Clinical Psychology Doctorate Shortlist Criteria and Admission Statistics
Dear University of Manchester,
Please can you publish your selection and shortlist criteria for the above listed course for 2025 entry.
Please provide details of the numbers of students at each stage of the shortlisting process including how many people are placed on the reserve list for an offer/place.
Where personal statements are considered please detail how these were scored providing your marking structure/criteria. Similarly, please detail your marking structure/criteria used for interview scoring.
Yours faithfully,
Bethany Scott
Dear Bethany,
I am writing to acknowledge your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 received by The University of Manchester on 07 May 2025, our reference as per the subject line.
The University will respond to your request within 20 working days.
Regards
Kim
Kim Britt l Office Administrator
Directorate of Compliance & Risk
The University of Manchester
Simon Building
Oxford Road l Manchester M13 9PL
Dear Bethany,
Thank you for your request for information received by The University of
Manchester on 7^th May 2025.
Your request was as follows:
Clinical Psychology Doctorate Shortlist Criteria and Admission Statistics
Please can you publish your selection and shortlist criteria for the above
listed course [Clinical Psychology Doctorate] for 2025 entry.
Please provide details of the numbers of students at each stage of the
shortlisting process including how many people are placed on the reserve
list for an offer/place.
Where personal statements are considered please detail how these were
scored providing your marking structure/criteria. Similarly, please detail
your marking structure/criteria used for interview scoring.
The University has now considered your request and unfortunately the
information you are seeking cannot be provided at this time. This is
because it is deemed to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the listed
exemption at Section 43 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 –
Commercial Interests. Further details of this follow in the refusal notice
below.
Refusal Notice
This Refusal Notice has been issued under Section 17 (1) of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). Under Section 1 (1) of the FOIA The University of
Manchester confirms that the information requested is held but we are
refusing to provide it in response to your request for the reasons set out
below.
Section 43 (2) – Commercial Interests
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).
We are applying Section 43 (2) as a prejudice-based exemption. We may rely
on this exemption if the disclosure would prejudice someone’s commercial
interests (including the University’s own). Commercial interests may be
prejudiced where a disclosure would be likely to:
· Damage its business reputation or the confidence that customers,
suppliers or investors may have in it
· Have a detrimental impact on its commercial revenue or threaten its
ability to obtain supplies or secure finance
· Weaken its position in a competitive environment by revealing market
sensitive information or information of potential usefulness to its
competitors.
It is the latter of these three points that The University of Manchester
feels is relevant to this request. To determine where the public interest
lies with regard to this exemption, we have previously liaised extensively
with relevant staff in the University regarding requests of this nature,
including the Director of Student Recruitment & International Development,
the Heads of Teaching, Learning and the Student Experience in Faculties as
well as the University’s Head of Student Data, Analysis and Records.
All felt that releasing information of the type requested at course level
would impact on the University’s competitive advantage and would therefore
prejudice our commercial interests. Providing information on the level of
applications, offers and enrolments at course level would give a new or
existing competitor key information about our programmes. This could
enable them to either start a new course themselves (by identifying a
perceived gap in the market which could then impact on our numbers of
applications, offers and/or acceptances) or to more aggressively compete
with us/poach from us (as they identify they could be able to gain a
bigger share of the market which could then impact on our numbers of
applications, offers and/or acceptances). Any disclosure under the FOIA is
considered as a disclosure to the world, so whereas it may not be your
intention to use the information in this way, it must be an important
factor in our considerations.
Public Interest Test
As Section 43(2) is a qualified exemption we are required to carry out a
public interest test to determine if the commercial interest is overridden
by the public interest from a release of the information concerned.
Factors in Favour of Disclosure
There is public interest in disclosing applications and offer data. To do
so would ensure that members of the public can be satisfied that the
University of Manchester is open and transparent. It may also assist
public debate with regard to the issue of student recruitment and offer
making.
Factors Against Disclosure
Universities operate in an ever and increasingly competitive environment
and as such, the University would not wish to disclose information that
would be likely to prejudice our commercial interests and our position
within this environment.
Therefore, we believe that for the reasons outlined above, the balance
lies in maintaining the exemption at this time.
Whilst we do not normally share admissions data for individual programmes
(as a result of Section 43), we do acknowledge that there is a demand for
a level of information (e.g. to assist prospective applicants) and we
share this on the website (e.g. [1]ClinPsyD Doctorate in Clinical
Psychology (2025 entry) | The University of Manchester).
You may also contact us directly if you w (e.g. [2][email address]) for
further information if required.
We are sorry we have been unable to provide all of the information you
have requested on this occasion.
If you feel that The University of Manchester has refused access to
information to which you are entitled or has not dealt with your request
appropriately under the FOIA, you have a right of appeal.
An appeal in the first instance should be directed to the Information
Governance Office at [3][email address]. You should include:
· details of your initial request
· any other relevant information
You must make this appeal within 40 working days from receipt of your
response. The University will deal with your appeal within a reasonable
time, and will inform you of the projected time scale on receipt of your
complaint. You are also welcome to contact the Information Governance
Office with informal questions about the handling of your request.
After The University’s internal appeals procedure has been exhausted, you
have a further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner’s
Office. Details of this procedure can be found at [4]www.ico.org.uk.
Kind regards,
The Information Rights Team
Information Governance Office | Directorate of Compliance and Risk
|Professional Services | G6 Christie Building | The University of
Manchester | Oxford Road | Manchester | M13 9PL| [5]www.manchester.ac.uk
References
Visible links
1. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/postg...
2. mailto:[email%20address]
3. mailto:[email%20address]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/
5. http://www.manchester.ac.uk/
Dear University of Manchester,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of your decision dated 29 May 2025, in which my Freedom of Information request was refused under Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, on the grounds of commercial interests.
My request was for the following information related to the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology programme (2025 entry):
The selection and shortlisting criteria.
The number of applicants at each stage of shortlisting, including the reserve list.
Scoring and marking frameworks used for personal statements and interviews.
Public Interest and Transparency in Academic Admissions:
As your response noted, Section 43(2) is a qualified exemption and requires a public interest test. However, the explanation provided does not adequately demonstrate how disclosure would result in specific commercial harm, nor does it weigh the very strong public interest in favour of transparency in academic selection processes—especially for a publicly funded and highly competitive training programme such as the clinical psychology doctorate.
There is significant public interest in:
Ensuring fair and transparent access to competitive educational programmes.
Enabling prospective applicants, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, to understand how applications are assessed.
Holding publicly funded institutions accountable for how decisions are made that affect access to professional careers.
Lack of Demonstrated Commercial Harm:
Your response did not clearly establish how the release of general selection criteria and scoring rubrics would prejudice the University’s commercial interests. The criteria used to assess applicants for educational qualifications, particularly when anonymised and removed from individual identifiers, are not equivalent to proprietary business data. Indeed, many UK universities routinely publish this kind of information to support widening participation and promote fairness. This is the same for the number of applicants at each stage of the process.
ICO Precedents Supporting Disclosure:
This position is strongly supported by the Information Commissioner’s Office in a number of relevant decisions:
FS50584647 – University of Cambridge (2015): The ICO found that the release of interview scoring matrices would not cause commercial harm and should be disclosed.
“The Commissioner is not persuaded that disclosure of the interview mark scheme… would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the University.”
FS50619844 – University of Oxford (2016): The ICO concluded that the public interest in transparency in admissions outweighed any minimal risk to commercial interests.
“The Commissioner considers that the public interest in promoting transparency and accountability in academic admissions outweighs any potential prejudice claimed under section 43(2).”
FS50817860 – University of Manchester (2019): The ICO ruled against the University of Manchester in relation to the refusal of internal applicant rankings, affirming that universities must show actual harm, not merely hypothetical risk.
These decisions show a clear pattern: selection criteria and how many applicants at each stage of the selection process i.e., number of applicants on the reserve list, inform access to public education and should be made available, unless the institution can show clear, specific, and evidenced commercial prejudice, which has not been done in this case.
Request for Partial Disclosure if Necessary:
If certain parts of the information are deemed commercially sensitive, I request that those portions be redacted and the remainder disclosed. For example, statistics of how many applicants at each stage of the process i.e., how many interviewed and how many placed on the reserve list for offer or general frameworks could be provided without any risk to competitive standing.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I respectfully request that you reconsider your reliance on Section 43(2) and disclose the requested information, in full or in part, in line with ICO precedents and the overarching public interest.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
Bethany A Scott
Dear Bethany,
As you have written to appeal the University of Manchester’s response to your FOI request, we will submit this for an Internal Review as per our procedures in accordance with the Act.
This will give the University the opportunity to review the response, and the data provided by a member of staff not party to the original process.
We will endeavour to provide a response to your Internal Review within 20 working days, however, please note that this is not a statutory timescale – and this date may therefore be affected by our workload and demands at the time.
Kind regards,
The Information Rights Team
Information Governance Office | Directorate of Compliance and Risk |Professional Services | G6 Christie Building | The University of Manchester | Oxford Road | Manchester | M13 9PL| www.manchester.ac.uk
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now