School Report Client Name: Rosehill College Report Type: Progression Report Cycles Included: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Technical Notes and Definitions Note: Provider Tariff Group This report classifies higher education providers by tariff group instead of Mission Group, in line with standard UCAS analytical reporting. The tariff grouping of providers is based on the average levels of attainment of their accepted applicants (summarised through UCAS Tariff points) in a period of application cycles spanning from 2004 to 2011. Each group of providers accounted for around a third of all UK 18 year old acceptances in these cycles, with the following categories: 'Higher tariff', 'Medium tariff', 'Lower tariff'. Note: Graph Clarity and Small Numbers Graph lines are only plotted where the mean number of applicants or applications over 5 years is above 10 in order to maintain clarity. If no lines meet the criteria then no lines are plotted. Note: Offers and Acceptances 'Offer (application level)' refers to main scheme applications that resulted in an offer. 'Offer (applicant level)' refers to applicants who received at least one offer from their main scheme applications. Note: Provider Decisions When a provider receives an application, they can respond with a 'Conditional' offer, an 'Unconditional' offer, or they can make no offer resulting in an 'Unsuccessful' application. Applications that are not in any of these states, including those for which a decision has not be made, are grouped under 'Other'. Note: Applicant Replies When an applicant receives an offer, they may set it as their 'Firm' choice, their 'Insurance' choice or they may 'Decline' it. Offers still awating a reply or which have been cancelled are grouped under 'Other'. Note: Applicants and Buzz Words An applicant is only assigned to a school if they used that school's buzz word when making an application. Note: Glossary A glossary page is located at the end of the report. School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 1
1. Summary 1.1 - Offer and Acceptance Rates Graph Offer and acceptance rates of the applicants Offer Rate Acceptance Rate 95% 90% 85% Rate 80% 75% 70% 65% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1.2 - Summary Statistics Rates Table Offer and acceptance rates of the applicants Statistic 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Offer Rate 83.6% 87.8% 82.6% 85.8% 91.2% Acceptance Rate 69.9% 79.9% 69.5% 78.5% 75.1% 1.3 - Summary Statistics Data Table Summary statistics of applicants, offers, and acceptances Statistic 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Applicants 186 194 200 205 205 Main Scheme Applicants 177 180 184 190 193 Applications Made 745 751 782 804 823 Applicants Offered 148 158 152 163 176 Total Offers 442 473 490 541 552 Acceptances 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 2
2. Acceptance Route 2.1 - Acceptance Route Proportion Graph The proportion of applicant acceptances by acceptance route Adjustment Clearing (Direct) Clearing (Main Scheme) Extra Firm Choice Insurance Choice Other Main Scheme RPA 80% 70% 60% 50% Proportion 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2.2 - Acceptance Route Proportion Table The proportion of applicant acceptances by acceptance route Route 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Adjustment 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Firm Choice 73.8% 70.3% 70.5% 77.0% 76.6% Insurance Choice 6.2% 8.4% 7.9% 6.2% 5.8% Extra 2.3% 0.6% 1.4% 1.9% 0.6% Clearing (Main Scheme) 10.0% 9.0% 10.8% 5.6% 6.5% Clearing (Direct) 2.3% 5.8% 2.2% 3.1% 3.9% Other Main Scheme 2.3% 3.2% 1.4% 2.5% 3.2% RPA 2.3% 2.6% 5.8% 3.7% 3.2% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 3
2.3 - Acceptance Route Data Table The number of applicant acceptances by acceptance route Route 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Adjustment 1 0 0 0 0 Firm Choice 96 109 98 124 118 Insurance Choice 8 13 11 10 9 Extra 3 1 2 3 1 Clearing (Main Scheme) 13 14 15 9 10 Clearing (Direct) 3 9 3 5 6 Other Main Scheme 3 5 2 4 5 RPA 3 4 8 6 5 Total Acceptances 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 4
3. Provider Decisions 3.1 - Provider Decisons Proportion Graph The proportion of main scheme applications by decision status Conditional Unconditional Unsuccessful Other 70% 60% 50% Proportion 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 3.2 - Provider Decisions Proportion Table The proportion of main scheme applications by decision status Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Conditional 52.3% 57.3% 54.1% 60.1% 57.7% Unconditional 7.0% 5.7% 8.6% 7.2% 9.4% Unsuccessful 32.5% 27.6% 29.4% 23.0% 23.6% Other 8.2% 9.5% 7.9% 9.7% 9.4% 3.3 - Provider Decisions Data Table The number of main scheme applications by decision status Decision 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Conditional 390 430 423 483 475 Unconditional 52 43 67 58 77 Unsuccessful 242 207 230 185 194 Other 61 71 62 78 77 Total 745 751 782 804 823 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 5
4. Applicant Replies 4.1 - Applicant Reply Proportion Graph The proportion of offers by reply status Firm Reply Insurance Reply Decline Other 55% 50% 45% 40% Proportion 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 4.2 - Applicant Reply Proportion Table The proportion of offers by reply status Applicant Reply 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Firm Reply 29.6% 30.7% 28.4% 27.7% 28.6% Insurance Reply 20.1% 19.7% 19.8% 20.0% 19.2% Decline 47.1% 46.7% 51.2% 51.6% 51.1% Other 3.2% 3.0% 0.6% 0.7% 1.1% 4.3 - Applicant Reply Data Table The number of offers by reply status Applicant Reply 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Firm Reply 131 145 139 150 158 Insurance Reply 89 93 97 108 106 Decline 208 221 251 279 282 Other 14 14 3 4 6 Total Offers 442 473 490 541 552 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 6
5. Decisions and Replies 5.1 - Decisions and Replies Graph The proportion of main scheme choices that become acceptances by decision and reply at June deadline Conditional Firm Conditional Insurance Conditional Other Unconditional Firm Unconditional Insurance Unconditional Other Unsuccessful Other All 100% 80% Proportion Accepted 60% 40% 20% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 5.2 - Decisions and Replies Rates Table The proportion of main scheme choices that become acceptances by decision and reply at June deadline Decision and Reply 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Conditional Firm 70.1% 71.3% 63.1% 79.3% 68.9% Conditional Insurance 8.4% 12.1% 12.0% 9.6% 7.1% Conditional Other 8.3% 21.4% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% Unconditional Firm 87.5% 95.7% 100.0% 96.6% 92.3% Unconditional Insurance 16.7% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% Unconditional Other 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Unsuccessful 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 1.6% 2.8% 1.6% 2.6% 5.2% All 14.4% 16.9% 14.2% 17.2% 16.0% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 7
5.3 - Decisions and Replies Data Table The number of applications and acceptances by decision and reply for main scheme choices Decision and Reply 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Conditional Firm Applications 107 122 111 121 119 Applications Accepted 75 87 70 96 82 Conditional Insurance Applications 83 91 92 104 98 Applications Accepted 7 11 11 10 7 Conditional Decline Applications 188 203 218 254 252 Applications Accepted 0 0 0 0 0 Conditional Other Applications 12 14 2 4 6 Applications Accepted 1 3 0 2 1 Unconditional Firm Applications 24 23 28 29 39 Applications Accepted 21 22 28 28 36 Unconditional Insurance Applications 6 2 5 4 8 Applications Accepted 1 2 0 0 2 Unconditional Decline Applications 20 18 33 25 30 Applications Accepted 0 0 0 0 0 Unconditional Other Applications 2 0 1 0 0 Applications Accepted 1 0 1 0 0 Unsuccessful Applications 242 207 230 185 194 Applications Accepted 0 0 0 0 0 Other Applications 61 71 62 78 77 Applications Accepted 1 2 1 2 4 All Applications 745 751 782 804 823 Applications Accepted 107 127 111 138 132 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 8
6. Sex - Acceptances 6.1 - Acceptance Rates by Sex Graph The acceptance rates by sex Men Women All 84% 82% 80% 78% Acceptance Rate 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 6.2 - Acceptance Rates by Sex Table The acceptance rates by sex Sex 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Men 66.7% 79.3% 74.5% 83.7% 73.7% Women 72.5% 80.4% 65.1% 74.3% 76.4% All 69.9% 79.9% 69.5% 78.5% 75.1% 6.3 - Acceptances by Sex Data Table The number of applicants and acceptances by sex Sex 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Men Applicants 84 87 94 92 99 Applicants Accepted 56 69 70 77 73 Women Applicants 102 107 106 113 106 Applicants Accepted 74 86 69 84 81 All Applicants 186 194 200 205 205 Applicants Accepted 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 9
7. Sex - Offers 7.1 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Sex Graph The offer rates (applicant level) by sex Men Women All 94% 92% 90% Offer Rate 88% 86% 84% 82% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 7.2 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Sex Table The offer rates (applicant level) by sex Sex 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Men 84.4% 90.1% 83.3% 89.5% 93.7% Women 83.0% 85.9% 82.0% 82.7% 88.8% All 83.6% 87.8% 82.6% 85.8% 91.2% 7.3 - Offers by Sex Data Table The number of main scheme applicants and offers by sex Sex 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Men Main Scheme Applicants 77 81 84 86 95 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 65 73 70 77 89 Women Main Scheme Applicants 100 99 100 104 98 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 83 85 82 86 87 All Main Scheme Applicants 177 180 184 190 193 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 148 158 152 163 176 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 10
8. Age Group - Acceptances 8.1 - Acceptance Rates by Age Group Graph The acceptance rates by age group 17 and under 18 19 20 21 and over All 90% 85% 80% Acceptance Rate 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 8.2 - Acceptance Rates by Age Group Table The acceptance rates by age group Age Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17 and under 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 60.0% 50.0% 18 78.0% 88.2% 75.0% 87.8% 72.7% 19 78.8% 83.3% 88.1% 81.8% 84.8% 20 64.3% 66.7% 81.3% 85.0% 73.3% 21 and over 55.4% 71.2% 50.9% 56.1% 72.2% All 69.9% 79.9% 69.5% 78.5% 75.1% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 11
8.3 - Acceptances by Age Group Data Table The number of applicants and acceptances by age group Age Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17 and under Applicants 1 4 5 10 2 Applicants Accepted 0 1 0 6 1 18 Applicants 82 93 80 90 88 Applicants Accepted 64 82 60 79 64 19 Applicants 33 30 42 44 46 Applicants Accepted 26 25 37 36 39 20 Applicants 14 15 16 20 15 Applicants Accepted 9 10 13 17 11 21 and over Applicants 56 52 57 41 54 Applicants Accepted 31 37 29 23 39 All Applicants 186 194 200 205 205 Applicants Accepted 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 12
9. Age Group - Offers 9.1 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Age Group Graph The offer rates (applicant level) by age group 17 and under 18 19 20 21 and over All 100% 95% 90% 85% Offer Rate 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 9.2 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Age Group Table The offer rates (applicant level) by age group Age Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17 and under 100.0% 75.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 18 96.3% 92.4% 92.3% 95.5% 96.5% 19 87.1% 92.9% 92.5% 90.2% 93.2% 20 84.6% 92.3% 83.3% 80.0% 84.6% 21 and over 61.5% 74.4% 61.2% 60.0% 81.3% All 83.6% 87.8% 82.6% 85.8% 91.2% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 13
9.3 - Offers by Age Group Data Table The number of main scheme applicants and offers by age group Age Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17 and under Main Scheme Applicants 1 4 5 10 2 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 1 3 3 8 2 18 Main Scheme Applicants 80 92 78 89 86 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 77 85 72 85 83 19 Main Scheme Applicants 31 28 40 41 44 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 27 26 37 37 41 20 Main Scheme Applicants 13 13 12 15 13 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 11 12 10 12 11 21 and over Main Scheme Applicants 52 43 49 35 48 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 32 32 30 21 39 All Main Scheme Applicants 177 180 184 190 193 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 148 158 152 163 176 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 14
10. Ethnic Group - Acceptances 10.1 - Acceptance Rates by Ethnic Group Graph The acceptance rates by ethnic group Asian Black Chinese Mixed Other Unknown White All 90% 85% 80% 75% Acceptance Rate 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10.2 - Acceptance Rates by Ethnic Group Table The acceptance rates by ethnic group Ethnic Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Asian 83.3% 85.7% 60.0% 80.0% 78.6% Black 56.3% 90.0% 63.2% 80.0% 78.6% Chinese 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Mixed 80.0% 66.7% 80.0% 75.0% 100.0% Other 100.0% 75.0% 0.0% 33.3% 50.0% Unknown 42.4% 42.4% 50.0% 64.3% 67.5% White 77.8% 89.0% 79.2% 84.4% 76.2% All 69.9% 79.9% 69.5% 78.5% 75.1% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 15
10.3 - Acceptances by Ethnic Group Data Table The number of applicants and acceptances by ethnic group Ethnic Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Asian Applicants 12 14 10 20 14 Applicants Accepted 10 12 6 16 11 Black Applicants 16 10 19 10 14 Applicants Accepted 9 9 12 8 11 Chinese Applicants 1 0 1 0 3 Applicants Accepted 0 0 0 0 3 Mixed Applicants 5 6 5 8 2 Applicants Accepted 4 4 4 6 2 Other Applicants 2 4 1 3 2 Applicants Accepted 2 3 0 1 1 Unknown Applicants 33 33 44 42 40 Applicants Accepted 14 14 22 27 27 White Applicants 117 127 120 122 130 Applicants Accepted 91 113 95 103 99 All Applicants 186 194 200 205 205 Applicants Accepted 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 16
11. Ethnic Group - Offers 11.1 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Ethnic Group Graph The offer rates (applicant level) by ethnic group Asian Black Chinese Mixed Other Unknown White All 100% 95% 90% Offer Rate 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 11.2 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Ethnic Group Table The offer rates (applicant level) by ethnic group Ethnic Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Asian 88.9% 72.7% 87.5% 80.0% 100.0% Black 66.7% 80.0% 73.3% 77.8% 75.0% Chinese 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Mixed 40.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% 100.0% Other 100.0% 66.7% 100.0% 66.7% 100.0% Unknown 90.3% 75.0% 78.9% 82.1% 89.5% White 86.0% 93.2% 84.5% 89.3% 91.8% All 83.6% 87.8% 82.6% 85.8% 91.2% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 17
11.3 - Offers (applicant level) by Ethnic Group Data Table The number of main scheme applicants and offers by ethnic group Ethnic Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Asian Main Scheme Applicants 9 11 8 20 14 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 8 8 7 16 14 Black Main Scheme Applicants 15 10 15 9 12 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 10 8 11 7 9 Chinese Main Scheme Applicants 1 0 1 0 3 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 0 0 0 0 3 Mixed Main Scheme Applicants 5 6 5 7 2 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 2 6 5 6 2 Other Main Scheme Applicants 2 3 1 3 2 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 2 2 1 2 2 Unknown Main Scheme Applicants 31 32 38 39 38 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 28 24 30 32 34 White Main Scheme Applicants 114 118 116 112 122 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 98 110 98 100 112 All Main Scheme Applicants 177 180 184 190 193 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 148 158 152 163 176 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 18
12. Applicants Applied by UCAS Deadline 12.1 - Proportion Applied by UCAS Deadlines Graph The proportion of applicants that applied by the UCAS deadlines October January March June Post June 80% 70% 60% 50% Proportion 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 12.2 - Proportion Applied by UCAS Deadlines Table The proportion of applicants that applied by the UCAS deadlines Deadline 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 October 8.6% 8.2% 11.0% 11.2% 13.2% January 75.8% 68.0% 71.5% 68.8% 69.3% March 4.8% 6.7% 4.0% 3.9% 2.9% June 5.9% 9.8% 5.5% 9.3% 8.8% Post June 10.8% 17.0% 13.5% 16.1% 14.6% 12.3 - Applied by UCAS Deadlines Data Table The number of applicants that applied by the UCAS deadlines Deadline 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 October 16 16 22 23 27 January 141 132 143 141 142 March 9 13 8 8 6 June 11 19 11 19 18 Post June 9 14 16 14 12 Total 186 194 200 205 205 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 19
13. Provider Tariff Group - Acceptances 13.1 - Applicant Placement Proportion by Provider Tariff Group Graph The applicant placement proportion by the tariff group of the accepting provider Lower Tariff Medium Tariff Higher Tariff Unplaced 36% 34% 32% 30% 28% Proportion 26% 24% 22% 20% 18% 16% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 13.2 - Applicant Placement Proportion by Provider Tariff Group Table The applicant placement proportion by the tariff group of the accepting provider Tariff Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Lower Tariff 32.3% 34.0% 28.0% 28.8% 26.8% Medium Tariff 18.3% 26.3% 25.0% 25.4% 23.4% Higher Tariff 19.4% 19.6% 16.5% 24.4% 24.9% Unplaced 30.1% 20.1% 30.5% 21.5% 24.9% 13.3 - Provider Tariff Group Data Table The number of acceptances by the tariff group of the accepting provider Tariff Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Lower Tariff 60 66 56 59 55 Medium Tariff 34 51 50 52 48 Higher Tariff 36 38 33 50 51 Total Acceptances 130 155 139 161 154 Unplaced 56 39 61 44 51 Total Applicants 186 194 200 205 205 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 20
14. Provider Tariff Group - Offers 14.1 - Offer Rates (Application Level) by Provider Tariff Group Graph The offer rates (application level) by the tariff group of the provider applied to Lower Tariff Medium Tariff Higher Tariff All 80% 75% 70% Offer Rate 65% 60% 55% 50% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 14.2 - Offer Rates (Application Level) by Provider Tariff Group Table The offer rates (application level) by the tariff group of the provider applied to Tariff Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Lower Tariff 61.0% 69.9% 61.7% 72.0% 61.6% Medium Tariff 61.4% 67.6% 67.1% 66.3% 75.8% Higher Tariff 55.1% 52.3% 59.5% 63.6% 64.2% All 59.3% 63.0% 62.7% 67.3% 67.1% 14.3 - Provider Tariff Group Data Table The number of offers by the tariff group of the provider applied to Tariff Group 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Lower Tariff Applications to 295 246 266 264 242 Received Offers 180 172 164 190 149 Medium Tariff Applications to 223 241 252 276 260 Received Offers 137 163 169 183 197 Higher Tariff Applications to 227 264 264 264 321 Received Offers 125 138 157 168 206 All Applications to 745 751 782 804 823 Received Offers 442 473 490 541 552 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 21
15. Applicant Tariff Band - Acceptances 15.1 - Applicant Tariff Band Acceptance Rates Graph The acceptance rates by applicant tariff band No Points 1-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500 + All 100% 95% 90% 85% Acceptance Rate 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 15.2 - Applicant Tariff Band Acceptance Rates Table The acceptance rates by applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 No Points 57.3% 65.3% 54.4% 70.7% 70.2% 1-99 28.6% 100.0% 25.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100-199 63.6% 40.0% 57.1% 70.0% 60.0% 200-299 85.2% 93.9% 86.7% 75.9% 71.9% 300-399 81.1% 87.2% 88.9% 87.0% 75.0% 400-499 76.5% 95.5% 70.6% 95.5% 96.4% 500 + 100.0% 100.0% 93.8% 92.3% 80.0% All 69.9% 79.9% 69.5% 78.5% 75.1% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 22
15.3 - Applicant Tariff Band Acceptances Data Table The number of applicants and acceptances by applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 No Points Applicants 75 72 90 82 84 Applicants Accepted 43 47 49 58 59 1-99 Applicants 7 4 4 3 0 Applicants Accepted 2 4 1 1 0 100-199 Applicants 11 10 7 10 10 Applicants Accepted 7 4 4 7 6 200-299 Applicants 27 33 30 29 32 Applicants Accepted 23 31 26 22 23 300-399 Applicants 37 39 36 46 36 Applicants Accepted 30 34 32 40 27 400-499 Applicants 17 22 17 22 28 Applicants Accepted 13 21 12 21 27 500 + Applicants 12 14 16 13 15 Applicants Accepted 12 14 15 12 12 All Applicants 186 194 200 205 205 Applicants Accepted 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 23
16. Applicant Tariff Band - Offers 16.1 - Applicant Tariff Band Offer Rates (Applicant Level) Graph The offer rates (applicant level) by applicant tariff band No Points 1-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500 + All 100% 95% 90% Offer Rate 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 16.2 - Applicant Tariff Band Offer Rates (Applicant Level) Table The offer rates (applicant level) by applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 No Points 71.2% 75.9% 67.6% 73.1% 83.3% 1-99 57.1% 75.0% 25.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100-199 90.9% 80.0% 85.7% 80.0% 100.0% 200-299 96.3% 97.0% 100.0% 89.7% 93.8% 300-399 97.3% 92.3% 97.2% 95.7% 91.7% 400-499 88.2% 95.5% 82.4% 95.5% 100.0% 500 + 83.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% All 83.6% 87.8% 82.6% 85.8% 91.2% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 24
16.3 - Applicant Tariff Band Offers Data Table The number of applicants and offers by applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 No Points Main Scheme Applicants 66 58 74 67 72 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 47 44 50 49 60 1-99 Main Scheme Applicants 7 4 4 3 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 4 3 1 2 0 100-199 Main Scheme Applicants 11 10 7 10 10 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 10 8 6 8 10 200-299 Main Scheme Applicants 27 33 30 29 32 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 26 32 30 26 30 300-399 Main Scheme Applicants 37 39 36 46 36 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 36 36 35 44 33 400-499 Main Scheme Applicants 17 22 17 22 28 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 15 21 14 21 28 500 + Main Scheme Applicants 12 14 16 13 15 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 10 14 16 13 15 All Main Scheme Applicants 177 180 184 190 193 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 148 158 152 163 176 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 25
17. Detailed Applicant Tariff Band - Acceptances 17.1 - Detailed Applicant Tariff Band Acceptances Data Table The number of applicants and acceptances by detailed applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1-39 Applicants 3 1 4 2 0 Applicants Accepted 1 1 1 1 0 40-79 Applicants 2 2 0 1 0 Applicants Accepted 1 2 0 0 0 80-119 Applicants 2 2 0 1 1 Applicants Accepted 0 1 0 0 0 120-159 Applicants 7 5 1 2 1 Applicants Accepted 5 3 0 1 0 160-199 Applicants 4 4 6 7 8 Applicants Accepted 2 1 4 6 6 200-239 Applicants 12 8 9 6 8 Applicants Accepted 9 7 7 4 4 240-279 Applicants 8 15 12 14 15 Applicants Accepted 7 14 10 10 10 280-319 Applicants 15 20 19 20 13 Applicants Accepted 14 16 17 14 12 320-359 Applicants 16 13 14 15 17 Applicants Accepted 10 13 14 15 11 360-399 Applicants 13 16 12 20 15 Applicants Accepted 13 15 10 19 13 400-439 Applicants 8 14 10 14 13 Applicants Accepted 6 13 6 14 13 440-479 Applicants 7 6 7 6 11 Applicants Accepted 5 6 6 5 10 480-519 Applicants 6 6 3 4 5 Applicants Accepted 6 6 2 3 5 520-559 Applicants 5 3 6 5 6 Applicants Accepted 5 3 6 5 4 560-599 Applicants 0 4 3 4 4 Applicants Accepted 0 4 3 4 4 600-639 Applicants 2 2 1 1 3 Applicants Accepted 2 2 1 1 2 640-679 Applicants 0 1 2 0 0 Applicants Accepted 0 1 2 0 0 680-719 Applicants 1 0 0 1 0 Applicants Accepted 1 0 0 1 0 720-759 Applicants 0 0 1 0 0 Applicants Accepted 0 0 1 0 0 760-799 Applicants 0 0 0 0 1 Applicants Accepted 0 0 0 0 1 800 + Applicants 0 0 0 0 0 Applicants Accepted 0 0 0 0 0 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 26
17.2 - Acceptance Rates by Detailed Tariff Band Table The acceptance rates by detailed applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1-39 33.3% 100.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 40-79 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80-119 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 120-159 71.4% 60.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 160-199 50.0% 25.0% 66.7% 85.7% 75.0% 200-239 75.0% 87.5% 77.8% 66.7% 50.0% 240-279 87.5% 93.3% 83.3% 71.4% 66.7% 280-319 93.3% 80.0% 89.5% 70.0% 92.3% 320-359 62.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 64.7% 360-399 100.0% 93.8% 83.3% 95.0% 86.7% 400-439 75.0% 92.9% 60.0% 100.0% 100.0% 440-479 71.4% 100.0% 85.7% 83.3% 90.9% 480-519 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 75.0% 100.0% 520-559 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 560-599 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 600-639 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 640-679 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 680-719 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 720-759 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 760-799 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 800 + 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 27
18. Detailed Applicant Tariff Band - Offers 18.1 - Detailed Applicant Tariff Band Offers Data Table The number of applicants and offers by detailed applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1-39 Main Scheme Applicants 3 1 4 2 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 1 1 1 1 0 40-79 Main Scheme Applicants 2 2 0 1 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 2 2 0 1 0 80-119 Main Scheme Applicants 2 2 0 1 1 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 1 0 0 1 1 120-159 Main Scheme Applicants 7 5 1 2 1 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 7 5 1 1 1 160-199 Main Scheme Applicants 4 4 6 7 8 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 3 3 5 6 8 200-239 Main Scheme Applicants 12 8 9 6 8 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 11 8 9 5 6 240-279 Main Scheme Applicants 8 15 12 14 15 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 8 14 12 12 15 280-319 Main Scheme Applicants 15 20 19 20 13 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 15 19 18 19 12 320-359 Main Scheme Applicants 16 13 14 15 17 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 15 13 14 14 15 360-399 Main Scheme Applicants 13 16 12 20 15 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 13 14 12 20 15 400-439 Main Scheme Applicants 8 14 10 14 13 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 6 13 8 13 13 440-479 Main Scheme Applicants 7 6 7 6 11 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 7 6 6 6 11 480-519 Main Scheme Applicants 6 6 3 4 5 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 6 6 3 4 5 520-559 Main Scheme Applicants 5 3 6 5 6 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 3 3 6 5 6 560-599 Main Scheme Applicants 0 4 3 4 4 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 0 4 3 4 4 600-639 Main Scheme Applicants 2 2 1 1 3 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 2 2 1 1 3 640-679 Main Scheme Applicants 0 1 2 0 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 0 1 2 0 0 680-719 Main Scheme Applicants 1 0 0 1 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 1 0 0 1 0 720-759 Main Scheme Applicants 0 0 1 0 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 0 0 1 0 0 760-799 Main Scheme Applicants 0 0 0 0 1 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 0 0 0 0 1 800 + Main Scheme Applicants 0 0 0 0 0 Main Scheme Applicants Offered 0 0 0 0 0 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 28
18.2 - Offer Rates (Applicant Level) by Detailed Applicant Tariff Band Table The offer rates (applicant level) by detailed applicant tariff band Tariff Band 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1-39 33.3% 100.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 40-79 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 80-119 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 120-159 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 160-199 75.0% 75.0% 83.3% 85.7% 100.0% 200-239 91.7% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 75.0% 240-279 100.0% 93.3% 100.0% 85.7% 100.0% 280-319 100.0% 95.0% 94.7% 95.0% 92.3% 320-359 93.8% 100.0% 100.0% 93.3% 88.2% 360-399 100.0% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 400-439 75.0% 92.9% 80.0% 92.9% 100.0% 440-479 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% 100.0% 100.0% 480-519 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 520-559 60.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 560-599 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 600-639 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 640-679 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 680-719 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 720-759 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 760-799 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 800 + 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 29
19. Subject Group - Acceptances 19.1 - Acceptances by Subject Group Table The number of acceptances by subject group Subject Groups 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Group A Medicine and Dentistry 2 4 1 6 3 Group B Subjects Allied to Medicine 15 18 19 15 12 Group C Biological Sciences 12 18 14 20 13 Group D Veterinary Sciences, Agriculture and related subjects 0 3 2 2 2 Group F Physical Sciences 7 6 5 12 10 Group G Mathematical Sciences 2 4 3 2 4 Group H Engineering 6 5 9 8 9 Group I Computer Sciences 3 8 4 12 7 Group J Technologies 0 0 2 1 0 Group K Architecture, Building and Planning 2 4 4 2 1 Group L Social studies 11 9 13 12 13 Group M Law 8 5 5 7 10 Group N Business and Administrative studies 17 16 16 18 16 Group P Mass Communication and Documentation 3 1 5 6 7 Group Q Linguistics, Classics and related subjects 3 3 3 4 2 Group R European Languages, Literature and related subjects 1 0 0 0 0 Group T Eastern, Asiatic, African, American and Australasian Languages, Literature and related subjects 1 1 0 0 0 Group V Historical and Philosophical studies 1 5 3 6 4 Group W Creative Arts and Design 14 16 11 12 21 Group X Education 5 8 3 5 5 Y Combined arts 5 3 4 4 1 Y Combined sciences 2 1 3 0 1 Y Combined social sciences 2 2 0 1 0 Y Sciences combined with social sciences or arts 4 7 2 2 3 Y Social sciences combined with arts 3 4 4 3 6 Z General, other combined & unknown 1 4 4 1 4 Total 130 155 139 161 154 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 30
20. Most Popular Providers by Acceptances, Offers and Applications 20.1 - Most Popular Providers Acceptances Table The most popular providers for applicants in 2016 by acceptances 2016 Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 University of Portsmouth 0 1 3 2 5 2 Falmouth University 0 0 0 0 4 Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) 1 0 3 1 4 Northumbria University 1 2 1 3 4 The Manchester Metropolitan University 0 1 2 4 4 The University of Birmingham 1 2 0 0 4 The University of Manchester 0 2 1 5 4 8 Cardiff University 5 3 1 3 3 Durham University 1 1 1 2 3 Lancaster University 1 0 0 1 3 Leeds Beckett University 3 3 3 6 3 Nottingham Trent University 3 3 3 7 3 Oxford University 0 0 2 1 3 Plymouth University 2 2 1 1 3 University of Bristol 1 0 1 2 3 20.2 - Most Popular Providers Offers Table The most popular providers for applicants in 2016 by offers 2016 Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 The University of Birmingham 10 7 7 6 14 The University of Warwick 4 6 7 6 14 3 The University of Manchester 3 8 18 11 13 University of Southampton 7 1 6 2 13 5 Nottingham Trent University 9 12 12 10 12 Sheffield Hallam University 3 11 7 7 12 University of Exeter 3 6 4 11 12 8 Durham University 2 0 7 6 11 Plymouth University 5 5 2 4 11 The Manchester Metropolitan University 6 7 15 13 11 University of Bristol 4 3 9 13 11 University of Portsmouth 5 5 8 8 11 13 King's College London (University of London) 2 2 3 7 10 The University of Nottingham 7 3 11 4 10 UCL (University College London) 4 1 4 6 10 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 31
20.3 - Most Popular Providers Applications Table The most popular providers for applicants in 2016 by main scheme applications 2016 Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 University of Southampton 13 6 8 5 21 2 The University of Warwick 6 10 10 9 20 3 The University of Birmingham 16 12 13 10 18 The University of Manchester 10 19 18 14 18 5 King's College London (University of London) 11 5 9 7 17 6 University of Bristol 8 7 12 19 16 7 The Manchester Metropolitan University 20 10 17 16 15 UCL (University College London) 7 12 14 12 15 University of Bath 2 4 10 6 15 10 Durham University 5 4 11 8 14 The University of Edinburgh 13 15 18 11 14 12 Sheffield Hallam University 7 17 14 13 13 University of Exeter 4 6 4 16 13 University of the West of Scotland 2 4 14 6 13 15 Nottingham Trent University 13 16 12 12 12 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 32
21. Most Popular Detailed Subject Groups by Acceptances, Offers and Applications 21.1 - Most Popular Detailed Subject Groups Acceptances Table The most popular detailed subject groups for applicants in 2016 by acceptances 2016 Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 B7 - Nursing 8 9 11 7 9 M1 - Law by Area 7 5 5 7 9 3 W2 - Design studies 5 7 5 6 8 4 L5 - Social Work 4 1 6 4 5 N2 - Management studies 0 3 2 3 5 W6 - Cinematics and Photography 3 2 0 1 5 Y Combs of social studies/bus/law with arts/humanities 2 3 3 0 5 8 I1 - Computer Science 2 6 3 7 4 V1 - History by Period 1 2 2 4 4 X3 - Academic studies in Education 4 6 2 3 4 Z Combs of 3 subjects, or other general courses 1 4 4 1 4 12 C1 - Biology 1 3 0 2 3 C6 - Sport and Exercise Science 3 4 5 7 3 C8 - Psychology 7 7 6 7 3 G1 - Mathematics 0 4 2 2 3 21.2 - Most Popular Detailed Subject Groups Offers Table The most popular detailed subject groups for applicants in 2016 by offers 2016 Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 M1 - Law by Area 27 25 21 30 49 2 C8 - Psychology 33 28 13 27 18 G1 - Mathematics 0 11 14 6 18 N1 - Business studies 16 16 13 15 18 5 B7 - Nursing 14 17 18 9 17 NN - Combinations within Business & Admin. Studies 13 23 18 12 17 P3 - Media studies 7 4 5 10 17 Y Combs of social studies/bus/law with arts/humanities 7 2 11 2 17 9 C1 - Biology 7 6 3 9 15 I1 - Computer Science 13 17 8 29 15 N2 - Management studies 7 12 12 13 15 12 L2 - Politics 8 15 5 8 14 13 L1 - Economics 9 13 6 9 13 W2 - Design studies 12 15 12 17 13 15 C6 - Sport and Exercise Science 10 15 12 14 12 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 33
21.3 - Most Popular Detailed Subject Groups Applications Table The most popular detailed subject groups for applicants in 2016 by main scheme applications 2016 Rank 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 B7 - Nursing 72 50 95 43 71 2 M1 - Law by Area 32 33 30 35 64 3 C8 - Psychology 44 40 15 35 29 4 W2 - Design studies 29 26 29 39 26 5 NN - Combinations within Business & Admin. Studies 20 30 24 15 25 6 A1 - Pre-clinical Medicine 27 29 19 35 23 N1 - Business studies 20 24 14 16 23 8 I1 - Computer Science 13 22 14 34 22 N2 - Management studies 16 16 15 17 22 P3 - Media studies 10 4 8 13 22 11 Y Combs of social studies/bus/law with arts/humanities 10 6 14 3 20 12 G1 - Mathematics 0 13 15 7 19 13 W4 - Drama 10 20 4 16 18 14 C1 - Biology 9 7 5 12 16 L1 - Economics 12 14 10 13 16 School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 34
22. Glossary Term Acceptance Acceptance rate Adjustment Age Clearing Conditional firm Conditional offer Detailed Subject Group Extra Firm choice Insurance choice Main scheme Offer Provider Provider tariff group RPA Tariff Unconditional offer Definition An applicant who at the end of the cycle has been placed for entry into higher education. The number of acceptances divided by the number of applicants. An acceptance route where applicants who have met and exceeded the conditions of their firm choice choose to take up an alternative offer. This analysis uses country-specific age definitions that align with the cut off points for school and college cohorts within the different administrations of the UK. For England and Wales, ages are defined on the 31 August, for Northern Ireland on the 1 July and for Scotland on the 28 February the following year. Defining ages in this way matches the assignment of children to school cohorts. For applicants outside of the UK the cohort cut off for England and Wales has been used. An acceptance route available late in the application cycle. An offer made by a provider dependent on achieving specified conditions which has been accepted by the applicant as their first choice. Offer made by provider depend on meeting specified conditions which may include academic and/or non academic conditions. Classifies courses into a detailed level of 215 subjects. Each course is assigned up to three valid JACS3 subject codes (e.g. G100 Mathematics) and a course balance indicator by UCAS, which are available for review by the provider. The course is assigned a subject based on these JACS3 subject codes and balance indicator, it largely correlates to the first two characters of the subject codes. Where there are more than one JACS3 subject codes for a given course, and the balance indicator is dual or triple, the first two characters of each subject code are reported in combination to a relevant category (e.g. Course with dual balance indicator with JACS3 subject codes L370 = Social Theory and M900 = Others in Law is assigned a subject Y Combs of soc studies/law ). An acceptance route where applicants who held no offers after using all five main scheme choices make additional choices. An offer made by a provider which has been confirmed by the applicant as their first choice. These can be either conditional (dependent on achieving specified conditions) or unconditional (applicant has met specified conditions and are assumed to be accepted or placed at the provider). An offer made by a provider which has been confirmed by the applicant as their second choice, in case the conditions of the firm choice are not met. These can be either conditional (dependent on achieving specified requirements) or unconditional (no further requirements to be met). The main UCAS application scheme through which up to five providers/courses can be applied to. This opens in September and closes to new applications on 30 June the following year. Provider decision to grant a place to an applicant; may be subject to satisfying academic and/or other criteria. Based on choice state at the June 30th deadline. A higher education provider - a university or college. The grouping of providers based on the average levels of attainment of their accepted applicants (summarised through UCAS Tariff points) in a period of application cycles spanning from 2004 to 2011. Each group of providers accounted for around a third of all UK 18 year old acceptances in these cycles. Each group of providers accounted for around a third of all UK 18 year old acceptances in these cycles, with the following categories: 'Higher tariff', 'Medium tariff' and 'Lower tariff'. Record of Prior Acceptance, where an application is submitted to UCAS by a provider when an unconditional firm has been offered and accepted by the applicant. A numerical summary of qualification level. Offer made by provider when it is satisfied that the applicant has met specific conditions. School Progression Report - 2016 Cycle - Client: Rosehill College Page 35