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 diversity@essex.ac.uk
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% 33.33%
40.62% 59.38%
7.52% 92.48%
57.11% 42.89%
16.15% 83.85%
56.25% 43.75% 2
39.34% 60.66%
100.00% 0.00%
53.03% 46.97%
85.91% 14.09%
38.33% 61.67%
0.00% 100.00%
100.00% 0.00%
42.14% 57.86%
80.35% 19.65%
75.00% 25.00%
59.02% 40.98%
58.51% 41.49%
38.39% 61.61%
29.17% 70.83%
0.00% 0.00%
71.35% 28.65%
66.50% 33.50%
65.00% 35.00%
54.79% 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.
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
5
81
46 49
146 283
25
1
24
0
33
1
44
1
42
96
51
2
35
57
1
27
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
82
284
57
19
273
198
18.8%
49.0%
77.6%
166 767
119
19
177
596
382
132
111
34
202
282
149
426
2,237 2,107
266
741
36
323
321
29
64
24
110
260
376
76
175
64
91
170
206
36
40
60
143
11
3
13
0
6
6,442 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
0 0
1,677 2,044
96
19
38
8
6
17
27
96
24
143
832
78
205
7
1
14
39
0
18
16
19
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%

Appendix 2: Gender split by market (fee status)
46
699
1,012
38
500
666
4,685 4,817
45%
42%
40%
51%
Diabetes
1 1
1
140
397
4
158
226
1,139 1,656
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
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
12,463 3,721

Appendix 4: Ethnicity
Other
Asian
Black
Not given
Information Refused
Other Ethnic background
Asian or Asian British -
Bangladeshi
Asian or Asian British - Indian
Asian or Asian British - Pakistani
Chinese
Other Asian background
Black or Black British - African
Black or Black British - Caribbean
Other Black background
Mixed
Mixed - White and Asian
Mixed - White and Black African
Mixed - White and Black
Caribbean
Other Mixed background
White
White
4,311
4,311
129
455
584
56
1,050
1,050
44
124
168
25
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%