024

 

Office phone: 020 3108 7676 (internal ext 57676)

[mobile number]

[1][email address]

 

Wednesday is my non-working day

 

Confidentiality and Legal Privilege: The contents of this email and its
attachment(s) are confidential to the intended recipient and may be
legally privileged. They are not to be disclosed, copied, forwarded, used
or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee. If you
believe that you have received the e-mail and its attachment(s) in error,
you must not take any action based on them and you must not copy or show
them to anyone. Please respond to the sender and delete this email and its
attachment(s) from your system.

 

 

 

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

From: Toby Bowman <[2][FOI #1047728 email]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 2:29:52 PM
To: Chapple, Aimie <[3][email address]>
Subject: Re: FOI 023-864 Internal Review

 

⚠ Caution: External sender

Dear Aimie Chapple,

Thank you for your response.

[4]WhatDoTheyKnow.com has censored your email address - and my complaint
shall be registered here instead.

UCL's primary ground for refusing my request is " the prejudice that would
occur to UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s, commercial interests on account of
the provision of such specific and bespoke statistics being part of these
entities’ commercial activity."

If this is the case, and the sole commercial interest purportedly impacted
by this request is the interest of UCAS Exact, this also seems irrelevant.
UCAS Exact is explicitly a service provided to UCAS's "Partners" -
according to UCAS Exact, this means Businesses and Universities. Members
of the public are not included in the service recipients for this service
- further evidenced by the fact that UCAS Exact fees run into many
thousands of pounds, far beyond what might ever be deemed a reasonable fee
under the terms of the Act. UCAS Exact provides these data alongside
countless other data not required in this request, and to equate UCAS
Exact's services to a FOI request seems unreasonable. This FOI request
does not represent even a fraction of the data and insights generated by
UCAS Exact, and would not represent any kind of competition. The
capability of UCAS Exact to generate income from businesses and
universities would be unaffected by members of the public having access to
admissions data which is freely available from all other universities, and
which is not representative of UCAS Exact's product.

It is for this reason that other universities in the UK freely give out
this information to members of the public through the medium of Freedom of
Information requests - including requests which are of similar scope to
the request which this complaint is the subject of.

UCL "must show that because [the information] is commercially sensitive,
disclosure would be, or would be likely to be, prejudicial to the
commercial activities of a person (an individual, a company, the public
authority itself or any other legal entity)". I maintain that any
commercial sensitivity has not been demonstrated, let alone proven
"likely", for the data requested.

If the claim of commercial interest was incomplete or incorrectly filled
out and the commercial interests are not that of JISC/HESA or UCAS Exact
but instead those of UCL - the withholding of this data cannot be
adequately demonstrated to represent a commercial interest, given the
widespread availability of such data (and in response to the same
requests) from other universities in the same bracket, city, or country.

The public interest test leveraged in UCL's refusal to comply is similarly
insufficient. It should factor the additional argument in favour of
disclosure that admissions transparency will "protect the public from
unsafe products or dubious practices" within the higher education
industry. Said test should also factor in the fact that any prejudice
towards UCAS Exact's commercial interests is not, in fact, likely - given
the vast differences between the subject of the request and their product,
UCAS Exact's explicitly business-based clientele, and the unreasonable
costs for access to the data for members of the public. I would also like
this test to be carried out with the consideration that similarly
competitive universities have conducted their own public interest tests
with substantially different findings to UCL's, and this difference, if
maintained, would require further explanation.

In terms of outcomes of this complaint, I would like my request to be
honoured, and for the data to be provided to me - as the exemption under
section 43 is invalid. In the event that UCL chooses to conduct a second
public interest test anyway, despite section 43 being found invalid, I
would like it to be conducted with a reappraisal of the scale of arguments
in favour of disclosure as outlined above, and with a suitable
re-evaluation of the scale of conflict between UCAS Exact's commercial
interests, and providing data to individual students or parents.

Kind regards

Toby Bowman

show quoted sections

Potts, Alexandra, University College London

2 Attachments

Dear Toby

  

I am writing in response to your complaint in relation to your Freedom of
Information request of 13 November 2023, for information in relation to
the undergraduate admissions data for the 2022 UCAS application cycle.

 

I have reviewed the responses previously provided. UCL does still believe
it is entitled to rely on the exemption in section 43 (2). Nevertheless, I
have reviewed whether it is possible to disclose some of the information
to you, notwithstanding our view that we can rely on the 43 (2) exemption.

 

Having reviewed the information held again, we can provide the following
information:

 

 1. The total number of students who enrolled in each degree, divided by
degree.
 2. The total number of students who applied to each degree, divided by
degree.

 

This information is provided in the attached tables. Please note, the
document containing details of students who enrolled is labelled as
‘Entrants’ and the document containing details of students who applied is
labelled as ‘Applicants’.

 

As you will see within the table, we have withheld information requested
which relates to 5 or fewer individuals (represented as ≤5).

 

This information has been withheld because, with such low numbers, even
providing the information without names, there is a risk the individuals
may be identifiable which means that these are personal data of third
parties, or if linked with other personal identifiers in the public
domain, would be likely to become personal data.  This information has
been withheld under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) by virtue of Section 40(3A)(i).

 

Section 40(2) of the FOIA allows a public authority to withhold
information under the FOIA where (i) the requested information is personal
data relating to someone other than the requester, and (ii) its disclosure
would breach any of the Data Protection principles.  In this case, we
believe that the requested information could relate to and identify
individuals and therefore would be personal data.  The disclosure of these
personal data would not be within the reasonable expectations of the
individuals concerned and it would be unfair to do so; this therefore
breaches the first Data Protection principle.

 

As the Section 40(2) exemption is an absolute one, there is no need to
conduct a public interest test.

 

We can confirm that we do hold the remainder of the information of the
description specified in your request, however, from our preliminary
assessment, we estimate that compliance with your request would exceed the
appropriate costs limit under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA), which is currently set at £450 (equivalent to 18 hours work)
by virtue of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate
Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

 

Section 12 states that:

 

“Section 1(1) 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.”

 

The Section 12(1) exemption applies because your request requires UCL to
link a series of text items representing A level and IB grades to
construct a string for every UG offer holder (these are approximately
23,000 offer holders per year). To write the script that would do this
reliably, and to account for the possible variation in how A level grade
data is passed to UCL by UCAS could take over several weeks to produce.
This would take us over the required limit in section 12 of 18 hours to
locate and extract the information requested. We are sorry we cannot
provide the requested information to you.

 

You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including
for non-commercial research purposes. The information may also be used for
the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example by publishing or issuing copies to the public, will require the
permission of the copyright owner.

 

If you are not content with this further review of your request, you may
complain directly to the Information Commissioner by using the following
web address: [1]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints. You should do this within
two months of our final decision.

 

Kind regards

 

Alexandra

 

 

Alexandra Potts

Chief Privacy Officer

Data Protection Officer

Head of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Team

Data Protection Office

Office of General Counsel

 

UCL (University College London)

The Times and the Sunday Times University of the Year 2024

 

Office phone: 020 3108 7676 (internal ext 57676)

[mobile number]

[2][email address]

 

Wednesday is my non-working day

 

Confidentiality and Legal Privilege: The contents of this email and its
attachment(s) are confidential to the intended recipient and may be
legally privileged. They are not to be disclosed, copied, forwarded, used
or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee. If you
believe that you have received the e-mail and its attachment(s) in error,
you must not take any action based on them and you must not copy or show
them to anyone. Please respond to the sender and delete this email and its
attachment(s) from your system.

 

 

 

 

 

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

From: Toby Bowman <[3][FOI #1047728 email]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 2:29:52 PM
To: Chapple, Aimie <[4][email address]>
Subject: Re: FOI 023-864 Internal Review

 

⚠ Caution: External sender

Dear Aimie Chapple,

Thank you for your response.

[5]WhatDoTheyKnow.com has censored your email address - and my complaint
shall be registered here instead.

UCL's primary ground for refusing my request is " the prejudice that would
occur to UCAS Exact and JISC/HESA’s, commercial interests on account of
the provision of such specific and bespoke statistics being part of these
entities’ commercial activity."

If this is the case, and the sole commercial interest purportedly impacted
by this request is the interest of UCAS Exact, this also seems irrelevant.
UCAS Exact is explicitly a service provided to UCAS's "Partners" -
according to UCAS Exact, this means Businesses and Universities. Members
of the public are not included in the service recipients for this service
- further evidenced by the fact that UCAS Exact fees run into many
thousands of pounds, far beyond what might ever be deemed a reasonable fee
under the terms of the Act. UCAS Exact provides these data alongside
countless other data not required in this request, and to equate UCAS
Exact's services to a FOI request seems unreasonable. This FOI request
does not represent even a fraction of the data and insights generated by
UCAS Exact, and would not represent any kind of competition. The
capability of UCAS Exact to generate income from businesses and
universities would be unaffected by members of the public having access to
admissions data which is freely available from all other universities, and
which is not representative of UCAS Exact's product.

It is for this reason that other universities in the UK freely give out
this information to members of the public through the medium of Freedom of
Information requests - including requests which are of similar scope to
the request which this complaint is the subject of.

UCL "must show that because [the information] is commercially sensitive,
disclosure would be, or would be likely to be, prejudicial to the
commercial activities of a person (an individual, a company, the public
authority itself or any other legal entity)". I maintain that any
commercial sensitivity has not been demonstrated, let alone proven
"likely", for the data requested.

If the claim of commercial interest was incomplete or incorrectly filled
out and the commercial interests are not that of JISC/HESA or UCAS Exact
but instead those of UCL - the withholding of this data cannot be
adequately demonstrated to represent a commercial interest, given the
widespread availability of such data (and in response to the same
requests) from other universities in the same bracket, city, or country.

The public interest test leveraged in UCL's refusal to comply is similarly
insufficient. It should factor the additional argument in favour of
disclosure that admissions transparency will "protect the public from
unsafe products or dubious practices" within the higher education
industry. Said test should also factor in the fact that any prejudice
towards UCAS Exact's commercial interests is not, in fact, likely - given
the vast differences between the subject of the request and their product,
UCAS Exact's explicitly business-based clientele, and the unreasonable
costs for access to the data for members of the public. I would also like
this test to be carried out with the consideration that similarly
competitive universities have conducted their own public interest tests
with substantially different findings to UCL's, and this difference, if
maintained, would require further explanation.

In terms of outcomes of this complaint, I would like my request to be
honoured, and for the data to be provided to me - as the exemption under
section 43 is invalid. In the event that UCL chooses to conduct a second
public interest test anyway, despite section 43 being found invalid, I
would like it to be conducted with a reappraisal of the scale of arguments
in favour of disclosure as outlined above, and with a suitable
re-evaluation of the scale of conflict between UCAS Exact's commercial
interests, and providing data to individual students or parents.

Kind regards

Toby Bowman

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Toby Bowman please sign in and let everyone know.