Back to comparison

University of Oxford · 2015

Subject admissions process · University of Oxford · English · 2015

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

No adequate source description or original-publication check is presently held in this public record. Any reference keys are retained for further research.

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?

The source does not establish a population definition for this record.

Type of result: Subject admissions process.

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.

Applications
1014
Cycle Year
2015
Entry Year
2015
Institution
University of Oxford
Interviewed
611
Metric Family
subject_admissions_process
Not Invited Or Withdrew
408
Note
Preliminary figures; categories/rounding mean subcounts need not sum exactly.
Offers / applications · rate
0.238659
Offers
242
Published Applicants Per Offer
4.2
Source Authority
primary_university_subject_note
Subject
English
Publication note

High · primary university subject note

Back to related records · Link to this source record

We have not recorded a check of the original publication for this particular figure. The references below may cover other results in the same collection.

Research context, reference history and record codes

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

  • public-source-9ef99d30d3d587bb · Publication title not recorded · public link not established

Original record identifier: ox:oxford-english-2015. Source codes are retained for reproducibility.

Evidence
high
Record Id
oxford-english-2015

Result period: 2015. 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 ↗