Document 17964833

advertisement

STUDENT EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY STATISTICS PRO-FORMA

Under its Terms of Reference, the Equality and Diversity Committee (EADC) must ‘review existing policies, procedures and service provision in relation to equality and diversity’ and ‘agree policy in relation to equality and diversity issues’.

In order to fulfil its remit, EADC considers quantitative and qualitative equality and diversity-related information in respect of both staff and students on an annual basis.

As the responsible person for a particular area of operation of the University, or for monitoring one of the University’s Student Experience KPIs, EADC requests the completion of this pro-forma in order to help it fulfil its responsibilities.

Equality legislation groups people by ‘protected characteristics’ and it these protected characteristics you are asked to consider when completing this pro-forma.

The protected characteristics are:

disability, race, sex, age, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief and sexual orientation.

NB: The University has collected information from students in respect of disability, race, sex and age for a number of years and, with effect from the academic year 2012-13, has collected information relating to religion or belief and sexual orientation. No routine monitoring of the remaining protected characteristics takes place.

Admissions Area of operation

Name and job title of person completing proforma

Date assessment completed

Joanne Tallentire, Deputy Director (Admissions),

Communications & External Relations

29 January 2013

Q1.

What are the main responsibilities/objectives of this area of operation/KPI?

Please explain in no more than 50 words.

To provide an efficient, customer-focused admissions service to both applicants and the

University.

To meet the University’s strategic objectives to meet and, where possible and appropriate,

 exceed intake targets with well-qualified applicants.

To comply with relevant legislation and regulation, including UK Border Agency, QAA, UK fees and awards legislation, etc.

Q2

.

What policies/procedures that fall within this area of operation have been subject to an

Equality Impact Assessment this year?

None, the last Equality Impact Assessment of admissions took place in 2009.

Q3. In relation to the protected characteristics mentioned above, what key equality-related actions have been taken in the year under consideration? Please indicate where these were in response to a previously identified issue.

None

Q4. Statistical information. In relation to the protected characteristics mentioned above, please provide a profile of those students who have accessed your service, been subject to procedures relating to your area of operation, or been considered under this KPI, this year.

All applicants use the admissions service and therefore analysis is provided about all applicants for entry in October 2012. Data about undergraduate applicants whose applications are made via UCAS is attached as appendix A. Data about postgraduate applications will be sent to committee members by e-mail on Monday 4 February and tabled at the meeting on Tuesday 5 February.

Q5. Referring to the list of protected characteristics at the top of this form has any positive or negative impact on any group of people who share a protected characteristic been identified?

If yes what steps, if any, have been taken/are you intending taking to either address any negative

impact or to mirror practice to encourage a similar positive impact on other groups.

See attached report about undergraduate applicants for comments about gender and declared disability in relation to reject decisions.

Q6

.

Have there been any formal complaints made about this area of operation in relation to its effect on people who share a protected characteristic?

Please answer Yes or No.

If yes, please expand and indicate whether any action was taken/will be taken to change practice as a result.

Not to my knowledge. There is no formal complaints procedure in relation to admissions decisions, as these are academic judgements and the University’s right to determine its admissions policy is enshrined in law.

Q7

.

What feedback, positive or negative, has been received in relation to this area of operation?

Please explain how you have used/intend to use this feedback to make changes, where relevant.

There is no formal mechanism for feedback that would allow objective comment to be provided.

Q8

.

What equality-related plans, not mentioned elsewhere in this report, are in place for the coming year?

Further work to implement outstanding recommendations of the EIA of admissions, in particular the integration of the ‘Others’ admissions system into the PG admissions system. This will enable us to provide a consistent service to all direct applicants to the University and, in particular, to provide management information about applications to all types of study. However, it should be noted that, while this is one of the top three priorities for receiving MIS resource from January 2013, we have not yet articulated a detailed project plan nor started this work.

Please now submit the completed form to [email protected]

for consideration by the Equality and

Diversity Committee (EADC). EADC will assess the information provided and will either:

Request that consideration is given to identified issues by USG;

Decide that no further consideration of this information is required.

The individual completing the pro-forma will be informed of the outcome of the assessment by EADC.

EADC Response

Area of operation

Have any issues been identified that EADC would like further consideration be given to?

What, if any, are the issues identified?

Admissions

Yes

EADC questioned why there was no data relating to the age of applicants.

EADC thought it would be helpful and interesting for departmental data to be fed back to departments via Admissions Directors if this does

Date:

Signed

not already happen.

In relation to undergraduate applications from those declaring a disability, EADC noted the

‘significant increase in the percentage of applicants with disabilities rejected for October

2012 entry

’ and would find it helpful if reference is made to the outcome of further investigations into the reasons for this upward trend in next year’s report.

11 February 2013

Karen Stephenson, Secretary to EADC

Report to Equality and Diversity Committee: Undergraduate Admissions, October 2012 Entry

Overview

The information below is for all applicants to the University for October 2011 entry and focuses on applicants who were unsuccessful (rejected). The data includes all students admitted through Clearing but because of the nature of the application process used during Clearing it does not include any Clearing applications that did not result in admission.

The data shown is for admission to all full time undergraduate degree courses through UCAS, as this is the responsibility of the Undergraduate

Admissions Office. Admissions to two courses in Health and Human Sciences are handled independently and no data is provided for these. Admission to the International Foundation Year (formerly Bridging Year) is also handled independently of central Admissions, by International Academy. However,

International Foundation Year students typically apply for first year entry at Essex on successful completion and their data is therefore captured during the admissions process for first year entry. While admission to the International Diplomas in Business (formerly Certificates of Higher Education) delivered by the International Academy has, in the past, also been handled independently of Undergraduate Admissions, a change in process last year means that some were admitted via UCAS and will therefore feature in the data.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Equality Impact Assessment of Admissions and the SUMS Review of Admissions, which reported in

2009 and 2010 respectively, the central Admissions Office is currently engaged in a major in a significant project with MIS to re-structure admissions systems and processes in order to provide an equivalent service to all applicants and to improve the availability of data about admissions activity that is currently managed in devolved units.

Total number of applicants

For information, the table below shows the total number of applications rejected, by subject. Please note that an individual applicant may apply for more than one course at the University. Each instance of an application for a course is counted in the tables below and in a small number of cases data rela ting to the same applicant (individual) may therefore be included more than once. However, the effect of the ‘double-counting’ is negligible.

Applications 2012 Total

Application

Rejected % of

Applications rejected

Art History and Theory

Biological Sciences (School of)

Computer Science and Electronic Engineering (School of)

East 15 Acting School

Economics

Essex Business School

European Studies (CISH)

Government

Health and Human Sciences

History

Human Rights

Humanities (CISH)

International Academy

Language and Linguistics

Latin American Studies (CISH)

Law (School of)

Literature, Film, and Theatre Studies

Mathematical Sciences

Philosophy

Psychoanalytic Studies

Psychology

Sociology

United States Studies (CISH)

University Total

85

1705

895

2352

1046

31

3146

53

822

1523

853

11

23

771

927

11

954

887

552

417

44

942

850

121

19021

9

517

226

1357

161

16

877

3

132

1093

120

1

2

458

173

4

205

188

112

48

0

171

197

20

6090

10.6%

30.3%

25.3%

57.7%

15.4%

51.6%

1

27.9%

5.7%

16.1%

71.8%

14.1%

9.1%

8.7%

59.4%

18.7%

36.4%

21.5%

21.2%

20.3%

11.5%

0.0%

18.2%

23.2%

16.5%

32.0%

Overall the University rejected 32% of all undergraduate applicants during the October 2012 entry cycle. Rejection rates for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and

2007 were 31%, 26%, 19%, 16% and 19% respectively. The higher rejection rates in the period 20101 to 2012 are caused by two principal factors: (i) a substantial increase in applications to the University; and (b) a move towards greater selectivity in admissions decision-making. Rejection rates vary at subject level, with higher rejection rates typically occurring in subjects where the entry requirements and/or the volume of applications were particularly high.

1

Data in this row relates to applicants admitted to one of the University’s partner institutions and should be ignored.

Monitoring by Gender

The table below details the total number of applications and total number of rejections by gender split.

Applications 2012

Total apps

Total -

No gender provided

Total female apps

Total male apps

% Female of total apps

Art History and Theory 85 0 73 12 85.9%

1705 0 757 948 44.4%

% Male of total apps

14.1%

55.6% Biological Sciences (School of)

Computer Science and Electronic

Engineering (School of)

895 0 91 804 10.2% 89.8%

East 15 Acting School

Economics

Essex Business School

European Studies (CISH)

Government

Health and Human Sciences

History

Human Rights

Humanities (CISH)

International Academy

Language and Linguistics

Latin American Studies (CISH)

Law (School of)

Literature, Film, and Theatre

Studies

Mathematical Sciences

Philosophy

Psychoanalytic Studies

Psychology

Sociology

United States Studies (CISH)

University Total

2

See footnote 1

2352

1046

31

3146

53

822

1523

853

11

23

771

927

11

954

887

552

417

44

942

850

121

19021

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

1317

289

18

1379

38

425

1319

375

6

17

321

716

7

650

587

214

174

34

725

633

75

10240

1035

757

13

1765

15

397

204

478

5

6

450

211

4

303

300

337

243

10

217

217

46

8777

56.0%

27.6%

58.1%

43.8%

71.7%

51.7%

86.6%

44.0%

54.5%

73.9%

41.6%

77.2%

63.6%

68.1%

66.2%

38.8%

41.7%

77.3%

77.0%

74.5%

62.0%

53.8%

44.0%

72.4%

41.9%

56.1%

28.3%

48.3%

13.4%

56.0%

45.5%

26.1%

58.4%

22.8%

36.4%

31.8%

33.8%

61.1%

58.3%

22.7%

23.0%

25.5%

38.0%

46.1%

Total rejected

Female rejected

Male rejected

%

Female rejected

% Male rejected

9

517

226

1357

161

16

877

3

132

1093

120

1

2

458

173

4

205

188

112

48

0

171

197

20

6090

6

210

17

775

26

9

345

3

70

939

46

0

2

193

139

3

121

110

43

14

0

122

131

13

3337

3

307

209

582

135

7

532

0

62

154

74

1

0

265

34

1

84

78

69

34

0

49

66

7

2753

66.67%

40.62%

7.52%

57.11%

16.15%

56.25%

39.34%

100.00%

53.03%

85.91%

38.33%

0.00%

100.00%

42.14%

80.35%

75.00%

59.02%

58.51%

38.39%

29.17%

0.00%

71.35%

66.50%

65.00%

54.79%

33.33%

59.38%

92.48%

42.89%

83.85%

43.75%

2

60.66%

0.00%

46.97%

14.09%

61.67%

100.00%

0.00%

57.86%

19.65%

25.00%

40.98%

41.49%

61.61%

70.83%

0.00%

28.65%

33.50%

35.00%

45.21%

The table shows the University overall to have an almost equal gender split in both its applicants and rejections; this has been the case for a number of years.

There is generally a close correlation between the gender split for applicants and the gender split for those rejected. The historic popularity of some subjects with males and females is evident in the data. It is worth noting that national data now indicates that, among UK 18 years applying to University for the first time, women are now a third more likely to enter higher education than men, in fact women are more likely to enter higher education than men are to

apply

to enter higher education.

3

Monitoring by Disability

The table below gives the total number of applications with a disability declared by the applicant via the UCAS applications process. and the number of rejected applications as a number and percentage of that sub-set. Please note that 17,989 applications did not include a declared disability.

Applications with a declared disability 2012

17989 applications - No disability declared

All applications with a disability

Female Male Total

All rejected applications with a disability

Total

Females

Rejected

Total

Males

Rejected

Total

Rejected

% Applicants with Disability

Rejected

Art History and Theory

Biological Sciences (School of)

Computer Science and Electronic Engineering (School of)

East 15 Acting School

Economics

Essex Business School

European Studies (CISH)

Government

Health and Human Sciences

History

Humanities (CISH)

International Academy

Language and Linguistics

Latin American Studies (CISH)

Law (School of)

12

81

22

1

13

39

1

13

4

34

3

137

8

0

20

1

30

15

29

1

22

18

0

14

1

47

46

146

25

1

24

0

42

96

51

2

35

57

1

27

5

81

49

283

33

1

44

1

5

53

4

1

8

10

1

2

1

0

9

0

1

10

2

84

6

9

5

0

15

3

0

5

3

1

7

0

1

21

11

92

11

62

9

1

23

13

1

7

2

31

13

176

4

1

16

0

40.00%

38.27%

26.53%

62.19%

12.12%

100.00%

4

36.36%

0.00%

26.19%

64.58%

17.65%

50.00%

65.71%

22.81%

100.00%

25.93%

3

UCAS end of cycle report for 2012 entry: http://www.ucas.com/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2012/2012endofcycle

4

See footnote 1

Literature, Film, and Theatre Studies

Mathematical Sciences

Philosophy

Psychoanalytic Studies

38

5

14

2

31

15

22

0

69

20

36

2

3

2

2

0

8

6

4

0

11

8

6

0

15.94%

40.00%

16.67%

0.00%

Psychology

Sociology

35

28

14

12

49

40

3

6

2

1

5

7

10.20%

17.50%

United States Studies (CISH)

University Total

5

516

3 8

516 1032

1

208

1

201

2

409

25.00%

39.63%

Of the total number of undergraduate applicants to the University in October 2012 5.4% declared a disability compared with, 4.9%, 6% and 4.6% respectively for October 2011, 2010 and 2009 entry respectively. There is a significant increase in the percentage of applicants with disabilities rejected for October 2012 entry. This is 39.6% compared with 32.6%, 26.5% and 26% for October 2011, 2010 and 2009 entry respectively. The rejection rate for applicants with disabilities was only 17% for October 2008 entry so there is a definite upward trend, which may bear further investigation. Rejection rates have been particularly high in the last three years in the following departments, which may form a useful starting point for further analysis:

% Applicants with Disability Rejected

2012 2011

East 15 Acting School 62.2% 40.07%

2010

28.8%

Health Sciences (includes Nursing)

International Academy

64.6%

65.7%

55.38%

70.97%

58%

62.5%

It is worth noting, however, that rejection rates are relatively very high in these departments for a variety of reasons. In the case of East 15 and Nursing degrees, there is very high demand in relation to the places available. In the case of the International Academy there is a high reject because the majority of courses are not open to UK and EU applicants, but we receive high numbers of applications because UCAS does not enable us to prevent this during the first part of the admissions cycle, up to 15 January.

Gender does not appear to be a factor in the rejection of applicants with declared disabilities.

Monitoring by Ethnicity

Data on applicant ethnicity is not currently accessible at the point of application. Ethnicity data is currently received by the University as part of the HESA data requirements, for students who are registered.

Joanne Tallentire

Deputy Director (Admissions)

Communications & External Relations

29 January 2013

Report to Equality and Diversity Committee, January 2013

Graduate Admissions

– Year of Entry October 2012

Monitoring equality and diversity of admissions focuses on the proportion of total applications that were unsuccessful, i.e. rejected. In reviewing this data it is important to note that individual applicants routinely apply for more than one course, and the data presented in this report relates to

applications

and not to individual applicants. For the first time this year we have excluded applications rejected because they were incomplete even after several contacts from Graduate Admissions to encourage applicants to submit outstanding documents. The figures in the data below refer only to applications that were complete and where they were rejected, they were rejected only on academic grounds and not because they were incomplete.

Full data is attached at Appendices 1 to 4. Data is supplied for the 2012 entry cycle and exhibits broadly similar patterns as that for the 2011, 2010 and 2009 entry cycles

5

.

1. Gender

There is no significant preponderance in male or female applications in the total applicant body

(Appendix 1). In 2012 48% of complete applications were from males, and in previous years the percentage was similar: 53% (2011), 49% (2010) and 53% (2009).

However, there are more marked differences in the proportion of male and female applications by market (fee status). Appendix 2 shows that 51% of applications from overseas students were received from mail applicants whereas the figures for home and EU applicants were 40% and

42% respectively. Overseas and EU male applicants were more likely to be rejected than home students.

The gender balance of applications also varies significantly by subject area (Appendix 1), in line with the historic popularity of certain subjects with males and females. These trends are also observed at undergraduate level. Reject rates for male applications are generally in line with the proportion of applications received from males, though the figures in several subjects are too small to be statistically reliable.

Overall we see a substantially higher proportion of male applications rejected than females with

55% rejected in 2012, 57% in 2011 and 61% in each of 2010 and 2009. This figure may be influenced partly by the fact that overseas applicants, among whom male applicants represent

51%, also form a significant majority of the overall applicant pool.

2. Disability

Full data is attached at Appendix 3.

As in previous years a very small percentage of applications included a declared a disability and the distribution of applications to the categories of disability is very similar to 2011, 2010 and

2009. We have, however, seen a significant increase in the number of applications including a declared disability with 236 applications including a declared disability compared with 135 in

2011, 138 in 2010 and 123 in 2009. Given the small number of applications, a summary of the disabilities by department is not shown and it is not feasible to analyse the rejections to any meaningful statistical level. The percentage of applications declaring disability continues to be lower than for undergraduate study. The differences are likely to be influenced heavily by the fact that overseas students represent a significant majority within the postgraduate applicant pool and a significant minority in the undergraduate applicant pool.

5

Please note, however, that reports submitted to EADC in 2009 to 2011 included applications rejected because they were incomplete.

3. Ethnicity

Full data is attached at Appendix 4.

2012 represents the fourth entry cycle in which all direct applications used an online service and were asked to disclose this information routinely. The number of applications providing this information has increased substantially during this period.

In previous reports to Equality and Diversity Committee the extent of variation in the rejection rate by ethnic group was noted and the author proposed that rejection rates over 50% should be subject to close scrutiny. This figure was selected because of consistently high rejection rates in the pool of applications who declared their ethnicity as black. In 2012 entry we continue to see a higher rejection rate of 33% for black applications. However, this figure is much more closely aligned with other ethnic groups and the overall average. It is proposed that no specific action should be taken in respect of the data provided about applicants’ declared ethnicity.

Joanne Tallentire

Deputy Director (Admissions)

Communications & External Relations

4 February 2013

Appendix 1: Gender Distribution

2012 entry total no of complete applications: 12463

Art History and Theory

Biological Sciences

Computational Finance and Economic Agents

Computer Science and Electronic Engineering

(School of)

East 15 Acting School

Economics

Essex Business School

Government

Health and Human Sciences

History

Human Rights

Institute for Social and Economic Research

International Academy

Language and Linguistics

Law (School of)

Literature, Film, and Theatre Studies

Mathematical Sciences

Philosophy

Psychoanalytic Studies

Psychology

Sociology

Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust

University Campus, Suffolk

Writtle College

University Total

166

119

19

177

596

382

132

111

34

202

282

2,237

266

741

36

91

170

206

36

3

13

6,442

F

Total applications

M

Males as

% applicants

82

284

57

19

273

198

18.8%

49.0%

77.6%

767

64

24

110

260

376

76

175

64

149

426

2,107

323

321

29

40

60

143

11

0

6

6,021

82.2%

42.5%

60.2%

48.5%

54.8%

30.2%

44.6%

35.0%

55.8%

38.3%

30.4%

49.6%

36.5%

61.2%

65.3%

30.5%

26.1%

41.0%

23.4%

0.0%

31.6%

48.3%

6

7

58

129

55

18

17

5

53

76

629

46

421

1

1

34

40

0

0

0

1,677

18

16

19

Applications rejected

F M

Males as

% rejects

4

25

85

18.2%

61.0%

81.7%

28 280 90.9%

31.2%

65.3%

56.9%

62.9%

32.7%

87.5%

50.0%

70.8%

31.8%

42.7%

63.6%

51.4%

69.1%

61.5%

50.0%

29.2%

49.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

54.9%

96

19

38

8

6

17

27

96

24

143

832

78

205

7

1

14

39

0

0

0

2,044

Appendix 2: Gender split by market (fee status)

F

Total applications

M

Male %

ELQ

EU

Home

Overseas

46

699

1,012

4,685

38

500

666

4,817

45%

42%

40%

51%

Diabetes

1 1

F

1

Applications rejected

140

397

1,139

M

4

158

226

1,656

University total

6,442 6,021

48%

1,677 2,044

Key:

ELQ

– Student applying for Equivalent or Lower Qualification

EU

– Non-UK EU

Home

– UK

Overseas

– Non-EU

Appendix 3: Disability Distribution

Total applications

Applications rejected

Male %

80%

53%

36%

59%

55%

Dyslexia

84 33

Hearing Impairment

10 6

Mental Health Difficulties

17 5

Multiple Disabilities

9 3

No Disability

12,227 3,642

1 1

Personal Care Support

Uncategorized

Disabilities

Unseen

21

49

6

8

Vision Impairment

Wheelchair/Mobility

22

22

8

8

University total

12,463 3,721

Appendix 4: Ethnicity

Not Given

Other

Asian

Black

Not given

Sub-Total

Information Refused

Other Ethnic background

Sub-Total

Asian or Asian British -

Bangladeshi

Asian or Asian British - Indian

Asian or Asian British - Pakistani

Chinese

Other Asian background

Sub-Total

Black or Black British - African

Black or Black British - Caribbean

Other Black background

Mixed

Sub-Total

Mixed - White and Asian

Mixed - White and Black African

Mixed - White and Black

Caribbean

Other Mixed background

Sub-Total

White

White

Sub-Total

University total

Total applications

4,311

4,311

129

455

584

56

Applications rejected

1,050

1,050

44

124

168

25

%

Reject

19.6%

19.6%

25.4%

21.4%

22.3%

327

201

2,035

985

3,604

700

42

140

882

78

62

31

105

94

677

282

1,183

359

22

59

440

28

22

14

30.9%

24.3%

31.9%

25.0%

22.3%

24.7%

33.9%

34.4%

29.6%

33.3%

26.4%

26.2%

105

276

2,806

2,806

12,463

23

87

793

793

3,721

31.1%

18.0%

24.0%

22.0%

22.0%

23.0%

Download