Selection criteria
Applicants are assessed on a 100-point scoring tool that gives the greatest weight to financial need and vulnerability.
3.1 Assessment criteria and weighting
Who the Fund prioritises
The Chancellor's Education Fund is established to support first-generation and vulnerable learners, students with demonstrated financial need, and learners from low socio-economic backgrounds, marginalised and minority communities, conflict-affected areas, and orphaned backgrounds. The Fund seeks to advance OUK's commitment to equity, inclusivity, and fair access to higher education by addressing financial and other barriers that may limit participation.
To ensure a transparent, objective, and equitable selection process, a 100-point scoring tool shall be applied to assess applicants against approved equity, vulnerability, financial need, and access-barrier criteria. The scoring rubric shall assign greater weight to financial need and vulnerability, recognising their significance in determining the level of support required.
Table 1 provides the detailed scoring criteria and allocation of points, while Table 2 provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the resulting scores in determining eligibility and prioritisation of beneficiaries.
Table 1
Candidate scoring tool
- Financial Need35 / 35%
- Vulnerability, e.g. PWD20 / 20%
- First-Generation Learner10 / 10%
- Orphanhood / Loss of Parental Support10 / 10%
- Marginalised, Minority or Conflict-Affected Background10 / 10%
- Academic Progression10 / 10%
- Other Barriers to Participation5 / 5%
| Criterion | Maximum points | Suggested scoring basis |
|---|---|---|
| Financial Need | 35 | Severe demonstrated need – 35; high need – 25; moderate need – 15; low need – 5 |
| Vulnerability, e.g. PWD | 20 | Significant vulnerability – 20; moderate vulnerability – 10; limited vulnerability – 5 |
| First-Generation Learner | 10 | Neither parent/guardian has attained higher education – 10; otherwise – 0 |
| Orphanhood / Loss of Parental Support | 10 | Both parents deceased – 10; one parent deceased – 5; significant loss of parental support – 3 |
| Marginalised, Minority or Conflict-Affected Background | 10 | Demonstrated significant disadvantage arising from these circumstances – 10; moderate disadvantage – 5 |
| Academic Progression | 10 | Excellent progression – 10; satisfactory progression – 7; marginal progression – 4 |
| Other Barriers to Participation | 5 | Significant documented barriers affecting access or continuation of studies – 5; moderate barriers – 3 |
| Total | 100 |
Table 2
How scores are interpreted
- 80–100
High priority
Eligible for consideration for funding
- 65–79
Priority
Consider subject to available funds
- 50–64
Moderate priority
Consider subject to available funds after the priority category has been taken care of
- Below 50
Lower priority
Normally not prioritised
Notes
Notes for assessment criteria and weighting
To make the tool fair and auditable, each score should be supported by documentary evidence or an approved verification method. For example, financial need may be assessed using household income information, fee obligations and other relevant evidence; orphanhood through appropriate documentation; and first-generation status through a declaration and verification process.
Where a learner qualifies under several vulnerability categories, the Board should avoid awarding points twice for the same underlying circumstance. The scoring should therefore reflect the extent of disadvantage, rather than simply counting the number of categories a learner falls into.
The final award should also remain subject to eligibility requirements, verification, available funds and approval by the appropriate Fund governance organ.
Ready when the call opens
Read the application stages and the documents you will need.