Back to comparison

Brighton College · 1991

University applications · published record · 1991 · University applications

Check what this figure counts, where it was published and any limits on comparing it with another result.

Original-publication checks are recorded for 1 field. This does not verify every field or every interpretation of the record; inspect the field-specific checks below.

Report a problem with this figure

Opens an email to corrections@theschoolsrecord.co.uk with this record filled in, or prepare a fuller report.

What does this figure tell me?

Published University applications summary in 1992 annual, PDF page 6

Type of result: applications.

The reported values

Values keep the precision of the source. “Not recorded” does not mean zero. One pupil may have several subject entries or university offers.

Published basis
Published University applications summary in 1992 annual, PDF page 6
Count
2
Institution
Oxford and Cambridge
Qualification
University applications
Note
Dated October 1991 speech explicitly reports two further leavers making post-A-level applications to Oxford/Cambridge. It does not identify admission outcomes or future entry cohort.
Outcome type
applications
Year
1991
Publication note

Primary

Back to this school’s records · Link to this source record

Where was this published?

Research context, reference history and record codes

Dated October 1991 speech explicitly reports two further leavers making post-A-level applications to Oxford/Cambridge. It does not identify admission outcomes or future entry cohort.

These references may support other years or fields in the same dataset. They do not replace the observation-specific checks above.

Original record identifier: new:brighton:1991:university-applications:brightonian1992. Source codes are retained for reproducibility.

Evidence
P
Record Id
new:brighton:1991:university-applications:brightonian1992

Result period: 1991. A source-check date records when the publication was checked; it is not a new results year. Something wrong here? Report a problem with this figure.

Source evidenceOpen full record ↗