Market IntelligenceOctober 2023Application Trends Survey2023 Summary ReportApplicants to graduate bu.
2023-12-22
80页
5星级
2023 Annual VisitorResearch Report ABOUT THIS REPORT The 2023 Annual Visitor Research report provides the final statistics on Hawaiis visitor industry in 2023 and a comparison with 2022 visitor data.Included in this report are characteristics data from visitors who came to Hawaii by air service or by cruise ship.Visitor statistics are categorized by Hawaiis Major Market Areas(MMA),by select countries,purpose of trip,accommodation type and by island.Statistics about visitor room inventory,hotel occupancy,room rates and air seat capacity are also included.2023 statistics presented in this report reflect immigration data from the U.S.Department of Commerce National Travel and Tourism Office(NTTO),updated statistics on flights and air seats from the Cirium Diio Mi(DIIO)airline database,and final Air Traffic Summary reports received from airlines.This report was produced by the Tourism Research Branch staff of the Department of Business,Economic Development and Tourism(DBEDT)Research and Economic Analysis Division(READ)headed by Jennifer Chun,Tourism Research Director,with Micah kau,Minh-Chau Chun,Yvonne Lam,Lawrence Liu,Lindsay Sanborn,Jaycie Tanaka and Tourism Research Intern Marissa Lum.STR Inc.provided hotel occupancy and room rate statistics.Cover photo:Scenic view of the mountains above Waihee River,Waihee Coastal Dunes and Wetlands Refuge,Wailuku Maui.Credit:Hawaii Tourism Authority/Heather Goodman.For more information on the content of this report,please email:DBEDT.researchhawaii.gov DBEDT ii 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF 2023 VISITORS TO HAWAII.1 ALL VISITORS(BY AIR AND BY CRUISE SHIPS).2 VISITORS(ARRIVALS BY AIR).2 U.S.WEST.3 U.S.EAST.4 JAPAN.4 CANADA.5 EUROPE.5 OCEANIA.7 OTHER ASIA.9 LATIN AMERICA.11 AIR VISITORS BY ISLANDS.12 OAHU.12 MAUI.13 MOLOKAI.14 LNAI.14 KAUAI.14 HAWAII ISLAND.15 CRUISE VISITORS.16 INFLATION ADJUSTED TOTAL VISITOR SPENDING.168 TOTAL AIR CAPACITY TO HAWAII.19 ANNUAL VISITOR RESEARCH REPORT TABLES.21 APPENDIX A.166 DEFINITIONS.167 SOURCES OF DATA FOR VISITOR STATISTICS.170 APPENDIX B.172 DOMESTIC IN-FLIGHT SURVEY.173 INTERNATIONAL SURVEY.175 ISLAND SURVEY.177 CRUISE SURVEY.179 DBEDT iii 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.Visitor Arrivals by Air from Four Largest Markets:2014-2023 .3 Figure 2.Europe MMA,United Kingdom and Germany Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014-2023.6 Figure 3.Oceania MMA Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014-2023.7 Figure 4.Other Asia MMA,China,Korea,Taiwan Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014-2023.9 Figure 5.Latin America MMA Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014-2023.11 Figure 6.Oahu Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA:2014-2023 .12 Figure 7.Maui Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA:2014-2023 .13 Figure 8.Kauai Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA:2014-2023.14 Figure 9.Hawaii Island Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA:2014-2023.15 Figure 10.Total Cruise Visitors to Hawaii:2014-2023.17 Figure 11.Inflation Adjusted Total Visitor Spending:2009-2023 .18 Figure 12.Total Air Seats Operated to Hawaii by Port of Entry:2014-2023.19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.Summary of Visitor Statistics:2023 vs.2022.22 Table 2.2023 Monthly Market Highlights.25 Table 3.2023 Monthly Island Highlights.27 Table 4.Summary of Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.28 Table 5.Summary of Air Visitor Characteristics,Percentage of Total:2023 vs.2022.30 Table 6.Air Visitor Days by Island:2023 vs.2022.32 Table 7.Air Visitor Days by Month:2023 vs.2022.32 Table 8.Average Daily Census by Island(Arrivals by Air):2023 vs.2022.33 Table 9.Average Daily Census by Month(Arrivals by Air):2023 vs.2022.33 Table 10.Visitors Staying Overnight or Longer(Arrivals by Air):1963-2023.34 Table 11.2023 Air Visitor Days by Month and MMA.35 Table 12.Air Visitor Days by Month and MMA,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.37 Table 13.2023 Air Visitor Arrivals by Month and MMA.39 Table 14.Air Visitor Arrivals by Month and MMA,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.41 Table 15.U.S.West MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.43 Table 16.2023 Domestic U.S.West MMA Air Visitor Arrivals by Month and State .45 Table 17.U.S.East MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.46 Table 18.2023 Domestic U.S.East MMA Air Visitor Arrivals by Month and State .48 Table 19.Domestic U.S.Air Visitor Arrivals by State:2014-2023 .49 Table 20.2023 Domestic U.S.Air Visitor Characteristics by State .50 Table 21.Market Penetration for Top U.S.CBSA(Arrivals by Air):2023 vs.2022.51 Table 22.Japan MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.52 Table 23.2023 International Japan MMA Air Visitor Characteristics by Region.54 Table 24.Canada MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.55 Table 25.2023 Canada MMA Air Visitor Characteristics by Province.57 Table 26.Europe MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.59 Table 27.United Kingdom Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.61 Table 28.Germany Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.63 Table 29.Oceania MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.65 DBEDT iv 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 30.Australia Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.67 Table 31.New Zealand Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.69 Table 32.Other Asia MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.71 Table 33.Korea Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.73 Table 34.China Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.75 Table 35.Taiwan Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.77 Table 36.Latin America MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.79 Table 37.Other MMA Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.81 Table 38.2023 Air Visitor Age and Gender Distribution by MMA .83 Table 39.Honeymoon Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.84 Table 40.Get Married Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.85 Table 41.Meetings,Conventions,and Incentives Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.86 Table 42.Visit Friends and Relatives Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.87 Table 43.Family Air Visitors Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.88 Table 44.Hotel-Only Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.89 Table 45.Condo-Only Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.90 Table 46.Timeshare-Only Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.91 Table 47.Rental House-Only Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.92 Table 48.Bed and Breakfast-Only Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.93 Table 49.First-Time Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.94 Table 50.Repeat Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.95 Table 51.Air Visitor Arrivals by Island and Month:2023 vs.2022.96 Table 52.2023 Average Daily Census by Island and Month(Arrivals by Air).99 Table 53.2023 Domestic U.S.Air Visitor Arrivals by Island and Top CBSA .100 Table 54.Domestic U.S.Air Visitors by Island&Top CBSA,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.101 Table 55.2023 Domestic U.S.Air Visitor Arrivals by Island and State .102 Table 56.Domestic U.S.Air Visitors by Island and State,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.103 Table 57.2023 Domestic U.S.Air Visitor Length of Stay by Island and State.104 Table 58.Oahu Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.105 Table 59.Maui County Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.107 Table 60.Maui Island Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.109 Table 61.Molokai Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.111 Table 62.Lnai Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.113 Table 63.Kauai Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.115 Table 64.Hawaii Island Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.117 Table 65.Hilo Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.119 Table 66.Kona Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.121 Table 67.2023 Air Visitor Days by Island and MMA .123 Table 68.Air Visitor Days by Island and MMA,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.125 Table 69.2023 Air Visitor Arrivals by Island and MMA.127 Table 70.Air Visitor Arrivals by Island and MMA,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.129 Table 71:Total Visitor Expenditures by Category:2023 vs.2022(Air,Cruise&Sup.Business).131 Table 72.Total Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.132 Table 73.U.S.Total MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.133 Table 74.U.S.West MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.134 Table 75.U.S.East MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.135 Table 76.Japan MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.136 Table 77.Canada MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.137 DBEDT v 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 78.Europe MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.138 Table 79.Oceania MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.139 Table 80.Other Asia MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.140 Table 81.Latin America MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.141 Table 82.Other MMA Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.142 Table 83.China Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.143 Table 84.Korea Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.144 Table 85.Taiwan Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.145 Table 86.Australia Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.146 Table 87.New Zealand Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending:2023 vs.2022.147 Table 88.2023 Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending by Island.148 Table 89.Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending by Island,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.149 Table 90.Air Visitor Personal Daily Spending by MMA and Trip Characteristics:2023 vs.2022.150 Table 91.2023 Meeting,Convention,and Incentive Air Visitor Characteristics and Spending.151 Table 92.2023 Cruise Ship Visitors.152 Table 93.Cruise Ship Visitors,Percent change 2023 vs.2022.152 Table 94.2023 Total Cruise Ship Passengers by MMA.153 Table 95.Cruise Visitor Personal Daily Spending All Cruise Visitors.154 Table 96.Total Air Seats Operated to Hawaii:2023 vs.2022.155 Table 97.Domestic Air Seats Operated to Hawaii:2023 vs.2022.155 Table 98.International Air Seats Operated to Hawaii:2023 vs.2022.156 Table 99.Total Flights Operated to Hawaii:2023 vs.2022.157 Table 100.Domestic Flights Operated to Hawaii:2023 vs.2022.157 Table 101.International Flights Operated to Hawaii:2023 vs.2022.158 Table 102.State Hotel Performance:2023 vs.2022.159 Table 103.Oahu Hotel Performance:2023 vs.2022.159 Table 104.Maui County Hotel Performance:2023 vs.2022.160 Table 105.Kauai Hotel Performance:2023 vs.2022.160 Table 106.Hawaii Island Hotel Performance:2023 vs.2022.161 Table 107.Visitor Plant Inventory Existing Inventory by Island and Property:2023 vs.2022.162 Table 108.Visitor Plant Inventory Existing Inventory by Island and Unit:2023 vs.2022.163 Table 109.Visitor Plant Inventory Class of Units by Island:2023 vs.2022.164 Table 110.Visitor Plant Inventory Available Units by County:1968-2023.165 DBEDT 1 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report SUMMARY OF 2023 VISITORS TO HAWAII DBEDT 2 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report ALL VISITORS(BY AIR AND BY CRUISE SHIPS)A total of 9,657,607 visitors arrived to the Hawaiian Islands in calendar year 2023,which was an increase of 4.6 percent from 9,233,983 visitors in 2022.Total visitor expenditures in 2023 measured in nominal dollar was$20.87 billion( 5.4%)compared to$19.80 billion in 2022.Growth in the first seven months of 2023 offset declines in visitor arrivals and total visitor spending in the five months following the August 8,2023 wildfires that destroyed Historic Lahaina Town and heavily damaged Upper Kula,Upper Makawao and Olinda areas on Maui.For all of 2023,there were 9,499,995 visitors( 4.0%)who came by air service and 157,612 visitors( 65.4%)who came by cruise ships.In 2022,9,138,674 visitors came by air and 95,309 visitors arrived by cruise ships.VISITORS(ARRIVALS BY AIR)In 2023,a total of 9,499,995 visitors arrived by air service,up 4.0 percent from 9,138,674 visitors in the previous year.The average length of stay was 9.02 days(-2.7%)compared to 9.27 days by visitors in 2022.The average daily census was 234,724 visitors( 1.1%)present on any given day in 2023,compared to 232,154 in 2022(Table 1).Spending by air visitors to the islands increased to$20.66 billion( 5.1%)in 2023.The average daily spending was$241 per person( 4.0%)compared to$232 per person in 2022(Table 1).Lodging,the largest spending category by all visitors to Hawaii,increased to$9.64 billion( 5.5%)in 2023.Food and beverage,the second largest category,rose to$4.38 billion( 8.8%).Shopping at$2.12 billion( 7.0%)was the third largest expense category in 2023,followed by transportation at$1.96 billion(-10.9%)and entertainment and recreation at$1.88 billion( 2.3%).Supplemental business spending in 2023 was$132.0 million( 31.0%)compared to$100.8 million in the previous year.These are additional business expenses spent locally on conventions and corporate meetings by out-of-state visitors(i.e.,costs of space and equipment rentals,transportation,etc.)that were not included in personal spending(Table 71).In 2023,arrivals from the U.S.West(5,000,099 visitors,-5.3%)and U.S.East(2,427,144 visitors,-1.7%)declined while arrivals from Japan(589,172 visitors, 206.0%),Canada(474,727 visitors, 14.6%),Oceania(236,127 visitors, 26.6%),Other Asia(214,609 visitors, 56.1%),Europe(117,241 visitors, 2.8%)and Latin America(28,121 visitors, 35.5%)were higher compared to 2022(Table 1).In 2023,arrivals increased on Oahu(5,613,409 visitors, 15.5%),Hawaii Island(1,779,063 visitors, 6.7%)and Kauai(1,418,688 visitors, 5.4%),but declined on Maui(2,495,038 visitors,-14.6%),Lnai(53,870 visitors,-20.8%)and Molokai(33,224 visitors,-23.3%)compared to the previous year(Table 1).There were 59,785 trans-Pacific flights(-0.7%)with 13,122,041 seats( 2.9%)to Hawaii in 2023 compared to 60,231 flights with 12,752,692 seats in 2022.Growth in air seats to Honolulu(7,932,570, 14.8%)and Kona(1,390,182, 2.4%)entirely offset reduction in seats to Kahului(2,819,178,-14.3%),Lhue(978,949,-14.6%)and Hilo(1,162,-97.6%)(Tables 96-101).DBEDT 3 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Figure 1.Visitor Arrivals by Air from Four Largest Markets 2014-2023 U.S.WEST In 2023,air capacity from U.S West(45,706 scheduled flights,-6.5%with 9,438,011 scheduled seats,-3.8%)decreased compared to 2022(48,899 flights with 9,813,512 seats)(Tables 97&100).Visitors from U.S.West spent$9.59 billion(-4.9%)and$225 per person per day( 1.6%)in 2023,compared to$10.09 billion and$222 per person per day in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals dropped to 5,000,099 visitors(-5.3%)compared to 5,277,349 visitors in 2022.Visitor days declined 6.4 percent compared to the previous year(Figure 1,Table 15).The average length of stay by U.S.West visitors was 8.51 days(-1.2%)compared to 8.62 days in 2022.The majority of the U.S.West visitors in 2023 have been to Hawaii before(80.7%)while 19.3 percent were first-time visitors.Oahu hosted 49.0 percent of U.S.West visitors in 2023,27.1 percent went to Maui,18.7 percent went to Hawaii Island and 16.2 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased slightly on Hawaii Island( 1.2%)and Oahu( 0.9%),was unchanged on Kauai(0.0%),but declined on Maui(-18.2%)compared to 2022.Over half(51.7%)of U.S.West visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels,16.7 percent stayed in condominiums,12.7 percent stayed with friends/relatives,12.1 percent stayed in rental homes and 9.6 percent stayed in timeshares.Eight out of ten visitors in 2023 came to vacation(81.4%),11.8 percent came to visit friends/relatives,3.0 percent came for meetings,conventions,and incentives(MCI)and 2.1 percent came to honeymoon.2014201520162017201820192020202120222023US West3,255,4753,507,6523,664,1503,868,1954,203,8944,595,3191,311,1764,473,5885,277,3495,000,099US East1,713,0851,803,6701,892,7682,040,7952,173,4582,276,520676,1501,995,3112,469,1282,427,144Japan1,511,7391,482,3041,487,9791,525,3431,489,7781,576,205289,13718,936192,562589,172Canada522,761512,323469,314520,062548,702540,103164,39387,900414,250474,72701,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,000Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 4 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Arrivals from California,the largest single state contributor,decreased 8.7 percent to 2,901,458 visitors in 2023.There were also fewer visitors from Oregon(283,499,-2.3%),Arizona(265,581,-4.8%),Colorado(234,931,-5.4%),Utah(207,089,-3.0%)and Nevada(166,668,-2.0%),which offset growth in arrivals from Washington(658,072, 1.5%)(Table 19).U.S.EAST In 2023,air capacity from U.S.East(4,498 scheduled flights,-1.5%with 1,225,721 scheduled seats,-2.9%)declined from the previous year(4,565 flights with 1,262,967 seats)(Tables 97&100).Visitors from U.S.East spent$6.23 billion( 1.1%)and$263 per person per day( 4.1%)in 2023,compared to$6.16 billion and$252 per person per day in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals declined to 2,427,144 visitors(-1.7%)compared to 2,469,128 visitors in 2022.Visitor days were down 2.9 percent from the previous year(Figure 1,Table 17).The average length of stay by U.S.East visitors was 9.77 days(-1.3%)compared to 9.90 days in 2022.Over half of U.S.East visitors in 2023 have been to Hawaii before(58.6%)while 41.4 percent were first-time visitors.Six out of ten U.S.East visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(60.8%),30.4 percent visited Maui,22.2 percent visited Hawaii Island and 18.0 percent visited Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Kauai( 10.4%),Oahu( 4.8%)and Hawaii Island( 4.4%),but declined on Maui(-14.5%)in comparison to 2022.The majority of U.S.East visitors in 2023 came to vacation(76.0%),12.4 percent came to visit friends/relatives,5.6 percent came for MCI purposes and 3.5 percent came to honeymoon.Over half of U.S.East visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(59.4%),while some visitors stayed in condominiums(12.9%),with friends/relatives(12.8%),in rental homes(11.6%)and in timeshares(7.9%).Texas(416,571 visitors,-2.4%),Florida(170,030,0.0%),Illinois(164,824,-5.2%)and New York(152,875,-6.6%)were the four largest U.S.East states in terms of visitor arrivals in 2023 (Table 19).JAPAN In 2023,air capacity from Japan(3,823 scheduled flights, 98.3%with 1,063,623 scheduled seats, 122.0%)doubled compared to the previous year(1,928 flights with 479,146 seats).Service resumed from Fukuoka to Honolulu( 29,190 seats)and there were more scheduled seats from Nagoya(25,308, 326.7%),Osaka(135,053, 138.5%),Haneda(415,974, 122.4%)and Narita(447,955, 100.5%)to Honolulu.Air capacity to Kona(47 flights, 51.6%with 10,143 seats, 64.4%)also increased compared to 2022(Tables 98&101).Visitors from Japan spent$930.3 million( 158.8%)and$241 per person per day( 2.3%)in 2023,compared to$359.4 million and$235 per person per day in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals increased to 589,172 visitors( 206.0%)compared to 192,562 visitors in 2022.Visitor days were up 153.1 percent from the previous year(Figure 1,Table 22).The average length of stay by Japanese visitors was 6.56 days(-17.3%)compared to 7.93 days in 2022.Three out of four Japanese visitors in 2023 were repeat visitors(74.0%)while 26.0 percent were first-time visitors to the islands.DBEDT 5 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Nearly all Japanese visitors went to Oahu(97.4%),7.6 percent visited Hawaii Island,1.9 percent visited Maui and 1.0 percent visited Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Oahu( 207.4%),Hawaii Island( 188.6%),Maui( 110.5%)and Kauai( 98.9%)compared to 2022.Seven out of ten Japanese visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(72.1%),16.6 percent stayed in condominiums,13.0 percent stayed in timeshares and 1.9 percent stayed with friends/relatives.Seven out of ten Japanese visitors in 2023 came to vacation(73.4%),13.1 percent came to honeymoon,7.0 percent came for MCI purposes and 2.6 percent came to visit friends/relatives.CANADA In 2023,there were more scheduled flights(2,566, 3.8%)but fewer scheduled seats(466,196,-4.3%)from Canada compared to the previous year(2,473 flights with 487,215 seats).Direct air capacity to Kahului decreased(-32,093 scheduled seats)compared to 2022.There were planned reductions for 2023.There were also canceled flights in the aftermath of the August wildfires(Tables 98&101).Visitors from Canada spent$1.23 billion( 27.9%)and$220 per person per day( 16.1%)in 2023,compared to$962.1 million and$190 per person per day in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals increased to 474,727 visitors( 14.6%)and visitor days grew 10.2 percent compared to 2022(Figure 1,Table 24).The average length of stay by Canadian visitors in 2023 was 11.77 days(-3.9%)compared to 12.24 days in the previous year.Eight out of ten Canadian visitors(81.5%)in 2023 flew direct from international ports while the rest arrived on flights from the U.S.mainland.The majority of Canadian visitors in 2023 were repeat visitors(63.2%)while 36.8 percent were first-timers to Hawaii.More than half of Canadian visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(51.5%),45.4 percent visited Maui,18.6 percent visited Hawaii Island and 11.9 percent visited Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Kauai( 32.2%),Hawaii Island( 30.5%),Oahu( 22.2%)and Maui( 3.7%)compared to 2022.Over half of Canadian visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(51.3%),27.3 percent stayed in condominiums,11.3 percent stayed in rental homes,8.8 percent stayed in timeshares and 6.1 percent stayed with friends/relatives.Most Canadian visitors in 2023 came to vacation(89.8%),4.4 percent came for MCI purposes,4.3 percent came to visit friends/relatives and 2.3 percent came to honeymoon.EUROPE Visitors from Europe spent$369.0 million( 20.6%)and$243 per person per day( 26.6%)compared to$306.0 million and$192 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals increased to 117,241 visitors( 2.8%)in 2023.However,visitor days were down 4.8 percent from 2022 due to a shorter average length of stay(12.94 days,-7.4%).The majority of European visitors(79.7%)came on domestic flights.Visitors from Germany comprised 33.3 percent of the Europe MMA in 2023,followed by visitors from the United Kingdom(30.8%),France(15.5%),Switzerland(12.1%)and Italy(8.4%)(Tables 13&26).DBEDT 6 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Figure 2.Europe MMA,United Kingdom,and Germany Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014-2023 Visitors from Germany Arrivals from Germany increased to 38,996 visitors( 2.3%)in 2023(Figure 2,Tables 13&14).These visitors stayed an average of 14.71 days(-7.4%)compared to 15.88 days in 2022(Table 28).The majority of German visitors in 2023 were first-timers(68.9%)while 31.1 percent have been to Hawaii before.Eight out of ten German visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(79.2%),37.6 percent went to Maui,34.7 percent went to Hawaii Island and 27.9 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Oahu( 11.4%),but declined on Maui(-19.5%),Hawaii Island(-12.1%)and Kauai(-6.0%)compared to 2022.Six out of ten German visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(62.5%).Some visitors stayed in rental homes(15.3%),in condominiums(10.9%),with friends/relatives(10.0%),in hostels(7.7%),in bed and breakfast properties(4.8%)and in timeshares(1.2%).Most German visitors in 2023 came to vacation(80.4%),9.2 percent came to visit friends/relatives,6.2 percent came to honeymoon and 5.3 percent came for MCI purposes.Visitors from United Kingdom Arrivals from the United Kingdom(UK)rose slightly to 36,058( 0.4%)in 2023(Figure 2,Tables 13&14).The average length of stay by UK visitors was 10.25 days(-3.5%)compared to 10.62 days in 2022 (Table 27).Two out of three UK visitors in 2023 were repeat visitors(63.7%)while 36.3 percent were first-timers to the islands.The majority of UK arrivals in 2023 visited Oahu(76.8%),26.9 percent visited Maui,23.7 percent visited Hawaii Island and 13.5 percent visited Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Oahu( 12.1%),but declined on Maui(-16.9%),Hawaii Island(-6.2%)and Kauai(-0.5%)compared to 2022.2014201520162017201820192020202120222023Europe MMA142,366145,019143,922142,665144,953137,90821,55018,775114,041117,241United Kingdom48,50051,07353,16550,32846,52341,2197,0507,09735,92136,058Germany43,75243,78841,42042,54345,81946,2997,4254,69138,13738,996020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000Total Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 7 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Seven out of ten UK visitors stayed in hotels(71.1%).Some visitors stayed in rental homes(11.0%),with friends/relatives(10.1%),in condominiums(9.3%)and in timeshares(3.3%).Eight out of ten UK visitors in 2023 came to vacation(77.7%),9.6 percent came to visit friends/relatives,6.1 percent came for MCI purposes and 0.9 percent came to honeymoon.OCEANIA In 2023,air capacity from Melbourne and Sydney,Australia(787 scheduled flights, 19.2%with 237,995 seats, 19.8%)increased compared to 2022(660 flights with 198,737 seats).Air capacity from Auckland,New Zealand(316 scheduled flights, 100.0%with 91,190 seats, 102.2%)doubled compared to 2022(158 flights with 45,088 seats)(Tables 98&101).Visitors from Oceania spent$631.2 million( 22.1%)and$296 per person per day( 3.8%)in 2023 compared to$516.8 million and$285 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals(236,127 visitors, 26.6%)and visitor days( 17.6%)from Oceania increased compared to 2022(Table 29).Visitors from Australia accounted for 78.7 percent of all visitors from Oceania in 2023,while 21.3 percent were from New Zealand(Table 13).Figure 3.Oceania MMA Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014-2023 2014201520162017201820192020202120222023Oceania MMA371,367399,619390,364400,957415,764363,55150,7106,524186,551236,127Australia310,095335,842325,600327,704325,050287,99541,3994,366155,700185,887New Zealand61,27263,77764,76473,25490,71475,5569,3102,15830,85150,241050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000Total Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 8 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Visitors from Australia Visitors from Australia spent$302 per person per day( 3.3%)in 2023 compared to$292 per person per day in 2022(Table 86).Arrivals from Australia rose to 185,887 visitors( 19.4%)in 2023 compared to 155,700 visitors in the previous year(Figure 3,Table 30).Visitors from Australia stayed an average of 9.00 days(-7.6%)compared to 9.74 days in 2022.Over half of Australian visitors in 2023 have been to the islands before(57.2%)while 42.8 percent were first-time visitors.Nearly all Australian visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(98.9%)while 11.1 percent went to Hawaii Island,10.6 percent went to Maui and 8.1 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Kauai( 54.7%),Hawaii Island( 31.0%)and Oahu( 20.0%),but declined on Maui(-12.0%)compared to 2022.Most Australian visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(89.9%),6.4 percent stayed in condominiums,3.6 percent stayed in rental homes,2.6 percent stayed with friends/relatives and 2.2 percent stayed in timeshares.Australian visitors primarily came to vacation(88.4%),3.1 percent came to honeymoon,3.1 percent came to visit friends/relatives and 2.4 percent came for MCI purposes.Visitors from New Zealand Visitors from New Zealand spent$281 per person per day( 11.4%)in 2023 compared to$252 per person per day in 2022(Table 87).Arrivals from New Zealand increased to 50,241 visitors( 62.8%)compared to 30,851 visitors in 2022(Figure 3,Table 31).Visitors from New Zealand in 2023 stayed an average of 9.20 days(-5.1%)compared to 9.70 days in the prior year.More than half of New Zealand visitors in 2023 were repeat visitors(57.1%)while 42.9 percent were first-timers to the islands.Nearly all New Zealand visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(97.0%),10.4 percent went to Hawaii Island,10.0 percent went to Maui and 4.6 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Hawaii Island( 70.8%),Oahu( 67.0%),Kauai( 42.7%)and Maui( 28.5%)compared to 2022.The majority of New Zealand visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(78.1%),12.6 percent stayed in condominiums,6.6 percent stayed in rental homes,6.2 percent stayed with friends/relatives and 2.9 percent stayed in timeshares.Most New Zealand visitors came to vacation(86.9%),6.6 percent came to visit friends/relatives,3.2 percent came for MCI purposes and 1.7 percent came to honeymoon.DBEDT 9 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report OTHER ASIA In 2023,air capacity from Seoul,Korea(906 scheduled flights, 31.5%with 278,670 seats, 28.3%)increased compared to 2022(689 flights with 217,245 seats).Direct air service from Taipei,Taiwan remained suspended since April 2020.There have been no direct flights from China since air service from Shanghai ended in February 2020(Tables 98&101).Visitors from Other Asia spent$579.3 million( 55.8%)and$317 per person per day( 3.4%)in 2023 compared to$371.9 million and$307 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals(214,609 visitors, 56.1%)and visitor days( 50.7%)from Other Asia increased compared to 2022(Table 32).Visitors from Korea comprised 75.3 percent of Other Asia MMA in 2023,followed by visitors from China(15.8%),Taiwan(4.7%),Singapore(2.1%)and Hong Kong(2.0%)(Table 13).Figure 4.Other Asia MMA,China,Korea and Taiwan Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014 2023 Visitors from Korea Visitors from Korea spent$316 per person per day( 7.7%)in 2023 compared to$293 per person per day in 2022(Table 84).Arrivals from Korea rose to 161,706 visitors( 44.6%)in 2023 compared to 111,863 visitors in the previous year(Figure 4,Table 33).Korean visitors stayed an average of 8.43 days(-2.6%)compared to 8.65 days in 2022.Seven out of ten Korean visitors in 2023 were first-time visitors(71.9%)while 28.1 percent have been to Hawaii before.Nearly all Korean visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(98.8%),16.6 percent went to Hawaii Island,6.5 percent went to Maui and 2.8 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Kauai( 98.1%),Hawaii Island( 76.2%)and Oahu( 45.9%),but declined on Maui(-4.0%)compared to 2022.Most Korean visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(89.4%),while some stayed in rental homes(7.3%),in condominiums(6.4%)and with friends/relatives(3.1%).2014201520162017201820192020202120222023Other Asia MMA368,110393,833448,414449,082379,925354,68067,90622,524137,506214,609China159,718173,520164,326141,232123,24692,08215,8786,68613,77133,966Korea178,118193,658257,189279,201228,350229,05646,88410,652111,863161,706Taiwan20,44017,52518,10719,46317,52324,2423,2402,1134,16110,045050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000Total Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 10 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Six out of ten Korean visitors in 2023 came to vacation(61.8%),31.7 percent came to honeymoon,3.1 percent came for MCI purposes,1.8 percent came to get married and 1.8 percent came to visit friends/relatives.Visitors from China Visitors from China spent$353 per person per day( 3.4%)in 2023 compared to$341 per person per day in 2022(Table 83).There were 33,966 visitors( 146.6%)from China in 2023 compared to 13,711 visitors in the previous year(Figure 4,Table 34).The average length of stay was 8.46 days( 0.4%)compared to 8.43 days in 2022.The majority of Chinese visitors in 2023 were first-timers(63.9%)while 36.1 percent were repeat visitors to Hawaii.Nearly all Chinese visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(93.4%),29.6 percent went to Hawaii Island,15.4 percent went to Maui and 7.8 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Kauai( 192.6%),Oahu( 170.9%),Hawaii Island( 142.8%)and Maui( 81.1%)compared to 2022.Most Chinese visitors stayed in hotels(84.9%).Some visitors stayed in rental homes(7.5%),condominiums(6.8%)and with friends/relatives(5.8%).Most Chinese visitors came to vacation(79.8%),8.6 percent came for MCI purposes,7.2 percent came to honeymoon and 3.9 percent came to visit friends/relatives.Visitors from Taiwan Visitors from Taiwan spent$265 per person per day( 7.5%)in 2023 compared to$247 per person per day in 2022(Table 85).There were 10,045 visitors( 141.4%)from Taiwan in 2023 compared to 4,161 visitors in the prior year(Figure 4,Table 35).The average length of stay was 10.01 days(-10.2%)compared to 11.15 days in 2022.More than half of the visitors in 2023 were first-time visitors(59.6%)while 40.4 percent have been to Hawaii before.Nearly all Taiwanese visitors in 2023 went to Oahu(96.1%),18.9 percent went to Hawaii Island,12.5 percent went to Maui and 4.4 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Hawaii Island( 177.2%),Oahu( 157.5%),Maui( 107.5%)and Kauai( 75.7%)compared to 2022.The majority of Taiwanese visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(73.9%)while others stayed with friends/relatives(12.7%),in rental homes(6.2%),condominiums(3.5%),bed and breakfast properties(3.4%)and timeshares(2.7%).Over half of Taiwanese visitors in 2023 came to vacation(52.7%),14.9 percent came to honeymoon,14.5 percent came to visit friends/relatives and 11.8 percent came for MCI purposes.DBEDT 11 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report LATIN AMERICA Visitors from Latin America spent$94.4 million( 59.3%)and$313 per person per day( 25.9%)in 2023 compared to$59.3 million and$249 per person per day in the prior year(Table 1).Arrivals(28,121 visitors, 35.5%)and visitor days( 26.5%)increased compared to 2022(Figure 5,Table 36).The average length of stay was 10.71 days(-6.6%)compared to 11.47 days in the previous year.Figure 5.Latin America MMA Visitor Arrivals by Air:2014 2023 Visitors from Mexico comprised 51.6 percent of the Latin America MMA in 2023,followed by visitors from Brazil(29.2%)and Argentina(19.3%)(Table 13).The majority of the visitors from Latin America in 2023 were first-timers(66.4%)while 33.6 percent were repeat visitors(Table 36).Three out of four visitors from Latin America went to Oahu(73.0%),31.0 percent went to Maui,21.9 percent went to Hawaii Island and 12.7 percent went to Kauai.Visitor arrivals increased on Kauai( 61.1%),Oahu( 42.6%),Hawaii Island( 30.6%)and Maui( 24.9%)compared to 2022.The majority of Latin America visitors stayed in hotels(62.4%),12.5 percent stayed in rental homes,11.4 percent stayed with friends/relatives and 8.6 percent stayed in condominiums.2014201520162017201820192020202120222023Latin Am.29,80027,97826,07524,98627,77825,3446,2119,34820,75028,12105,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000Total Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 12 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report AIR VISITORS BY ISLAND In 2023,visitor arrivals increased on Oahu( 15.5%),Hawaii Island( 6.7%)and Kauai( 5.4%),but declined on Maui(-14.6%),Lnai(-20.8%)and Molokai(-23.3%)compared to 2022.There were 1,407,018 visitors( 2.4%)who went to multiple islands compared to 1,374,525 visitors in 2022 (Table 4).OAHU Figure 6.Oahu Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA 2014 2023 In 2023,total spending by visitors on Oahu was$8.89 billion( 2.3%)and daily spending was$219 per person(-8.7%).In comparison,total visitor spending on Oahu was$8.69 billion and daily spending was$240 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals by air to Oahu in 2023 increased to 5,613,409 visitors( 15.5%)and visitor days rose 12.0 percent(Tables 1&58).The average daily census was 110,992 visitors( 12.0%)in 2023 compared to 99,092 visitors in the previous year(Table 8).Repeat visitors comprised 63.5 percent of Oahu visitors in 2023 while 36.5 percent were first-time visitors(Table 58).The majority of visitors who went to Oahu in 2023 stayed in hotels(69.7%)while in the state,12.2 percent stayed with friends/relatives,9.2 percent stayed in condominiums,7.2 percent stayed in rental homes and 5.6 percent stayed in timeshares.The majority of Oahu visitors came to the state for a vacation(75.6%),12.2 percent came to visit friends/relatives,4.7 percent came to honeymoon and 4.2 percent came for meetings,conventions,and incentives(MCI).2014201520162017201820192020202120222023US West1,462,017 1,525,939 1,569,790 1,658,938 1,795,039 2,005,506582,2762,005,024 2,426,014 2,447,883US East1,016,262 1,072,333 1,107,818 1,188,504 1,248,855 1,321,001385,0831,137,006 1,407,627 1,474,790Japan1,469,449 1,436,749 1,442,192 1,454,594 1,399,307 1,492,753269,40218,001186,609573,719Canada209,315208,542185,680213,275233,478227,49166,24036,660199,898244,328Other Asia351,573378,110432,197437,125369,312345,94865,96218,855130,673208,461Oceania358,225386,815377,479391,031406,904356,29849,4194,847182,278232,5000500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,000Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 13 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report MAUI Figure 7.Maui Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA 2014 2023 For the calendar year 2023,total spending by visitors on Maui was$5.80 billion(-0.5%)and daily spending was$287 per person( 17.5%).In comparison,total visitor spending on Maui was$5.82 billion and daily spending was$244 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals by air to Maui declined to 2,495,038 visitors(-14.6%)in 2023 and visitor days were down 15.3 percent from the previous year(Tables 1&60).Visitor arrivals and visitor spending declined by double digits in the five months following the August 8,2023,wildfires.The average daily census was 55,300 visitors(-15.3%)compared to 65,287 visitors in 2022 (Table 8).Repeat visitors comprised 70.9 percent of Maui visitors in 2023 while 29.1 percent were first-time visitors(Table 60).Nearly half of visitors who went to Maui in 2023 stayed in hotels(48.1%)while in the state,27.4 percent stayed in condominiums,11.5 percent stayed in rental homes,10.5 percent stayed in timeshares and 8.1 percent stayed with friends/relatives.The majority of Maui visitors in 2023 came to the state for a vacation(85.4%),7.0 percent came to visit friends/relatives,4.2 percent came for MCI purposes and 3.4 percent came to honeymoon.2014201520162017201820192020202120222023US West1,145,7961,244,6891,313,8951,366,0031,477,8051,616,213430,2611,523,0241,655,7001,354,275US East635,804665,964700,281758,202799,275832,911228,925681,140861,746737,139Japan58,88958,94154,29855,58348,45046,6847,9297665,40811,383Canada272,174260,290242,371262,919279,940276,82574,97445,149208,071215,713Other Asia73,58378,13483,43583,44564,67954,6419,7433,74216,49518,431Oceania75,93373,39973,19774,94069,54460,5827,2021,12526,30524,736-200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 14 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report MOLOKAI In 2023,total spending by visitors on Molokai was$34.1 million(-13.0%)and daily spending was$188 per person( 23.2%).In comparison,total visitor spending on Molokai was$39.2 million and daily spending was$153 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals to Molokai dropped to 33,224 visitors(-23.3%)in 2023 and visitor days declined 29.4 percent from the previous year(Tables 1&61).The average daily census was 496 visitors(-29.4%)compared to 703 visitors in 2022(Table 8).Repeat visitors comprised 59.8 percent of Molokai visitors in 2023 while 40.2 percent were first-time visitors(Table 61).LNAI In 2023,total spending by visitors on Lnai was$120.8 million(-19.9%)and daily spending was$626 per person( 16.1%).In comparison,total visitor spending on Lnai was$150.8 million and daily spending was$540 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals to Lnai decreased to 53,870 visitors(-20.8%)in 2023 and visitor days were down 31.0 percent from the previous year(Tables 1&62).The average daily census was 529 visitors(-31.0%)compared to 766 visitors in 2022(Table 8).Repeat visitors comprised 59.1 percent of Lnai visitors in 2023 while 40.9 percent were first-time visitors(Table 62).KAUAI Figure 8.Kauai Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA 2014 2023 2014201520162017201820192020202120222023US West564,342603,519619,976660,128719,930730,725179,451540,578810,540810,602US East339,607344,210356,523390,323414,489404,948101,006244,504396,806437,876Japan23,83425,70222,97725,44224,80625,3333,6223612,9585,885Canada77,76074,71066,87373,33388,71176,77722,9587,66042,68056,412Other Asia11,09015,23213,80518,24714,82712,6242,6461,3334,8548,407Oceania31,40732,90431,84235,74633,02832,1684,17757211,34217,351-100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 15 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report In 2023,total spending by visitors on Kauai was$2.79 billion( 25.5%)and daily spending was$264 per person( 23.8%).In comparison,total visitor spending on Kauai was$2.23 billion and daily spending was$213 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals by air to Kauai increased to 1,418,688 visitors( 5.4%)in 2023 and visitor days rose 1.4 percent compared to the previous year(Tables 1&63).The average daily census was 29,002 visitors( 1.4%)compared to 28,604 visitors in 2022 (Table 8).Repeat visitors comprised 72.8 percent of Kauai visitors in 2023 while 27.2 percent were first-time visitors(Table 63).Nearly half of those who visited Kauai stayed in hotels(48.7%)while in the state.Some stayed in condominiums(18.1%),rental homes(17.9%),timeshares(14.7%)and with friends/relatives(7.8%).Most of the visitors were in the state for a vacation(86.7%),6.9 percent visited friends/relatives,4.0 percent came to honeymoon,and 3.2 percent came for MCI purposes.HAWAII ISLAND Figure 9.Hawaii Island Air Visitor Arrivals by Selected MMA 2014 2023 In 2023,total spending by visitors on Hawaii Island was$3.03 billion( 11.3%)and daily spending was$216 per person( 9.2%).In comparison,total visitor spending on Hawaii Island was$2.72 billion and daily spending was$198 per person in 2022(Table 1).Arrivals by air to Hawaii Island increased to 1,779,063 visitors( 6.7%)in 2023 and visitor days grew 1.9 percent from the previous year(Tables 1&64).The average daily census was 38,405 visitors( 1.9%)compared to 37,701 visitors in 2022 (Table 8).2014201520162017201820192020202120222023US West571,850631,224653,300714,425729,244786,520244,963763,139922,666933,650US East389,009400,979418,011477,843454,472464,651134,191374,017515,089537,882Japan170,483140,634143,002183,907176,499170,68635,4531,00015,51044,758Canada105,460103,51189,287103,59193,45497,71136,73212,95467,58488,214Other Asia52,77268,21075,01788,41272,32867,76414,8504,21821,89940,369Oceania54,24558,69156,76565,91251,57047,4116,37767218,79925,840-100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000Visitor Arrivals DBEDT 16 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Repeat visitors comprised 69.1 percent of Hawaii Island visitors in 2023 while 30.9 percent were first-time visitors(Table 64).Half of Hawaii Island visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels(50.1%)while in the state.Some visitors stayed in rental homes(18.6%),condominiums(15.5%),with friends/relatives(12.8%)and in timeshares(9.8%).The majority of the visitors came to the state for a vacation(82.2%),10.9 percent came to visit friends/relatives,4.3 percent came for MCI purposes and 3.3 percent came to honeymoon.CRUISE VISITORS In 2023,157,612 visitors( 65.4%)entered Hawaii via 74 trips( 42.3%)from out-of-state cruise ships.Spending by these visitors was$71.5 million( 57.0%).Another 126,331 visitors came by air to board the Hawaii home-ported cruise ship Pride of America.Additionally,6,881 visitors flew into Honolulu to board turnaround tours,which occurred when visitors,who arrived on out-of-state ships,toured the islands and then departed Hawaii by air.After the first group of cruise visitors left,a new group of visitors flew into Honolulu to embark on these ships,toured the islands,then most of them remained on these ships to visit the next port(Tables 1,92&93).There were 290,824 total cruise visitors(those who arrived by cruise ships and those who arrived by air to board cruise ships)in 2023 and total spending by all cruise visitors was$603.6 million (Table 95).In 2022,Hawaiis cruise industry was still ramping up after being out of service from mid-March 2020 through December 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.There were 95,309 visitors who came via 52 trips from out-of-state cruise ships and spending by these visitors was$45.5 million.There were 52,626 visitors who came by air to board the Pride of America and another 9,183 visitors who flew into Honolulu to board turnaround tours on out-of-state cruise ships.In 2022,total spending by all cruise visitors was$307.0 million.Cruise Visitors Characteristics There were 294,824 total cruise passengers in 2023,comprising 290,824 visitors(98.6%)and 4,000 Hawaii residents(1.4%)(Table 94).By the nature of the cruise routes,most cruise visitors went to the four largest islands.In 2023,all cruise visitors went to Oahu,92.8 percent visited Hawaii Island and 77.1 percent visited Kauai.The share of cruise visitors who went to Maui in 2023 dropped to 76.4 percent from 92.2 percent in 2022.After the August 8 wildfires,the Pride of America,which usually spends two days in Kahului Harbor on each seven-day interisland tour;canceled Kahului and added one more day in Hilo and one more day in Nwiliwili to each tour in the last three weeks of August.The Pride of America resumed visits to Kahului Harbor in September 2023.Out-of-state cruise ships originally scheduled to visit Lhain Harbor were redirected to other Hawaii ports for the rest of 2023.In addition to their cruise itinerary,6,085 visitors in 2023 went to Lnai and 3,779 visitors went to Molokai.In 2023,the largest group of cruise visitors was from the U.S.East(42.1%of total cruise visitors),followed by U.S.West(27.4%),Canada(10.5%),Oceania(9.8%),Europe(4.6%)and other markets(5.5%).More than half(57.4%)of cruise visitors in 2023 had been to the islands before while 42.6 percent came for the first time.There were more first-timers among European(76.6%)and U.S.East DBEDT 17 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report(53.6%)cruise visitors.In contrast,repeat visitors comprised a larger percentage of cruise visitors from U.S.West(82.7%),Oceania(61.4%)and Canada(55.8%).The average length of stay by all cruise visitors in 2023 was 7.27 days.They spent an average of 5.19 days aboard ship touring the islands and 0.98 days on shore after the cruise was over.In addition,visitors who arrived by air stayed an average of 1.10 days in Hawaii before their cruise.Half(49.9%)of the cruise visitors in 2023 stayed in hotels in addition to their cruise stay.Other lodging used by cruise visitors included condominiums(3.6%),timeshares(3.2%)and staying with friends/relatives(2.5%).Figure 10.Total Cruise Visitors to Hawaii:2014 2023 Cruise Visitors by Market In 2023,there were 122,523 total cruise visitors from the U.S.East who spent$372.5 million.Their average length of stay was 8.36 days,of which 5.95 days were spent on ship and 0.89 days post-cruise(Table 94).There were 79,791 total cruise visitors from the U.S.West who spent$118.6 million in 2023.These visitors stayed an average of 6.56 days.Their average length of cruise was 4.74 days and they also spent 1.08 days on shore post-cruise.Canada was the third largest cruise market in 2023,with 30,464 total cruise visitors who spent$45.3 million.The average length of stay was 6.87 days,of which 4.78 days were spent on ship and 1.19 days were spent after cruise.There were 28,516 total cruise visitors from Oceania in 2023 who spent$22.9 million.Their average length of stay was 5.77 days.They spent 4.03 days on ship and 0.90 days on shore after their cruise was over.There were 13,520 total cruise visitors from Europe who spent$15.0 million in 2023.European cruise visitors stayed 5.71 days in 2023.They spent 4.35 days on ship and 0.68 days in Hawaii post-cruise.118,947125,384114,464129,113124,352129,54222,913061,809133,212124,443116,546112,475126,733127,397143,50730,185095,309157,612050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,0002014201520162017201820192020202120222023Arrivals by AirArrivals by ShipTotal Cruise Visiors DBEDT 18 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report INFLATION ADJUSTED VISITOR SPENDING When adjusted for inflation using the Hawaii Tourism Price Index,total visitor spending rose 2.6 percent compared to 2022(Figure 11).Figure 11.Total Visitor Expenditures 2009-20231 Inflation Adjusted total Visitor Expenditures for 2009 2023,using DBEDT Hawaii Tourism Price Index(2017=100)(https:/dbedt.hawaii.gov/visitor/tourism-price-index/)To construct a Hawaii tourism price index,DBEDT collects prices of about 150 goods and services that represent typical spending of Hawaii visitors.Combining the locally-collected data with other published price data,the Hawaii tourism price index is calculated for total visitor spending and five major spending categories:“Food and beverage,”“Entertainment&Recreation,”“Transportation,”“Shopping,”and“Lodging.”Monthly spending patterns of visitors from the Hawaii visitor expenditure survey are used to calculate aggregation weights for the indexes.1 Comparative annual 2020 visitor spending statistics were not available.Due to COVID-19 restrictions,the Departure Survey could not be conducted between April through October 2020 and fielding for visitor spending was limited.Visitor spending statistics for months in 2020 for which data are available are presented in Tables 2 and 3 of the 2020 Annual Visitor Research Report,posted on The DBEDT website:https:/files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2020-annual-visitor.pdf$9,993.0$11,066.4$12,158.2$14,364.8$14,520.5$14,973.3$15,110.9$15,911.2$16,794.4$17,642.5$17,844.3$13,154.2$19,800.0$20,866.3$0.0$5,000.0$10,000.0$15,000.0$20,000.0$25,000.020092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202120222023 Nominal Total Visitor Expenditures($million)Inflation Adjusted Total Visitor ExpendituresTotal Visitor Expenditures(in millions)DBEDT 19 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report TOTAL AIR CAPACITY TO HAWAII In 2023,a total of 59,785 transpacific flights(-0.7%)with 13,122,041 seats( 2.9%)serviced the Hawaiian Islands compared to 60,231 flights with 12,752,692 seats in 2022(Tables 96-101).Figure 12.Total Air Seats Operated to Hawaii by Port of Entry 2014-2023 Air capacity to Honolulu increased to 32,870 flights( 12.1%)with 7,932,570 seats( 14.8%)in 2023 compared to 29,327 flights with 6,910,558 seats in 2022.Domestic air capacity rose 4.0 percent from 2022 to 5,773,928 seats.There were fewer seats from Chicago,Dallas,Long Beach,Los Angeles,Minneapolis,Newark,Oakland,Ontario,Phoenix,Salt Lake City,San Francisco,Santa Ana,Washington D.C,and discontinued service from Charlotte and Orlando.These reductions were entirely offset by growth in seats from Anchorage,Atlanta,Austin,Boston,Denver,Detroit,Houston,Las Vegas,New York JFK,Portland,Sacramento,San Diego,San Jose,Seattle,and seats from Everett that did not operate in 2022.International air capacity to Honolulu rose 59.0 percent from 2022 to 2,158,642 seats,with increased service from Japan(1,053,480 seats, 122.7%),Oceania(329,185 seats, 35.0%),Korea(278,670 seats, 28.3%),Canada(209,538 seats, 6.4%)and Other markets(275,620 seats, 26.2%).There were significant reductions in air capacity to Kahului in the five months following the August 8 wildfires.For all of 2023,flights(14,039,-15.8%)and air seats(2,819,178,-14.3%)decreased in comparison to 2022.Domestic air capacity declined 14.3 percent to 2,625,759 seats.Growth in seats from Anchorage,Atlanta and Las Vegas were entirely offset by reduced service from Chicago,Dallas,Denver,Long Beach,Los Angeles,Newark,Oakland,Phoenix,Sacramento,Salt Lake City,San Diego,San Francisco and San Jose.Air capacity from Canada to Kahului dropped 14.2 percent from 2022 to 193,419 seats.201420152016201720182019202020212022R2023Honolulu7,921,3778,135,1268,086,0408,113,7688,277,1928,415,4313,370,1225,491,1016,910,5587,932,570Kahului1,982,5522,271,3542,334,8322,329,7502,626,2252,895,6801,102,1663,020,3883,290,7422,819,178Kona688,287810,479852,562984,4201,280,7691,261,731514,4221,363,1241,357,6241,390,182Hilo46,05644,54044,88948,18054,29547,8728,96438,75647,4331,162Lihue657,860676,227702,222759,4901,000,694998,635322,993821,7151,146,335978,94901,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,000Air Seats DBEDT 20 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report There were fewer total flights(7,320,-1.6%)but more total air seats(1,390,182, 2.4%)to Kona compared to 2022.Domestic air capacity increased 1.7 percent to 1,334,210 seats.Reduced scheduled seats from Chicago,Los Angeles,Oakland,Phoenix,San Diego,San Francisco and discontinued service from Dallas and Sacramento were entirely offset by growth in seats from Anchorage,Denver,Las Vegas,Portland,San Jose and Seattle.International air capacity to Kona increased 23.3 percent to 55,972 seats with added service from Japan(47 flights, 51.6%with 10,143 seats, 64.4%)and from Canada(259 flights, 14.1%with 44,621 seats, 13.8%)compared to 2022.Air service to Lhue decreased to 5,549 flights(-14.9%)and 978,949 seats(-14.6%)in 2023.Domestic air capacity declined 14.3 percent from 2022 to 960,331 seats.Growth in scheduled seats from Denver and Las Vegas was entirely offset by reduction in service from Los Angeles,Oakland,Phoenix,Portland,San Diego,San Francisco,San Jose and Seattle.Air capacity from Canada dropped 27.2 percent from 2022 to 18,618 seats.Air capacity to Hilo was reduced to only seven flights for the year(-97.4%)with 1,162 seats (-97.6%)in 2023,as direct service from Los Angeles ended on January 7,2023.DBEDT 21 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report ANNUAL VISITOR RESEARCH REPORT TABLES DBEDT 22 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 1.Summary of Visitor Statistics:2023 vs.2022 TOTAL EXPENDITURES($mil.)20,866.3 19,800.0 5.4Visitor arrivals by air20,662.8 19,653.6 5.1Visitor arrivals by cruise ships71.545.557.0Supplemental business(all MMAs)132.0 100.8 31.0TOTAL PERSONAL EXPENDITURES($mil.)20,734.3 19,699.1 5.3Visitor arrivals by air20,662.8 19,653.6 5.1U.S.Total15,821.7 16,250.3 -2.6U.S.West9,592.7 10,086.9 -4.9U.S.East6,229.0 6,163.4 1.1Japan930.3 359.4 158.8Canada1,230.3 962.1 27.9Europe369.0 306.0 20.6Oceania631.2 516.8 22.1Other Asia579.3 371.9 55.8Latin America94.4 59.3 59.3Other1,006.6 827.8 21.6Visitor arrivals by cruise ships71.545.557.0TOTAL VISITOR DAYS86,426,01385,239,7921.4Visitor arrivals by air85,674,12684,736,1871.1U.S.Total66,288,26969,916,446-5.2U.S.West42,564,35245,472,465-6.4U.S.East23,723,91724,443,981-2.9Japan3,864,4721,526,608153.1Canada5,585,2445,069,61910.2Europe1,517,0151,592,705-4.8Oceania2,135,0471,815,21217.6Other Asia1,828,0301,213,16650.7Latin America301,263238,08126.5Other4,154,7853,364,34923.5Visitor arrivals by cruise ships751,888503,60549.3VISITOR ARRIVALS9,657,6079,233,9834.6Visitor arrivals by air9,499,9959,138,6744.0U.S.Total7,427,2427,746,478-4.1U.S.West5,000,0995,277,349-5.3U.S.East2,427,1442,469,128-1.7Japan589,172192,562206.0Canada474,727414,25014.6Europe117,241114,0412.8Oceania236,127186,55126.6Other Asia214,609137,50656.1Latin America28,12120,75035.5Other412,755326,53626.4Visitor arrivals by cruise ships157,61295,30965.4AVERAGE DAILY CENSUS236,784233,5341.4Visitor arrivals by air234,724232,1541.1U.S.Total181,612191,552-5.2U.S.West116,615124,582-6.4U.S.East64,99766,970-2.9Japan10,5884,182153.1Canada15,30213,88910.2Europe4,1564,364-4.8Oceania5,8494,97317.6Other Asia5,0083,32450.7Latin America82565226.5Other11,3839,21723.5Visitor arrivals by cruise ships2,0601,38049.3EXPENDITURE CATEGORY20232022(%)ChangeMMA(Air&Ship)20232022(%)Change DBEDT 23 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 1.Summary of Visitor Statistics:2023 vs.2022(continued)AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY(days)8.959.23-3.1Visitor arrivals of stay by air9.029.27-2.7U.S.Total8.939.03-1.1U.S.West8.518.62-1.2U.S.East9.779.90-1.3Japan6.567.93-17.3Canada11.7712.24-3.9Europe12.9413.97-7.4Oceania9.049.73-7.1Other Asia8.528.82-3.5Latin America10.7111.47-6.6Other10.0710.30-2.3Visitor arrivals of stay by cruise ships4.775.28-9.7PER PERSON PER DAY SPENDING($)239.9 231.1 3.8Visitor arrivals by air241.2 231.9 4.0U.S.Total238.7 232.4 2.7U.S.West225.4 221.8 1.6U.S.East262.6 252.1 4.1Japan240.7 235.4 2.3Canada220.3 189.8 16.1Europe243.2 192.1 26.6Oceania295.6 284.7 3.8Other Asia316.9 306.6 3.4Latin America313.5 249.0 25.9Other242.3 246.1 -1.5Visitor arrivals by cruise ships95.190.45.2PER PERSON PER TRIP SPENDING($)2,146.9 2,133.3 0.6Visitor arrivals by air2,175.0 2,150.6 1.1U.S.Total2,130.2 2,097.8 1.5U.S.West1,918.5 1,911.4 0.4U.S.East2,566.4 2,496.2 2.8Japan1,578.9 1,866.4 -15.4Canada2,591.6 2,322.4 11.6Europe3,147.0 2,683.4 17.3Oceania2,673.2 2,770.4 -3.5Other Asia2,699.3 2,704.7 -0.2Latin America3,358.4 2,857.1 17.5Other2,438.8 2,535.2 -3.8Visitor arrivals by cruise ships453.5477.7-5.1MMA(Air&Ship)20232022(%)Change DBEDT 24 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 1:Summary of Visitor Statistics:2023 vs.2022(continued)TOTAL EXPENDITURES($mil,AIR SHIP)20,734.3 19,699.1 5.3Total by air20,662.8 19,653.6 5.1 Oahu8,890.9 8,693.7 2.3 Maui5,795.2 5,822.0 -0.5 Molokai34.1 39.2 -13.0 Lnai120.8 150.8 -19.9 Kauai2,792.8 2,225.3 25.5 Hawaii Island3,029.0 2,722.6 11.3Visitor arrivals by cruise ships71.545.557.0TOTAL VISITOR DAYS86,426,01385,239,7921.4Total by air85,674,12684,736,1871.1 Oahu40,511,98936,168,74512.0 Maui20,184,62523,829,806-15.3 Molokai181,192256,637-29.4 Lnai192,903279,500-31.0 Kauai10,585,55310,440,5221.4 Hawaii Island14,017,86313,760,9761.9Visitor arrivals by cruise ships751,888503,60549.3VISITOR ARRIVALS9,657,6079,233,9834.6Total by air9,499,9959,138,6744.0 Oahu5,613,4094,858,17015.5 Maui2,495,0382,921,159-14.6 Molokai33,22443,317-23.3 Lnai53,87068,016-20.8 Kauai1,418,6881,345,5645.4 Hawaii Island1,779,0631,667,6336.7Visitor arrivals by cruise ships157,61295,30965.4AVERAGE DAILY CENSUS236,784233,5341.4Total by air234,724232,1541.1 Oahu110,99299,09212.0 Maui55,30065,287-15.3 Molokai496703-29.4 Lnai529766-31.0 Kauai29,00228,6041.4 Hawaii Island38,40537,7011.9Visitor arrivals by cruise ships2,0601,38049.3AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY8.959.23-3.1Total by air9.029.27-2.7 Oahu7.227.44-3.1 Maui8.098.16-0.8 Molokai5.455.92-8.0 Lnai3.584.11-12.9 Kauai7.467.76-3.8 Hawaii Island7.888.25-4.5Visitor arrivals by cruise ships4.775.28-9.7PER PERSON PER DAY SPENDING($)239.9 231.1 3.8Total by air241.2 231.9 4.0 Oahu219.5 240.4 -8.7 Maui287.1 244.3 17.5 Molokai188.3 152.8 23.2 Lnai626.2 539.5 16.1 Kauai263.8 213.1 23.8 Hawaii Island216.1 197.8 9.2Visitor arrivals by cruise ships95.190.45.2PER PERSON PER TRIP SPENDING($)2,146.9 2,133.3 0.6Total by air2,175.0 2,150.6 1.1 Oahu1,583.9 1,789.5 -11.5 Maui2,322.7 1,993.0 16.5 Molokai1,026.9 905.4 13.4 Lnai2,242.3 2,216.9 1.1 Kauai1,968.6 1,653.8 19.0 Hawaii Island1,702.6 1,632.6 4.3Visitor arrivals by cruise ships453.5477.7-5.1#/0ISLAND(Air&Ship)20232022(%)Change DBEDT 25 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 2.2023 Monthly Market Highlights MMA(AIR&SHIP)JANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECTOTALTOTAL EXPENDITURES($mil.)/11,903.41,647.91,838.01,764.8 1,656.6 2,012.8 2,014.8 1,547.4 1,385.7 1,492.0 1,519.4 1,951.4 20,734.3Total by air1,896.41,639.11,834.51,754.6 1,649.9 2,011.2 2,012.5 1,546.0 1,381.9 1,477.9 1,514.1 1,944.9 20,662.8U.S.Total1,425.81,268.71,407.81,371.1 1,344.5 1,685.9 1,563.9 1,114.9 1,008.9 1,099.7 1,116.7 1,413.9 15,821.7U.S.West814.8753.4837.5885.0 787.4 1,014.1 932.3 679.6 604.5 686.4 741.5 856.3 9,592.7U.S.East611.0515.3570.3486.1 557.1 671.8 631.6 435.3 404.5 413.3 375.2 557.6 6,229.0Japan41.348.260.251.2 59.5 68.6 78.3 123.4 101.3 87.6 96.4 114.3 930.3Canada160.9153.8170.7100.0 54.9 47.7 71.5 57.9 48.1 70.0 136.2 158.6 1,230.3Europe21.721.821.437.3 28.9 22.9 48.2 45.3 40.3 34.2 18.8 28.0 369.0Oceania57.929.338.153.2 55.0 58.3 56.3 51.9 70.9 64.7 40.7 55.1 631.2Other Asia64.143.734.437.7 43.4 44.2 60.3 50.2 56.0 45.2 42.0 58.0 579.3Latin America9.13.96.36.6 5.8 6.9 12.7 9.4 6.7 7.7 4.4 14.9 94.4Other MMA115.669.795.497.4 57.8 76.7 121.4 93.1 49.7 68.8 59.0 102.1 1,006.6Visitor arrivals by cruise ships7.08.83.610.2 6.7 1.6 2.41.53.8 14.2 5.3 6.6 71.5TOTAL VISITOR DAYS8,082,6316,843,1687,858,2857,119,9746,943,2508,065,7168,464,5686,663,1845,649,5656,263,7196,413,8638,058,09086,426,013Total by air8,008,2546,751,8917,818,2587,013,4936,872,6308,050,0418,442,7876,648,0255,611,5846,111,3486,360,3227,985,49085,674,126U.S.Total6,052,8585,254,5706,050,4735,454,8835,617,5566,721,8076,712,0384,958,7564,181,5104,659,4294,680,5585,943,83166,288,269U.S.West3,626,3523,237,0973,808,4233,753,3413,555,0304,272,2654,289,0083,213,8822,708,5353,102,0073,208,4633,789,94842,564,352U.S.East2,426,5062,017,4722,242,0501,701,5422,062,5262,449,5422,423,0301,744,8741,472,9751,557,4221,472,0952,153,88323,723,917Japan174,754201,024256,844215,554244,348290,733326,386527,576417,414364,829383,743461,2673,864,472Canada785,001683,167801,155463,852255,549210,453312,494257,545203,639310,040604,411697,9375,585,244Europe93,79877,97397,351122,856117,63097,602200,367213,256160,165139,45389,427107,1361,517,015Oceania197,989106,345126,716183,471185,062198,463194,105174,191232,670213,492136,558185,9862,135,047Other Asia209,645147,458115,733122,185136,152136,822184,879162,832170,306132,786130,183179,0491,828,030Latin America28,49019,49020,19528,29622,58420,85833,77024,74423,76721,27115,36942,429301,263Other MMA465,718261,864349,791422,396293,750373,303478,748329,125222,113270,049320,073367,8544,154,785Visitor arrivals by cruise ships74,37791,27740,027106,48170,62015,67521,78115,15837,981152,37053,54172,600751,888VISITOR ARRIVALS792,516753,905901,290828,227801,571889,591935,139769,713656,288734,642732,278862,4489,657,607Total by air775,813733,764892,737806,931790,494886,344930,204766,573648,145700,390721,342847,2579,499,995U.S.Total596,276582,234709,200651,959649,837734,793749,050575,930483,085527,164533,334634,3817,427,242U.S.West383,027379,163463,929465,273431,944487,490499,561392,704329,347362,239380,613424,8085,000,099U.S.East213,249203,071245,271186,686217,893247,303249,489183,226153,737164,925152,721209,5742,427,144Japan22,99528,99738,81030,39937,03046,59250,31077,09064,58058,60563,41670,348589,172Canada59,24257,76367,74440,96424,24120,44327,79023,38218,64726,37450,25257,885474,727Europe6,3746,6807,42010,2339,8027,41714,82416,48111,99511,1767,0617,777117,241Oceania22,89012,01213,66120,14420,83321,78021,52419,43824,76524,30415,38319,395236,127Other Asia22,39216,54312,37015,44717,36217,49720,35217,44120,19116,77216,47121,770214,609Latin America2,2322,0472,0252,6502,2611,8953,2162,5552,3052,2561,7012,97728,121Other MMA43,41227,48941,50835,13329,12735,92743,13934,25722,57733,73933,72432,724412,755Visitor arrivals by cruise ships16,70320,1408,55321,29611,0773,2474,9353,1408,14334,25110,93615,191157,612AVERAGE DAILY CENSUS260,730235,971253,493237,332223,976268,857273,051214,941188,319202,055213,795259,938236,784Total by air258,331232,824252,202233,783221,698268,335272,348214,452187,053197,140212,011257,596234,724U.S.Total195,253181,192195,177181,829181,211224,060216,517159,960139,384150,304156,019191,736181,612U.S.West116,979111,624122,852125,111114,678142,409138,355103,67490,285100,065106,949122,256116,615U.S.East78,27469,56872,32456,71866,53381,65178,16256,28649,09950,23949,07069,48064,997Japan5,6376,9328,2857,1857,8829,69110,52917,01913,91411,76912,79114,88010,588Canada25,32323,55725,84415,4628,2447,01510,0808,3086,78810,00120,14722,51415,302Europe3,0262,6893,1404,0953,7953,2536,4636,8795,3394,4982,9813,4564,156Oceania6,3873,6674,0886,1165,9706,6156,2615,6197,7566,8874,5526,0005,849Other Asia6,7635,0853,7334,0734,3924,5615,9645,2535,6774,2834,3395,7765,008Latin America9196726519437296951,0897987926865121,369825Other MMA15,0239,03011,28414,0809,47612,44315,44310,6177,4048,71110,66911,86611,383Visitor arrivals by cruise ships2,3993,1471,2913,5492,2785227034891,2664,9151,7852,3422,0601/Excluding Supplemental business expenditures DBEDT 26 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 2.2023 Monthly Market Highlights(Contiued)MMA(AIR&SHIP)JANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECTOTALAVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY10.209.088.728.608.669.079.058.668.618.538.769.348.95Total by air10.329.208.768.698.699.089.088.678.668.738.829.439.02U.S.Total10.159.028.538.378.649.158.968.618.668.848.789.378.93U.S.West9.478.548.218.078.238.768.598.188.228.568.438.928.51U.S.East11.389.939.149.119.479.919.719.529.589.449.6410.289.77Japan7.606.936.627.096.606.246.496.846.466.236.056.566.56Canada13.2511.8311.8311.3210.5410.2911.2411.0110.9211.7612.0312.0611.77Europe14.7211.6713.1212.0112.0013.1613.5212.9413.3512.4812.6713.7812.94Oceania8.658.859.289.118.889.119.028.969.408.788.889.599.04Other Asia9.368.919.367.917.847.829.089.348.437.927.908.228.52Latin America12.779.529.9710.689.9911.0010.509.6810.319.439.0414.2510.71Other MMA10.739.538.4312.0210.0910.3911.109.619.848.009.4911.2410.07Visitor arrivals by cruise ships4.454.534.685.006.384.834.414.834.664.454.904.784.77PER PERSON PER DAY SPENDING($)/1235.5240.8233.9247.9 238.6 249.5 238.0 232.2 245.3 238.2 236.9 242.2 239.9Total by air236.8242.8234.6250.2 240.1 249.8 238.4 232.5 246.3 241.8 238.1 243.6 241.2U.S.Total235.6241.4232.7251.4 239.3 250.8 233.0 224.8 241.3 236.0 238.6 237.9 238.7U.S.West224.7232.7219.9235.8 221.5 237.4 217.4 211.5 223.2 221.3 231.1 225.9 225.4U.S.East251.8255.4254.4285.7 270.1 274.3 260.7 249.5 274.6 265.4 254.9 258.9 262.6Japan236.3239.6234.3237.6 243.6 235.9 239.9 234.0 242.7 240.2 251.2 247.7 240.7Canada205.0225.1213.1215.7 214.9 226.5 228.7 224.7 236.1 225.7 225.4 227.3 220.3Europe231.6280.2220.3304.0 246.0 234.5 240.6 212.4 251.9 245.2 210.0 261.0 243.2Oceania292.3275.1301.0290.1 297.1 293.7 289.8 297.7 304.5 302.9 298.0 296.3 295.6Other Asia305.8296.4297.5308.7 318.7 323.3 326.1 308.1 329.1 340.5 322.5 324.0 316.9Latin America320.7201.6313.9232.3 255.8 331.4 376.6 378.6 280.7 363.0 283.2 352.2 313.5Other MMA248.1266.0272.7230.5 196.9 205.5 253.5 282.8 223.9 254.7 184.4 277.5 242.3Visitor arrivals by cruise ships93.896.589.595.4 95.4 99.9 108.897.199.4 93.1 98.9 90.3 95.1PER PERSON PER TRIP SPENDING($)/12,401.72,185.82,039.42,130.8 2,066.7 2,262.6 2,154.6 2,010.4 2,111.4 2,031.0 2,074.9 2,262.7 2,146.9Total by air2,444.42,233.82,054.92,174.4 2,087.1 2,269.1 2,163.5 2,016.7 2,132.1 2,110.0 2,099.0 2,295.5 2,175.0U.S.Total2,391.22,179.01,985.12,103.1 2,069.0 2,294.4 2,087.8 1,935.8 2,088.5 2,086.0 2,093.7 2,228.7 2,130.2U.S.West2,127.21,986.91,805.31,902.1 1,823.0 2,080.2 1,866.2 1,730.6 1,835.3 1,894.9 1,948.2 2,015.7 1,918.5U.S.East2,865.42,537.82,325.12,604.0 2,556.6 2,716.6 2,531.4 2,375.7 2,630.8 2,505.8 2,456.6 2,660.4 2,566.4Japan1,795.61,660.91,550.91,684.7 1,607.3 1,472.0 1,556.6 1,601.1 1,568.6 1,495.2 1,519.8 1,624.2 1,578.9Canada2,716.02,662.72,519.92,442.2 2,265.1 2,332.2 2,571.7 2,475.3 2,577.9 2,653.0 2,710.7 2,740.6 2,591.6Europe3,407.33,270.62,890.53,649.5 2,951.8 3,085.8 3,251.8 2,748.0 3,363.6 3,060.0 2,659.6 3,595.1 3,147.0Oceania2,528.32,436.02,791.92,641.8 2,639.4 2,676.3 2,613.6 2,668.2 2,861.0 2,660.6 2,645.6 2,841.7 2,673.2Other Asia2,862.52,641.82,783.52,441.5 2,499.2 2,527.8 2,962.8 2,876.5 2,775.5 2,695.8 2,549.3 2,664.7 2,699.3Latin America4,093.81,920.13,129.32,480.5 2,554.6 3,646.9 3,954.7 3,666.3 2,894.3 3,421.7 2,559.0 5,020.2 3,358.4Other MMA2,662.02,533.92,298.32,771.8 1,985.7 2,135.3 2,813.6 2,716.8 2,202.8 2,039.0 1,750.2 3,119.9 2,438.8Visitor arrivals by cruise ships417.7437.2419.0476.8 607.9 482.3 480.0468.8463.7 414.4 484.1 431.5 453.51/Excluding Supplemental business expenditures DBEDT 27 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 3.2023 Monthly Island Highlights ISLAND(AIR&SHIP)JANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECTOTALTOTAL EXPENDITURES($mil.)/11,903.41,647.91,838.01,764.8 1,656.6 2,012.8 2,014.8 1,547.4 1,385.7 1,492.0 1,519.4 1,951.4 20,734.3Total by air1,896.41,639.11,834.51,754.6 1,649.9 2,011.2 2,012.5 1,546.0 1,381.9 1,477.9 1,514.1 1,944.9 20,662.8 Oahu740.6626.8732.6735.7 691.1 858.9 842.6 813.5 682.9 646.5 648.0 871.7 8,890.9 Maui653.2548.9631.0567.0 527.6 619.7 622.2 242.3 203.9 332.9 378.2 468.4 5,795.2 Molokai3.62.04.02.4 2.4 2.4 3.8 2.0 1.4 2.1 4.4 3.5 34.1 Lnai7.511.516.59.0 8.2 9.5 16.5 6.0 4.8 5.6 8.5 17.2 120.8 Kauai230.1205.8210.7216.4 206.8 254.4 262.6 234.7 236.7 242.5 215.2 277.1 2,792.8 Hawaii Island261.4244.1239.7224.1 213.8 266.3 264.9 247.4 252.1 248.3 259.8 307.0 3,029.0Visitor arrivals by cruise ships7.08.83.610.2 6.7 1.6 2.41.53.8 14.2 5.3 6.6 71.5TOTAL VISITOR DAYS8,082,6316,843,1687,858,2857,119,9746,943,2508,065,7168,464,5686,663,1845,649,5656,263,7196,413,8638,058,09086,426,013Total by air8,008,2546,751,8917,818,2587,013,4936,872,6308,050,0418,442,7876,648,0255,611,5846,111,3486,360,3227,985,49085,674,126 Oahu3,497,5582,949,3283,428,1433,247,4953,216,0433,628,2853,825,9713,628,4443,020,2883,090,6043,086,6383,893,19340,511,989 Maui2,135,1931,874,0752,210,3751,870,4401,813,6182,173,4512,275,169896,743708,5591,115,3521,370,0601,741,59220,184,625 Molokai24,50715,71818,69912,05911,43015,39614,53613,4718,46211,20918,57717,128181,192 Lnai16,33416,61521,20316,17116,61716,53819,12413,88112,13212,47212,82518,991192,903 Kauai916,636774,525897,552841,002826,253979,8101,025,093944,676841,705826,962780,018931,32210,585,553 Hawaii Island1,418,0261,121,6311,242,2851,026,327988,6711,236,5621,282,8951,150,8101,020,4391,054,7491,092,2031,383,26414,017,863Visitor arrivals by cruise ships74,37791,27740,027106,48170,62015,67521,78115,15837,981152,37053,54172,600751,888VISITOR ARRIVALS792,516753,905901,290828,227801,571889,591935,139769,713656,288734,642732,278862,4489,657,607Total by air775,813733,764892,737806,931790,494886,344930,204766,573648,145700,390721,342847,2579,499,995 Oahu434,905410,096485,504453,976452,045500,886527,811507,521438,743447,842439,969514,1095,613,409 Maui231,644220,988279,014245,080241,293278,654297,082113,77193,027134,493162,470197,5202,495,038 Molokai3,0302,3463,1972,7162,5522,9603,9882,1011,9322,1453,5662,69133,224 Lnai4,3563,9325,1255,1565,1134,8086,2464,4763,2232,9504,3584,12853,870 Kauai107,747100,544121,692118,668114,853130,780139,863129,853116,660110,443106,806120,7801,418,688 Hawaii Island149,430137,108161,193139,118137,017160,446173,696154,739130,464134,696136,282164,8751,779,063Visitor arrivals by cruise ships16,70320,1408,55321,29611,0773,2474,9353,1408,14334,25110,93615,191157,612AVERAGE DAILY CENSUS260,730235,971253,493237,332223,976268,857273,051214,941188,319202,055213,795259,938236,784Total by air258,331232,824252,202233,783221,698268,335272,348214,452187,053197,140212,011257,596234,724 Oahu112,824105,333110,585108,250103,743120,943123,418117,047100,67699,697102,888125,587110,992 Maui68,87766,93171,30262,34858,50472,44873,39328,92723,61935,97945,66956,18055,300 Molokai791561603402369513469435282362619553496 Lnai527593684539536551617448404402428613529 Kauai29,56927,66228,95328,03326,65332,66033,06830,47328,05726,67626,00130,04329,002 Hawaii Island45,74340,05840,07434,21131,89341,21941,38437,12334,01534,02436,40744,62138,405Visitor arrivals by cruise ships2,3993,1471,2913,5492,2785227034891,2664,9151,7852,3422,060AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY10.209.088.728.608.669.079.058.668.618.538.769.348.95Total by air10.329.208.768.698.699.089.088.678.668.738.829.439.02 Oahu8.047.197.067.157.117.247.257.156.886.907.027.577.22 Maui9.228.487.927.637.527.807.667.887.628.298.438.828.09 Molokai8.096.705.854.444.485.203.656.414.385.235.216.365.45 Lnai3.754.234.143.143.253.443.063.103.764.232.944.603.58 Kauai8.517.707.387.097.197.497.337.277.227.497.307.717.46 Hawaii Island9.498.187.717.387.227.717.397.447.827.838.018.397.88Visitor arrivals by cruise ships4.454.534.685.006.384.834.414.834.664.454.904.784.77PER PERSON PER DAY SPENDING($)/1235.5240.8233.9247.9238.6249.5238.0232.2245.3238.2236.9242.2239.9Total by air236.8242.8234.6250.2 240.1 249.8 238.4 232.5 246.3 241.8 238.1 243.6 241.2 Oahu211.7212.5213.7226.6 214.9 236.7 220.2 224.2 226.1 209.2 209.9 223.9 219.5 Maui305.9292.9285.5303.1 290.9 285.1 273.5 270.2 287.8 298.5 276.1 268.9 287.1 Molokai148.6128.8216.0194.9 211.3 153.7 258.3 150.2 170.7 189.2 237.6 205.7 188.3 Lnai461.7689.7777.6554.3 491.9 576.0 863.4 434.3 398.8 447.1 663.1 904.8 626.2 Kauai251.0265.7234.8257.3 250.2 259.6 256.1 248.4 281.2 293.2 275.8 297.6 263.8 Hawaii Island184.4217.6192.9218.4 216.3 215.4 206.5 215.0 247.1 235.4 237.9 221.9 216.1Visitor arrivals by cruise ships93.896.589.595.4 95.4 99.9 108.897.199.4 93.1 98.9 90.3 95.1PER PERSON PER TRIP SPENDING($)/12,401.72,185.82,039.42,130.82,066.72,262.62,154.62,010.42,111.42,031.02,074.92,262.72,146.9Total by air2,444.42,233.82,054.92,174.42,087.12,269.12,163.52,016.72,132.12,110.02,099.02,295.52,175.0 Oahu1,702.81,528.51,508.91,620.71,528.81,714.81,596.41,602.91,556.61,443.61,472.81,695.51,583.9 Maui2,819.62,483.92,261.52,313.52,186.72,223.82,094.32,129.62,192.12,475.12,327.92,371.32,322.7 Molokai1,201.8863.11,263.5865.5946.1799.6941.7963.3747.5988.91,237.91,308.91,026.9 Lnai1,731.42,914.83,216.81,738.31,598.61,981.32,643.51,346.81,501.01,890.31,951.54,162.72,242.3 Kauai2,135.22,046.51,731.51,823.71,800.21,945.21,877.31,807.32,028.72,195.52,014.52,294.61,968.6 Hawaii Island1,749.41,780.31,486.81,611.21,560.41,660.01,525.01,599.11,932.41,843.11,906.61,861.81,702.6Visitor arrivals by cruise ships417.7437.2419.0476.8607.9482.3480.0468.8463.7414.4484.1431.5453.51/Excluding Supplemental business expenditures DBEDT 28 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 4.Summary of Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022 TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGEVISITOR ARRIVALS9,499,9959,138,6744.07,942,1598,233,186-3.51,557,836905,48872.0VISITOR DAYS85,674,126 84,736,1871.1 71,637,671 75,263,260-4.8 14,036,4559,472,92748.2AVERAGE DAILY CENSUS234,724232,1541.1196,268206,201-4.838,45625,95348.2ISLANDS VISITED Oahu5,613,4094,858,17015.54,277,8554,142,3063.31,335,553715,86486.6 Oahu only4,457,4733,780,42217.93,358,2393,230,6413.91,099,234549,78199.9 Oahu one day or less234,063186,02325.8216,496175,26023.517,56710,76363.2 Kauai1,418,6881,345,5645.41,333,7431,285,2303.884,94560,33340.8 Kauai only856,794856,7710.0841,984844,795-0.314,80911,97723.7 Kauai one day or less99,64566,69149.479,13156,41940.320,51410,27299.7 Maui County2,531,1962,969,395-14.82,253,7222,717,808-17.1277,475251,58710.3 Maui2,495,0382,921,159-14.62,223,4732,672,710-16.8271,565248,4499.3 Maui only1,708,4162,071,618-17.51,565,7761,934,236-19.0142,640137,3823.8 Maui one day or less117,26094,05724.792,25880,93114.025,00213,12690.5 Molokai*33,22443,317-23.324,87838,818-35.98,3464,49885.5 Molokai only*5,3877,869-31.55,2037,788-33.218481127.4 Molokai one day or less*15,84516,446-3.79,69014,057-31.16,1552,389157.7 Lnai*53,87068,016-20.840,95860,374-32.212,9127,64368.9 Lnai only*9,48915,044-36.99,11414,329-36.4375715-47.5 Lnai one day or less*30,27130,1930.319,52124,609-20.710,7505,58492.5 Hawaii Island1,779,0631,667,6336.71,590,3041,556,6232.2188,759111,01070.0 Kona side1,567,6461,458,0267.51,404,9641,363,6673.0162,68294,35972.4 Hilo side582,704511,88413.8502,193464,7068.180,51147,17870.7 Hawaii Island only1,055,4181,032,4252.21,008,0191,009,038-0.147,39923,386102.7 Hawaii Island one day or less79,19863,30225.157,98153,8947.621,2169,408125.5Any Neighbor Island5,042,5225,358,252-5.94,583,9205,002,545-8.4458,602355,70728.9 NI only3,886,4714,280,504-9.23,664,3044,090,880-10.4222,167189,62417.2 Oahu&NI1,156,0511,077,7487.3919,616911,6650.9236,434166,08342.4 Any one island only8,092,9777,764,1494.26,788,3357,040,827-3.61,304,642723,32280.4Multiple Islands1,407,0181,374,5252.41,153,8241,192,359-3.2253,194182,16639.0Avg.Islands Visited1.201.190.51.201.180.91.221.27-3.7Average Length of9.029.27-2.79.029.14-1.39.0110.46-13.9Stay in HawaiiOahu7.227.44-3.17.147.29-2.17.488.36-10.6Maui8.098.16-0.88.018.05-0.58.769.35-6.3Molokai5.455.92-8.06.426.252.92.563.15-18.9Lnai3.584.11-12.94.194.31-2.91.662.51-33.9Kauai7.467.76-3.87.587.83-3.15.526.28-12.0Hawaii Island7.888.25-4.58.098.36-3.26.146.79-9.6Hilo4.445.01-11.54.745.17-8.52.573.45-25.5Kona7.297.68-5.07.467.78-4.15.866.27-6.6ACCOMMODATIONSPlan to stay in Hotel5,449,5385,059,3387.74,350,5564,465,322-2.61,098,982594,01585.0Hotel only4,739,1424,373,9718.33,756,6773,865,426-2.8982,465508,54493.2Plan to stay in Condo1,467,7331,593,857-7.91,206,3891,412,942-14.6261,343180,91544.5Condo only1,181,7571,283,267-7.9979,1981,144,935-14.5202,559138,33346.4Plan to stay in Timeshare812,802813,284-0.1694,241741,430-6.4118,56171,85465.0Timeshare only658,745654,5680.6560,876599,038-6.497,86955,53076.2Cruise Ship137,76161,800122.9125,71457,697117.912,0474,103193.6Friends/Relatives1,066,306998,7336.81,003,153954,5905.163,15344,14343.1Bed&Breakfast92,35797,127-4.978,43788,361-11.213,9198,76658.8Rental House1,019,8821,067,979-4.5940,8461,009,355-6.879,03758,62434.8Hostel70,97368,0034.454,69751,6305.916,27616,373-0.6 DBEDT 29 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 4.Summary of Air Visitor Characteristics:2023 vs.2022(continued)*Sample sizes for Molokai and Lnai are relatively small.*Sample sizes for Private Room in Private Home and Shared Room/Space in Private Home are limited.*Change represents absolute change in rates rather than percentage change in rate.TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGECamp Site,Beach61,36964,789-5.350,52453,919-6.310,84510,871-0.2Private Room in Private Home*102,989101,2391.780,49283,087-3.122,49718,15323.9Shared Room/Space in Private Home*36,02430,43118.428,48027,6702.97,5442,761173.3Other Accommodations179,318168,7076.3170,699157,9398.18,61910,768-20.0PURPOSE OF TRIP Pleasure(Net)7,882,6347,748,2231.76,529,2526,950,545-6.11,353,382797,67869.7 Honeymoon/Get Married410,638412,928-0.6252,743308,652-18.1157,894104,27651.4 Honeymoon361,093361,1540.0210,504261,316-19.4150,58999,83850.8 Get Married67,50870,469-4.253,05461,008-13.014,4539,46052.8 Pleasure/Vacation7,526,0247,394,6451.86,320,2416,695,504-5.61,205,783699,14172.5 Mtgs/Conventions/Incentive401,207316,24726.9310,697274,45413.290,51141,793116.6 Conventions221,112166,44432.8191,605149,58128.129,50716,86375.0 Corporate Meetings81,51783,151-2.073,27071,7852.18,24711,366-27.4 Incentive110,31879,34539.056,59263,143-10.453,72616,201231.6 Other Business251,525222,29513.1243,517217,10812.28,0095,18754.4 Visit Friends/Rel.999,953945,2075.8938,931902,5924.061,02242,61543.2 Govt/Military125,315100,60624.6108,39691,80318.116,9198,80392.2 Attend School20,74220,882-0.717,48617,764-1.63,2553,1184.4 Sport Events94,59375,50825.366,57264,7792.828,02110,729161.2 Other357,044283,82925.8282,007244,21815.575,03739,61189.4VISIT STATUS/TRAVEL METHOD%First Timers*30.130.00.127.829.0-1.241.839.02.7%Repeaters*69.970.0-0.172.271.01.258.261.0-2.7 Average#of Trips5.555.471.55.835.604.24.124.31-4.4 Group Tour296,867202,53746.6177,438165,1907.4119,42937,347219.8 Non-Group9,203,1288,936,1373.07,764,7218,067,996-3.81,438,407868,14165.7 Package Trip1,547,8981,380,84112.11,102,4661,182,680-6.8445,432198,161124.8 No Package7,952,0977,757,8332.56,839,6937,050,506-3.01,112,404707,32757.3 Net True Independent7,825,7467,668,6362.06,754,8096,974,375-3.11,070,937694,26154.3Ave.Age46451.146451.145441.9Ave.Party Size2.242.220.82.192.21-0.92.542.367.6 DBEDT 30 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 5.Summary of Air Visitor Characteristics Percentage of Total:2023 vs.2022 TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL202320222023202220232022VISITOR ARRIVALS9,499,9959,138,6747,942,1598,233,1861,557,836905,488VISITOR DAYS85,674,126 84,736,187 71,637,671 75,263,260 14,036,4559,472,927AVERAGE DAILY CENSUS234,724232,154196,268206,20138,45625,953ISLANDS VISITED Oahu59.1S.2S.9P.3.7y.1%Oahu only46.9A.4B.39.2p.6.7%Oahu one day or less2.5%2.0%2.7%2.1%1.1%1.2%Kauai14.9.7.8.6%5.5%6.7%Kauai only9.0%9.4.6.3%1.0%1.3%Kauai one day or less1.0%0.7%1.0%0.7%1.3%1.1%Maui County26.62.5(.43.0.8.8%Maui26.32.0(.02.5.4.4%Maui only18.0.7.7#.5%9.2.2%Maui one day or less1.2%1.0%1.2%1.0%1.6%1.4%Molokai*0.3%0.5%0.3%0.5%0.5%0.5%Molokai only*0.1%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.0%0.0%Molokai one day or less*0.2%0.2%0.1%0.2%0.4%0.3%Lnai*0.6%0.7%0.5%0.7%0.8%0.8%Lnai only*0.1%0.2%0.1%0.2%0.0%0.1%Lnai one day or less*0.3%0.3%0.2%0.3%0.7%0.6%Hawaii Island18.7.2 .0.9.1.3%Kona side16.5.0.7.6.4.4%Hilo side6.1%5.6%6.3%5.6%5.2%5.2%Hawaii Island only11.1.3.7.3%3.0%2.6%Hawaii Island one day or less0.8%0.7%0.7%0.7%1.4%1.0%Any Neighbor Island53.1X.6W.7.8).49.3%NI only40.9F.8F.1I.7.3 .9%Oahu&NI12.2.8.6.1.2.3%Any one island only85.2.0.5.5.7y.9%Multiple Islands14.8.0.5.5.3 .1%Avg.Islands Visited1.201.241.201.241.221.23ACCOMMODATIONSPlan to stay in Hotel57.4U.4T.8T.2p.5e.6%Hotel only49.9G.9G.3F.9c.1V.2%Plan to stay in Condo15.4.4.2.2.8 .0%Condo only12.4.0.3.9.0.3%Plan to stay in Timeshare8.6%8.9%8.7%9.0%7.6%7.9%Timeshare only6.9%7.2%7.1%7.3%6.3%6.1%Cruise Ship1.5%0.7%1.6%0.7%0.8%0.5%Friends/Relatives11.2.9.6.6%4.1%4.9d&Breakfast1.0%1.1%1.0%1.1%0.9%1.0%Rental House10.7.7.8.3%5.1%6.5%Hostel0.7%0.7%0.7%0.6%1.0%1.8EDT 31 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 5.Summary of Air Visitor Characteristics Percentage of Total:2023 vs.2022(continued)*Sample sizes for Molokai and Lnai are relatively small.*Sample sizes for Private Room in Private Home and Shared Room/Space in Private Home are limited.*Change represents absolute change in rates rather than percentage change in rate.TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL202320222023202220232022Camp Site,Beach0.6%0.7%0.6%0.7%0.7%1.2%Private Room in Private Home*1.1%1.1%1.0%1.0%1.4%2.0%Shared Room/Space in Private Home*0.4%0.3%0.4%0.3%0.5%0.3%Other Accommodations1.9%1.8%2.1%1.9%0.6%1.2%PURPOSE OF TRIP Pleasure(Net)83.0.8.2.4.9.1%Honeymoon/Get Married4.3%4.5%3.2%3.7.1.5%Honeymoon3.8%4.0%2.7%3.2%9.7.0%Get Married0.7%0.8%0.7%0.7%0.9%1.0%Pleasure/Vacation79.2.9y.6.3w.4w.2%Mtgs/Conventions/Incentive4.2%3.5%3.9%3.3%5.8%4.6%Conventions2.3%1.8%2.4%1.8%1.9%1.9%Corporate Meetings0.9%0.9%0.9%0.9%0.5%1.3%Incentive1.2%0.9%0.7%0.8%3.4%1.8%Other Business2.6%2.4%3.1%2.6%0.5%0.6%Visit Friends/Rel.10.5.3.8.0%3.9%4.7%Govt/Military1.3%1.1%1.4%1.1%1.1%1.0%Attend School0.2%0.2%0.2%0.2%0.2%0.3%Sport Events1.0%0.8%0.8%0.8%1.8%1.2%Other3.8%3.1%3.6%3.0%4.8%4.4%VISIT STATUS/TRAVEL METHOD%First Timers0.330.00.329.00.439.0%Repeaters0.770.00.771.00.661.0 Average#of Trips5.555.475.835.604.124.31 Group Tour3.1%2.2%2.2%2.0%7.7%4.1%Non-Group96.9.8.8.0.3.9%Package Trip16.3.1.9.4(.6!.9%No Package83.7.9.1.6q.4x.1%Net True Independent82.4.9.1.7h.7v.7%Ave.Age464546454544Ave.Party Size2.242.222.192.212.542.36 DBEDT 32 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 6.Air Visitor Days by Island:2023 vs.2022 Table 7.Air Visitor Days by Month:2023 vs.2022 TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE TOTAL STATE85,674,12684,736,1871.171,637,67175,263,260-4.814,036,4559,472,92748.2 OAHU40,511,98936,168,74512.030,526,75130,184,9671.19,985,2395,983,77866.9 MAUI COUNTY20,558,72024,365,944-15.618,136,38022,009,858-17.62,422,3402,356,0862.8 MAUI20,184,62523,829,806-15.317,805,06021,507,089-17.22,379,5652,322,7172.4 MOLOKAI181,192256,637-29.4159,840242,448-34.121,35214,19050.5 LNAI192,903279,500-31.0171,480260,321-34.121,42319,17911.7 KAUAI10,585,55310,440,5221.410,116,30210,061,6790.5469,251378,84423.9 HAWAII ISLAND14,017,86313,760,9761.912,858,23813,006,757-1.11,159,625754,22053.8 HILO2,584,6862,566,5470.72,378,0232,403,892-1.1206,663162,65527.1 KONA11,433,17711,194,4292.110,480,21510,602,864-1.2952,962591,56561.1TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGEJANUARY8,008,2546,223,43628.76,526,8605,696,51214.61,481,394526,923181.1FEBRUARY6,751,8915,771,45317.05,616,2415,253,7866.91,135,651517,667119.4MARCH7,818,2587,046,87810.96,448,7666,237,0653.41,369,492809,81469.1APRIL7,013,4937,067,889-0.85,860,3286,332,771-7.51,153,166735,11956.9MAY6,872,6306,874,5890.06,045,5566,361,577-5.0827,075513,01161.2JUNE8,050,0417,953,2161.27,098,0207,403,154-4.1952,022550,06273.1JULY8,442,7878,625,980-2.17,311,2277,711,113-5.21,131,560914,86823.7AUGUST6,648,0257,499,145-11.35,523,9856,572,345-16.01,124,040926,80021.3SEPTEMBER5,611,5846,221,490-9.84,642,2865,525,363-16.0969,298696,12739.2OCTOBER6,111,3486,662,968-8.35,124,7625,790,509-11.5986,586872,45913.1NOVEMBER6,360,3226,556,043-3.05,033,3335,501,410-8.51,326,9891,054,63325.8DECEMBER7,985,4908,233,099-3.06,406,3086,877,654-6.91,579,1831,355,44416.5 TOTAL85,674,12684,736,1871.171,637,67175,263,260-4.814,036,4559,472,92748.2 DBEDT 33 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 8.Average Daily Census by Island(Arrivals by Air):2023 vs.2022 Table 9.Average Daily Census by Month(Arrivals by Air):2023 vs.2022 TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE TOTAL STATE234,724232,1541.1196,268206,201-4.838,45625,95348.2 OAHU110,99299,09212.083,63582,6991.127,35716,39466.9 MAUI COUNTY56,32566,756-15.649,68960,301-17.66,6376,4552.8 MAUI55,30065,287-15.348,78158,924-17.26,5196,3642.4 MOLOKAI496703-29.4438664-34.1583950.5 LNAI529766-31.0470713-34.1595311.7 KAUAI29,00228,6041.427,71627,5660.51,2861,03823.9 HAWAII ISLAND38,40537,7011.935,22835,635-1.13,1772,06653.8 HILO7,0817,0320.76,5156,586-1.156644627.1 KONA31,32430,6702.128,71329,049-1.22,6111,62161.1TOTALDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGE20232022%CHANGEJANUARY258,331200,75628.7210,544183,75814.647,78716,998181.1FEBRUARY241,139206,12317.0200,580187,6356.940,55918,488119.4MARCH252,202227,31910.9208,025201,1963.444,17726,12369.1APRIL233,783235,596-0.8195,344211,092-7.538,43924,50456.9MAY221,698221,7610.0195,018205,212-5.026,68016,54961.2JUNE268,335265,1071.2236,601246,772-4.131,73418,33573.1JULY272,348278,257-2.1235,846248,746-5.236,50229,51223.7AUGUST214,452241,908-11.3178,193212,011-16.036,25929,89721.3SEPTEMBER187,053207,383-9.8154,743184,179-16.032,31023,20439.2OCTOBER197,140214,934-8.3165,315186,791-11.531,82528,14413.1NOVEMBER212,011218,535-3.0167,778183,380-8.544,23335,15425.8DECEMBER257,596265,584-3.0206,655221,860-6.950,94143,72416.5 TOTAL234,724232,1541.1196,268206,201-4.838,45625,95348.2 DBEDT 34 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 10.Visitors Staying Overnight or Longer(Arrivals by Air):1963 2023 YEARVisitors%Change fromVisitors%Change fromVisitors%Change fromPrevious YearPrevious YearPrevious Year1963428,69018.5287,40524.3141,2868.31964563,41231.4419,28045.9144,1322.01965686,31421.8539,21128.6147,1032.11966834,73221.6629,56416.8205,16839.519671,124,01234.7828,84931.7295,16343.919681,313,70616.9952,82115.0360,88522.319691,526,07416.21,121,71417.7404,36012.019701,745,90414.41,273,63913.5472,26516.819711,817,9414.11,363,0817.0454,860-3.719722,233,62722.91,682,28523.4551,34221.219732,622,37617.41,942,71415.5679,66223.319742,804,3946.92,036,2034.8768,19113.019752,818,0820.52,028,068-0.4790,0142.819763,213,24914.02,327,39914.8885,85012.119773,413,0956.22,508,4727.8904,6232.119783,676,9677.72,766,01210.3910,9550.719793,966,1927.92,888,5214.41,077,67118.319803,928,789-0.92,793,101-3.31,135,6885.419813,928,9060.02,778,566-0.51,150,3401.319824,227,7337.63,072,54310.61,155,1890.419834,356,3173.03,219,2194.81,137,098-1.619844,827,88410.83,499,4198.71,328,46616.819854,843,4140.33,522,1260.61,321,288-0.519865,569,06715.04,063,92815.41,505,13813.919875,770,5853.64,040,204-0.61,730,38115.019886,101,4835.74,041,8780.02,059,60519.019896,488,4226.34,339,5077.42,148,9154.319906,723,5313.64,315,161-0.62,408,37012.119916,518,460-3.14,068,508-5.72,449,9521.719926,473,669-0.73,791,945-6.82,681,7249.519936,070,995-6.23,570,059-5.92,500,936-6.719946,364,6744.83,813,2796.82,551,3952.019956,546,7592.93,743,474-1.82,803,2859.919966,723,1412.73,794,1131.42,929,0284.519976,761,1350.63,890,7982.52,870,337-2.019986,595,790-2.44,014,1403.22,581,650-10.119996,741,0372.24,255,6216.02,485,416-3.720006,948,5953.14,446,9364.52,501,6590.720016,303,791-9.34,224,321-5.02,079,470-16.920026,389,0581.44,358,8503.22,030,208-2.420036,380,439-0.14,531,2894.01,849,150-8.920046,912,0948.34,892,9608.02,019,1349.220057,416,5747.35,313,2818.62,103,2934.220067,528,1061.55,550,1254.51,977,981-6.020077,496,820-0.45,582,5300.61,914,290-3.220086,713,436-10.44,901,893-12.21,811,543-5.420096,420,448-4.44,672,001-4.71,748,447-3.520106,916,8947.74,957,3526.11,959,54212.120117,174,3973.75,127,2913.42,047,1064.520127,867,1439.75,403,0255.42,464,11820.420138,003,4741.75,405,3000.02,598,1745.420148,196,3422.45,486,0591.52,710,2834.320158,563,0184.55,782,1405.42,780,8782.620168,821,8023.05,968,7793.22,853,0232.620179,277,6135.26,239,7484.53,037,8656.520189,761,4485.26,736,7368.03,024,712-0.4201910,243,1654.97,253,8067.72,989,359-1.220202,678,073-73.92,065,689-71.5612,384-79.520216,777,760153.16,656,779222.3120,981-80.220229,138,67434.88,233,18623.7905,488648.520239,499,9954.07,942,159-3.51,557,83672.0BOTH DIRECTIONSDOMESTICINTERNATIONAL DBEDT 35 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 11.2023 Air Visitor Days by Month and MMA 2023US WEST MMAUS EAST MMAJAPAN MMACANADA MMAEUROPE MMAOCEANIA MMAJan3,626,3522,426,506174,754785,00123,98011,16037,8345,51715,30893,798159,10338,886197,989Feb3,237,0972,017,472201,024683,16719,54810,80132,8083,80511,01177,97388,79217,553106,345Mar3,808,4232,242,050256,844801,15526,18910,61141,4445,25713,85097,351103,67723,040126,716Apr3,753,3411,701,542215,554463,85238,35713,72744,0846,11120,577122,856139,05844,413183,471May3,555,0302,062,526244,348255,54935,23713,65245,8395,05517,847117,630143,70741,355185,062Jun4,272,2652,449,542290,733210,45326,47915,86932,8316,89015,53597,602153,19645,267198,463Jul4,289,0082,423,030326,386312,49442,42132,23965,42212,91747,367200,367137,90056,205194,105Aug3,213,8821,744,874527,576257,54542,84637,38377,11537,53118,381213,256128,83345,358174,191Sep2,708,5351,472,975417,414203,63936,80121,37066,3409,98425,670160,165182,53850,131232,670Oct3,102,0071,557,422364,829310,04033,13421,35955,4488,16421,348139,453176,10437,388213,492Nov3,208,4631,472,095383,743604,41118,85913,84436,8985,24014,58789,427108,44328,116136,558Dec3,789,9482,153,883461,267697,93725,76621,09337,5177,26115,499107,136151,37234,614185,986TOTAL42,564,35223,723,9173,864,4725,585,244369,617223,107573,578113,732236,9811,517,0151,672,722462,3262,135,047DOMESTICJan3,625,4792,425,7474,81591,21920,4538,14732,5494,72914,37680,25333,8099,01542,824Feb3,235,7082,016,7323,19885,78115,1118,59028,7363,32610,08765,8499,7653,91013,675Mar3,807,6082,241,5065,45591,81121,5198,20034,1184,74612,51681,0999,9994,29514,294Apr3,750,9031,700,6613,27975,65732,18910,62736,2975,29217,959102,36518,4486,32824,776May3,554,5322,062,4065,73083,64329,4659,38337,3304,53615,36896,08116,4775,39621,873Jun4,271,8772,449,3505,68242,70219,0067,43525,7445,75013,56771,50217,3235,04822,371Jul4,288,5072,422,9216,85393,61437,70425,04055,02111,55836,193165,51722,7428,54531,288Aug3,213,4681,744,7376,788102,30637,59027,80969,21933,98915,531184,13815,9616,63722,598Sep2,708,1681,471,7855,59472,22032,35114,58757,1848,56121,003133,68527,4839,97537,458Oct3,101,8021,557,2904,994100,36227,37014,21848,5237,18419,368116,66324,7428,08632,828Nov3,207,4471,470,9624,34087,67414,9837,46930,0154,30313,00769,77812,6314,38117,012Dec3,789,1942,151,9434,91478,29821,2499,54733,0516,03914,13684,02315,8114,96220,773TOTAL42,554,69423,716,04161,6431,005,284308,990151,052487,787100,013203,1111,250,953225,19276,578301,770INTERNATIONALJan873759169,939693,7833,5273,0135,28578893213,545125,29429,871155,165Feb1,390740197,825597,3864,4372,2114,07347992512,12479,02713,64392,670Mar815544251,389709,3444,6702,4117,3255111,33416,25293,67718,745112,422Apr2,438881212,275388,1956,1683,1007,7868192,61820,491120,61038,085158,695May498120238,618171,9065,7734,2698,5095192,47921,549127,23035,959163,189Jun388192285,051167,7517,4738,4337,0871,1391,96826,100135,87340,219176,092Jul501109319,533218,8804,7177,19910,4011,35911,17434,851115,15747,660162,817Aug414137520,788155,2405,2569,5747,8963,5422,85029,117112,87338,721151,594Sep3671,191411,820131,4194,4516,7849,1561,4224,66726,480155,05540,157195,212Oct205132359,834209,6785,7647,1416,9259801,98022,790151,36229,301180,664Nov1,0161,132379,403516,7373,8766,3756,8839361,58019,64995,81223,734119,546Dec7551,940456,353619,6404,51711,5464,4661,2221,36323,113135,56029,652165,213TOTAL9,6587,8763,802,8294,579,95960,62772,05585,79113,71833,870266,0611,447,530385,7471,833,278AUSTRA-LIAJAPANUS EASTSWITZER-LANDCANADAUNITED KINGDOMTOTAL OCEANIAITALYTOTALUS WESTFRANCEGERMANYNEW ZEALANDTOTAL EUROPE DBEDT 36 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 11.2023 Air Visitor Days by Month and MMA(continued)2023OTHER ASIA MMALATIN AMERICA MMAOTHER MMATOTAL Jan23,4204,439168,7961,96511,025209,6457,85711,8468,78728,490465,7188,008,254Feb6,7951,639133,1332,3723,519147,4585,5537,8556,08319,490261,8646,751,891Mar25,2502,68777,1032,5388,156115,7335,8675,7318,59720,195349,7917,818,258Apr12,0333,08597,1883,5046,375122,1854,9917,00516,29928,296422,3967,013,493May18,6053,439103,7903,5606,758136,1525,8207,1309,63422,584293,7506,872,630Jun19,0794,114101,5303,9808,119136,8224,1135,77410,97120,858373,3038,050,041Jul35,1396,013123,3053,15217,270184,8797,3288,13318,31033,770478,7488,442,787Aug43,9783,888101,7442,33810,884162,8323,8367,25413,65324,744329,1256,648,025Sep31,1143,014126,6012,3827,195170,3063,7958,50611,46623,767222,1135,611,584Oct15,7362,110103,6672,4448,829132,7863,8528,6638,75621,271270,0496,111,348Nov19,9212,23297,9812,8577,191130,1832,4444,9218,00415,369320,0736,360,322Dec36,3933,764127,5616,1065,226179,04913,31113,55615,56242,429367,8547,985,490TOTAL287,46440,4241,362,39737,198100,5461,828,03068,76696,375136,122301,2634,154,78585,674,126DOMESTICJan9,5001,9837,8377781,28921,3877,61411,5608,14627,321207,8156,526,860Feb3,0541,3654,0238875669,8955,3757,2145,67618,265167,1385,616,241Mar8,0591,8854,2491,0851,12416,4035,7095,2187,17118,099172,4916,448,766Apr4,6391,6043,5401,1101,08811,9814,5276,35912,84723,733166,9725,860,328May10,4872,0675,0351,2371,21720,0435,7506,6329,19221,574179,6766,045,556Jun8,9822,4755,2731,1481,25619,1343,3634,7949,50017,656197,7457,098,020Jul10,1402,8775,3691,0021,33520,7246,6687,52516,22930,422251,3817,311,227Aug7,2122,0704,88786499316,0253,5286,64811,97322,149211,7755,523,985Sep4,9141,4394,9557341,44213,4853,7078,02210,78922,519177,3724,642,286Oct4,6371,4023,54165984711,0853,5818,0958,17019,846179,8915,124,762Nov7,0421,6483,9105291,39214,5222,3844,1817,54914,114147,4855,033,333Dec16,3402,3155,1061,4141,20526,38013,15212,75814,57440,485210,2996,406,308TOTAL95,00623,13057,72411,44713,755201,06365,35889,007121,817276,1822,270,04071,637,671INTERNATIONALJan13,9202,456160,9591,1879,735188,2582422866401,169257,9031,481,394Feb3,741274129,1091,4852,953137,5631786404071,22594,7261,135,651Mar17,19180272,8541,4527,03199,3311585131,4262,096177,3001,369,492Apr7,3941,48193,6492,3945,287110,2044646463,4534,563255,4241,153,166May8,1191,37298,7552,3235,541116,109704984421,010114,074827,075Jun10,0971,63996,2562,8326,863117,6887509811,4713,202175,558952,022Jul25,0003,136117,9362,15015,934164,1556606072,0813,348227,3671,131,560Aug36,7661,81896,8571,4749,892146,8073086071,6802,595117,3501,124,040Sep26,2001,575121,6461,6485,752156,821884846761,24844,741969,298Oct11,099708100,1261,7857,982121,7002715685861,42590,158986,586Nov12,87958494,0712,3285,799115,661607404551,255172,5891,326,989Dec20,0521,449122,4554,6924,021152,6691587989881,944157,5561,579,183TOTAL192,45817,2951,304,67325,75186,7911,626,9673,4077,36814,30625,0811,884,74514,036,455CHINAARGEN-TINATOTALTAIWANHONG KONGOTHERTOTAL OTHER ASIAKOREASINGA-PORETOTAL LATIN AMERICABRAZILMEXICOTOTAL VISITOR DAYS DBEDT 37 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 12.Air Visitor Days by Month and MMA Percent change 2023 vs.2022%changeUS WEST MMAUS EAST MMAJAPAN MMACANADA MMAEUROPE MMAOCEANIA MMAJan13.510.7550.1100.651.116.334.776.18.732.6244.4770.9290.8Feb3.09.9799.652.125.820.216.114.2-6.314.9261.6521.1288.4Mar1.14.5512.916.430.622.726.988.26.326.259.9347.181.0Apr-10.8-2.7220.5-7.019.79.0-3.544.10.76.913.5697.843.2May-6.3-3.0308.7-7.7-1.5-7.1-9.6-20.30.6-6.126.2342.550.2Jun-4.4-3.7237.215.17.721.0-1.6-11.2-14.50.65.1357.827.5Jul-7.1-2.0116.2-0.4-16.0-17.7-8.1-22.55.0-10.0-12.420.5-4.9Aug-16.7-16.4106.2-22.0-21.718.7-19.2-17.2-23.6-15.1-15.33.4-11.1Sep-18.1-11.4101.6-16.7-20.26.8-23.9-23.5-10.2-17.9-2.510.50.0Oct-13.0-8.9103.5-16.7-14.4-43.5-10.1-10.0-26.9-21.0-5.9-19.8-8.7Nov-8.9-6.4113.55.5-10.841.93.333.7-12.32.6-23.1-21.7-22.8Dec-5.8-8.385.0-6.8-3.20.34.9-7.8-3.5-0.2-12.6-20.4-14.2TOTAL-6.4-2.9153.110.2-3.2-1.7-5.3-7.9-7.0-4.810.354.517.6DOMESTICJan13.610.756.5178.333.75.919.552.72.719.2371.6136.3289.9Feb3.09.9-11.3163.30.910.75.08.7-11.91.9206.449.8135.9Mar1.14.584.475.310.423.37.3102.62.211.8120.837.186.6Apr-10.9-2.7-14.376.58.413.4-9.034.1-3.20.9124.0105.5119.0May-6.3-3.037.1-1.7-11.9-14.9-13.7-22.9-6.4-12.783.454.675.4Jun-4.4-3.752.8-4.5-10.6-14.1-4.2-18.3-7.8-9.078.23.853.4Jul-7.1-2.021.31.9-14.2-20.7-3.5-24.8-1.6-10.435.650.039.3Aug-16.6-16.4-17.9-9.1-22.2-2.7-16.2-19.9-18.0-16.628.617.825.2Sep-18.1-11.517.4-18.3-26.5-12.7-24.5-32.1-24.8-24.525.665.434.2Oct-13.0-8.952.5-9.9-22.1-15.3-6.9-16.6-21.6-15.111.930.916.1Nov-8.9-6.420.4-23.8-21.7-5.3-10.216.7-13.8-11.9-8.36.8-4.8Dec-5.8-8.4-8.6-35.0-11.3-1.0-0.5-15.8-4.6-5.4-10.6-5.8-9.5TOTAL-6.4-3.017.98.1-11.4-7.0-8.1-13.2-10.0-9.553.842.150.6INTERNATIONALJan-30.960.8613.993.5518.858.2532.22,089.21,143.2296.0221.04,495.5291.0Feb177.54.7955.543.4675.780.5361.976.2202.2272.3269.86,216.3329.3Mar-58.4-47.1545.511.6728.020.8772.113.670.4250.755.3828.180.4Apr107.4-23.7234.7-14.8165.1-3.934.3175.838.951.45.51,431.235.9May170.9146.8329.1-10.4147.716.414.612.489.041.821.3514.147.3Jun-74.6-33.7245.521.5125.489.49.457.0-43.041.7-0.1700.724.9Jul-67.595.2119.9-1.4-27.8-5.3-26.73.834.2-8.2-18.116.4-10.3Aug-81.5-75.3110.3-28.7-18.1228.0-38.721.2-44.5-3.8-19.21.3-14.8Sep-68.0207.1103.6-15.8112.1105.6-20.1222.5594.647.3-6.32.0-4.7Oct-82.5-73.7104.4-19.662.1-66.0-27.5115.4-56.0-41.7-8.3-27.5-12.1Nov26.4157.3115.412.994.6240.9203.3300.12.6148.6-24.7-25.4-24.9Dec-3.8222.087.1-1.570.31.475.873.69.224.7-12.9-22.4-14.7TOTAL-32.426.2157.910.684.111.614.265.115.826.65.757.313.5TOTAL EUROPEAUSTRA-LIATOTALUS WESTUS EASTJAPANCANADAUNITED KINGDOMITALYNEW ZEALANDTOTAL OCEANIASWITZER-LANDFRANCEGERMANY DBEDT 38 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 12.Air Visitor Days by Month and MMA(continued)Percent change 2023 vs.2022%changeOTHER ASIA MMALATIN AMERICA MMAOTHER MMATOTAL Jan241.757.2455.9-45.7710.6365.641.637.865.846.599.328.7Feb126.3-24.0575.431.9312.9435.837.374.412.339.642.217.0Mar114.6-40.8162.415.2429.3134.151.120.158.943.681.710.9Apr85.4-5.6101.550.3100.792.413.540.360.644.894.3-0.8May81.535.315.49.6140.425.228.238.911.423.320.60.0Jun70.6-2.511.2-9.6175.920.015.228.765.342.028.91.2Jul269.28.05.430.5133.630.339.6-0.668.539.00.4-2.1Aug289.61.7-15.7-20.272.612.3-29.633.652.124.6-7.6-11.3Sep264.9-8.830.6-6.499.948.2-24.719.523.610.9-5.4-9.8Oct192.7-30.6-7.9-27.2109.73.30.921.9-7.74.2-3.0-8.3Nov129.8-17.08.1-42.388.917.6-39.5-9.018.5-5.10.0-3.0Dec57.4-26.35.7-7.1-37.89.3-2.324.936.718.39.0-3.0TOTAL147.7-6.240.9-7.9116.750.78.825.938.526.523.51.1DOMESTICJan43.4-27.7112.5-42.617.837.939.235.355.341.826.914.6Feb10.7-35.538.1-46.4-8.9-1.734.760.75.431.715.06.9Mar-27.2-57.61.9-43.0-11.9-28.349.212.734.831.411.93.4Apr-19.3-48.2-24.1-43.7-40.7-30.84.130.728.223.4-7.6-7.5May10.7-8.1-13.1-53.6-46.5-10.727.331.77.519.2-5.7-5.0Jun-2.4-31.6-42.5-62.8-35.4-29.2-1.310.645.523.7-5.3-4.1Jul32.0-32.1-18.3-20.6-34.8-4.930.4-6.656.929.4-7.2-5.2Aug-6.5-23.6-16.1-16.0-43.8-15.8-34.641.737.918.0-9.1-16.0Sep-27.3-34.51.2-43.6-14.1-19.9-24.915.018.87.3-19.3-16.0Oct38.7-32.2-1.9-60.7-25.2-6.3-5.018.2-10.60.4-12.8-11.5Nov1.7-28.4-9.7-35.558.8-4.8-39.8-18.923.3-7.4-9.9-8.5Dec-3.6-24.5-11.2-31.2-27.7-10.5-2.725.935.517.73.0-6.9TOTAL0.8-33.6-6.0-44.9-24.5-12.45.020.728.019.5-3.1-4.8INTERNATIONALJan5,952.22,970.2503.3-47.63,571.8537.7214.9483.71,064.3545.8268.7181.1Feb1,429.0585.7668.6931.31,178.4687.9222.93,901.81,257.81,113.1144.2119.4Mar2,369.9791.4189.0385.72,563.3274.0181.3256.11,466.9620.3361.869.1Apr894.2746.5115.0565.0294.0138.6866.7412.72,564.11,402.8595.656.9May945.2370.617.4299.2932.834.5191.7398.3342.1351.1115.661.2Jun410.4173.217.2115.4587.035.3354.5545.11,262.4653.4117.473.1Jul1,260.4136.16.886.4198.136.7388.9401.8301.4332.310.623.7Aug929.162.9-15.7-22.4117.816.5492.3-18.0471.4138.9-4.821.3Sep1,379.741.832.132.6199.759.9-18.5236.1245.0178.6198.239.2Oct445.7-27.2-8.16.2159.44.3465.5119.371.8119.925.013.1Nov638.951.89.0-43.697.921.2-25.0196.0-27.830.710.525.8Dec225.2-29.16.63.8-40.313.658.410.856.834.118.316.5TOTAL783.1110.144.031.4207.865.4259.4161.2358.1263.984.348.2TAIWANHONG KONGCHINAKOREATOTAL VISITOR DAYSTOTAL OTHER ASIAARGEN-TINABRAZILMEXICOTOTAL LATIN AMERICAOTHERSINGA-PORETOTAL DBEDT 39 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report Table 13.2023 Air Visitor Arrivals by Month and MMA 2023US WEST MMAUS EAST MMAJAPAN MMACANADA MMAEUROPE MMAOCEANIA MMAJan383,027213,24922,99559,2422,2479622,0863976836,37418,6894,20022,890Feb379,163203,07128,99757,7631,9721,1552,5173616756
2023-12-22
187页
5星级
THE STATE OF GLOBALIZATION IN HIGHER ED2023Preface .3Key Findings .4Strategic Priority .5Key Indicators .7Key Goals .8Outgoing .9Incoming .19AppendixRespondent Profile .29CONTENTSGlobal education offices are seeing renewed student excitementand more importantly,a deep desire for international experiences and travel in real time.Following the significant impact left from the pandemic,institutions celebrated lifts on travel bans throughout 2022 and with that,a comforting answer to the pent-up demand that students had been feeling for several years.PrefaceNow in 2023,a new chapter has begun in global education.Institutions are focusing their efforts on expanding opportunities for both incoming and outgoing students as much as possible,and its working;students are travelling in numbers that mirror or exceed pre-pandemic rates.Additionally,global engagement is continuing to be a strategic priority for the majority of institutions.Similar to the findings in last years The State of Global Engagement survey,80%of the respondents see global engagement as part of their institutions multi-year plan.Moreover,71%of those international education professionals confirm what weve thought to be true all along;the strategic priority of global engagement is keenly focused on expanding the total student experience.Throughout this report,youll find the 258 global education professionals who responded to the Terra Dotta 2023 State of Global Engagement survey provide very encouraging insights about global engagement initiatives as well as the current state of both study abroad and international students and scholars.GLOBALIZATION 2023 3 GLOBALIZATION 2023 4 80%of higher education institutions state global engagement is part of the strategic plan to drive student experiences,the institutions reputation and revenue.Programs consist of a mix of initiatives with 88%having study abroad,87%international education,and 60%on-campus experiences.73%of international departments view they are strategically important and 59%view they are a source of revenue.Top metrics tracked for outgoing programs include the countries(81%),majors(68%),and programs being used(47%)but overall success is difficult to measure and often not realized right away.Program challenges include staffing(52%),budgets(49%),and scholarships(48%)for outgoing students.Biggest obstacles to incoming programs are budget(35%)and staffing(22%).Offering more financial support would be something that could increase interest and help students commit to the programs.41%of incoming programs have experienced increased competition from other countries.The main reason is cost(44%).Institutions are working with partners(60%)and investing in recruiting(49%)to remain competitive.Over 60%of institutions utilize outreach,marketing,and on-campus programs to attract incoming students.More than 60%of outgoing programs expect to send more students over the next few terms,compared to prior years.Western Europe(52%)and Asia(43%)have seen the largest increases in study abroad interest.87%of institutions enrolled over 50 incoming students in 2022-2023.62%have seen applications increase since COVID.Nearly 8 out of 10 institutions issued more than 50 I-20s with over half attending.1234Global engagement is a strategic priority Measuring success is a challengeCompetition is increasingStudy Abroad&International programs are expanding KEY FINDINGSGLOBAL ENGAGEMENT has become an integral part of strategic plans for 80%of higher education institutions due to its crucial role in enhancing student experiences,bolstering institutional reputation,and driving revenue.By offering study abroad and study away programs,institutions provide students with transformative cultural experiences,fostering personal growth and global perspectives.This emphasis on global engagement also demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity,enhances institutional reputation,and attracts international students,thereby contributing to both campus diversity and financial stability.Overall,prioritizing global engagement aligns institutions with the demands of a globalized world and positions them as leaders in higher education.Global Engagement is a Strategic Priority GLOBALIZATION 2023 5 GLOBALIZATION 2023 680%of higher education institutions state it is part of their strategic planIS GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT AN AREA OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE FOR YOUR INSTITUTION?(I.E.,IS IT PART OF THE MULTI-YEAR PLAN OR PART OF THE MISSION OF THE INSTITUTION?)YES!80%I DONT KNOW 8%NO 12%to drive student experiences,the institutions reputation and revenue.REGARDING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION,CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE TOP REASONS WHY GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT IS OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE TO YOUR INSTITUTION?(PLEASE SELECT UP TO 3 REASONS)TOTAL STUDENT EXPERIENCE 71%INSTITUTIONAL REPUTATION 57%INSTITUTIONAL REVENUE 39%EQUITY AND INCLUSION 38%DIVERSITY OF IDEAS 34%DIVERSITY OF DEMOGRAPHICS 23%DIVERSITY OF GEOGRAPHY 11%OTHER 6%I DONT KNOW 2%Global Engagement is a Strategic Priority GLOBALIZATION 2023 7GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT encompasses diverse initiatives,including study abroad programs,international education collaborations,on-campus multicultural experiences,and more.Coming out of COVID,there is renewed interest in the global engagement industry.Students are also eager to travel again.Institutions are once again placing a strong emphasis on increasing student participation in these programs.By expanding access and providing various global engagement opportunities,institutions stay attractive among students many choices while ensuring that students can actively engage with different cultures,enhance their international perspectives,and develop the skills necessary for success in an increasingly interconnected world.Program Growth is a Key Indicator for Global EngagementGlobal Engagement spans many different initiativeswith growth as the primary success metric.HOW DOES YOUR INSTITUTION MEASURE SUCCESS IN ITS GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS?(PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF YOUR INSTITUTIONS GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES?#OF NEW ENROLLMENTS OF 73%INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS#OF STUDENTS STUDYING ABROAD 72%RETENTION OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 53%OVERALL STUDENT GLOBAL 38%MOBILITY NUMBERS REVENUE TO THE INSTITUTION 33%RATINGS OF STUDENTS RETURNING 22%FROM STUDY ABROAD REVENUE TO THE DEPARTMENT 16%I DONT KNOW 10%OTHER 6%STUDY ABROAD 88%INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION 87%ON-CAMPUS EXPERIENCES 60%INTERNSHIPS 60%STUDY AWAY 42%VIRTUAL PROGRAMS 36%CO-OPS 10%OTHER 9%I DONT KNOW 2PARTMENT STAFFING and budgets have remained stable over the past 12 months.Growth of programs and satisfaction ratings are key for 2023.Growth of programs and satisfaction ratings are key goals for 2023HOW WILL YOUR DEPARTMENT MEASURE SUCCESS IN 2023?(PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)GROWTH OF PROGRAMS 78%STUDENT/SCHOLAR SATISFACTION RATINGS 60CULTY PARTICIPATION 37%COST SAVINGS 21%GLOBALIZATION 2023 8Student and Scholar Satisfaction Ratings are Also Key GoalsOUTGOINGTHERE IS an optimistic growth outlook for study abroad programs as the majority of respondents anticipate an increase in the number of students participating in such trips in the coming terms.After 2 years of isolation due to COVID,global engagement is more important than ever.I see study abroad as a valuable corrective to the lost socialization and maturation opportunities of the COVID years.SURVEY RESPONDENTStrong Growth Outlook for Outgoing Study Abroad ProgramsCOMPARED TO LAST YEAR,ARE YOU PLANNING TO SEND MORE,LESS OR THE SAME NUMBER OF STUDENTS ON STUDY ABROAD IN THE COMING TERMS?MORE THE SAME LESSSPRING 202467$%8b&LL 202324e%SUMMER 2023More than 60%expect to send more students,compared to prior years,over the next few terms.GLOBALIZATION 2023 10OUTGOING GLOBALIZATION 2023 11OUTGOINGWestern Europe(52%)and Asia(43%)have seen the largest increases in interest levels.WHAT HAVE YOU OBSERVED REGARDING HOW THE TOP DESTINATIONS TRENDED OVER THE PAST YEAR?(WHERE IS INTEREST INCREASING,AND WHERE IS INTEREST DECREASING?)418%1I3C8R%6%3%N/A DECREASED THE SAME INCREASEDWESTERN EUROPEASIAAFRICA AUSTRALIASOUTH AMERICA NORTH AMERICAANTARCTICA45$9!%INSTITUTIONS are observing the most significant surge in interest levels for study abroad programs in Western Europe and Asia.Western Europe&Asia are Top DestinationsEurope has become a coveted destination for study abroad,offering both academic excellence and a captivating cultural experience.SURVEY RESPONDENT GLOBALIZATION 2023 12OUTGOINGTop 3 outgoing student majors include:Business,Liberal Arts&Science,and Social SciencesWHAT ARE THE TOP FIELDS OF STUDY OF YOUR STUDY ABROAD PARTICIPANTS?(PICK UP TO 3)BUSINESS,MANAGEMENT,MARKETING,69%AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES,GENERAL 63%STUDIES AND HUMANITIES SOCIAL SCIENCES(EXCLUDING INTERNATIONAL 47%RELATIONS AND AFFAIRS)HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND 24%RELATED PROGRAMS BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES 17%ENGINEERING 12UCATION 11%ARCHITECTURE AND RELATED SERVICES 7%PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND 6%SOCIAL SERVICE PROFESSIONS LEGAL PROFESSIONS AND STUDIES 2%Business,Liberal Arts&Social Science Majors are Most Likely to Study AbroadOverall Program Success Includes Many Different Things GLOBALIZATION 2023 13OUTGOINGTop 3 metrics tracked are countries,majors,and utilization ratesWHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT STATISTICS YOU TRACK/REPORT ON FOR STUDY ABROAD?(PLEASE SELECT YOUR TOP 3)COUNTRIES WHERE STUDENTS ARE TRAVELING 81%MAJORS/FIELDS OF STUDY 68%PROGRAMS BEING UTILIZED 47%ETHNICITY OF PARTICIPANTS 33%PARTNERS WE WORK WITH 26%GENDER OF PARTICIPANTS 16%GRADUATION RATES 10%GPA 8%POST-GRADUATION EMPLOYMENT 3%OTHER 7%OVERALL PROGRAM SUCCESS may include short-term measures,such as student satisfaction surveys and learning outcomes.Postgraduate employability and cultural competence are also essential but more challenging to measure.Success in study abroad is typically measured by the extent to which students are able to achieve their personal,academic,and professional goals and the degree to which they are able to engage with,and learn,from the host culture and community.SURVEY RESPONDENTOverall Program Success Includes Many Different Things GLOBALIZATION 2023 14but overall program success also is difficult to measure.WHAT DO YOU GET ASKED TO REPORT ON THAT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO ASSESS?(PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)OVERALL PROGRAM SUCCESS 74%ETHNICITY OF PARTICIPANTS 19%PARTNERS WE WORK WITH 15%GENDER OF PARTICIPANTS 13%PROGRAMS BEING UTILIZED 8%COUNTRIES WHERE STUDENTS ARE TRAVELING 6%MAJORS/FIELDS OF STUDY 4%OTHER 23%OUTGOINGWhat Does Overall Program Success Mean to You?GLOBALIZATION 2023 15OUTGOINGDid the student gain a global perspective?Is the student culturally competent and able to articulate their experience?SURVEY RESPONDENT Academic success(comparable performance to home university),positive student feedback,student interest in participating in the program.SURVEY RESPONDENTStudent engagement with our school and post-graduate employability or placement in competitive residency/fellowship programs.SURVEY RESPONDENTThat the student had a positively impactful experience abroad.That may be academically,socially or both.SURVEY RESPONDENTThe Challenges GLOBALIZATION 2023 16OUTGOINGTHESE FINDINGS HIGHLIGHT the complexities surrounding global engagement as it relates to study abroad.Headcount and budgets pose significant challenges for institutions as they strive to accommodate a growing number of students and allocate sufficient resources to support study abroad initiatives effectively.However,the biggest obstacle to increasing interest in study abroad is often the availability and accessibility of financial aid for students.Many students face financial constraints that hinder their ability to participate in study abroad programs.The costs associated with tuition fees,travel,accommodation,and daily expenses can be prohibitive for some,limiting their opportunities for global engagement.The lack of adequate financial aid options specifically tailored for study abroad can discourage students from pursuing these experiences,creating a barrier to increasing interest in study abroad.Top two challenges are headcounts and budgetsWHAT ARE THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES TO MEETING YOUR INSTITUTIONS OBJECTIVES IN STUDY ABROAD?(PLEASE SELECT YOUR TOP 2)HEADCOUNT/STAFFING 52%BUDGET 49%LACK OF SCHOLARSHIPS 48%OTHER INTERNAL 24%(SUCH AS BUREAUCRACY)GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS 8%COVID 6%OUR DEPARTMENTAL SOLUTIONS 3%OTHER 10%The Challenges GLOBALIZATION 2023 17OUTGOINGbut offering more financial support would be something that could increase interestand help commit students to the programsIF YOU COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND,WHAT WOULD YOU DO OR CHANGE TO INCREASE INTEREST IN STUDY ABROAD?IF YOU COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND,WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO INCREASE THE RATE AT WHICH STUDENTS CONVERT FROM“EXPRESSING INTEREST”TO“COMMITTING”TO A PROGRAM?(PLEASE SELECT 2 OPTIONS)OFFER MORE FINANCIAL SUPPORT/61%SCHOLARSHIPS BETTER TOOLS FOR 7%MAINTAINING STUDENT PROFILES/STUDENT INTERESTS INCLUSION IN THE INSTITUTIONS 6%COMMUNICATION TO FUTURE/RECENTLY ADMITTED STUDENTS MORE SUPPORT FROM THE FACULTY 6%MORE HEADCOUNT 6%MORE AUTONOMY IN SENDING 3%COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STUDENT POPULATION BETTER TOOLS FOR PROMOTING 3%INFORMATION SESSIONS EASIER ACCESS TO SIS DATA 0%OTHER 8%OFFER MORE FINANCIAL SUPPORT/84%SCHOLARSHIPS EASIER ACCESS TO COURSE 46%EQUIVALENCY INFORMATION BETTER TOOLS FOR MAINTAINING 22%STUDENT PROFILES/STUDENT INTERESTS BETTER TOOLS FOR PROMOTING 16%INFORMATION SESSIONS MORE AUTONOMY IN SENDING 11%COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STUDENT POPULATION BETTER COMMUNICATION 8%WITH PARENTS EASIER ACCESS TO SIS DATA 3%OTHER 10%What Students Should Know About Study Abroad GLOBALIZATION 2023 18OUTGOINGIf you could say anything to prospective study abroad students,what would you want them to know about the importance or impact of Global Engagement?Education abroad will change your life.SURVEY RESPONDENTUnderstanding the world and knowing how others see things differently is important to succeeding in the 21st century.SURVEY RESPONDENTIt is essential to explore other perspectives to be competitive in the increasingly global market.SURVEY RESPONDENTIt is an opportunity that doesnt exist outside of college for most people,and that can drastically shape the way you perceive the world,for the better.SURVEY RESPONDENTINCOMINGHOW MANY INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS DID YOUR INSTITUTION ENROLL FOR THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR?Nearly 1/3 of institutions surveyed enrolled 1,000 or more incoming students in 20222023Incoming International Students Are on the Rise GLOBALIZATION 2023 20INCOMING 050 13P100 130500 27P01,000 14%1,0002,000 13%2,0005,000 9%5,00010,000 6,000 4%9%6%4%APPROXIMATELY,WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE APPLICATIONS UP BY?62%are up by over 10%Most Institutions Seeing More International Applications GLOBALIZATION 2023 21INCOMING5108304050%9P%HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE LEVEL OF INTEREST FROM INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS IN ATTENDING YOUR INSTITUTION RELATIVE TO THE YEAR BEFORE COVID(2019)?62%have seen applications increase since pre-COVIDMORE THAN HALF of institutions are seeing increased interest from international students and scholars relative to pre-COVID levels.APPLICATIONS ARE UP 62%APPLICATIONS ARE FLAT 27%APPLICATIONS ARE DOWN 11%International Competition Increasing GLOBALIZATION 2023 22INCOMINGARE YOU EXPERIENCING INCREASED COMPETITION FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?WHY DO YOU THINK COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE U.S.ARE ATTRACTIVE TO STUDENTS?41%have experienced increased competitionmainly due to cost(44%)ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY,41%of the institutions surveyed have noticed heightened competition from other countries for international students.The primary factor driving this competition is the cost,as studying in other countries is considered less expensive.Respondents indicated their intention to collaborate with recruiting partners and invest in their own recruiting efforts to maintain their competitiveness in the global arena.YES 41%NO 18%UNKNOWN 41%COST 44%POLITICAL LANDSCAPE 19%SOCIETAL STABILITY 19%SOCIETAL INCLUSIVITY5%OTHER 13%Remaining Competitive GLOBALIZATION 2023 23INCOMINGWHAT IS YOUR INSTITUTION DOING TO REMAIN ATTRACTIVE/COMPETITIVE ON THE GLOBAL LANDSCAPE?(PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)Institutions are working with partners and investing to remain competitive WORKING WITH RECRUITING PARTNERS 60%MAKING INVESTMENTS IN OUR OWN RECRUITING 49%INVESTING IN MARKETING OUR INSTITUTIONS BENEFITS 44%OTHER 10%NONE OF THE ABOVE 11%Nearly 8 Out of 10 Institutions Issued More Than 50 I-20s GLOBALIZATION 2023 24INCOMING77%issued more than 50 I-20srespondents believe 61%of students applied to 5 institutionsmore than half attendedHOW MANY I-20S DID YOUR DEPARTMENT ISSUE LAST YEAR?HOW MANY I-20S DO YOU THINK YOUR PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS ARE CONSIDERING?OF THOSE I-20S ISSUED,APPROXIMATELY WHAT PERCENTAGE ATTENDED?NEARLY 80%of institutions issued 50 or more I-20s,with more than half of those students ultimately enrolling at the institution.Though the majority of international students apply to multiple institutions and receive multiple I-20s,most respondents believe that students typically receive five or fewer I-20s,suggesting a relatively focused and targeted approach to school selection.80 30 23P100 150500 22P01,000 16%1,0002,000 8%2,0005,000 9%5,00010,000 5,000 3%Attracting Incoming Students GLOBALIZATION 2023 25INCOMINGHOW DOES YOUR INSTITUTION ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO CHOOSE YOUR INSTITUTION OVER OTHER AVAILABLE OPTIONS HERE IN THE U.S.?(PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)Over 60%of institutions utilize outreach,marketing,and on-campus programs to attract incoming students MORE OUTREACH TO THOSE INTERESTED STUDENTS 64%TO NURTURE THE RELATIONSHIP MARKETING OUR INSTITUTIONS BENEFITS 63%VIA WEBSITE,BROCHURES,ETC.ENHANCING ON-CAMPUS SUPPORTS/PROGRAMS 60%FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT SUCCESS CONNECT THOSE INTERESTED WITH LIKE-STUDENTS 40%(SUCH AS BASED ON COUNTRY,PROGRAM,INTERESTS,HERITAGE)USING OUR ALUMNI NETWORK TO ENCOURAGE 33%PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS OTHER 12%Attracting Incoming Students GLOBALIZATION 2023 26INCOMINGWHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE IN MEETING YOUR INSTITUTIONS OBJECTIVES IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION?Biggest obstacles are budget and staffing BUDGET 35%HEADCOUNT/STAFFING 22%OTHER INTERNAL(SUCH AS BUREAUCRACY)16%GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS 12%COVID RESURGENCE 3%OTHER 12%The Importance of Global Engagement GLOBALIZATION 2023 27INCOMINGIf you could say anything to prospective international students,what would you want them to know about the importance or impact of Global Engagement?It accelerates your career development.SURVEY RESPONDENTIn every diverse and growing global environment,its critical to engage the world.The skills,knowledge,and experiences will forever support your success!SURVEY RESPONDENTGlobal engagement is an essential piece to be successful in future careers.SURVEY RESPONDENTThrough global engagement,international students can gain exposure to new ideas and perspectives,which can broaden their intellectual horizons and deepen their understanding of the world.SURVEY RESPONDENTAPPENDIX258 GLOBALIZATION 2023 29INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE INTERNATIONAL DEPARTMENT AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES.TOTAL RESPONDENTS 40,000 11%SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR 5%(PROVOST,DEAN)VICE PRESIDENT 2%SIO 8O 0%DIRECTOR OR 40%ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MANAGER 14%COORDINATOR 13VISOR 16%ONE-PERSON OFFICE 3%RESPONDENTS BY INSTITUTION SIZERESPONDENTS BY ORGANIZATIONAL ROLERespondent ProfileRespondent Profile GLOBALIZATION 2023 30 DOCTORAL UNIVERSITY 50%MASTERS COLLEGE 26%AND UNIVERSITY BACCALAUREATE COLLEGE 17CCALAUREATE/2%ASSOCIATES COLLEGE ASSOCIATES COLLEGE 6%1 9# 18F 21a0 22 30%INCOMING 55%INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS INCOMING 30%INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS OUTGOING 53%STUDY ABROAD OUTGOING 21%STUDY AWAY(DOMESTIC TRAVEL)TRAVEL RISK 25%OTHER 23%RESPONDENTS BY INSTITUTION TYPERESPONDENTS BY DEPARTMENT SIZERESPONDENTS BY OVERSIGHT/RESPONSIBILITYRESPONDENTS BY JOB LEVEL GROUPINGMANAGER&BELOW46%DIRECTOR&ABOVE54% See for yourself.We invite you to learn how Terra Dotta can help you achieve your global engagement objectives.Contact your Terra Dotta representative or reach us online.Global Engagement Solutions for Higher EducationINCOMINGOUTGOINGTRAVEL RISK
2023-12-22
31页
5星级
SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP CASE STUDIES|IBEROSTAR:Roadmap for DecarbonisationWTTC HARVARD Contents|1J.
2023-12-22
22页
5星级
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF GLOBAL TOURISMDecember 2023In partnership with:Contents|1World Travel&Tourism C.
2023-12-22
22页
5星级
Guideline on the Boundaries ofUsage in Academic PublishingInstitute of Scientiic and Technical Information of ChinaELSEVIERSPRINGER NATUREWileyI am happy to see that ISTIC is working with Elsevier,Wiley and Springer Nature to develop the Guidelines on the Boundaries of AIGC Use in Academic Publishing.These Guidelines provide suggestions for authors,research institutions and academic journal publishers on how to use AIGC in a responsible manner,including how to fully and accurately disclose and state the use of AIGC.As this is a very dynamic ield,STM expects recommendations will need to be adapted in future.These suggestions are practical and a useful guide at this phase.Shuai Yan,STM China ConsultantSpringer Nature is pleased to be involved in the production of guidance on this important topic as interest in and use of generative AI gathers pace.Because of its power we need to understand both intended and unintended outcomes and so proceed with caution and care.Its also important to note that,relecting the iterative nature of technology,this is an iterative document that will evolve as the technology and the challenges and beneits associated with it-itself evolves.Steven Inchcoombe,President,Research,Springer NatureGenerative AI represents a great deal of opportunity for the future of research and scholarly publishing.Given the pace of development,we need discussion and dialog addressing how all stakeholders in the research process implement this technology ethically and transparently.These guidelines are an important contribution toward raising awareness of issues surrounding the use of this new technology and emphasize the importance of accountability in its use.Michael Streeter,Director,Research Integrity&Publishing Ethics,WILEYElsevier welcomes this important initiative led by ISTIC to develop guidelines for the use of artiicial intelligence generated content in scholarly and academic publishing.We appreciated the opportunity to contribute to the guidelines and to share our own experience.As noted in the guidelines,the impact of AI within scholarly and academic publishing is growing,and it brings both opportunities and challenges.Our own policies focus on responsible use and the need for disclosure when authors use artiicial intelligence to assist with the writing process of their articles,whereas our policies emphasize the protection of authors conidentiality and data privacy rights when reviewers and editors use artiicial intelligence.In all instances,we need to provide transparency and guidance to authors,readers,reviewers,editors and contributors.This guidance from ISTIC is a key step that will assist the community to use AI in a responsible,transparent and accountable way.Sarah Jenkins,Director,Research Integrity&Publishing EthicsCONTENTS1 Background 012 Objectives 022.1 Prevent academic misconduct and strengthen integrity governance 022.2 Guide relevant stakeholders to reach consensus on the use of AIGC 023 Principles 023.1 Transparency and accountability 023.2 Quality and integrity 023.3 Privacy and security 023.4 Fairness 023.5 Sustainable development 034 Behavioral Framework/Practice Guideline 034.1 Research and writing 034.1.1 Information collection 034.1.2 Statistical analysis 044.1.3 Charting 044.1.4 Text writing 044.1.5 Language and copyediting 044.1.6 Citation organization 054.2 Submission 054.2.1 Authorship 054.2.2 Standardized citation 054.2.3 Disclosure and statement 054.2.4 Peer review 054.3 Post-publication/Publishing 064.3.1 Data storage and sharing 064.3.2 Submission and archiving of AIGC-related materials 064.3.3 Detection and identiication of AIGC-generated content 065 Conclusion 076 Acknowledgements 0801In recent years,artiicial intelligence(AI)technology has been developing rapidly,especially with the release of ChatGPT,the AI chatbot in November 2022.Artiicial Intelligence Generated Content(AIGC)has entered the public eye and is widely used.It is clear that AI is gaining the ability to generate luent language,making it increasingly dificult to distinguish the mass of generated sentences from human-written text.Some scientists are already using chatbots as research assistants to sort through ideas,provide feedback on their work,help write code,and review the literature.The impact of AI on research paper writing,producing,and other aspects of research is growing,but it is also having a major impact on the transparency and integrity of scientiic research,which has attracted enormous attention from the academic community.The main concern of the research community is that scientists,researchers,and students may fraudulently present AI-generated text as their own or simply use AIGC to produce unreliable research results.Large Language Models(LLMs)work by learning statistical language patterns from large online text databases.However,it should be noticed that LLMs may generate false and misleading information,and they also fail to indicate the source of the information.Without output control,the utilization of AIGC may lead to the generation of inaccurate viewpoints or unreliable research results,damaging the integrity of the academic ecosystem.At the same time,AIGC can make it even more dificult to detect academic misconduct(such as plagiarism and image forgery).Therefore,it is crucial to develop a guideline that clearly deines the boundaries of the AIGC usage in the academic community.Currently,various national science and technology regulators,publishers,and other relevant organizations(the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE),the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE),the International Association of Scientiic,Technical and Medical Publishers(STM),Taylor&Francis,WILEY,Springer Nature,Elsevier,etc.)have engaged in the discussions of the AIGC usage in academic papers and have provided relevant rules and guidelines.Notably,the descriptions and requirements in the AI-related guidelines and normative documents issued by different organizations at different times often exhibit inconsistencies.Therefore,based on an extensive review and study of existing research and exploration in the industry,we are committed to establishing a framework and guideline that outlines the fundamental principles of best practices for AI technology in academic publishing.We aim to provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of AIGC usage within the publishing industry,the scientiic community,and science and technology regulators,with a further consensus on the appropriate application of AI technology.In the meantime,as AI is an emerging technology,its nature and usage will inevitably continue to evolve.Therefore,this guideline will be updated on an ongoing and timely basis as necessary.Background1Guideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic PublishingBackground022.1 Prevent academic misconduct and enhance integrity governanceTaking the prevention of misuse of AIGC as the goal,strengthen education to raise the awareness of scientiic integrity,and promote academic integrity governance,to make sure that research activities can be conducted in an orderly manner.2.2 Guide relevant stakeholders to reach consensus on the use of AIGCSpecify the best practices that relevant parties should follow in the preparation,writing,submission,peer review,publication,and dissemination of academic journal articles,and provide detailed and standardized guidance on the appropriate use of AIGC.3.1 Transparency and accountabilityTransparency and accountability are the fundamental principles underlying the use of AIGC in academic publishing.In the process from academic research to publication and dissemination,all the participants(including researchers,authors,peer reviewers,and readers,etc.)should be aware of and explicitly disclose the use of AIGC.Transparency should include data transparency,which involve datasets,data sources,and data processing methods;in addition,the use of intellectual property and copyright information should be disclosed as well.Accountability is a shared responsibility of all the key stakeholders,including researchers,funders,policymakers,and publishers;the establishment and clariication of the accountability standards and related information is signiicant.3.2 Quality and integrityQuality and integrity assurance is fundamental to building trust in the application of AIGC in academic research.From the design and construction of algorithms,to the inputs for training AIGC,to the inputs used in practical applications,the principles of accountability and transparency should be followed,and the use of AIGC should be indicated through identiiers or feedback mechanisms to ensure that the quality and integrity of academic research is not compromised by the utilization of AIGC technology.3.3 Privacy and securityPrivacy and security are the fundamental legal principles for the use of AIGC.AIGC should be used with respect of privacy and data protection,including the assessment of data,privacy,and security impact.Data should be appropriately anonymized to protect privacy,and measures should be taken to protect data security.3.4 FairnessThe utilization of AIGC should be under the principle of fairness to avoid bias.As AI has the risk of replicating Objectives2Principles3Guideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic PublishingObjectivesPrinciples03Behavioral framework/practice guideline4and amplifying bias,potential sources of bias should be carefully assessed and reviewed in the process of training data selection,algorithm design,model generation,optimization,and application.A feedback mechanism should be established in place to monitor,review,and correct potential biases in a timely manner.Meanwhile,AIGC can help provide services such as copyediting and language polishing to reduce such cultural or linguistic unfairness.3.5 Sustainable developmentThe multidisciplinary nature of AI system makes it highly suitable for addressing global concerns,such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,carbon neutrality,and so forth.It also offers opportunities for public and private organizations to improve eficiency to achieve greater environmental sustainability and responsibility.AI systems carry a promise to beneit humanity,including future generations.Funding and other incentives providers of high-quality data,such as publications and databases created by publishers,help to extract actionable knowledge.Sustainable development should be a core principle of AIGC itself.To minimize duplication and waste,the utilization of AIGC should avoid over-reliance on data that may be temporarily or permanently unavailable,while the functional modules of the tool should be based on recognized standards and guidelines to ensure that data are searchable,accessible,interoperable,and reusable.PrinciplesBehavioral Framework/Practice GuidelineGuideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic Publishing4.3 Post-publication/publishing4.3.1 Data storage and sharingOn the premise of meeting relevant requirements,authors are encouraged to make their original data publicly available to control and prevent problems such as data contamination and falsiication.Authors should conduct a rigorous review of the data in their papers to ensure the accuracy,completeness,and reliability of the source data.The focus of the data review should include the methods of data collection and processing,the experiments,the accuracy and precision of measurements,and the methods of data storage,and so forth.For research papers involving experimental process,researchers should record the experiments and the data collection process in a timely,accurate,and detailed manner to avoid errors or omissions,and submit the experimental data and process records together.4.3.2 Submission and archiving of AIGC-related materialsResearchers are encouraged to share their research data(in certain situations),including but not limited to:original data,processed data,software,algorithms,protocols,methods,materials,etc.In particular,AIGC-generated content such as text,images,programs,and so forth,should be submitted and archived as supplementary material.4.3.3 Detection and identiication of AIGC-generated contentJournals and editors are encouraged to adopt new tools to detect and identify AIGC-generated content.It is recommended to establish a review process for AIGC tools,and to develop appropriate technologies for manual review and automated detection.The detection results should be used as an auxiliary supporting basis in a comprehensive evaluation together with the scope of the paper,the requirements of the journal,and the overall quality of the paper,and so forth.Researchers must provide clear disclosure and statement when using AIGC to generate manuscript text and other materials,otherwise it constitutes academic misconduct.For example,newly generated text extracted from AIGC as part of the manuscript without attribution will be considered plagiarism.4.1.6 Citation organizationWhen dealing with content recommended by AIGC,citation relevance is crucial.Researchers must ensure that the cited content is relevant to the paper,including the authenticity of the citation and the cited content.Citation format check:AIGC can verify whether the cited literature conforms to the citation format of academic papers and identify possible errors or deiciencies.Automatic citation generation:AIGC can assist researchers in identifying sources of citations,and automatically generate citations that conform to the citation format of academic papers based on the literature information provided by the authors.However,AIGC should only be used as an auxiliary tool,authors still need to carefully check the format and content of the cited literature to ensure that the citation conforms to the requirements of academic papers.Automatic sorting of references:AIGC can automatically sort and check the reference list according to the speciied citation format,thus helping authors to perform the relevant tasks of standardized citation in academic writing,saving the effort of manual work,improving the quality of the paper and the eficiency of researchers.4.2 Submission AIGC can assist with the submission process,but this requires the professional judgement of researchers who should bear the ultimate responsibility.4.2.1 AuthorshipWithout the guidance of human researchers,AIGC cannot independently initiate an original research,nor can it take the responsibility of a published work or research design.Similarly,in most countries,AIGC does not have legal status or the ability to hold or transfer copyrights,which are the basic requirements for authorship.Therefore,according to the COPE position statement on AI tools,AIGC cannot perform the role of authors and cannot be listed as authors.4.2.2 Standardized citationAll content originating from other sources must be carefully reviewed and properly cited.Authors must verify the authenticity and accuracy of the information provided by AIGC,and make reference notes to the underlying data sources,tools,collection,processing,etc.4.2.3 Disclosure and statementThe use of AIGC should be fully and accurately disclosed and stated.The following points should be clearly speciied:the user;the AI technology or system(with version number stated);the time and date of use;the prompts and questions used to generate the text;the parts of the text written or co-written by AIGC;the ideas in the paper generated by AIGC.If any part of the manuscript was written using such tools,this must be described in the Methods or Acknowledgments section in an open,transparent,and detailed manner.TemplateStatement:In preparing this paper,the authors used name of speciic AIGC tool/service for purpose of use:such as literature review/data analysis/charting,etc.After using this tool/service,the authors have reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.4.2.4 Peer reviewIn the peer review process,authors may use AIGC to assist in responding to review comments;however,authors are responsible for addressing peer review comments,and should be prepared to demonstrate that their response is appropriate if questioned.In the peer review process,AIGC can categorize and label review comments,helping authors to quickly understand the comments,and recommending appropriate responses for authors eficiently address the review comments.certain issues.Researchers need to monitor and control the viewpoint information provided by AIGC,and clean up the information provided by AIGC if necessary,to ensure that researchers use only valid,unbiased material and prevent the dissemination of false,biased,or discriminatory information.4.1.2 Statistical analysisIn some cases,researchers have collected data but are uncertain about the best statistical analysis to test their hypotheses.Researchers can use AIGC to select the most appropriate method of analysis or statistical analysis;however,the data used should be collected from their own experiments,and the results of statistical analysis should be veriied by the researchers to ensure the reliability.Data analysis and interpretation:Researchers may use AIGC to interpret data,calculate statistical indicators,perform simple data analysis,and describe statistical results.However,AIGC cannot replace the researchers own interpretation of the data.Suggestions and guidance on statistical methods:AIGC can provide researchers with suggestions and guidance on statistical analysis based on the question and relevant knowledge.However,these suggestions and guidance are solely based on the language model and knowledge base it has learned,which may lead to omissions and inaccuracies.Therefore,researchers need to assess the feasibility of the statistical analysis suggestions provided by AIGC,evaluate them with other reliable statistical analysis and data mining tools,or seek guidance and assistance from the subject experts to inally determine whether to accept the suggestions provided by AIGC.4.1.3 ChartingAssisted charting:Based on the characteristics of the data and the purpose of the graph,AIGC can recommend an appropriate type of statistical graph according to the application scenario,which helps present statistical results in a straightforward manner,effectively convey the message,thus saving researchers the effort in making graphs and thereby improving writing eficiency.However,images generated from experiments such as images of Western blot,cell technology analysis,tissue cell staining,etc.,must be obtained through authentic experimental research and cannot be directly generated by AIGC.Diagram format processing and optimization:Based on the data volume and graph requirements,researchers may use AIGC to assist in adjusting the style and format of the graph,such as font size,data labeling,adding legends,changing colors,and so forth,to make the graph clearer,more appealing,and easier to understand.4.1.4 Text writingIn the writing process,AIGC can be used as a reference for researchers to improve the readability of the text,clarify the logic of the content,and recommend sentence patterns,and so forth;however,it should not be used to generate research hypotheses,write the entire text,interpret data,or draw scientiic conclusions.All tasks related to scientiic or intellectual contributions should be carried out by the researchers themselves,especially the writing of the critical parts of the paper.The purpose of using AIGC should be to focus on how to convey the scientiic knowledge generated by the authors in the most readable way.4.1.5 Language and copyeditingAcademic language services:Language should not be a barrier to academic communication and scientiic dissemination.AIGC can serve as a high-standard language reviewer,improving the readability and writing quality of manuscripts,and thus removing language barriers in the dissemination of research.At present,AIGC-supported academic language services can assist non-native English-speakers in copyediting their manuscripts to meet the submission requirements of international journals.However,researchers also need to be aware that when a manuscript is submitted(in whole or in part)to the public AIGC,it may become part of a large language model training corpus.AIGC can provide assistance(services)at various stages of research and academic publishing.In order to foster a conducive research environment,to address potential issues,and to prevent/reduce misuse of AIGC,this section provides a framework for code of conduct to guide authors,research institutions,academic periodical publishers,and so forth,on a compliant and responsible use of AIGC.4.1 Research and writingThis section mainly provides guidance to researchers on the use of AIGC during the research and writing prior to submission.4.1.1 Information collectionThe data provided by AIGC are generated and extracted based on big data and language models.However,the accuracy and authenticity of which are not assessed or veriied,and researchers need to conirm the reliability of the content.Literature research:AIGC can be used to collect reference literature based on keywords or topics,classify and review the literature,summarize the conclusions,and provide references for researchers;moreover,help researchers identify new sources of information and keep track of the latest developments in the research ield.It should be noted that the references provided by AIGC may be ictitious or outdated;researchers using AIGC to support their literature review must carefully reviewed and verify the authenticity of each suggestion and reference provided.Concept clariication:AIGC can answer some basic conceptual questions to assist researchers in structuring their chapters.However,it should be noted that AIGC provides concept clariication based on existing research,researchers need to check the applicability of the concepts.Research on viewpoint information:AIGC can collect information from the text on the viewpoints,emotions,and sentiment tendencies of the public or experts on 04Guideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic PublishingBehavioral Framework/Practice Guidelinecertain issues.Researchers need to monitor and control the viewpoint information provided by AIGC,and clean up the information provided by AIGC if necessary,to ensure that researchers use only valid,unbiased material and prevent the dissemination of false,biased,or discriminatory information.4.1.2 Statistical analysisIn some cases,researchers have collected data but are uncertain about the best statistical analysis to test their hypotheses.Researchers can use AIGC to select the most appropriate method of analysis or statistical analysis;however,the data used should be collected from their own experiments,and the results of statistical analysis should be veriied by the researchers to ensure the reliability.Data analysis and interpretation:Researchers may use AIGC to interpret data,calculate statistical indicators,perform simple data analysis,and describe statistical results.However,AIGC cannot replace the researchers own interpretation of the data.Suggestions and guidance on statistical methods:AIGC can provide researchers with suggestions and guidance on statistical analysis based on the question and relevant knowledge.However,these suggestions and guidance are solely based on the language model and knowledge base it has learned,which may lead to omissions and inaccuracies.Therefore,researchers need to assess the feasibility of the statistical analysis suggestions provided by AIGC,evaluate them with other reliable statistical analysis and data mining tools,or seek guidance and assistance from the subject experts to inally determine whether to accept the suggestions provided by AIGC.4.1.3 ChartingAssisted charting:Based on the characteristics of the data and the purpose of the graph,AIGC can recommend an appropriate type of statistical graph according to the application scenario,which helps present statistical results in a straightforward manner,effectively convey the message,thus saving researchers the effort in making graphs and thereby improving writing eficiency.However,images generated from experiments such as images of Western blot,cell technology analysis,tissue cell staining,etc.,must be obtained through authentic experimental research and cannot be directly generated by AIGC.Diagram format processing and optimization:Based on the data volume and graph requirements,researchers may use AIGC to assist in adjusting the style and format of the graph,such as font size,data labeling,adding legends,changing colors,and so forth,to make the graph clearer,more appealing,and easier to understand.4.1.4 Text writingIn the writing process,AIGC can be used as a reference for researchers to improve the readability of the text,clarify the logic of the content,and recommend sentence patterns,and so forth;however,it should not be used to generate research hypotheses,write the entire text,interpret data,or draw scientiic conclusions.All tasks related to scientiic or intellectual contributions should be carried out by the researchers themselves,especially the writing of the critical parts of the paper.The purpose of using AIGC should be to focus on how to convey the scientiic knowledge generated by the authors in the most readable way.4.1.5 Language and copyeditingAcademic language services:Language should not be a barrier to academic communication and scientiic dissemination.AIGC can serve as a high-standard language reviewer,improving the readability and writing quality of manuscripts,and thus removing language barriers in the dissemination of research.At present,AIGC-supported academic language services can assist non-native English-speakers in copyediting their manuscripts to meet the submission requirements of international journals.However,researchers also need to be aware that when a manuscript is submitted(in whole or in part)to the public AIGC,it may become part of a large language model training corpus.054.3 Post-publication/publishing4.3.1 Data storage and sharingOn the premise of meeting relevant requirements,authors are encouraged to make their original data publicly available to control and prevent problems such as data contamination and falsiication.Authors should conduct a rigorous review of the data in their papers to ensure the accuracy,completeness,and reliability of the source data.The focus of the data review should include the methods of data collection and processing,the experiments,the accuracy and precision of measurements,and the methods of data storage,and so forth.For research papers involving experimental process,researchers should record the experiments and the data collection process in a timely,accurate,and detailed manner to avoid errors or omissions,and submit the experimental data and process records together.4.3.2 Submission and archiving of AIGC-related materialsResearchers are encouraged to share their research data(in certain situations),including but not limited to:original data,processed data,software,algorithms,protocols,methods,materials,etc.In particular,AIGC-generated content such as text,images,programs,and so forth,should be submitted and archived as supplementary material.4.3.3 Detection and identiication of AIGC-generated contentJournals and editors are encouraged to adopt new tools to detect and identify AIGC-generated content.It is recommended to establish a review process for AIGC tools,and to develop appropriate technologies for manual review and automated detection.The detection results should be used as an auxiliary supporting basis in a comprehensive evaluation together with the scope of the paper,the requirements of the journal,and the overall quality of the paper,and so forth.Researchers must provide clear disclosure and statement when using AIGC to generate manuscript text and other materials,otherwise it constitutes academic misconduct.For example,newly generated text extracted from AIGC as part of the manuscript without attribution will be considered plagiarism.4.1.6 Citation organizationWhen dealing with content recommended by AIGC,citation relevance is crucial.Researchers must ensure that the cited content is relevant to the paper,including the authenticity of the citation and the cited content.Citation format check:AIGC can verify whether the cited literature conforms to the citation format of academic papers and identify possible errors or deiciencies.Automatic citation generation:AIGC can assist researchers in identifying sources of citations,and automatically generate citations that conform to the citation format of academic papers based on the literature information provided by the authors.However,AIGC should only be used as an auxiliary tool,authors still need to carefully check the format and content of the cited literature to ensure that the citation conforms to the requirements of academic papers.Automatic sorting of references:AIGC can automatically sort and check the reference list according to the speciied citation format,thus helping authors to perform the relevant tasks of standardized citation in academic writing,saving the effort of manual work,improving the quality of the paper and the eficiency of researchers.4.2 Submission AIGC can assist with the submission process,but this requires the professional judgement of researchers who should bear the ultimate responsibility.4.2.1 AuthorshipWithout the guidance of human researchers,AIGC cannot independently initiate an original research,nor can it take the responsibility of a published work or research design.Similarly,in most countries,AIGC does not have legal status or the ability to hold or transfer copyrights,which are the basic requirements for authorship.Therefore,according to the COPE position statement on AI tools,AIGC cannot perform the role of authors and cannot be listed as authors.4.2.2 Standardized citationAll content originating from other sources must be carefully reviewed and properly cited.Authors must verify the authenticity and accuracy of the information provided by AIGC,and make reference notes to the underlying data sources,tools,collection,processing,etc.4.2.3 Disclosure and statementThe use of AIGC should be fully and accurately disclosed and stated.The following points should be clearly speciied:the user;the AI technology or system(with version number stated);the time and date of use;the prompts and questions used to generate the text;the parts of the text written or co-written by AIGC;the ideas in the paper generated by AIGC.If any part of the manuscript was written using such tools,this must be described in the Methods or Acknowledgments section in an open,transparent,and detailed manner.TemplateStatement:In preparing this paper,the authors used name of speciic AIGC tool/service for purpose of use:such as literature review/data analysis/charting,etc.After using this tool/service,the authors have reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.4.2.4 Peer reviewIn the peer review process,authors may use AIGC to assist in responding to review comments;however,authors are responsible for addressing peer review comments,and should be prepared to demonstrate that their response is appropriate if questioned.In the peer review process,AIGC can categorize and label review comments,helping authors to quickly understand the comments,and recommending appropriate responses for authors eficiently address the review comments.Behavioral Framework/Practice GuidelineGuideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic Publishing06Guideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic PublishingBehavioral Framework/Practice Guideline4.3 Post-publication/publishing4.3.1 Data storage and sharingOn the premise of meeting relevant requirements,authors are encouraged to make their original data publicly available to control and prevent problems such as data contamination and falsiication.Authors should conduct a rigorous review of the data in their papers to ensure the accuracy,completeness,and reliability of the source data.The focus of the data review should include the methods of data collection and processing,the experiments,the accuracy and precision of measurements,and the methods of data storage,and so forth.For research papers involving experimental process,researchers should record the experiments and the data collection process in a timely,accurate,and detailed manner to avoid errors or omissions,and submit the experimental data and process records together.4.3.2 Submission and archiving of AIGC-related materialsResearchers are encouraged to share their research data(in certain situations),including but not limited to:original data,processed data,software,algorithms,protocols,methods,materials,etc.In particular,AIGC-generated content such as text,images,programs,and so forth,should be submitted and archived as supplementary material.4.3.3 Detection and identiication of AIGC-generated contentJournals and editors are encouraged to adopt new tools to detect and identify AIGC-generated content.It is recommended to establish a review process for AIGC tools,and to develop appropriate technologies for manual review and automated detection.The detection results should be used as an auxiliary supporting basis in a comprehensive evaluation together with the scope of the paper,the requirements of the journal,and the overall quality of the paper,and so forth.Researchers must provide clear disclosure and statement when using AIGC to generate manuscript text and other materials,otherwise it constitutes academic misconduct.For example,newly generated text extracted from AIGC as part of the manuscript without attribution will be considered plagiarism.4.1.6 Citation organizationWhen dealing with content recommended by AIGC,citation relevance is crucial.Researchers must ensure that the cited content is relevant to the paper,including the authenticity of the citation and the cited content.Citation format check:AIGC can verify whether the cited literature conforms to the citation format of academic papers and identify possible errors or deiciencies.Automatic citation generation:AIGC can assist researchers in identifying sources of citations,and automatically generate citations that conform to the citation format of academic papers based on the literature information provided by the authors.However,AIGC should only be used as an auxiliary tool,authors still need to carefully check the format and content of the cited literature to ensure that the citation conforms to the requirements of academic papers.Automatic sorting of references:AIGC can automatically sort and check the reference list according to the speciied citation format,thus helping authors to perform the relevant tasks of standardized citation in academic writing,saving the effort of manual work,improving the quality of the paper and the eficiency of researchers.4.2 Submission AIGC can assist with the submission process,but this requires the professional judgement of researchers who should bear the ultimate responsibility.4.2.1 AuthorshipWithout the guidance of human researchers,AIGC cannot independently initiate an original research,nor can it take the responsibility of a published work or research design.Similarly,in most countries,AIGC does not have legal status or the ability to hold or transfer copyrights,which are the basic requirements for authorship.Therefore,according to the COPE position statement on AI tools,AIGC cannot perform the role of authors and cannot be listed as authors.4.2.2 Standardized citationAll content originating from other sources must be carefully reviewed and properly cited.Authors must verify the authenticity and accuracy of the information provided by AIGC,and make reference notes to the underlying data sources,tools,collection,processing,etc.4.2.3 Disclosure and statementThe use of AIGC should be fully and accurately disclosed and stated.The following points should be clearly speciied:the user;the AI technology or system(with version number stated);the time and date of use;the prompts and questions used to generate the text;the parts of the text written or co-written by AIGC;the ideas in the paper generated by AIGC.If any part of the manuscript was written using such tools,this must be described in the Methods or Acknowledgments section in an open,transparent,and detailed manner.TemplateStatement:In preparing this paper,the authors used name of speciic AIGC tool/service for purpose of use:such as literature review/data analysis/charting,etc.After using this tool/service,the authors have reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.4.2.4 Peer reviewIn the peer review process,authors may use AIGC to assist in responding to review comments;however,authors are responsible for addressing peer review comments,and should be prepared to demonstrate that their response is appropriate if questioned.In the peer review process,AIGC can categorize and label review comments,helping authors to quickly understand the comments,and recommending appropriate responses for authors eficiently address the review comments.certain issues.Researchers need to monitor and control the viewpoint information provided by AIGC,and clean up the information provided by AIGC if necessary,to ensure that researchers use only valid,unbiased material and prevent the dissemination of false,biased,or discriminatory information.4.1.2 Statistical analysisIn some cases,researchers have collected data but are uncertain about the best statistical analysis to test their hypotheses.Researchers can use AIGC to select the most appropriate method of analysis or statistical analysis;however,the data used should be collected from their own experiments,and the results of statistical analysis should be veriied by the researchers to ensure the reliability.Data analysis and interpretation:Researchers may use AIGC to interpret data,calculate statistical indicators,perform simple data analysis,and describe statistical results.However,AIGC cannot replace the researchers own interpretation of the data.Suggestions and guidance on statistical methods:AIGC can provide researchers with suggestions and guidance on statistical analysis based on the question and relevant knowledge.However,these suggestions and guidance are solely based on the language model and knowledge base it has learned,which may lead to omissions and inaccuracies.Therefore,researchers need to assess the feasibility of the statistical analysis suggestions provided by AIGC,evaluate them with other reliable statistical analysis and data mining tools,or seek guidance and assistance from the subject experts to inally determine whether to accept the suggestions provided by AIGC.4.1.3 ChartingAssisted charting:Based on the characteristics of the data and the purpose of the graph,AIGC can recommend an appropriate type of statistical graph according to the application scenario,which helps present statistical results in a straightforward manner,effectively convey the message,thus saving researchers the effort in making graphs and thereby improving writing eficiency.However,images generated from experiments such as images of Western blot,cell technology analysis,tissue cell staining,etc.,must be obtained through authentic experimental research and cannot be directly generated by AIGC.Diagram format processing and optimization:Based on the data volume and graph requirements,researchers may use AIGC to assist in adjusting the style and format of the graph,such as font size,data labeling,adding legends,changing colors,and so forth,to make the graph clearer,more appealing,and easier to understand.4.1.4 Text writingIn the writing process,AIGC can be used as a reference for researchers to improve the readability of the text,clarify the logic of the content,and recommend sentence patterns,and so forth;however,it should not be used to generate research hypotheses,write the entire text,interpret data,or draw scientiic conclusions.All tasks related to scientiic or intellectual contributions should be carried out by the researchers themselves,especially the writing of the critical parts of the paper.The purpose of using AIGC should be to focus on how to convey the scientiic knowledge generated by the authors in the most readable way.4.1.5 Language and copyeditingAcademic language services:Language should not be a barrier to academic communication and scientiic dissemination.AIGC can serve as a high-standard language reviewer,improving the readability and writing quality of manuscripts,and thus removing language barriers in the dissemination of research.At present,AIGC-supported academic language services can assist non-native English-speakers in copyediting their manuscripts to meet the submission requirements of international journals.However,researchers also need to be aware that when a manuscript is submitted(in whole or in part)to the public AIGC,it may become part of a large language model training corpus.AIGC can provide assistance(services)at various stages of research and academic publishing.In order to foster a conducive research environment,to address potential issues,and to prevent/reduce misuse of AIGC,this section provides a framework for code of conduct to guide authors,research institutions,academic periodical publishers,and so forth,on a compliant and responsible use of AIGC.4.1 Research and writingThis section mainly provides guidance to researchers on the use of AIGC during the research and writing prior to submission.4.1.1 Information collectionThe data provided by AIGC are generated and extracted based on big data and language models.However,the accuracy and authenticity of which are not assessed or veriied,and researchers need to conirm the reliability of the content.Literature research:AIGC can be used to collect reference literature based on keywords or topics,classify and review the literature,summarize the conclusions,and provide references for researchers;moreover,help researchers identify new sources of information and keep track of the latest developments in the research ield.It should be noted that the references provided by AIGC may be ictitious or outdated;researchers using AIGC to support their literature review must carefully reviewed and verify the authenticity of each suggestion and reference provided.Concept clariication:AIGC can answer some basic conceptual questions to assist researchers in structuring their chapters.However,it should be noted that AIGC provides concept clariication based on existing research,researchers need to check the applicability of the concepts.Research on viewpoint information:AIGC can collect information from the text on the viewpoints,emotions,and sentiment tendencies of the public or experts on AIGC is an emerging concept involving multiple actors with diverse application scenarios in academic publishing,and there are many gray areas regarding the boundaries of AIGC application.Institute of Scientiic and Technical Information of China(ISTIC),in collaboration with international publishing groups such as Elsevier,Springer Nature,WILEY,and after seeking advice from relevant parties,proposes suggestions for the use of AIGC technology in the form of principles and behavioral framework/practice guideline to prevent academic misconduct,strengthen integrity governance,and guide stakeholders to reach a consensus on the use of AIGC.It is worth noting that the purpose of this guideline is to provide an exploratory framework for the application of AIGC technology,and there are still some more speciic and practical issues that require further research.For example,the application of AIGC technology in academic publishing involves many stakeholders,including not only the owners and users of AIGC technology development and application,but also various responsible parties in the academic publishing process such as authors,journals,editors,reviewers,disseminators,audiences,and research regulators.It is of great importance to clarify the relationships between these parties,to identify key responsibilities and constraints,and to clearly deine their responsibilities.On the other hand,there is no consensus on how to deal with the misuse of AIGC technology,and it is crucial to propose suggestions for the proper handling of various misuses for the beneit of the implementation of responsibilities.AIGC technology and tools are still under continuous innovation and development,and the scope and behavioral framework of this guideline will also need to be regularly adapted to meet new challenges and address emerging issues.We actively invite all parties to provide suggestions and feedback to update this guideline on the use of AIGC in order to provide stakeholders with a more speciic and detailed practical framework for preventing academic misconduct.Conclusion507ConclusionGuideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic PublishingWith the support of Department of Supervision and Scientiic Integrity of Ministry of Science and Technology of the Peoples Republic of China,this guideline is accomplished by the team jointly set up by Institute of Scientiic and Technical Information of China(ISTIC),Elsevier,Springer Nature,and John Wiley&Sons,Inc.(Wiley).The key contributors to this project are Dr.Wenwen ZHENG,Professor Daiqing YANG,Professor Jiping GAO and Dr.Meiling WANG from ISTIC;Mr.Peter LEE,Ms.Xiaoling KANG,Ms.Jimeng LI and the Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Centre of Expertise at Elsevier;Dr.Nick CAMPBELL,Mr.Chris GRAF,Mr.Arjan GROOTENBOER,Ms.Alice HENCHLEY,Ms.Zeying HU(Maggie),Mr.Steven INCHCOOMBE,Dr.Imogen ROSE,Mr.Henning SCHOENENBERGER,Ms.Katrin STIENEMEIER,Dr.Niels Peter THOMAS and Mr.Li ZHANG from Springer Nature;and Mr.Michael Streeter,Ms.Joyce GRIFFIN and Ms.Yu Wang(Shirley)from Wiley.We would also like to express our gratitude to the experts,scholars and experienced professionals from STM publishing and research management ields in China and abroad who have provided us with valuable suggestions and guidance.Acknowledgements6Guideline on the Boundaries of AIGC Usage in Academic PublishingAcknowledgements08Institute of Scientiic and Technical Information of China(ISTIC)Scientometrics and S&T Evaluation CenterFuxing Road 15,Beijing,China,100038Contact:Dr.Wenwen ZhengTel: 86 10-58882604Email:
2023-12-22
12页
5星级
TOURISM:A DRIVER FOR SHARED PROSPERITYKEY INSIGHTS https:/www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/97892844.
2023-12-22
23页
5星级
REPORT NAMEAsia&Pacific Islands:Demand for Graduate Business DegreesMay 2023Prospective Students Sur.
2023-12-22
29页
5星级
EMBRACING THE DIGITAL AGE The future of work in the Western Balkans.New forms of employment and plat.
2023-12-22
66页
5星级
Prospective Students Survey 2023 Data ReportMiddle East&Africa:Demand for Graduate Business DegreesM.
2023-12-21
26页
5星级
Market IntelligenceApril 2023GMAC Prospective Students Survey2023 Summary Report2 Graduate Managemen.
2023-12-21
56页
5星级
Prospective Students Survey 2023Europe:Demand for Graduate Business DegreesMay 2023Prospective Stude.
2023-12-21
29页
5星级
Prospective Students Survey 2023 Data ReportLatin America:Demand for Graduate Business DegreesMay 20.
2023-12-21
22页
5星级
A business of Marsh McLennan4 things you should know about the RETURN of Chinese TravelersOliver Wym.
2023-12-21
29页
5星级
Global travel&tourism whitepaper 202301post-pandemicLuxury G LO BA L T R AV E L&TO U R I S M W H I T.
2023-12-14
47页
5星级
Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 1About IIE&Center for Access and Equity The Institute of International Education(IIE)is a world leader in helping people and organizations leverage the power of international education to thrive in todays interconnected world.As a not-for-profit with 15 offices and affiliates worldwide,IIE manages 200 programs with participants from 180 countries.Each year,tens of thousands of people participate in IIE-managed programs.IIE collaborates with a range of corporate,government and foundation partners across the globe to design and manage scholarship,study abroad,workforce training,and leadership development programs.The IIE Center for Access and Equity aims to advance accessible programming and equitable practices in community building that enrich and expand international education,exchange,and opportunity for all.Through dialogue and action,the Center leverages programs and partnerships that examine the intersection of international education with diversity,equity,inclusion,and access;cultivates global learning to support engagement and understanding of individuals and communities;and supports access for underrepresented communities by examining and addressing structural inequities.Learn more at www.iie.org/cae.About Dickinson College Dickinson College is a long-recognized and award-winning leader in global education and study abroad withunique strengths at the intersection of global and intercultural learning and diversity,equity and inclusion.Dickinson is a nationally recognized liberal-arts college chartered in 1783 in Carlisle,Pennsylvania.The highly selective college is home to more than 2,100 students from across the nation and around the world.Dickinson has developed an international reputation for our commitment to imbuing our students with an immersive global perspective,a holistic sustainability education,a community orientation and civic skillset,and the ability to think across disciplines and dialogue across differences.Through these interdependent dimensions of a Dickinson education,students are better able to connect their values to their career and civic goals.Our alumni are out in the world building more just,equitable,sustainable and prosperous communities.Learn more at www.Dickinson.edu.2023 Institute of International Education,Inc.All rights reserved.This report is a partnership of IIE and Dickinson College.The opinions,findings,and conclusions stated herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of IIE or Dickinson College.No part of this publication may be reproduced,distributed,or transmitted in any form or by any means,including photocopying,recording,or other electronic or mechanical methods,without prior written permission of the publisher,except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.For permission requests,write to:IIE,Attn:Legal Department,One World Trade Center,36th Floor,New York City,NY 10007 or email:CAEiie.org.Suggested Citation Bellis,J.,Brandauer,S.,Calvert,L.,Carnine,J.&Overmann,C.(Eds.).(2023).Models of Change:Inclusion and Equity in Action in International Education.An Institute of International Education and Dickinson College joint publication.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 2Contents Introduction.3 Prologue.5 Synopsis of Case Studies.13 Case Studies.15-68 Reframing Cultural Expectations:The Role of On-Site Academic Staff and Faculty.15 The Ongoing Process of Translating Equity to Action:A Dickinson College Case Study for Education Abroad.23 Cyclical and Reciprocal:Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion at the Brandeis International Business School.36 Collaboration between the Tuck DEI Initiative and TuckGO to Build M.B.A.Students Intercultural Competence at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.52 Models of Change Conclusion.68 Author Biographies.70 Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 3Introduction By Jamie Bellis,Samantha Brandauer,Lindsay Gee Calvert,and Julia Carnine In 2020,the Institute of International Education(IIE)and Dickinson College embarked on a partnership to leverage the strengths of two institutions with a common commitment to international education and a shared mission of building inclusive,equitable,and sustainable communities.In doing so,our focus turned to reimagining an international education framework that incorporates global,intercultural,and equity and inclusion lenses through a virtual workshop series.With this goal in mind,we developed an educational program predominantly centered on exploring the intersection of cultural differences and hierarchies of power through Dr.Kathryn Sorrells intercultural praxis model(IPM).In addition,we were keen to incorporate practicality and develop a community of learners.Thus,participants could use the time during and outside of the workshop to channel their learning and efforts to a current project.These cohorts connection and collaboration through their applied learning enabled opportunities for community building.Our collaboration resulted in three sets of virtual workshops(listed below)being attended by nearly 300 leaders representing 100 institutions and organizations in 10 countries,to date.Moving from Inclusivity Talk to Equity in Action in International Education Leadership(202021):IIE and Dickinson conducted FIGURE 1:Dr.Kathryn Sorrells intercultural praxis model explores the intersection of cultural differences and hierarches of power.Source:Sorrells,K.(2022).Intercultural communication:Globalization and social justice(3rd ed.).SAGE Publications.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 4workshops examining the under-explored intersection between intercultural and global learning and diversity,equity,and inclusion(DEI)work that has been traditionally siloed and focused on practical application for professionals,to initiate action on their campuses and in their organizations.Building Bridges:Committing to Global Equity and Justice in International Education(2022):This expanded,more robust workshop series took a deeper dive into building equitable and inclusive communities.It aimed to bridge the gap by bringing practitioners,scholars,and learners from across disciplines,backgrounds,and cultures together to address the aforementioned silo-ing.The workshops sought to accelerate learning and cocreate collaborative approaches to build trust,equity,and justice across cultures for meaningful change locally and globally.Three one-day workshops took place in the spring.Participants committed their time in and out of the workshops to learning,sharing,and applying their knowledge and the experience to their work and communities to move the needle toward change.“How Do You Know You Are Meeting Your Global DEI Outcomes?Assessing and Communicating Impact”(December 2022):IIE and Dickinson designed this virtual workshop to help demystify the process of assessment and evaluation.It provided creative ideas,a road map,and case studies,so participants could develop or enhance their own strategies.One of the more daunting elements of global DEI work at our institutions and organizations lies in assessing and communicating our progress.It takes a great deal of time and energy to do the work of making our institutions,offices,programs,policies,and practices more inclusive and equitable,so we often neglect the important work of assessing and communicating our progress.Assessment”here means a better understanding of existing data and stories and of remaining needs to set goals and outcomes and measure progress.300 leaders from 100 institutions and organizations from 10 countries participated.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 5Prologue By Jamie Bellis,Samantha Brandauer,Lindsay Gee Calvert,and Julia Carnine A cornerstone of the workshops and application of the IPM is our own understanding of our identities and positionality and how they may shift across contexts and cultures.With our participants,we have curated the following case studies to share their personal narratives and experiences carrying out their projects.In addition,we IIE and Dickinson are applying the IPM by sharing the intentions and outcomes of our collaboration.The workshop team determined it would be helpful for us to demonstrate how we use Sorrells IPM within our own institutional contexts as we also strive to make positive changes toward inclusion and equity particularly showing that we are all learners.What follows are our answers to three questions that speak to our institutional and professional journeys over the last several years.The IIEDickinson workshop development team includes the following members:Jamie Bellis,Senior Director,Operations and Special Initiatives,IIE(Washington,D.C.)Samantha Brandauer,Associate Provost and Executive Director,Center for Global Study and Engagement,Dickinson College(Carlisle,Pennsylvania)Lindsay Gee Calvert,Director,IIE Center for Access and Equity;Lead,IIENetwork,IIE(Houston,Texas)Julia Carnine,Academic Director,Center for Global Study and Engagement;Resident Director,Dickinson in France;Contributing Faculty,Dickinson College(Toulouse,France)Inquiry,Framing,and Positionality How are you defining“diversity,”“equity,”“inclusion,”“access,”and“positionality”?SB:I was recently struck by this to-the-point quote by Arthur Chan,a U.S.-based DEI professional,“Diversity is a fact,Equity is a choice,Inclusion is an action&Belonging is an outcome.”Although all these words hold a lot of complexity and certainly change meaning in subtle and big ways across cultures,contexts,histories,languages etc.,Chan reminds us there can be simplicity here too that helps remind us we do not need to feel overwhelmed and bogged down my complicated definitions.The words A cornerstone of the workshops and application of the IPM is our own understanding of our identities and positionality and how they may shift across contexts and cultures.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 6diversity,equity,inclusion,access,positionality are a call to action to rethink and shift our goals and outcomes in international and higher education towards building more just,sustainable equitable communities,to recognize our own power and to act where we have agency to critique and fix practice and policies and structures that exclude and harm.These words are an opportunity to take stock in our own values and to remind us that our work is ongoing and complex and to call us to keep asking who is not in the room,who is not benefiting from our work,whose stories are not being told and why not?They are also words that bring hope and meaning to my work as an international educator and a roadmap forward.This collaboration holds me accountable to continuously think about how I as a leader“walk the walk”which requires deep reflection from me on my own positionality and how it informs my thoughts and actions and that for me also this is an ongoing journey.At Dickinson,we have come to the foundational understanding that there are marginalized people and oppression everywhere,all over the globe,and higher education has a responsibility to think through how our choices and actions can bring about more just outcomes.Thus,we decided to more effectively address these inequities by approaching our work more collaboratively across our Office of Diversity,Equity and Inclusivity and our Center for Global Study and Engagement.While not without challenges,we recognized that the structures of international education have not always recognized nor addressed inequities,and in fact,we often exacerbate them by ignoring questions of power and privilege.And at the same time,the work of DEI can have a lens that is too U.S.-centric and ignores the complexity of other cultural and historical contexts around the globe.At Dickinson,Kathryn Sorrellss intercultural praxis model gave us framework to start to de-silo our work together.This gave me an opportunity as the senior international officer to be a part of institutional level inclusion and equity efforts bringing a global lens to the work and to collaborate with our DEI professionals and experts to make sure we were always aware of power dynamics.There have been many lessons learned and new and better outcomes because we have been willing to step into the work together.JC:From my perch working over the last 8 years for Dickinson College in Toulouse,France an American Liberal Arts institution with an ample study abroad presence,as well as in a French university,these terms take on semantic and substantial cultural dissonance.Possibly the biggest set of differences stems from the ways a national concept of higher education and the role of the state vis a vis its citizens play out.How thankful I am to benefit from this transatlantic view;one that obligates us to clearly define the terms of our conversations from a specific context and one that the Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 7leadership at Dickinsons Center for Global Study and Engagement(CSGE)has put at the center of our work abroad.At Dickinson in France,my core seminar begins by questioning the mission of higher education in the U.S.and in France.As in most of western European Union(EU)countries,post-secondary access to education is a right a public good not a privilege.Students therefore must compare their role,(positionality)and their access on day one.They quickly learn that in France inclusionary efforts to diversify public education is a constant and fuels policy and debate.The project of fostering learned citizens to participate in democracy and training a future work force is in many cases a state-funded enterprise that disposes of a consequential budget.It is complicated to attempt to create learning around international comparison of the above terms,of their related systems of power and their manner of distribution.In my role as academic director at CGSE this project remains an essential part of building bridges between international education and DEI that require places to train and grow within our existing curriculum.JB:At IIE,we set an organization-wide belonging statement to operationalize DEIA diversity,equity,inclusion,and access values in our practices;it reads,in part,“we will lead with curiosity;be intentional,transparent,and respectful in communication;value each other and our differences;and have consistent and equitable processes.”As such,were ensuring that DEIA principles permeate not only IIEs values but also our organizational priorities and operations,in everything from vendor and subrecipient selection to our communications,external partnerships,and the 200 programs we are privileged to develop and administer on behalf of our sponsors.LGC:To put simply:Diversity is difference;equity is giving everyone what is needed to be successful;inclusion is intentional integration;and access is creating opportunity and space.Positionality is how our privilege and power manifest through identities(which could be both self-derived and perceived of us).DEIA,specifically,is defined this way at IIE.The clear understanding of these distinct words is important as we do not want to lump it all as the same word.We aim to avoid confusion and conflating their true meanings;thus,diluting the values and strategic efforts to which we hold ourselves accountable as an organization.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 8Reflection and Dialogue What are the crux issues or fundamental questions that led to the partnership and developing workshops?SB:I was lucky enough to be part of the conversation with my longtime friend,fellow international educator and coconspirator,Jamie Bellis,in fall 2019 that sparked all of this.We were both in agreement that the field of international education had not done enough to address issues of DEI.That,in fact,international education was getting a pass as a neutral common good,when,in fact,so many outcomes pointed toward vast inequities and lack of participation by those who could benefit from it most and whose voices were not being heard.We recognized we were at a point in our careers and lives and at institutions where we felt like we might be able to make real change happen.Thus,this collaboration and partnership were born!From there,we brought in key colleagues like Amer Ahmed,Julia Carnine,and Lindsay Gee Calvert,who would help our ideas take shape and turn into what became our workshop series.JC:We all know that we are in a moment of complex societal change involving important value shifts.It is our work as educators to help students identify the mechanisms fueling change and how people grapple with and express their versions of change.For several years now,I have been saying that the“intercultural competence”discourse as founded in U.S.circles shows signs of fatigue.Notably,the ways in which a deeper fragmentation of U.S.society reveals itself whether it be economic,political,or geographic undermining civic discourse and resulting in alienation and indifference,where we barely discuss and engage with each other.This is the crux where we see the need for DEI and international education programming to interact.As our center title states,Dickinson Global programs“engage”as well as educate students to inquire locally to better face global issues.Our students,our peers,and our curriculum could only be improved by developing a deeper understanding of how increasing inequality and reductionist binary politics,and shifting neoliberal values produce societal rifts.DEI approaches provide just that set of tools.Analysis on such a meta-level,examining historical systems of power and privilege,yet centering on local context,invites deep reflection and can result in pragmatic problem-solving.None of this is easily done in a vacuum;furthermore,who has the time in a busy day to attend to it?Through IIEs dedicated role in advancing international education,and their broad global network,Dickinsons Center for Global Study and Engagement found a rich partnership.We have common footing as thinkers and practitioners,and collectively identified gaps in learning in our field.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 9JB:Our community is comprised of well-meaning,experienced professionals who are experts in international education,but not necessarily DEIA.This collaboration emerged from our collective realization that they needed the language and practical skills to implement DEIA values and practices in meaningful ways.In todays world,an international educator simply cannot perform their job effectively unless they own the competencies of DEIA.Moreover,an international educator cannot expect that a U.S.frame of reference for DEIA will resonate with international students.Trainings and certifications are insufficient if they do not include practical,personal,and institutional action plans.I am proud of IIEs collaboration with Dickinson to truly move the needle with a nonjudgmental and community-oriented approach.LGC:Many of us were wondering,What does the future of international education look like,and how can we support a positive outcome?And of course,this was being asked at a time of upheaval and change the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns,major disruption to the field,and ongoing and poignant examples of lack of access and equity and discrimination and violence against those with racial,religious,gender,and sexual identities affecting so many.Even though these were/are turbulent times,we were privileged that our organizations,and us as individuals,were able to take time to reflect on how we wanted to and could respond to that question.For us,it was doubling down on our organizational commitment to our DEIA values and strategies.Knowing that we cannot work effectively in silos or in isolated capacities within and outside of our organization,we looked to a mutual partnership to expand our learning and sharing potential.And examining and leaning into the opportunity to reshape learning frameworks and evolve practices among a community of learners became the shared vision of our organizations.With virtual programming more relevant and accessible to wider,global participation,designing a workshop with both synchronous and asynchronous learning through an online platform was the appropriate model for our delivery and reach.Creating the Center for Access and Equity is the culmination of IIEs comprehensive DEIA strategy and commitment.The center aims to advance accessible programming and equitable practices in community building that enrich and expand international education,which overall fosters inclusivity and the prosperity of the next generation.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 10Action What are your takeaways from this collaboration and the outcomes of the workshops?SB:Mostly,this collaboration has filled me with hope.It is one of my favorite ongoing projects,and I am inspired by our workshop facilitators and participants alike.The work of putting these workshops together across very different institutions and across cultures building curriculum,designing activities,talking about outcomes has been a joyful space.We have all learned so much from each other,and in the process,our workshops are better for these multicountry,cross-institutional collaborations.We are truly a diverse team,representing a broad scope of roles within higher and international education as well as different identities,nationalities,languages,and experience levels.This project also breathed new life and direction into my own global team at Dickinson during a time of upheaval and uncertainty.What was clear from the beginning was that international educators care deeply about this work and want to get it right.They are often daunted by the path forward and scared about making mistakes,yet so committed to their students and communities.I also love that we have built a community of practice where people can share their ideas,challenges,and successes with each other,and both hold each other up and hold each other accountable this work is iterative and must be done in collaboration,with lots of feedback and support.JC:Spending time unpacking ones assumptions about ones role,ones institution,while recognizing ongoing power dynamics and modalities of potential change,reflect analytical skills that matter deeply to Dickinsons educational mission as well as broadly to the field of international education.Takeaways include critical skill building sorting out theoretical tools to enhance practice and inform policy as well as action and implementation through trial and error.In these workshops,efforts were given for intentional space,enriched by invaluable collegial input.Lastly,not only am I grateful for the ability to be creative and transparent with these new colleagues,the ways I have grown in my own practice and learning are palpable.Quick self-audits around inclusivity,attention to deep listening to multiple inputs,higher standards for understanding and involving diversity in many forms are just a few examples of how I have improved my work and make me yearn for more!The work of putting these workshops together across very different institutions and across cultures building curriculum,designing activities,talking about outcomes has been a joyful space.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 11JB:At a global,mission-driven not-for-profit organization like IIE,incorporating the voices and perspectives of our colleagues around the world must be central to our operations and learnings.These workshops were enriched by the case studies presented by IIE team members in New Delhi and Mexico City.From my individual perspective,this collaboration continues to challenge me to think about my own power and positionality as a manager,a colleague,and an international educator.As my vocabulary and understanding of DEIA issues grow,so does my recognition of the need for and effort of continued vulnerability,humility,and learning.LGC:Firstly,working with the Dickinson team and our contributing IIE team members was a wonderful experience!The breadth of experiences and shared enthusiasm to cocreate an inclusive and open learning environment were just a couple of highlights.Pairing our two long-standing institutions valuing DEIA and international education allows us to learn from each other and continue to develop our learning lenses.Secondly,we are all evolving and learning in this space,especially at this intersection of DEIA and international education.As practitioners,while we may have diverse identities,perspectives,experiences,positionality,and privileges as well as serve students with this range the identification of and use of a shared framework can assist us with collaborative approaches,especially among partners and stakeholders within and outside of ones institution.Our workshop participants are willing and caring individuals seeking intentional support and ability to contribute.Despite oftentimes working against competing priorities and issues that could thwart them from such progress,the power of applying the framework and learnings to actual activities and practices in ones community aids in the ongoing progress for the practitioner,community,and stakeholders and this was important for us all.Lastly,as an international education professional for the past 17 years working at IIE,my career has revolved around supporting DEIA in programs and initiatives,mostly serving U.S.undergraduate students studying abroad.I have been passionate about demonstrating the value of DEIA,as well as understanding the gaps and issues in participation and changing the landscape for a more diverse and equitable representation,which extends from students to international education professionals.In part,my own identification as an American,biracial(Asian/white)female whos had various international experiences including studying and service learning abroad,and working within a global organization and field has contributed to my orientation to these professional interests and activities.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 12Still,though,ongoing self-examination must occur,how we,as individuals,approach and propel change and interact and engage with others.These workshops with a focus on the intercultural praxis model have supported my self-reflecting process and my contributions to this evolving nexus of international education and DEIA.Gratitude We want to thank all of our workshop facilitators who developed and delivered content for the series of workshops.None of this would have been possible without their contributions.Dickinson team:Amer Ahmed,who started his work with the team as Interim Executive Director of Equity and Inclusivity at Dickinson and then continued with us in his current role as Vice Provost for Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion at the University of Vermont;Katie DeGuzman,Dean and Director of Education Abroad;Bruno Grazioli,Contributing Faculty and Resident Director,Dickinson in Italy:Italian Studies;Marissa Mitchell,Associate Director of Education Abroad;and Nedra Sandiford,Administrative Director,Dickinson in Spain.IIE team:Csar Maldonado,Senior Program Specialist,IIE Mexico City;Vivek Mansukhani,Head,IIE India;Mirka Martel,Head of Research,Evaluation and Learning,IIE New York;Chelsea Sypher,Vice President,Department of Defense Programs,IIE DC;Selma Talha-Jebril,former Evaluation Specialist,IIE New York;and leadership support from Courtney Temple,Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer,IIE DC.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 13Synopsis of Case Studies By Jamie Bellis,Samantha Brandauer,Lindsay Gee Calvert,and Julia Carnine The four following“Models of Change”case studies reflect the work international educators and higher education professionals have done over the last few years at the intersection of DEI and global and intercultural learning.They also reflect how their work has been shaped by the IIEDickinson workshops,Sorrells IPM,and other models,theories,and tools.The case studies come from both workshop facilitators and participants,and their authors are situated in the United States(U.S.)and Europe.The authors are professionals at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania and in the Dickinson in Spain(Mlaga)program(who support all education abroad students),as well as students on-site in Mlaga;and professionals in the CEA CAPA Florence program in Italy(who support students on-site in Florence),the Brandeis International Business School in Massachusetts(who support a diverse and highly international student population),and the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire(who support students in the Master of Business Administration program).The following themes run throughout the case studies:Self-awareness and an understanding of ones own positionality and how it shifts across contexts are key components of this work.This process of self-inquiry is ongoing.The work of change toward more inclusion and equity can happen at different levels.Our authors understand their spheres of influence and have started where they have the most ability to affect changes,even small,incremental ones.Small steps can have big ripple effects.This work is a process,and it is iterative.We need to be able to articulate what progress and growth look like in our context,garner lots of feedback,learn from our missteps,reflect,and then begin again.We need to keep asking,Who is missing?Who is not being heard?This work is most effective when done collectively.Part of our role is to build bridges to communities;with partners abroad,to our students;and to our colleagues across our institutions and organizations.We need to de-silo this work together and build communities of practice.Here,we summarize the case studies to follow:In“Reframing Cultural Expectations:The Role of On-Site Academic Staff and Faculty,”Monica Francioso explores the role of on-site staff and faculty in Italy.Francioso discusses the CEA CAPA in Florence programs continuous process of examining and updating curriculum and program practices to The four“Models of Change”case studies reflect the work IE and HE professionals have done at the intersection of DEI and global and intercultural learning.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 14support underrepresented education abroad students,share a more nuanced and complete view of Italy,and actively engage students on justice and DEI.In“The Ongoing Process of Translating Equity to Action:A Dickinson College Case Study for Education Abroad,”Nedra Sandiford and Katie DeGuzman explore the unique and critical role that on-site or local faculty and staff can play in supporting underrepresented education abroad students.The authors also expose the lack of on-site faculty training and outline how Dickinson College addresses those gaps through predeparture orientations,on-site experiential engagement,and re-entry orientations.In“Cyclical and Reciprocal:Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion at the Brandeis International Business School,”Julia Zeigler and Kapik Yeung share how the Building Bridges workshop series helped them create a series of events for international students to build community and demonstrate commitment to students.They incorporated DEI themes using the National Academic Advising Association advising core competencies and the IPM as frameworks.The case study reflects on outcomes,lessons learned,and ideas for future efforts.In“Collaboration between the Tuck DEI Initiative and TuckGO to Build M.B.A.Students Intercultural Competence at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth,”Lisa Miller,B.Dia Draper,and Vincent Mack share lessons learned and changes in outcomes and student learning and engagement.The school aims to support the development of intercultural competence to prepare Master of Business Administration students to be more inclusive and aware leaders.By introducing the IPM,which weaves concepts of power and positionality,into their collaborative work and by better understanding the impact of their institutional culture on the student experience,they began to reimagine their own processes.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 15Reframing Cultural Expectations:The Role of On-Site Academic Staff and Faculty By Monica Francioso Self-Inquiry and Positioning I remember clearly when I was asked to unpack my identity and reflect on my positionality for the first time,quite a few years back.I had always considered myself privileged and,somewhat,monolithic.How wrong was I?Who am I?Where do I position myself in this world?I am an Italian,middle-class,well-educated white woman.So,yes,I am part of the western world dominant culture.However(there is always an“however”when it comes to identity),in my 20s my world changed as my family and I moved from the south of Italy to the north.Italy at that time was and still partially is very divided;the Southerners were discriminated against and,somehow,racialized.Suddenly,I was not simply an Italian woman,I became a Southern Italian woman:I was less,my accent was less,my culture was less.I became“the other.”When I moved to London to do my masters and my doctorate,I had once more to redefine my identity:I became Italian again,somehow exoticized,still a foreigner.I had to put aside my own preconceived ideas about the world and suspend judgment on several occasions.Even in what,for me at the time,was a very traumatic experience that put me through discrimination and“racism,”I kept a sense of my privilege and became invested in understanding differences,fighting injustices,and building alliances.Working in study abroad has made me realize that despite the fact that the concepts of justice,equity,diversity,and inclusion(JEDI)feel sometimes like simple,fashionable marketing tools many of us have intentionally entered the field because we strongly believe in every single element behind the JEDI acronym exactly because of our layered identities and positionalities.The dominant conversation around JEDI in study abroad seems to focus mostly on how U.S.universities approach social justice,diversity,equity,and inclusion in the recruiting process and whether they make sure more students with different cultures,social backgrounds,and sexual identities can access study abroad.What happens once students decide to study abroad and arrive in their host countries?What is the role of on-site staff and faculty?How do we approach JEDI without necessarily mimicking the U.S.discourse around JEDI issues?Working in study abroad has made me realize thatmany of us have intentionally entered the field because we strongly believe in every single element behind the JEDI acronym exactly because of our layered identities and positionalities.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 16The Role of On-Site Staff and Faculty:Framing,Positioning,and Reflection Typically,on-site staff and faculty are not directly involved in the recruiting of students,and there is little that can be done on our part to make sure more underrepresented students choose to study abroad in our cities and our centers each semester.There are,however,two important ways we can impact enrollment and diversity in the long run:our offerings and the ways we engage with JEDI issues.As the academic director of CEA CAPA in Florence,I work closely with a small local team of six staff members and about 20 faculty.Italy and Florence somehow“dictate”our choices of courses:art history,food and culture,fashion,and wine marketing are important parts of our offerings,and those topics fulfill collective expectations.A lot of effort is put into making sure we expose our students to the depths and nuances of our local culture.We create courses and shape content that step away from stereotypes,mainstream representations,and simplified understandings of Italian culture.From the outside,Italian culture and demographics represent a monolithic reality:white,Catholic,and conservative in terms of gender roles and sexual identities.This is the reality that many social and political forces strive to maintain.This is the reality that is prevalent and mostly visible to the eye of a tourist.This is what our students are surrounded with,especially in small and incredibly touristic areas like Florence.But there is so much more to this monolith myth.Italians are historically more multicultural and represent more cultural hybridity than is assumed.The nonwhite,non-Catholic population is growing and making our society more diverse.Italian women are more emancipated than ever before and are taking on leadership roles.Italian LGBTQ groups are making strides,and there is an extremely lively though at times frustrating debate on more inclusive language.Though arguments of the debate are not as straightforward as they might seem,considering the morphology of the Italian language,there are several publications and discussions(which have taken over social media)on how to adapt the language to be less sexist and more inclusive.There is still no consensus around ways,for example,to refer to nonbinary people,but the discussion is there.And linguists are moving forward to find solutions.As the linguist Gaia Prunotto(2023)summarized:Italian is a gendered language in which reference to grammatical gender has been constant and inevitable.As language reflects and shapes society,grammatical gender reinforces binary views of social gender and the Italians are historically more multicultural and represent more cultural hybridity than is assumed.The nonwhite,non-Catholic population is growing and making our society more diverse.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 17invizibilization of non-binary identities.Movements for social justice have inspired gender-fair linguistic innovations,such as the feminization of job titles and gender-neutral markers,to promote gender equity and challenge hierarchies of power and dominance in society.(p.iii)Over the last decade or so,we have updated old courses and created new ones,to present all the facets and nuances of Italian culture,with its richness,contradictions,injustices,and power dynamics.We replaced a course that analyzes the Italian Mafia with a course that discusses ways Italian society has worked and is working to fight different types of Mafias.We have created courses that address gender social constructions,sexual identities,and the rights of the LGBTQ community in Italy,as well as issues of immigration,race,and identity.We have also created courses that examine the local context and bring forth cultural and social elements that are“invisible”or have been overlooked,courses that interrogate and expose Italys colonial(and rarely spoken about)past,a course on Black women in Italy from the Grand Tour to today.These courses have helped us open a conversation around important themes,such as JEDI within an Italian context.Students come to Italy with their own preconceived ideas of the country,the language,the culture,and the experience that they are going to have.Perceiving Italy and Southern Europe through an American lens often translates to students positioning themselves as more culturally and socially advanced than Southern Europeans.They expect to find a beautiful country and a stunning and historic city,full of monuments and art;however,they also envisage a country that is behind,almost backward,in terms of human rights,gender roles,cultural diversity,and sexual identity issues.When they arrive in Florence and look around the sites that will soon become familiar to them,chances are that those ideas are reinforced:The“Disneyland”type of environment that surrounds them is highly touristic and does not necessarily represent the social,racial,and sexual orientation diversity of the city and country or their contradictions.It is extremely important that students are exposed to local issues and nuances around JEDI.As Fiedler(2007)said:“We need to empower young people to think critically,independently,and systemically about the(often unequal)state of our world and the society we live in.and also prepare learners to participate effectively in society,both locally and globally,so as to bring about positive change for a more just and equal world.”(pp.5152)Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 18It is a fact that locals have left the city center of Florence and left behind an urban space saturated with tourists and businesses that target mainly mass tourism,a space predominantly white and affluent,where diversity is rarely noticeable if only negatively.There is little doubt that most students notice that,and nontraditional students could find it challenging to see themselves represented in their new local community.Some of the questions students ask often revolve around representation.Students of color have asked us why they do not see anyone“like them”around the city.Our LGTBQ students have asked similar questions and wondered to what extent they needed to worry about trans-and homophobia and whether Florence was safe for them.Representation is certainly an important aspect of our students concerns and something we take seriously.With time,our LGBTQ staff and faculty have become more visible in our center and important points of reference for our students,strongly contributing to making LGBTQ students feel welcome and safe.Thanks to their advice and our continual open conversations,all our offices and our faculty room have clear signs on the door that indicate that the space is safe.We also are all ready to offer resources and help LGBTQ students,to the best of our ability,to make sense of the world outside our specific microcosm.We are extremely aware that we need to do more not only to address issues of representation,but also to ensure that we render visible to students what is not always visible in their surroundings.We can do this in the courses they take with us and in all the experiential learning activities we prepare for them.By being exposed to invisible historical and social layers of the host country,students will also be exposed to elements of their hosts social justice,oppression,and power discourse.To offer students this experience,we need to interrogate ourselves first:Our position and power within our own culture and our relationship with all the silenced voices need to be considered.As Serrano(2020)points out:“Faculty program leaders and in-country staff who support education abroad programs should engage in self-reflective work alongside the students.This recognition will create a feeling of openness,trust,and support for students,as well as foster an experience that is learner centered.”(p.161)It is on us local educators to see what lies unnoticed and make it visible to our students.It is our responsibility to see and understand where social injustice lies,interrogate our positionalities and agencies first,and then ask our students to interrogate their own positionalities and agencies,as well as By being exposed to invisible historical and social layers of the host country,students will also be exposed to elements of their hosts social justice,oppression,and power discourse.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 19their preconceived ideas of their hosts culture.If our students are to see beyond stereotypes and abandon a hegemonic view of the world,we need to do the same.Using the intercultural praxis model,we have been working,and will keep working,to inquire,reflect,and act so that we can build a program that explores all facets of our history,culture,and power dynamics and creates new paths for change for our students and with our students.We need to understand,examine,and present to our students our local contexts of inequality and oppression,and reflect with students on more equitable and just actions by exploring examples of change.We approach our offerings and our experiential learning activities in a reciprocal way,so faculty,staff,and students are aware of the social injustice we all face locally and globally.Then we can learn to see what is not always visible and find ways to adapt and change.Case Study:Dialogue and Action Our knowledge of,and education on,all the changing forces in our culture is not enough.We acknowledge that we need help to unravel power dynamics and exclusions,and we need the help of those who had to walk the path of invisibility and navigate social injustice to help us shape an offering that better represents our questioning and desire to inquire.To this end,we have reached out to a group of Black Italians who work in different cultural and business areas and have created an extremely important tool that helps educators decolonize their curricula and offer students an extremely diverse and more complete vision of our country.The group is called Black Italy,it is run by several African descendants born or raised in Italy,and it was created after the killing of George Floyd in the U.S.to counteract the mainstream belief that the problems of systemic racism are American problems only.Their main aim is“making visible the invisible”through events,digital content(movies and documentary),and educational support(BlackItalia.info).Among the incredibly interesting initiatives they offer,there is also an intensive online course through which they train faculty to redesign their teaching.The course is called Teaching Black Italy,and the different modules are conducted by Afro-Italian writers,filmmakers,and entrepreneurs:“This course prepares teachers to devote entire syllabi to the Afro-Italian experience,or to add a seldom-taught complement to a wide range of curricula.Courses on the Black diaspora,modern Europe,gender studies,Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 20and other interdisciplinary fields can gain an invaluable extra dimension by introducing elements of Black Italy.”(Black Italia,2022,“Teaching Black Italy”)The organizations website features several testimonies from professors who have completed the course,and one of them struck a chord:“An important task for academics in the humanities is asking ourselves which voices are missing from the hi/stories we teach,and why.The Teaching Black Italy course for professors provides an opportunity to begin repairing a number of important shortcomings.The histories and stories of non-white Italians have been,for too long,excluded from the mainstream Italian cultural imaginary and,in many cases,from curricula in Italian Studies.The knowledge I acquired in this course generatively disrupts a number of common narratives about Italian history and its relationship with colonialism and white supremacy while celebrating the life,cultural diversity,creations,and entrepreneurship of Black Italians.With the contribution of Fred Kuwornu and Jordan Anderson,I recently included a unit on Black Italian Queer Experiences in my course Sex and Gender in Contemporary Italy(University of Toronto);this offered students a more complete picture of sexual and gender diversity in Italy and allowed them to have powerful discussions on the intersection of gender,sexuality,and race.The real work,of course,happens when these topics are taken beyond the classroom and we all use our knowledge and voices to advocate for social and cultural change.”(Dr Paolo Frasc,Black Italia,2022)This is all extremely interesting for our culture courses as well as our political science and gender courses.However,Teaching Black Italy also opens new perspectives for our business courses.Other modules Black Italy offers are Art History and Contemporary Visual Artists and Black Designers in Fashion Industry.Reading through the modules of this course has helped us realize that our fashion,art history,family business,and gender courses could all present our students with a more complete narration of Italy.The stories recounted by several of the presenters are very often stories of challenges,discrimination,exclusion,and resilience,but they also narrate a much more diverse and complex reality than the one with which many of us are familiar.We have asked our U.S.leadership to fund the course for two of our staff and faculty members and received approval.This is the first step,albeit small,toward a more inclusive,just,and diverse vision of the host culture.There are several goals we hope to achieve by having two people on our team attend the course and report back to the rest of our staff and faculty.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 21Most importantly,we hope to identify,through learning and listening,ways the themes and content highlighted by the instructors and presenters can be embedded into all our syllabi,including those for our business courses.The presenters who will cover different fields will very likely spark new ideas for different guest lecturers for our courses,and these guests can help open up the conversation and include nondominant and nontraditional voices.We hope that the course provides us with the right tools to create a space in which both students and faculty can reflect on what the inclusion of those voices means for their fields and the issues of dominance,power,and privilege in them.The conversations and understanding need to be reciprocal.The aim is to create something similar to what the philosopher Homi K.Bhabha defines as the third space,in which cultural identities are constantly negotiated,an“in-between space”in which“new cultural identities are formed,reformed,and constantly in a state of becoming”(Amherst University,2008,“The Third Space:Cultural Identity Today”section).These updated courses should be not only places of encounters but places of negotiation and discussion.It is important that on-site staff and faculty engage with JEDI issues in a holistic way and have it impact other areas of our program beyond the courses themselves.One aspect we have been working on for a while is using our regular lecture series,in which we invite experts in different areas,to explore JEDI issues in Italy.In spring 2023,we hosted a lecture on Black figures in Renaissance art in collaboration with Black History Month Florence.We also hosted a lecture on the womens revolution in Iran,which featured two Iranian women activists who have been living in Italy for several years.Before COVID-19,we hosted an Italian professor of African descent who at the time taught at New York University Florence and is now at the University of Toronto to talk about Black Italy.We are also planning lectures and workshops for faculty on inclusive Italian language and on Italian transgender communities.Another important element involves our internship placements,for which we are working to enlarge our portfolio.We are seeking new companies and nongovernmental organizations that better reflect the diversity of our students and Italy,and whose missions and scopes support JEDI.To succeed in this project,we need the continuous support of several stakeholders.To create new courses,we always work with our program development department,which helps us create syllabi that support our local identities as well as engage the interests and growth of our students.Since we do not work in silos,we discuss all the implications of new syllabi Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 22with our colleagues in academic affairs.Then we work to get our faculty on board,as well as the Finance Department.This work requires awareness and a willingness to challenge ourselves and to reflect on our role.It takes training and research to understand how we can modify even slightly what we teach,how we teach,and how we include JEDI issues in our day-to-day delivery;and how we involve our students,our vendors,and our community in this exchange.In the long term,the changes will run deeper in our curricula,our teaching,and our experiential activities.The small steps will have created a domino effect and formed a space that everyone will inhabit,a space where students are exposed to all facets of the local culture including those who are left outside of the Disneyland realm of the city center a space of cultural hybridization and of allyship.References Bhabba,H.K.(2008).The Third Space:Cultural Identity Today.Amherst University.Black Italy.(n.d.).https:/www.blackitalia.info Fiedler,M.(2007).Postcolonial Learning Spaces for Global Citizenship.Critical Literacy:Theories and Practices,1(2),5057.Gozik,N.J.,&Barclay Hamir,H.(2022).Unpacking education abroads invisible knapsack in the pursuit of inclusive excellence.In N.J.Gozik&H.Barclay Hamir(Eds.),A house where all belong:Redesigning education abroad for inclusive excellence(p.11).The Forum on Education Abroad.Prunotto,G.(2023).Gender inclusivity in Italian:Can gender neutrality be reached in a gendered language?Difficulties,proposals and public perception of the phenomenon.Thesis,West Virginia University.The Research Repository.Serrano,M.(2020).Social justice centered education abroad programming:Navigating social identities and fostering conversations.In L.M.Berger(Ed.),Social justice and international education:Research,practice,and perspectives(pp.155172).NAFSA:Association of International Educators.This work requires awareness and a willingness to challenge ourselves and to reflect on our role.It takes training and research to understand how we can modify what we teach,how we teach,and how we include JEDI issues Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 23The Ongoing Process of Translating Equity to Action:A Dickinson College Case Study for Education Abroad By Nedra Sandiford and Katie DeGuzman Introduction This article documents two professionals processes for creating and adapting an innovative approach to bridging the gap between diversity,equity,and inclusion(DEI)and intercultural competence:intercultural intersectional learning and studies.The authors explore their interpretation of,as well as their experience with,the intersection between intercultural and global learning and DEI,while creating a model of change that promotes the dismantling of contemporary hegemonic cultural structures,addresses and avoids the reproduction of such structures during study abroad,and centers voices on the ground.Coauthor Katie DeGuzman has centered her intended doctoral research on this intersection,asking the following research question:How do permanent on-site faculty and staff in the host study abroad country make meaning of U.S.perceptions of DEI and incorporate these concepts into their own cultural perspectives?Using the Center for Global Study and Engagement at Dickinson College as a case study,this article walks readers through the various changes,at both the institutional and personal levels,that have colored the last five to six years.DEI in Education Abroad For several decades,the education abroad field has been talking about diversity,its early focus centering on how underrepresented students are recruited or encouraged to go abroad.In fall 2003,the Forum on Education Abroad relaunched the only journal dedicated to study abroad,Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad.Featured in the renewed publication was Van Der Meids 2003 study on Asian American students studying abroad,with suggestions on how to increase their participation.A review of Van Der Meids reference list indicates that as early as 1991,scholars and international education organizations were discussing increasing minority participation and access(Carter,1991;CIEE,1991;Ganz,1993).Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 24As the area of DEI has developed in higher education in general,so has DEI within the education abroad context.A review of the content of major international education professional conferences(including NAFSA:Association of International Educators,the Forum on Education Abroad,and the Association of International Education Administrators)shows that equity,inclusion,and,more recently,justice or belonging are frequently listed among themes.Indeed,these organizations and many others have stressed the importance of recruiting underrepresented students and preparing on-site staff and faculty to receive students who are either underrepresented or marginalized in a visible way.Background Nedra Sandiford The opportunity to both work alongside and grow from professionals in the field of international education while providing content and inspiration for professionals in the field was not what I expected when,in 2020,the world shut down.As it were,I was facilitating language labs for Spanish 202 online,in lieu of the usual overseas student assistants who travel each year to the Carlisle,Pennsylvania,campus of my both employer and alma mater,Dickinson College,to perform this job.I was grappling with,along with everyone else,the death of George Floyd and the ensuing“racial reckoning.”When the opportunity came to facilitate the Institute of International Education(IIE)and Dickinson workshop,it was a welcome change.Here we were,trying to figure out how exactly to prepare both ourselves and our students for the shifts in identity and perception that occur while crossing borders,without discounting the power and privilege structures at play in the way that intercultural competence teaching so often does.For me,this story begins,however,in 2018.I was asked by coauthor Katie DeGuzman,Dean and Director of Education Abroad at Dickinson College,if I was interested in working with her on an ongoing project to revamp the Center for Global Study and Engagements strategy for pre-,post-and on-site workshops,specifically for students from underrepresented backgrounds.As an expat of color myself,I thought that creating content that would target specific groups about their experience in Spain would be beneficial to students.What I found was that targeting groups for their identity was not only a reproduction of what many have been subjected to by society but also Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 25a pass to let those who target off the hook.We quickly pivoted to creating programming to highlight how marginality shows up within any given society,to peel back the veil of“culture”and analyze historical context.My professional journey in the work of inclusion has been,in many ways,a continuation of the unlearning journey that I have been on since my college years.Despite being a first-generation U.S.citizen Black woman,I consider myself extremely privileged.That I even had to include“despite”before my identities at the beginning of my previous sentence is a reflection of what Ive had to unlearn in a society that places certain attributes to these identities with the explicit mission to dehumanize,other,or posit as less than.More confusing still,much of what I did learn growing up from my own family reflected some of this othering actively encouraging the divide between one“kind”of Black person(immigrant)and“regular”Black people(African Americans).This work has helped me to realize that liberation will come for no one if there is not liberation for all.I have become a much more well-rounded DEI practitioner,eschewing comparisons,leading with empathy,and always minding my own blind spots.Ive learned not only to focus on the issues of the identities that I hold,but to widen the focus on my work and always consider the intersections.Lastly,Ive learned and fully accept that advocating for a world that is more just,equitable,and sustainable is as much personal reflection as it is active work to dismantle the harmful,currently prevailing narratives.Katie DeGuzman As an education abroad professional,I have always been interested in both DEI in international education and intercultural competence.Early in my career,I became a certified administrator of the Intercultural Development Inventory(IDI).Several years ago,I started working with a few practitioners who strongly believed that both the fields of DEI and intercultural competence needed to come together,as each was missing a piece of the proverbial puzzle.Intercultural communication scholars were missing the power,privilege,and positionality that were involved in intercultural interactions,while DEI and social justice scholars were missing the intercultural perspective shifting and the varying historical contexts that went into international education work.Almost seven years ago,I started working at Dickinson College.Today,I hold the title of dean and director of education abroad.Unlike many other I have become a much more well-rounded DEI practitioner.Ive learned not only to focus on the issues of the identities that I hold,but to widen the focus on my work and always consider the intersections.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 26institutions,Dickinson sends most of its students on semester-or yearlong study abroad.The college runs its own programs,with permanent Dickinson faculty and staff on-site.While my previous work exclusively focused on the preparation and advising phase for underrepresented students,and U.S.faculty professional development,it became apparent that a support piece had been overlooked:the role of the on-site or local faculty and staff.These professionals spend the most time with students abroad,yet based on my own observations,their role in supporting marginalized students was completely missing in the discourse of the field.At the same time that this became apparent to me,I was introduced to the intercultural praxis model(IPM)of Dr.Kathryn Sorrells(2022),which advances a nonlinear approach to communication across cultures with a philosophy that melds DEI with intercultural competence.The IPM challenges us to contextualize our identities and those of others within historic systems of inequality that have shaped our positioning in the world today.Intercultural praxis comprises six dimensions:inquiry,framing,positioning,dialogue,reflection,and action(Sorrells,2022).While the IPM framework is key to theoretical analysis of the bridge between DEI and intercultural competence,there is little research on the use or practical application of this model,nor is there any instrument associated with the model.I have been on my own journey of reflection and growth and what it means to identify as a white,cisgender,heterosexual woman while facilitating workshops and designing programs around DEI.To be frank,I am sometimes met by students who make assumptions that I cannot possibly understand.Some,and understandably so,see intercultural difference and marginalization within the framework of racial differences.In a workshop several years ago,we were discussing centering intercultural relationships,and my vulnerable sharing of my own intercultural marriage and biracial and bicultural children led to a complaint from two students that I was“chasing clout.”My intention for sharing something personal and referring to myself as a co-learner in the space was to reduce the power distance and decolonize the typical classroom structure.However,doing so as a woman without a doctorate or professor title can also undermine the understanding that I truly do have expertise to share,and to my surprise,the sharing can be seen as a contrived effort to mitigate my white identity.In many faculty and staff professional development spaces,it is common to hear those who identify as white express trepidation about facilitating discussion on DEI topics.There is the fear of saying the wrong thing,which then leads to not saying anything at all.While I understand this fear,through Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 27this journey,I have had to make my peace with the possibility of saying the wrong thing and understand that the journey is not about being perfect and that my commitment to justice and equity need to be stronger than my fear of making mistakes.During the IIEDickinson workshops,I discussed this fear with Dr.Amer F.Ahmed,one of the foremost practitioners and thought-leaders of the intersecton between DEI and intercultural competence,and the colleague who introduced me to the Sorrels intercultural praxis model.Dr.Ahmed gave me great encouragement,pointing out that if no one was ever unhappy about something you said,you were probably saying nothing.He reaffirmed that I was working hard in the global DEI space and that it is difficult,emotional work,but he said I needed to keep pushing forward and learning and not let my insecurities get in the way.That is what I strive to do through my institution,through my doctoral research,and in the larger field,because this work needs everyone to move us forward.“Am I Here What Was I There?”Two research studies found that marginalized students will make meaning of incidents abroad by relying on their past experiences in the U.S.Quan(2018)and Deters et al.(2022)shared journal reflections indicating that when some marginalized students are faced with a negative interaction abroad,they may contextualize the experience through the lens of their identity and a previous bias incident.In Quans discussion of an Iranian American female student with low language proficiency studying in Spain,the researcher shared an excerpt of the students interaction with an older Spanish man who makes a gesture toward her that the student is unable to interpret.The student gets angry and attributes his actions to racism.Quan used this example to highlight a previous work that asserted“according to critical race theory(CRT),the prior experiences of people of color with macroaggressions and racism often lead them to mediate life experiences and outcomes through a racialized lens and even in instances when the motivations may be ambiguous or unknown(Perez et al.,2015,p.301)”(p.38).This finding has enormous implications for interpreting intercultural experiences abroad,which,by their very nature,are often confusing and ambiguous.The IPM dimensions of inquiry,positioning,and reflection are key for individuals to be able to not only create an understanding and awareness of the cultural lens and perspective that inform their experiences Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 28but also tweak their interpretive framework to acknowledge that the framework that serves them in,in this case,the U.S.may not always apply to a new context.Conversely,it is entirely possible that the gesture of the old Spanish man in Quans study did relate to the students race.Yet for a student to be able to shift through the possibilities which include the historical contexts of power and privilege,the persistent cultural norms,and the language barrier they need someone to act as a cultural bridge.This brings us to the important and unique role that an on-site faculty or staff member has in providing student support and assisting in contextualizing critical incidents while empathizing with the possible trauma they bring.As Sweeny states,“This examination of race and racism would likely be more productive if structured and facilitated as part of the program,and in turn has the potential to effect student learning and development”(2013,p.11).Faculty Role in Intercultural Learning While extensive and varied research has been conducted about students on both semester and short-term programs abroad,the role of faculty in education abroad is often examined in the context of U.S.-based faculty leading short-term programs with U.S.students.Several other learning objectives can be studied,but perhaps most relevant to intercultural intersectional learning is the faculty influence on intercultural gains.Anderson et al.(2016)detailed their previous work assessing student intercultural growth using the IDI and later shifting their focus to finding evidence of instructor influence on these intercultural gains.Using a mixed methods approach,the IDI,and student and instructor interviews,they found that intentional instructor engagement with intercultural content on-site is critical to fostering intercultural growth.The highest student gains were associated with facilitation in the moment of a critical incident;the researchers found that it was crucial for the instructor to address group tension associated with an incident before moving ahead with course content.However,their study did not identify what exactly faculty need to do to become good facilitators,nor did it address which faculty are successful at intercultural facilitation.Niehaus et al.(2018)furthered the work of Anderson et al.by exploring the context of faculty background to determine whether these background variables can predict the extent to which faculty would engage in cultural mentoring.The study looked at four cultural mentoring behaviors:Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 29expectation setting,explanation of host culture,exploration of self in culture,and facilitation connections.Through a quantitative study surveying 473 faculty from 72 U.S.colleges who led short-term programs,the study found that faculty of color are more engaged in faculty mentoring compared to their white peers,assistant professors are more engaged than associate professors,and STEM faculty are less engaged.The research team,however,left several unanswered questions regarding the reasons for their findings,encouraging future researchers to determine what type of cultural mentoring behaviors best facilitate student learning and under which conditions.Johnstone et al.(2020)intentionally built on both Anderson et al.and Niehaus et al.by combining the role of faculty facilitation in promoting equity and cultural responsibility with a focus on underrepresented students in study abroad.That research team conducted focus group interviews with underrepresented students who completed short-term,faculty-led programs abroad.The interviews centered program elements that students experienced through their self-described identities.The researchers determined that faculty leaders who could cultivate inclusivity within the group,facilitate identity and cultural sensitivity,and debrief social justice issues were the most successful,according to students.As in previous studies,the researchers did not articulate how faculty can be trained to gain these skills but indicated that students expect faculty to have the skill set to manage these complex dynamics.Given the extended period that on-site host country faculty and staff spend with semester study abroad students,it is surprising to find only one instance in the literature of their ability to facilitate intercultural learning.The lack of training for on-site faculty and staff to become effective intercultural facilitators was impetus for research done by Grillo and Hernndez de la Torre(2020).The research also highlights that there is no current widely accepted procedure to bridge the gap between DEI and intercultural competence.Using a mixed methods approach of a questionnaire and interviews,the authors surveyed 103 Spanish study abroad professionals who work with U.S.students in Spain and conducted 15 interviews with those in that group.The majority of participants indicated that they relied heavily on experience to perform their jobs and felt that a major obstacle existed in the lack of knowledge about U.S.students.None of the participants were given academic training in intercultural learning or facilitation,and they brought up the frequent misunderstandings that they had with students.Participants Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 30saw a need to create a formal training strategy on how they could act as cultural bridges for students.In alignment with participant needs,the researchers expressed that on-site professionals should have experience with diversity,be familiar with the culture of the students,be open,and have the ability to facilitate reflection.Katie:A New Strategy for Orientations at Dickinson In the past three years,I have been working on intervention strategies with both students and on-site faculty and staff.The strategies combine intercultural competence and DEI concepts to prepare students for their study abroad experience and equip faculty and staff to be intercultural bridges for their students.On-site faculty and staff,particularly those who are not originally from the U.S.,are invited to explore their own cultural identity and lens,learn about their positionality within their countrys context,and become familiar with their countrys historical context,especially the ways that it has produced marginalization.It is also important that on-site faculty and staff understand the lens of the students with whom they are working and try to anticipate what support students will need based on how they will perceive various incidents or common cultural practices.From this educational framework,I stress to on-site faculty and staff the importance of listening and empathizing with their student first if an incident involving bias or perceived biased occurs and only later having a more academic discussion about historical context and possible language barriers,and a nuanced exchange of what might be similar to the context and frames that students bring and what might be different.On-site staff and faculty should also talk about discrimination or bias during orientation and include programming and academic discussions that focus on marginalized or minority communities within their country.This is all quite complex,and I have the additional challenge,given my own positionality,of not overly imposing my U.S.perspective or cultural hegemony while conveying to staff that if they have opted into the role of support for U.S.-based students,then they must both understand and navigate this U.S.lens.The strategies combine intercultural competence and DEI concepts to prepare students for their study abroad experience and equip faculty and staff to be intercultural bridges for their students.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 31Nedra:“Navigating Identity as Students of Color Abroad”Orientation I held the first on-site post-departure orientation in Mlaga in 2020.To my surprise,the two students of color who were on the program during that semester were not interested in attending.One of the students who came to the session identified as a white,Jewish woman.When asked why she decided to attend,she mentioned that she wanted to learn how to be a better ally.The other student,who identified as a white,Jewish male,attended because his girlfriend at the time an international Vietnamese student at Dickinson who was studying in France had experienced some incidents of racial insensitivity on her abroad program and he wanted to be able to support her.This expeirence with the orientation session was the first of many realizations that contributed to the model of change that this paper centers.On the one hand,I naively thought that this content would be of interest only to those“impacted.”Not only was this incorrect,but it also discounts how group dynamics during study abroad terms often create an environment that mirrors the very DEI issues that students face in the U.S.Put short all students needed to understand that DEI issues not only exist across the world,but also are ensconced in cultural nuance that is different from what they are used to in the U.S.The Bridge:Educating Staff at Sending and Receiving Institutions Students of color or students with nonprivileged identities arent the only ones who need to take advantage of international education as a pathway to a global view of DEI.Staff,faculty,and students direct community abroad need to be able to both understand where students are coming from and share how marginalization happens in their own locales.This is not to say and this is the authors ongoing critique of current models of international global education that those abroad only need to learn what a microaggression is and try to avoid it themselves or explain it away when students experience microaggressions.Rather,there is a need to understand on a fundamental level how identities transact within any given cultural context:Who has power and who doesnt?Whose voieces are positioned to yield that power over others?How does one recognize that because identity,any identity,is fluid,at one point certain identities yield power,while at other points those same voices are powerless and that All students needed to understand that DEI issues not only exist across the world,but also are ensconced in cultural nuance that is different from what they are used to in the U.S.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 32this shift occurs constantly(both within and outside of the borders that we know)?How can one grapple with the intersections of certain identities and how they inform transactions of identity?Where Are We Now?Global Inclusion Strategy at Dickinson We have settled(for now)on an approach that integrates student,staff,and faculty learning at various stages.Given the importance of being prepared to facilitate intercultural learning within the DEI context,on-site faculty and staff attend continual sessions.They not only engage in self-reflective intercultural processes,but also are encouraged to give feedback and in some cases,push back to ensure that the discourse is inclusive of perspectives from outside the U.S.After several periods of trial and error,weve determined that the student sessions are most effective when they start with a focus on the general concepts of identity,power,and privilege and the understanding that students have a perspective or a lens through which they interpret the world.At predeparture,we found that students,from an attention standpoint,did not seem ready to engage with overly specific forms of bias on-site.Some students found the real-life examples unnecessarily provocative as opposed to helpful at that stage.Therefore,specific examples from various countries are now brought by the students themselves when they are on-site.During a Zoom workshop,students are invited to join facilitators to discuss what they have learned so far in their host country about power and privilege,as well as what they have learned about their identity in their new context.They are also asked to bring in what they know about the historical context of their host country and how that fits in with how identity and DEI are viewed there compared to in the U.S.This tie-in of perspectives pulls on the predeparture learning thread and has them apply it themselves.Two more phases are in the development stages:on-site experiential engagement and re-entry.Following the students Zoom session to unpack what they are experiencing abroad,on-site faculty and staff will facilitate an experiential session(themed talks,workshops,volunteer opportunities,events)and debrief about a marginalized community in the host country or a concept within the intercultural inclusion framework relevant to the host country.The session will be tailored to the specific country and chosen by local faculty and staff.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 33Facilitation workshops for the faculty and staff will be given prior to implementation by Katie and collaborators from Dickinson College,including professors well versed in facilitation and the Office for Diversity Initiatives.Reimagined re-entry workshops will draw upon Dickinsons new initiative,Dialogue Across Difference,to engage the students in critical dialogue and reflection about their experiences abroad.We hope to run both of these new sessions in fall 2023.Conclusion In 2022 in Spain,when Nedra facilitated a DEI workshop to members of the American University Programs in Spain(APUNE),she showed them two images and asked if they recognized the individuals depicted.One image was of Eric Garner being held in a choke hold by Officer Daniel Pantaleo.The other was of an unidentified Black woman in a small orange lifeboat at sea.The choice to use Eric Garners image in was intentional;his was an older(2014)yet still relevant case of death at the hands of police violence.The participants,a great majority of whom were Spanish nationals,knew who Eric Garner was,but most were unaware of the protagonist of the second photo.A screenshot of a video,the image captured the agony of a woman who was unable to locate her 6-month-old baby as she and other migrants from Guinea were being rescued in the Mediterranean Sea in 2021.The child was later found in the water and resuscitated,but ultimately did not survive.The following was the message to participants:A young Black man in the U.S.killed by the violence of racism may seem far away,not related to or a part of Spanish culture.However,a young Black baby killed by the violence of a colonial past is.When working with on-site colleagues,the focus needs to shift entirely toward the complete infusion of studies around power,position,and privilege to what faculty and staff may or may not already know about their own countries and contexts.The absence of research,literature,and training focused on on-site staff is itself indicative of the culturally hegemonic structures that currently dominate DEI discourse.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 34References Anderson,C.L.,Lorenz,K.,&White,M.(2016).Instructor influence on student intercultural gains and learning during instructor-led,short-term study abroad.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,28(1),123.Carter,H.(1991).Minority access to international education.In Black students and overseas programs:Broadening the base of participation(pp.1830).Council on International Educational Exchange.CIEE(Council on International Education Exchange).(1991).Increasing participation of ethnic minorities in study abroad(ED346784).ERIC.Deters,J.,Holloman,T.K.,Grote,D.,Taylor,A.R.,&Knight,D.(2022).Critically examining the role of habitus for minoritized students in a global engineering program.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,34(4),172205.Ganz,M.A.,Osborn,J.,&Primak,P.(1993).Promoting student diversity.In W.Hoffa,J.Pearson,&M.Slind(Eds.),NAFSAs guide to education abroad for advisers and administrators(pp.111123).NAFSA.Herencia Grillo,A.,&Hernndez de la Torre,E.(2020).Education professionals as facilitators of study abroad programs in Spain:Formal training needs.Profile:Issues in Teachers Professional Development,22(1),5773.Johnstone,C.,Smith,T.L.,&Malmgren,J.(2020).Academics as arbiters:Promoting equity and cultural responsibility in group-based study abroad.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,32(2),120144.Niehaus,E.,Reading,J.,Nelson,M.J.,Wegener,A.,&Arthur,A.(2018).Faculty engagement in cultural mentoring as instructors of short-term and semester study abroad programs.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,30(2),7791.Quan,T.(2018).Language learning while negotiating race and ethnicity abroad.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,30(2),3246.Sandiford,N.,DeGuzman,K.,&Brandauer,S.(2021).Using the Intercultural Praxis Model to build bridges:Identity,diversity,equity,and inclusion in a global context.In S.Brandauer&E.Hartman(Eds.),Interdependence:Global solidarity and local actions.The Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative.https:/www.cbglcollab.org/identity-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-a-global-context Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 35Sorrells,K.(2022).Intercultural communication:Globalization and social justice(3rd ed.).SAGE Publications.Sweeney,K.(2013).Inclusive excellence and underrepresentation of students of color in study abroad.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,23(1),121.Van Der Meid,J.S.(2003).Asian Americans:Factors influencing the decision to study abroad.Frontiers:The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,9(1),71110.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 36Cyclical and Reciprocal:Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion at the Brandeis International Business School By Julia Zeigler and Kapik Yeung Julia Zeigler:Self-Reflection In this section,I will reflect on what I have done to expand self-awareness and better understand my identity and how it has been shaped by cultural and historical contexts.In 2007,after graduating college,I moved from the U.S.to Changzhou,China.After 20 years in Boston,Massachusetts,it was the first time I lived somewhere as a racial minority.I moved there to teach English,and in doing so,I became aware,almost accidentally,of the elements that made up my identity.It was in China that I was first knowingly subjected to stereotyping,misogyny,and“othering.”However,it took me many years to start actively understanding the cultural and historical contexts behind my identity.I consider myself a late bloomer in this area:It was only 10 years ago that I truly began dedicating time and attention to reading and listening to a wider variety of voices and considering new social and cultural perspectives on issues of race and identity.Taking the Building Bridges:Committing to Global Equity and Justice in International Education workshop series,co-delivered by the Institute of International Education(IIE)and Dickinson College(IIE&Dickinson,2022),was a giant step in the right direction in considering multiple perspectives.If there has been anything the last 10 years,and this workshop,have taught me,it is that growth in understanding these contexts is constant and unfinishable.The goal to increase participation through diversity and inclusion remains at the forefront of my daily work in higher education.As years progress,I commit to undertaking continual personal growth and using it to drive my career.Introduction The Brandeis International Business School sits on the main campus of Brandeis University in Waltham,Massachusetts.It was established in 1994 and offers four masters programs,a doctoral program,dual-degrees,and undergraduate majors and minors in business and economics.The school Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 37boasts an enrollment of 400 graduate students across 49 countries and over 6,000 alumni.The Brandeis International Business School lists the following mission statement regarding diversity,equity,and inclusion(DEI),which drives the communitys everyday work:“We advocate for diversity,equity and inclusion through programming and community support and engagement.Our goal is to engage with the Universitys strategic direction in providing accessible,inclusive,and equitable advising to students.We,as staff,commit to continuously educating ourselves on the history,concepts,and implications of discrimination in the U.S.and its effects for the graduate student population at the business school.Moreover,we aim to foster a safe community that values diverse people and perspectives while encouraging a culture of respect.”(Brandeis,2021)For the Office of Academic Affairs and Student Experience(OAASE),this primarily means(1)connecting our graduate student population,which is largely composed of people born outside of the U.S.,to U.S.-based concepts and histories of racism and discrimination;and(2)making an effort,as an office,to embody the facets of equity and inclusion that we envision for the larger community.To this end,members of the OAASE participated in the Building Bridges workshop(IIE&Dickinson,2022),and we were asked to formulate a case study.For this case study,OAASE participants decided to create a student event series around DEI themes.Cyclical and Reciprocal At one point during one of the live sessions for the IIEDickinson training,Dr.Amer Ahmed,one of the facilitators,stated that“access without support is not equity”(Ahmed,2022).Ahmed said this phrase is central to his daily work.As we reflect on the event series we created,this phrase is immensely helpful to understanding the role of global justice and equity.Since hearing this phrase,we have begun to apply it to our own work.As members of the school administration,at times,we staff members have assumed authority over the students we serve.This assumed authority may lead administrators to make assumptions about our students for example,about their knowledge of U.S.-based concepts and personal histories of discrimination.The Building Bridges training taught me the importance of challenging those assumptions and the inherent authority of “Access without support is not equity.”-Dr.Amer Ahmed Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 38the school over the student.If a student is not U.S.-born,do they not have their own context for racism and discrimination?How may an international student use their experiences to relate to U.S.-based concepts of discrimination and racism?These questions will inform the planning of our future DEI efforts.By breaking down the power dynamic between student and administration,we can afford students more access to equity and change.By giving students a platform to share their own stories,identities,and experiences,we support them in accessing their own power and authority.We intend to move forward with an approach to our DEI initiatives that is animated by this concept of“cyclical and reciprocal”sharing of ideas and perspectives.While in the developmental phase of this event series,our office team frequently referred to the main university statement on DEI(listed below)and to the Business School DEI statement(cited earlier)to ground our discussions.Diversity Statement Established in 1948 as a model of ethnic and religious pluralism,Brandeis University:Considers social justice central to its mission as a nonsectarian university founded by members of the American Jewish community.Aims to engage members of our community as active citizens in a multicultural world.Seeks to build an academic community whose members have diverse cultures,backgrounds and life experiences.Believes that diverse backgrounds and ideas are crucial to academic excellence.Recognizes the need to analyze and address the ways in which social,cultural and economic inequalities affect power and privilege in the larger society and at Brandeis itself.Honors freedom of expression and civility of discourse as fundamental educational cornerstones.Seeks to safeguard the safety,dignity and well-being of all its members.We intend to move forward with an approach to our DEI initiatives that is animated by this concept of“cyclical and reciprocal”sharing of ideas and perspectives.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 39 Endeavors to foster a just and inclusive campus culture that embraces the diversity of the larger society.(Brandeis,provisional 2024)As a team,OAASE realized that while many aspects of these statements related to our office,a statement specific to our office would be necessary to specifically guide our work.We agreed that the exercise of constructing our own DEI statement would help center our daily actions and decisions and highlight our team priorities.In spring 2023,our team reviewed the universitys current statements,discussed our office goals,and crafted our own parallel statement that was added to the student-facing website(Brandeis,OAASE,2023).Framework and Theory Two frameworks informed our conception and design of the event series:(1)the National Academic Advising Association(NACADA)academic advising core competencies model and(2)Dr.Kathryn Sorrells intercultural praxis model(IPM).The NACADA academic advising core competencies model teaches that advisors can provide three key components of guidance to students everyday advising interactions:(a)conceptual,(b)informational,and(c)relational(Figure 1).These components aim to support the students continual growth and learning and guide the advisors own training,career development,and advancement.OAASE has integrated the advising core competencies model into many of our student-facing initiatives,so it was a natural fit for our DEI event series.The Building Bridges workshop introduced us to the IPM,which helps individuals navigate cultural differences ethically and equitably.The model teaches that in our intercultural world,it is more important than ever to act FIGURE 1 NACADA academic advising core competencies model.Source:NACADA:The Global Community for Academic Advising.(2017).Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 40with understanding and compassion.The model is cyclical in nature and asks the user to consider six dimensions:(1)action,(2)inquiry,(3)framing,(4)positioning,(5)dialogue,and(6)reflection.Because the IPM mirrored our own offices DEI priorities,and was unique and helpful,we used it as a second framework for our case study.Our case study aimed to bring the IPM model to life with three goals:(1)to create community among our student body,which is composed of individuals from many different ethnicities,cultures,and geographies;(2)to demonstrate our schools awareness of DEI issues;and(3)to share U.S.-based perspectives on these issues with students.The academic advising core competencies model kept us accountable to ourselves,and the IPM allowed us to consider all the dimensions and implications of our event series before the implementation stage.For example,at each event,we were fully intentional about citing our U.S.-based biases and perspectives.We also sent a post-event survey to participants,from which we hope to gather feedback about whether we met that goal.However,because respondents self-selected,the survey data may be unreliable.In the future,we plan to randomly select students for a working group,to evaluate our schools DEI programming and propose improvements.Email interviews with randomly selected students may also be helpful.Many international students come from cultures where sharing vocal feedback is not normalized,so email interviews would capture feedback from students who are less likely to share feedback vocally.These two methodologies would be more objective and would promote equity in our programming.We found the IPM and the advising core competencies model compatible in three senses:(1)Both recognize that student-facing initiatives in higher education are both cyclical and reciprocal and neither has a definitive“start”or“end”;(2)both frameworks intend to support cross-cultural interactions;and(3)each recognizes the necessity for a balance of power between student and administrator.Positionality within Brandeis University In the article,“Serving International Students beyond Teaching Them Cultural Differences?”author Suhao Peng says the following:“In most cases,universities offer orientation programs for international students,especially those who are newcomers,to“help”international The academic advising core competencies model kept us accountable to ourselves,and the intercultural praxis model allowed us to consider all the dimensions and implications of our event series before the implementation stage.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 41students adapt to the“new”learning environment by teaching and informing them of cultural differences.For most of us,this practice seems natural because individual experiences abroad are usually articulated or described as challenging and intercultural/international adjustment and/or adaptation can be problematic.However,this practice has extended to the point that international students are viewed as culturally deficient in the host environment and are often treated as a homogenous and exotic population.This bias manifests in many orientation programs and guidelines that teach international students how to behave in the host environment.”When we developed the goals that directed our planning,we were aware of the possibility of delivering well-meaning DEI programs and initiatives that do the exact opposite of their intention.The last thing we wanted was for our students,international or domestic,to feel othered by our programs and services.As a result,our program seeks to be as reciprocal,or shared,as possible.Students should learn about the schools dedication to DEI programming but also feel the power and permission to challenge and interrogate that programming.While our intention is not to transfer emotional labor to students,it would be ideal for students to play an equal role in their own programming and for content to be reciprocally shared.For example,an event could center on the many examples of discrimination around the globe.In the U.S.,we could use the example of George Floyds murder in 2020.Then we could invite students from other countries or cultures to discuss examples of the manifestations of discrimination,historical or present,from their experience.Going into the case study assignment for the Building Bridges workshop series,which later became our DEI event series,we knew we would encounter other challenges as well:What topics should we prioritize?How would we get students attention?We were able to address many of our challenges by referring to the IPM and the advising core competencies,which asked us to think about our privilege,our capacity,and our institutional guidance.Case Study:DEI Event Series for Students Members of OAASE proposed an event series because it fits within our financial structure,staff capacity,and student preferences.We intended for the event series to be the first of many DEI initiatives for students.Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in International Education 42We had the following goals:Invite a representative to speak from an office on campus with work intimately tied to DEI themes.Generate student involvement in leading future DEI sessions.Create an assessment and measurement tool to collect student feedback for each event.Encourage critical reflection exercises.Craft an OAASE-specific DEI statement and list of tangible goals.Our event series consisted of six one-to two-hour events during one semester.Each event was intentionally scheduled for a different day and time,allowing students with different schedules to attend.See the full schedule of events in Table 1.The schedule was largely determined through collaboration with other units.The Business School set event target dates,times,and locations,and other units identified speakers and topics.In the future,a wider range of units may be contacted,to broaden the range of dialogue and discussion.Table 1:Brandeis University OAASE DEI Event Series Schedule Date/Time Event Leaders Monday,Aug.22,2022,2:003:00 pm Graduate School Adjustment and Wellness(orientation)International Business School Student Association Friday,Sept.30,2022,2:002:30 pm Guided Tour of“Resistance”Brandeis Rose Art Museum Friday,Oct.14,2022,2:003 pm Hispanic Heritage Month Event Brandeis Office of Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion Thursday,Oct.20,2022,5:156:30 pm LGBTQ Inclusion at Brandeis Brandeis Gender and Sexuality Center Wednesday,Nov.2,2022,2:303:30 pm Linguistic Diversity Brandeis English Language Programs Friday,Nov.11,2022,12:302:00 pm Cross-Cultural Competence in the Workforce Brandeis Business School Career Strategies and Engagement Models of Change:Equity and Inclusion in Action in Int
2023-12-13
76页
5星级
ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTMay 20212021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 2Foreword For a university with such a strong sense of place,this past year has been a highly unusual one in Oxford,where streets so often teeming with students have largely been silent for long stretches of time.The students who remained,and those studying from home,have displayed exemplary resilience and commitment to their education.Students and staff alike have taken enormous pride in the work of our academics in developing vaccines and therapeutics as well as enhancing our understanding of COVID-19.It is no surprise then that our admissions numbers continue to rise as prospective students see the many contributions Oxford makes to society both nationally and globally.While the pandemic has,in many ways,changed the way we operate,it has not weakened our commitment to diversifying the make-up of our student body.In this,our fourth annual Admissions Report,we provide details of the success rate of British undergraduate applications by educational,regional,racial and socio-economic background as well as by subject and college.The highlights are as follows:over the past five years the proportion of students from state schools rose from 58%to 68.6%.The proportion identifying as Black and Minority Ethnic rose from 15.82%to 23.6%.The proportion from socio-economically disadvantaged areas rose from 8.2%to 15.9%.The proportion from areas of low progression to higher education rose from 11.4%to 15.6%.The proportion declaring a disability rose from 7.2%to 10.4%.The proportion of women rose from 48.6%to 54.2%.This reflects real progress and is a testament to the dedication of our Admissions Teams,the support of school teachers and,of course,the many talents of able and ambitious young people.We welcomed our first cohort of students under the new Opportunity Oxford Programme in the autumn and responded rapidly to the pandemic by putting our access and outreach activity online,creating Virtual Open Days and developing digital versions of our signature programmes like UNIQ.In December this year we conducted our admissions interviews remotely for the first time.Notwithstanding all the adjustments and adaptations required by the pandemic we remain committed to ensuring that every talented,academically driven pupil in the country,wherever they come from,sees Oxford as a place for them.Professor Louise RichardsonVice-ChancellorContents page 4 Section 1.Overall numbers,including domicile page 7 Section 2.Nation and regionpage 10 Section 3.Disadvantagepage 16 Section 4.School typepage 19 Section 5.Genderpage 22 Section 6.Ethnicitypage 34 Section 7.Disabilitypage 35 Glossarypage 38 Guide to the Oxford admissions processpage 39 Note on HESA dataUNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 3About this report This report presents undergraduate admissions statistics for the University of Oxford over five admissions years between 2016 and 2020,broken down into chapters covering the following areas:overall numbers,domicile,nation and region,disadvantage,school type,gender,ethnicity and disability.The report includes information for Oxfords colleges and largest courses,aggregated for the three admissions years 2018 to 2020.Aggregation has been used as small yearly figures are likely to provide a misleading picture.Nonetheless,some figures remain so small that a handful of decisions can appear to create large swings which have limited statistical value.This health warning applies even more strongly to single-year statistics for colleges and courses.The full data are available to view online:ox.ac.uk/adstats.The report also provides some national context for Oxfords data,primarily based on figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency(HESA).This includes information on the numbers of students achieving Oxfords minimum standard offer:three A grades or better at A-level and equivalent Scottish qualifications.It also compares Oxfords data with the higher education sector as a whole and with the Russell Group of leading universities.A summary of Oxfords admissions process can be found on page 38.Key points Following extended school closures in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic,A-levels and other qualifications around the world were awarded using a range of methods including centre-assessed grades in place of the usual examinations.3,695 students were admitted to Oxford,around 400 more than usual.Almost four fifths of those places(2,950)went to students living in the UK.Between 2016 and 2020,within the total group of UK-domiciled undergraduates admitted:The proportion from state schools rose from 58.0%1 to 68.6%.The proportion identifying as Black and Minority Ethnic(BME)rose from 15.8%2 to 23.6%.The proportion from socio-economically disadvantaged areas rose from 8.2%to 15.9%.The proportion from areas of low progression to higher education rose from 11.4%to 15.6%.The proportion declaring a disability rose from 7.2%to 10.4%.The proportion of women rose from 48.6%to 54.2%.FOOTNOTE1.Percentages in this report have been rounded to one decimal place.2.Some figures are slightly different from those presented in previous editions of this report following data corrections.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 41.Overall numbers,including domicile This section presents information on Oxfords overall numbers,as well as the domicile of Oxfords applicants,offer holders and admitted students.OVERALL NUMBERS The number of students admitted in 2020 was higher than usual following the exceptional arrangements for awarding A-levels and other qualifications during the COVID-19 pandemic.Overall application numbers have risen annually,and by 22.2%since 2016.Table 1.1:Overall applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,all domiciles,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTED2020 23,414 3,932 3,695 2019 23,026 3,895 3,286 2018 21,516 3,841 3,310 2017 19,953 3,786 3,285 2016 19,164 3,771 3,282 Table 1.2:Courses with the highest number of applicants per place(all domiciles,three-year total 20182020)3COURSENUMBER OF APPLICANTS PER PLACECOURSENUMBER OF APPLICANTS PER PLACEEconomics&Management16.9PPE*9.2Computer Science16.1History&Politics9.2Medicine11.0Mathematics9.1Maths&Computer Science10.6Physics8.0Biomedical Sciences10.1Law*8.0*Philosophy,Politics and Economics *Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe Note:This table contains aggregated figures for the period 20182020.Aggregated figures for this period will appear throughout the report,most often where tables refer to data by course or by college.A-level grade profile of UK-domiciled students applying to,receiving offers from and being admitted to Oxford(2020 UK intake)s While three A grades is Oxfords minimum standard offer for candidates taking A-levels,many courses particularly in the sciences require at least one A*grade.More than 70%of applicants and over 90%of admitted students were awarded A*AA or better at A-level.58.4%of admitted students achieved three A*grades or better at A-level.OTHERAAAA*AAA*A*AA*A*A*OR BETTERApplications19.4%8.4.4!.53.4%Offers5.7%4.3.7 .9W.4%Students admitted4.6%4.4.8 .8X.4%sA-level bands are based on results data obtained from UCAS and include results from the 2020 and 2019 examination rounds.Excludes General Studies and Critical Thinking,and candidates with fewer than three A-level results.FOOTNOTE 3.Table based on 25 largest courses.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 5BREAKDOWN BY DOMICILE Applications from UK students and non-EU students have risen,and applications from EU students have fallen.UK-domiciled applicants are substantially more likely to receive an offer of a place to study at Oxford than students from outside the UK.The proportion of students admitted who are from the UK has risen to 79.8%.Oxford does not operate quotas or targets around the nationality or domicile of students admitted to the University.The exception is Medicine,which is subject to a government restriction on the number of students with international fee status who can be admitted each year.The highest number of overseas applications and admitted students was from the Peoples Republic of ChinaTable 1.3:Overall applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by area of domicile,20162020UK STUDENTSAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTS ADMITTED2020 14,102 3,059 2,950 60.2y.8 19 13,881 3,059 2,590 60.3x.8 18 13,013 2,960 2,570 60.5w.6 17 12,596 2,941 2,560 63.1w.9 16 12,209 3,005 2,646 63.7.6%EU STUDENTSAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTS ADMITTED2020 2,746 292 266 11.7%7.2 19 2,773 266 234 12.0%7.1 18 2,687 307 273 12.5%8.2 17 2,431 302 273 12.2%8.3 16 2,417 263 234 12.6%7.1%NON-EU STUDENTSAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTS ADMITTED2020 6,566 581 479 28.0.0 19 6,372 570 462 27.7.1 18 5,816 574 467 27.0.1 17 4,926 543 452 24.7.8 16 4,538 503 402 23.7.2 21|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 6Table 1.4:Countries/regions with the highest number of applications and students admitted to Oxford,three-year total 20182020COUNTRY/REGION OF DOMICILEAPPLICATIONSCOUNTRY/REGION OF DOMICILESTUDENTS ADMITTEDUK 40,996 UK 8,110 P R China 4,900 P R China 425 United States of America 2,376 Singapore 187 Singapore 1,515 United States of America 184 Hong Kong(SAR)1,345 Hong Kong(SAR)152 India 1,345 Poland 127 Germany 1,220 Romania 123 Poland 1,011 Germany 102 France 815 Korea(South)54 Malaysia 772 Australia 49 Canada 724 India 47 CONTEXTUK universities by domicile of studentsUKEUNON-EUAll UK universities(2018 intake*)83.1%5.8.1%Russell Group(2018 intake*)74.2%7.0.8%Oxford University(2020 intake)79.8%7.2.0%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.Excludes those of unknown domicile.See page 39 for full citation.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 72.Nation and region This section breaks down Oxfords UK-domiciled undergraduate student total to show the regional distribution of the Universitys applicants,offer holders and admitted students.The regional distribution of admissions to Oxford reflects population size,achievement in school and application numbers.London and the South East made up 47.2%of UK applications between 2018 and 2020,and 48.3%of students admitted;the rest of the UK made up 52.8%of applications and 51.7%of students admitted.Table 2.1:Applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by UK nation and region,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDREGIONS SHARE OF AAA STUDENTS4North East 816 193 170 2.0%2.1%2.6%North West 3,314 749 656 8.1%8.1%9.4%Yorkshire&the Humber 2,012 446 396 4.9%4.9%6.5st Midlands 1,929 416 368 4.7%4.5%5.8%West Midlands 2,964 599 534 7.2%6.6%6.6stern 3,748 831 733 9.1%9.0%9.9%Greater London 10,794 2,455 2,204 26.3.2.0%South East 8,550 1,902 1,717 20.9!.2.7%South West 4,259 968 856 10.4.6%8.4%Wales 1,362 266 241 3.3%3.0%3.6%Northern Ireland 403 78 71 1.0%0.9%4.3%Scotland 811 141 130 2.0%1.6%5.2%TOTAL 40,996 9,078 8,110 Applications to Oxford by UK nation and region,20162020NATION AND REGION20162017201820192020North East244264242297277North West9721001100611261182Yorkshire and the Humber560600600704708East Midlands558542591664674West Midlands9058599419621061Eastern11521231120412711273Greater London31183252333136933770South East25752723283228692849South West12711290138914251445Wales426421440454468Northern Ireland143120131148124Scotland269280298257256FOOTNOTES4.See page 82021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 8CONTEXTStudents admitted to Oxford by UK nation and region,20162020NATION AND REGION20162017201820192020North East4959515267North West200194207220229Yorkshire and the Humber117109109149138East Midlands10712491129148West Midlands169151177151206Eastern287272251217265Greater London652656694720790South East608576578540599South West283274266268322Wales8665668590Northern Ireland2422201734Scotland4845523147Number of students achieving AAA or better at A-level,broken down by UK nation and region*NATION AND REGIONNUMBER OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING AAA OR BETTER AT A-LEVEL,BROKEN DOWN BY UK NATION AND REGION*North East895North West3,250Yorkshire and The Humber2,250East Midlands2,000West Midlands2,270East of England3,420London6,535South East6,430South West2,880Wales1,240Northern Ireland1,465Scotland1,775*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 9What proportion of students achieves AAA or better at A-level in UK nations and regions?*NATION AND REGIONWHAT PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ACHIEVES AAA OR BETTER AT A-LEVEL IN UK NATIONS AND REGIONS?*North East5.3%North West6.7%Yorkshire and The Humber6.7st Midlands6.6%West Midlands5.3st of England8.4%London7.8%South East10.2%South West8.5%Wales5.4%Northern Ireland9.9%Scotland4.5%*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 103.Disadvantage This section focuses on the backgrounds of UK-domiciled students who apply to Oxford,are made offers,and are admitted.The figures relate to differing levels of socio-economic advantage and progression to higher education across the UK,and are derived from the ACORN and POLAR5 demographic systems.ACORN is a postcode-based tool that categorises the UKs population by level of socio-economic advantage.POLAR is a similar tool that measures how likely young people are to participate in higher education based on where they live.The ACORN and POLAR systems are widely recognised measures used by the regulator to set admissions targets for universities including Oxford.These systems are explained in more detail in the glossary to this report.UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATAThe tables below show the number of applications,offers and students admitted from the two most socio-economically disadvantaged groups(ACORN categories 4 and 56)and the two groups of young people least likely to progress to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2).In 2020,15.9%of UK students admitted to Oxford came from the two most socioeconomically disadvantaged groups(ACORN categories 4 and 56).This is an increase of 7.7 percentage points from 2016.Table 3.1:Socio-economic disadvantage:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from ACORN categories 4 and 56,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDACORN 4 AND 5 PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ADMITTED72020 2,316 495 467 15.9 19 2,097 418 313 12.2 18 1,872 379 289 11.3 17 1,660 349 269 10.6 16 1,351 272 216 8.2%In 2020,15.6%of UK students admitted to Oxford were from the two groups with lowest progression to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2).This is an increase of 4.2 percentage points from 2016.Table 3.2:Areas of low progression to higher education:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPOLAR 1 AND 2 PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ADMITTED72020 2,123 478 454 15.6 19 2,079 471 355 14.0 18 1,853 404 330 13.1 17 1,702 405 324 12.9 16 1,499 352 299 11.4%FOOTNOTES 5.POLAR classification is periodically reviewed.See page 37 for classifications used in this report.6.This data includes ACORN Category 4 Financially Stretched(excluding Type 34 Student flats and halls of residence)and ACORN Category 5 Urban Adversity.7.Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 11CONTEXTLIVE IN MORE ADVANTAGED AREAS(OTHER ACORN CATEGORIES)LIVE IN LESS ADVANTAGED AREAS (ACORN CATEGORIES 4 AND 5)Breakdown of students who achieve AAA or better at A-level by socio-economic group(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*87.5.5%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)*84.1.9%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.Excludes those whose ACORN status is not known.Excludes Type 34 from ACORN category 4 Type 34 appears in other ACORN categories.See page 39 for full citation.FROM AREAS WITH GREATER LIKELI-HOOD OF PROGRESSION TO HIGHER EDUCATION(OTHER POLAR QUINTILES)FROM AREAS WITH LOWER LIKELIHOOD OF PROGRESSION TO HIGHER EDUCATION(POLAR QUINTILES 1 AND 2)Breakdown of students who achieve AAA or better at A-level,by areas with different likelihood of progression to higher education(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*85.6.4%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)*84.4.6%*Most recent available national data covers 2017 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2017/18.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.Excludes those whose POLAR status is not known.See page 39 for full citation.*Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 12DATA BY COURSEThese tables include figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.Socio-economic disadvantage UK-domiciled students from less advantaged areas(ACORN categories 4 and 56)made up between 5.3%and 26.5%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 3.3:Socio-economic disadvantage:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from ACORN categories 4 and 56 by course,three-year total 20182020ACORN 4 AND 5OTHERACORN 4 AND 5 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDBiochemistry200504288323221416.4%Biology 172 63 43 1,112 289 244 15.0%Biomedical Sciences 133 17 13 591 96 88 12.9%Chemistry 189 67 58 1,093 452 397 12.7%Classics 65 35 31 659 308 286 9.8%Computer Science 192 9 8 724 51 45 15.1rth Sciences 25 11 10 229 94 85 10.5onomics&Management 292 39 31 1,862 180 170 15.4%Engineering Science 248 64 51 1,229 356 311 14.1%English 313 101 89 2,087 621 567 13.6%Experimental Psychology 138 40 27 565 139 119 18.5%Geography 113 34 26 932 248 214 10.8%History 296 92 79 2,457 640 578 12.0%History&Politics 117 32 27 604 82 75 26.5%Law*659 126 106 2,414 433 379 21.9%Materials Science 23 9 5 196 83 77 6.1%Mathematics 536 61 50 2,512 302 284 15.0%Mathematics&Computer Science 121 9 8 490 51 51 13.6%Medicine 725 63 58 2,608 405 384 13.1%Modern Languages 109 52 42 1,014 452 410 9.3%Music 34 16 11 464 234 198 5.3%Oriental Studies 60 23 19 292 97 76 20.0%PPE*414 65 51 2,549 489 459 10.0%Physics 490 48 46 2,449 305 298 13.4%Theology and Religion 32 12 11 222 88 72 13.3%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and EconomicsFOOTNOTES 6.This data includes ACORN Category 4 Financially Stretched(excluding Type 34 Student flats and halls of residence)and ACORN Category 5 Urban Adversity.7.Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 13Areas of low progression to higher education UK-domiciled students from areas with low progression to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2)made up between 7.9%and 24.4%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 3.4:Areas of low progression to higher education:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 by course,three-year total 20182020POLAR 1 AND 2OTHERPOLAR 1 AND 2 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDBiochemistry 172 57 52 898 223 202 20.5%Biology 172 64 43 1,097 284 241 15.1%Biomedical Sciences 133 22 19 584 91 82 18.8%Chemistry 201 84 75 1,065 427 375 16.7%Classics 67 36 32 648 306 284 10.1%Computer Science 175 11 10 729 49 43 18.9rth Sciences 32 20 17 220 84 77 18.1onomics&Management 229 34 28 1,889 181 171 14.1%Engineering Science 218 59 45 1,244 354 310 12.7%English 349 111 97 2,017 603 554 14.9%Experimental Psychology 121 35 29 576 142 115 20.1%Geography 106 26 19 931 256 221 7.9%History 287 76 67 2,436 652 587 10.2%History&Politics 104 24 21 602 89 80 20.8%Law*655 114 94 2,366 439 385 19.6%Materials Science 27 12 8 189 78 72 10.0%Mathematics 519 58 52 2,490 301 278 15.8%Mathematics&Computer Science 112 11 10 495 49 49 16.9%Medicine 638 70 61 2,640 394 377 13.9%Modern Languages 110 52 44 999 447 403 9.8%Music 47 26 21 444 223 187 10.1%Oriental Studies 39 17 12 308 103 83 12.6%PPE*370 74 61 2,550 476 445 12.1%Physics 514 44 43 2,392 305 297 12.6%Theology and Religion 41 25 20 208 74 62 24.4%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and EconomicsFOOTNOTE 7.Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 14DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThe following tables and similar tables throughout this report include figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.Note:Oxfords colleges vary in size and subject provision,admitting between around 50 and 120 UK-domiciled students each year.Permanent Private Halls(which have a different status to colleges and generally admit small numbers of students for a limited range of courses)and Harris Manchester College(which admits only mature students)have been excluded.Application numbers to individual colleges vary year on year,as does the prior academic achievement of those applicants,which can lead to fluctuations in admissions figures between colleges and among particular groups of students.Applicants to a particular college may be reallocated and eventually admitted to another college as part of Oxfords admissions process.An explanation of this system appears on page 38.Socio-economic disadvantage From 2018 to 2020,the proportion of admitted students from less advantaged areas(ACORN categories 4 and 56)ranged by college from 5.9%to 19.2%Table 3.5:Socio-economic disadvantage:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from ACORN categories 4 and 56 by college,three-year total 20182020ACORN 4 and 5OtherACORN 4&5 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 239 37 34 1,311 239 222 13.3%Brasenose College 310 46 37 2,320 261 241 13.3%Christ Church 229 43 37 1,291 302 271 12.0%Corpus Christi College 119 39 34 588 159 144 19.1%Exeter College 121 38 31 1,095 238 219 12.4%Hertford College 218 58 47 1,180 291 262 15.2%Jesus College 181 40 35 1,028 258 234 13.0%Keble College 319 49 41 2,145 340 300 12.0%Lady Margaret Hall 339 61 55 1,143 278 248 18.2%Lincoln College 152 16 13 888 228 206 5.9%Magdalen College 239 42 37 1,276 252 224 14.2%Mansfield College 150 50 38 647 183 160 19.2%Merton College 159 28 23 1,049 199 185 11.1%New College 177 40 35 1,342 313 291 10.7%Oriel College 149 28 20 838 205 191 9.5%Pembroke College 191 47 40 1,178 251 222 15.3%Somerville College 206 47 35 966 308 278 11.2%St Annes College 177 55 45 969 303 267 14.4%St Catherines College 278 57 44 1,331 339 302 12.7%St Edmund Hall 152 32 31 850 247 222 12.3%St Hildas College 168 35 28 688 273 248 10.1%St Hughs College 183 35 29 814 294 256 10.2%St Johns College 348 50 39 1,481 255 229 14.6%St Peters College 128 35 27 890 225 207 11.5%The Queens College 152 34 27 1,007 235 210 11.4%Trinity College 165 37 28 878 207 192 12.7%University College 230 45 36 1,073 254 236 13.2%Wadham College 272 56 49 1,253 318 280 14.9%Worcester College 409 63 57 2,564 285 273 17.3%University total(201820)8 6,285 1,292 1,069 34,474 7,728 6,983 13.3%FOOTNOTES 6.This data includes ACORN Category 4 Financially Stretched(excluding Type 34 Student flats and halls of residence)and ACORN Category 5 Urban Adversity.7.Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 15Areas of low progression to higher education From 2018 to 2020,the proportion of admitted students from areas with low progression to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2)ranged by college from 9.6%to 21.3%Table 3.6:Areas of low progression to higher education:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 by college,three-year total 20182020POLAR 1 AND 2OTHERPOLAR 1 AND 2 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 224 47 44 1,304 228 211 17.3%Brasenose College 395 54 45 2,209 253 233 16.2%Christ Church 204 45 36 1,292 296 269 11.8%Corpus Christi College 100 31 30 593 163 144 17.2%Exeter College 126 30 24 1,074 243 225 9.6%Hertford College 205 52 40 1,177 292 265 13.1%Jesus College 201 47 40 993 251 229 14.9%Keble College 353 60 48 2,076 324 289 14.2%Lady Margaret Hall 274 52 44 1,196 283 256 14.7%Lincoln College 141 27 22 883 214 194 10.2%Magdalen College 239 52 44 1,256 241 216 16.9%Mansfield College 141 52 42 646 180 155 21.3%Merton College 180 40 37 1,009 184 168 18.0%New College 166 48 43 1,340 302 281 13.3%Oriel College 136 35 29 845 198 182 13.7%Pembroke College 166 42 31 1,181 254 230 11.9%Somerville College 165 38 30 993 314 280 9.7%St Annes College 196 53 48 928 303 262 15.5%St Catherines College 261 60 49 1,326 331 294 14.3%St Edmund Hall 147 36 32 843 239 217 12.9%St Hildas College 146 43 36 694 264 239 13.1%St Hughs College 150 49 34 829 277 248 12.1%St Johns College 312 44 38 1,498 258 227 14.3%St Peters College 117 27 22 876 225 205 9.7%The Queens College 136 27 24 1,010 240 211 10.2%Trinity College 158 40 32 866 199 183 14.9%University College 235 66 56 1,044 232 215 20.7%Wadham College 240 55 48 1,271 316 278 14.7%Worcester College 444 59 56 2,499 287 273 17.0%University total(201820)8 6,055 1,353 1,139 34,163 7,584 6,842 14.3%FOOTNOTES 7.Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 164.School type This section shows the number of UK-domiciled students applying to,receiving offers from and admitted to Oxford by the type of school they attended:state or independent.UK-domiciled students applying from other types of school have been excluded from the tables below.This is because the group is small,constituting only 4.2%of applications(1,736)between 2018 and 2020,and includes students from overseas or unknown schools,making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from the numbers.UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATA The proportion of students admitted to Oxford from the UK state sector has risen for the past four years,reaching 68.6%in 2020.This is the highest figure since the University began recording detailed admissions statistics.The proportion of UK students admitted from the independent sector has decreased in each of the past four years.Table 4.1:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by school type,20162020STATEINDEPENDENTSTATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED9APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED2020 9,411 2,021 1,937 4,060 902 886 68.6 19 8,914 1,908 1,557 4,403 1,050 942 62.3 18 8,207 1,789 1,502 4,265 1,069 981 60.5 17 7,765 1,683 1,431 4,242 1,148 1,029 58.2 16 7,454 1,718 1,483 4,213 1,188 1,075 58.0%CONTEXTSTATEINDEPENDENT/OTHERBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level by school type(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*76.7#.3%STATEINDEPENDENT/OTHERBreakdown of students achieving A*A*A or better at A-level by school type(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*73.4&.6%STATEINDEPENDENT/OTHEROxford University(2020 UK intake)968.61.4%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.Excludes unknown school type.See page 39 for full citation.FOOTNOTE 9.Excluding students whose education cannot be classified as either state or independent.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 17DATA BY COURSEThis table includes figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.State-educated UK students represented between 35.6%and 83.9%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Some courses attract more applications per available place than others,and UK state students apply disproportionately for the most oversubscribed subjects.On average,37.7%of state applications between 2018 and 2020 were for five of the most oversubscribed subjects at Oxford(Economics&Management,Medicine,PPE*,Law*,and Mathematics),compared with 31.0%of independent applications.In contrast,18.8%of independent applications were for five of the least oversubscribed subjects(Classics,Music,Modern Languages,Chemistry,and English),compared with 13.0%of state applications.Table 4.2:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by school type and course,three-year total 20182020STATEINDEPENDENTSTATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED9APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBiochemistry 732 192 168 314 85 83 66.9%Biology 806 224 175 429 114 98 64.1%Biomedical Sciences 502 74 64 199 37 35 64.6%Chemistry 856 326 277 411 186 172 61.7%Classics 240 126 108 455 203 195 35.6%Computer Science 719 39 35 160 19 16 68.6rth Sciences 178 81 71 74 24 24 74.7onomics&Management 1,266 132 119 823 82 77 60.7%Engineering Science 953 252 212 493 160 143 59.7%English 1,490 467 415 799 220 208 66.6%Experimental Psychology 500 128 102 172 44 39 72.3%Geography 601 188 157 431 92 82 65.7%History 1,603 466 411 1,077 244 227 64.4%History&Politics 500 81 74 204 29 25 74.7%Law*2,231 401 344 616 125 112 75.4%Materials Science 141 66 58 77 26 24 70.7%Mathematics 2,415 285 258 583 73 71 78.4%Mathematics&Computer Science 488 48 47 99 9 9 83.9%Medicine 2,310 331 312 903 134 127 71.1%Modern Languages 582 274 237 523 221 208 53.3%Music 271 137 111 210 105 91 55.0%Oriental Studies 196 71 52 138 46 41 55.9%PPE*1,790 341 307 1,020 192 185 62.4%Physics 2,255 248 239 623 95 95 71.6%Theology and Religion 111 53 44 121 40 35 55.7%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics FOOTNOTE 9.Excluding students whose education cannot be classified as either state or independent.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 18DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThis table includes figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.Individual colleges receive varying numbers and proportions of applicants from the state and independent sectors.For some colleges,this split is close to 50:50,while others receive several times more applications from state-educated students.The state-educated share of UK students admitted to Oxford ranged by college from 54.0%to 94.4%from 2018 to 2020.Table 4.3:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by school type and college,three-year total 20182020STATEINDEPENDENTSTATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED9APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 1,070 174 162 424 97 89 64.5%Brasenose College 1,768 221 196 802 80 76 72.1%Christ Church 896 187 163 553 152 139 54.0%Corpus Christi College 464 113 103 219 76 67 60.6%Exeter College 628 158 140 540 102 95 59.6%Hertford College 991 258 225 365 83 76 74.8%Jesus College 801 170 151 360 114 104 59.2%Keble College 1,549 241 210 863 135 121 63.4%Lady Margaret Hall 1,087 234 206 349 98 90 69.6%Lincoln College 625 143 123 393 100 95 56.4%Magdalen College 992 179 156 452 112 102 60.5%Mansfield College 694 218 186 89 13 11 94.4%Merton College 863 147 132 312 74 70 65.3%New College 848 198 180 614 147 139 56.4%Oriel College 582 141 123 371 83 79 60.9%Pembroke College 748 174 148 581 117 107 58.0%Somerville College 800 236 200 328 112 106 65.4%St Annes College 814 250 214 281 94 86 71.3%St Catherines College 1,117 260 221 443 131 122 64.4%St Edmund Hall 566 168 146 381 102 99 59.6%St Hildas College 574 189 163 247 109 103 61.3%St Hughs College 627 189 162 305 135 122 57.0%St Johns College 1,290 192 161 465 101 96 62.6%St Peters College 567 143 127 423 112 103 55.2%The Queens College 645 154 132 478 107 97 57.6%Trinity College 643 149 128 379 91 89 59.0%University College 858 210 185 396 84 83 69.0%Wadham College 1,156 266 227 316 100 94 70.7%Worcester College 2,028 252 240 900 89 83 74.3%University total(201820)8 26,532 5,718 4,996 12,728 3,021 2,809 64.0%FOOTNOTES 8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.9.Excluding students whose education cannot be classified as either state or independent.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 195.Gender This section breaks down Oxfords group of UK-domiciled applicants,offer holders and admitted students by gender declared on application10.UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATA The female proportion of UK-domiciled undergraduate students admitted to Oxford has risen over the past five admissions cycles.In 2018,2019 and 2020 Oxford admitted more UK-domiciled female undergraduates than male.Table 5.1:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by gender,20162020FEMALEMALEFEMALE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED2020 7,110 1,661 1,598 6,992 1,398 1,352 54.2 19 7,145 1,678 1,407 6,736 1,381 1,183 54.3 18 6,342 1,543 1,317 6,671 1,417 1,253 51.2 17 6,144 1,507 1,280 6,452 1,434 1,280 50.0 16 6,009 1,478 1,285 6,200 1,527 1,361 48.6%CONTEXTBreakdown of students at UK universities by gender(2018 UK intake)*Breakdown of students at UK universitites by gender(all UK universities,2018 intake)*FEMALEMALEAll UK Universities57.0B.9%Russell Group55.1D.8%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)FEMALEMALEOxford University(2020 UK intake)54.2E.8MALEMALEBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level by gender(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*51.5H.4%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.sOther gender:percentages are too small to represent in diagram.FOOTNOTE 10.This report uses the binary male/female options from the UCAS application,which may not reflect the gender identity of all applicants.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 20DATA BY COURSEThis table includes figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.The female-to-male ratio of applications varies by course.This is reflected in the wide variations by course in the proportion of UK-domiciled female students admitted.This proportion ranged from 13.6%to 74.3tween 2018 and 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 5.2:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by gender and course,three-year total 20182020FEMALEMALEFEMALE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBiochemistry 626 165 151 458 117 105 59.0%Biology 792 223 179 494 129 108 62.4%Biomedical Sciences 532 83 75 193 30 26 74.3%Chemistry 572 217 179 715 304 278 39.2%Classics 407 194 177 320 151 142 55.5%Computer Science 144 11 9 773 49 44 17.0rth Sciences 134 56 51 122 49 44 53.7onomics&Management 658 68 63 1,509 153 140 31.0%Engineering Science 368 113 98 1,123 309 266 26.9%English 1,882 532 483 525 191 174 73.5%Experimental Psychology 552 130 104 154 49 42 71.2%Geography 657 179 159 394 104 82 66.0%History 1,456 413 371 1,314 322 289 56.2%History&Politics 342 65 59 387 49 43 57.8%Law*2,022 350 306 1,068 211 181 62.8%Materials Science 81 38 32 140 55 51 38.6%Mathematics 967 101 91 2,101 263 244 27.2%Mathematics&Computer Science 125 8 8 491 52 51 13.6%Medicine 2,096 286 273 1,252 184 171 61.5%Modern Languages 740 346 307 388 159 146 67.8%Music 252 121 100 250 130 110 47.6%Oriental Studies 206 71 54 149 50 42 56.3%PPE*1,044 222 202 1,935 332 308 39.6%Physics 744 71 69 2,204 282 275 20.1%Theology and Religion 152 71 60 135 61 55 52.2%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 21DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThis table includes figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.From 2018 to 2020,the proportion of UK-domiciled female students admitted to Oxford ranged by college from 46.6%to 61.6%.Table 5.3:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by gender and college,three-year total 20182020FEMALEMALEFEMALE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 715 136 126 842 141 131 49.0%Brasenose College 1,449 165 148 1,192 142 130 53.2%Christ Church 719 173 148 808 173 161 47.9%Corpus Christi College 329 100 88 380 99 91 49.2%Exeter College 692 161 145 530 115 105 58.0%Hertford College 661 194 173 747 155 136 56.0%Jesus College 561 144 126 655 154 143 46.8%Keble College 1,068 183 160 1,407 208 183 46.6%Lady Margaret Hall 970 208 184 520 131 119 60.7%Lincoln College 545 129 116 502 115 103 53.0%Magdalen College 829 154 137 699 143 127 51.9%Mansfield College 401 135 112 400 99 87 56.3%Merton College 605 128 115 608 99 93 55.3%New College 807 181 168 716 172 158 51.5%Oriel College 466 114 100 526 120 112 47.2%Pembroke College 658 151 129 717 147 133 49.2%Somerville College 613 199 176 566 158 139 55.9%St Annes College 547 206 181 603 152 131 58.0%St Catherines College 705 186 162 911 211 185 46.7%St Edmund Hall 492 143 127 515 137 127 50.0%St Hildas College 476 190 169 393 120 109 60.8%St Hughs College 489 177 156 511 155 132 54.2%St Johns College 855 164 142 980 142 127 52.8%St Peters College 497 130 117 532 132 119 49.6%The Queens College 663 168 146 503 101 91 61.6%Trinity College 477 119 106 572 126 115 48.0%University College 681 171 153 629 129 120 56.0%Wadham College 883 220 194 645 154 135 59.0%Worcester College 1,504 209 195 1,482 140 136 58.9%University total(201820)8 20,597 4,882 4,322 20,399 4,196 3,788 53.3%FOOTNOTE8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 226.Ethnicity This section sets out what is known about the ethnicity of UK-domiciled applicants to Oxford.5.2%of UK-domiciled applicants(2,139 students between 2018 and 2020)choose not to declare their ethnicity in their UCAS application.It is therefore not possible to make any statements in relation to their ethnicity and admissions status,and for that reason they have not been included in the tables below.UK-domiciled Black and Minority Ethnic(BME)students include those who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Black(including African,Caribbean and other Black background),Asian(including Bangladeshi,Indian,Pakistani,Chinese and other Asian background),Mixed Heritage(including White&Asian,White&Black African,White&Black Caribbean and other Mixed background),Arab or any other ethnicity except White.CONTEXTThe following graphics provide context for Oxfords figures,showing the BME share of the England and Wales population,the A-level achievement of BME students,and the proportion of BME students in different parts of the UK university sector.Note:Figures for the 2018/19 academic year(2018 intake)are the most recent available from HESA and have therefore been used in these graphics.The most recent figures available for Oxford are for the 2020/21 academic year(2020 intake).WHITEBMEEngland and Wales population now aged 18 to 24*80.6.4%WHITE WHITE PROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTSBMEBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTSBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level by ethnicity(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*77.4&,33522.6%7,710OTHER (INCLUDING MIXED)OTHER PROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTSASIANASIAN PROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTSBLACKBLACK PROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTSBreakdown of BME students achieving AAA or better6.6%2,24513.9%4,7302.2s5Breakdown of students at UK universities by ethnicity(2018 UK intake)*WHITE BMEAll UK Universities73.1&.9%Russell Group76.3#.7%Russell Group Outside London80.9.1%Oxford76.4#.6%*2011 UK census.Source:Office for National Statistics.*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.*Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 23UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATABME students The number of UK-domiciled BME applicants to Oxford has increased since 2016,as have the numbers of students receiving offers and being admitted.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as BME has risen from 15.8%in 2016 to 23.6%in 2020.Table 6.1:UK-domiciled BME students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20162020BME STUDENTSWHITE STUDENTSBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED2020 4,024 706 684 9,509 2,293 2,214 23.6 19 3,596 669 558 9,583 2,306 1,978 22.0 18 3,097 551 457 9,048 2,305 2,045 18.3 17 2,899 519 446 8,921 2,324 2,057 17.8 16 2,547 492 411 8,917 2,441 2,194 15.8%Asian students Since 2016,applications from UK-domiciled Asian students have been increasing annually,as have offers received and students admitted.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Asian has risen from 7.2%in 2016 to 9.6%in 2020.Table 6.2:UK-domiciled Asian students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED112020 2,135 289 277 9.6 19 1,901 279 243 9.6 18 1,687 249 208 8.3 17 1,539 241 206 8.2 16 1,326 227 188 7.2%WHITE/OTHER BMEASIANBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*86.1.9%Breakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2018 UK intake)*90.2%9.8%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)1190.4%9.6%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.FOOTNOTE 11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 24Bangladeshi and Pakistani students Since 2016,the numbers of UK-domiciled Bangladeshi and Pakistani students applying to Oxford,being made offers and being admitted have risen substantially.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Bangladeshi or Pakistani rose from 1.4%in 2016 to 2.0%in 2020.Note:Within the British Asian group,Bangladeshi and Pakistani students are considered under-represented at highly selective universities,hence their inclusion as a separate group at University level in this report.Table 6.3:UK-domiciled Bangladeshi and Pakistani students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11202061866592.0 1953267532.0 1844352411.6 1738455431.7 1629948361.4%WHITE/OTHER BMEBANGLADESHI/PAKISTANIBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*96.3%3.7%Breakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2018 UK intake)*96.8%3.2%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)1198.0%2.0%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.Students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 The numbers of UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage applying to Oxford,receiving offers and being admitted have increased from 2016 to 2020.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Black has risen from 1.3%in 2016 to 3.7%in 2020.Table 6.4:UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED1120205641091063.7 19498107803.2 1842486652.6 1739665481.9 1632854341.3%WHITE/OTHER BMEBLACKBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*97.8%2.2%Breakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2018 UK intake)*96.8%3.2%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)1196.3%3.7%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.footnotes11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12.This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 25Mixed Heritage students The number of UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage applicants to Oxford has risen since 2016,as have the numbers of students receiving offers and being admitted.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Mixed Heritage rose from 6.4%in 2016 to 8.8%in 2020.Table 6.5:UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20162020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED112020 1,053 262 256 8.8 19 969 247 206 8.1 18 816 191 162 6.5 17 768 180 164 6.6 16 733 186 167 6.4%WHITE/OTHER BMEMIXEDBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2018 UK intake)*94.8%5.2%Breakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2018 UK intake)*95.0%5.0%Oxford University(2020 UK intake)1191.2%8.8%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.FOOTNOTE 11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 26DATA BY COURSEThe following tables include figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.BME students In general,students from BME backgrounds are more likely to apply for the most competitive courses than White students.For example,between 2018 and 2020 34.0%of applications from UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 and 26.1%of total UK-domiciled BME applications were for two courses:Medicine and Law*.By comparison,these courses attracted 12.0%of applications from UK-domiciled White students.UK-domiciled BME students made up between 12.5%and 36.5%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Application numbers vary widely between courses,both in the broad BME group and within individual ethnic groups.Applications from UK-domiciled BME students ranged from 43 to 1,740 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 6.6:UK-domiciled BME students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20182020BME STUDENTSWHITE STUDENTSBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBiochemistry 261 52 48 785 225 206 18.9%Biology 211 55 46 1,010 287 235 16.4%Biomedical Sciences 189 16 13 506 96 87 13.0%Chemistry 286 105 88 958 409 362 19.6%Classics 120 63 57 553 271 253 18.4%Computer Science 325 12 11 552 47 41 21.2rth Sciences 45 14 13 206 89 80 14.0onomics&Management 828 74 66 1,219 138 131 33.5%Engineering Science 484 112 100 940 299 258 27.9%English 366 117 105 1,886 584 536 16.4%Experimental Psychology 165 39 28 514 138 117 19.3%Geography 170 47 40 838 231 198 16.8%History 431 137 119 2,163 575 526 18.4%History&Politics 136 30 27 547 82 73 27.0%Law*1,058 170 147 1,899 379 333 30.6%Materials Science 74 27 23 139 65 59 28.0%Mathematics 798 84 75 2,152 272 256 22.7%Mathematics&Computer Science 202 16 16 377 42 41 28.1%Medicine 1,740 172 159 1,490 290 277 36.5%Modern Languages 169 87 72 904 405 369 16.3%Music 64 35 27 404 207 178 13.2%Oriental Studies 105 38 31 226 78 64 32.6%PPE*870 125 116 1,868 402 376 23.6%Physics 619 63 62 2,213 281 274 18.5%Theology and Religion 43 16 14 221 111 98 12.5%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics FOOTNOTES 11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12.This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 27Asian students UK-domiciled Asian students made up between 3.2%and 20.8%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.46.5%of applications from UK-domiciled Asian students from 2018 to 2020 were for four highly competitive courses:Medicine,Law*,Economics&Management,and Mathematics.Table 6.7:UK-domiciled Asian students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Biochemistry 132 20 17 6.7%Biology 93 24 18 6.4%Biomedical Sciences 109 6 5 5.0%Chemistry 162 52 45 10.0%Classics 44 25 24 7.7%Computer Science 198 5 5 9.6rth Sciences 27 8 7 7.5onomics&Management 562 45 41 20.8%Engineering Science 292 53 49 13.7%English 133 32 29 4.5%Experimental Psychology 77 15 12 8.3%Geography 82 19 14 5.9%History 168 46 38 5.9%History&Politics 55 11 11 11.0%Law*514 90 78 16.3%Materials Science 49 15 13 15.9%Mathematics 507 47 43 13.0%Mathematics&Computer Science 126 7 7 12.3%Medicine 1,080 93 83 19.0%Modern Languages 39 16 14 3.2%Music 16 9 8 3.9%Oriental Studies 43 12 10 10.5%PPE*434 50 49 10.0%Physics 359 33 32 9.5%Theology and Religion 16 6 6 5.4%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics FOOTNOTE 11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 28Students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage comprised up to 6.0%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.34.0%of applications from UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage from 2018 to 2020 were for two highly competitive courses:Medicine and Law*.By comparison,these courses attracted 12.0%of applications from UK-domiciled White students.Six of Oxfords 25 largest courses each received ten applications or fewer from students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage from 2018 to 2020,and as a result admitted only very small numbers.Table 6.8:UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Biochemistry36993.5%Biology14210.4%Biomedical Sciences21211.0%Chemistry3112102.2%Classics151192.9%Computer Science47335.8rth Sciences3111.1onomics&Management10714115.6%Engineering Science6020174.7%English5019142.2%Experimental Psychology271064.1%Geography9210.4%History6425213.3%History&Politics23544.0%Law*21531255.2%Materials Science8644.9%Mathematics70651.5%Mathematics&Computer Science27111.8%Medicine29027266.0%Modern Languages1915112.5%Music6421.0%Oriental Studies9433.2%PPE*14926234.7%Physics47330.9%Theology and Religion10543.6%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and EconomicsFOOTNOTES 11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12.This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 29Mixed Heritage students UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students made up between 3.6%and 16.8%of UK intakes from 2018 to 2020 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 6.9:UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Biochemistry6920197.5%Biology9127258.9%Biomedical Sciences51766.0%Chemistry7532276.0%Classics5925227.1%Computer Science64435.8rth Sciences13555.4onomics&Management12314136.6%Engineering Science11033298.1%English15558548.4%Experimental Psychology561296.2%Geography7021208.4%History16653497.6%History&Politics47121111.0%Law*24242377.7%Materials Science15556.1%Mathematics18528257.6%Mathematics&Computer Science376610.5%Medicine25441398.9%Modern Languages102534410.0%Music3921167.8%Oriental Studies49201616.8%PPE*21639357.1%Physics17724247.1%Theology and Religion15543.6%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and EconomicsFOOTNOTE 11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 30DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThe following tables include figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2018 to 2020.BME students UK-domiciled BME students made up between 17.0%and 30.1%of colleges UK intakes from 2018 to 2020.Table 6.10:UK-domiciled BME students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20182020BME STUDENTSWHITE STUDENTSBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 411 64 57 1,062 204 193 22.8%Brasenose College 548 52 49 1,962 246 225 17.9%Christ Church 428 79 71 1,010 258 234 23.3%Corpus Christi College 177 42 39 497 148 134 22.5%Exeter College 237 56 49 921 212 195 20.1%Hertford College 348 80 69 1,006 265 237 22.5%Jesus College 317 66 60 840 226 204 22.7%Keble College 717 90 82 1,638 290 254 24.4%Lady Margaret Hall 474 83 74 950 250 227 24.6%Lincoln College 244 42 36 730 194 176 17.0%Magdalen College 347 58 52 1,103 227 203 20.4%Mansfield College 201 58 50 561 173 148 25.3%Merton College 238 38 36 903 185 170 17.5%New College 355 68 60 1,073 275 257 18.9%Oriel College 266 51 44 666 176 161 21.5%Pembroke College 388 66 54 909 227 205 20.8%Somerville College 324 60 52 792 285 253 17.0%St Annes College 331 89 73 779 266 237 23.5%St Catherines College 495 88 78 1,045 301 265 22.7%St Edmund Hall 265 56 50 684 216 200 20.0%St Hildas College 266 57 48 564 243 222 17.8%St Hughs College 306 62 54 650 260 225 19.4%St Johns College 520 63 55 1,220 231 204 21.2%St Peters College 288 77 69 680 178 160 30.1%The Queens College 306 55 46 801 206 186 19.8%Trinity College 289 50 41 701 187 175 19.0%University College 353 57 56 879 235 212 20.9%Wadham College 446 92 79 1,010 271 244 24.5%Worcester College 685 73 71 2,149 268 252 22.0%University total(201820)8 10,717 1,926 1,699 28,140 6,904 6,237 21.4%FOOTNOTES8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 31Asian students UK-domiciled Asian students made up between 6.6%and 13.5%of colleges UK intakes from 2018 to 2020.Table 6.11:UK-domiciled Asian students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Balliol College 237 24 21 8.4%Brasenose College 276 23 22 8.0%Christ Church 220 37 34 11.1%Corpus Christi College 87 18 16 9.2%Exeter College 108 20 16 6.6%Hertford College 189 41 34 11.1%Jesus College 159 30 28 10.6%Keble College 412 48 43 12.8%Lady Margaret Hall 256 33 30 10.0%Lincoln College 148 19 18 8.5%Magdalen College 178 25 23 9.0%Mansfield College 102 27 24 12.1%Merton College 129 20 19 9.2%New College 200 24 22 6.9%Oriel College 155 22 18 8.8%Pembroke College 218 32 27 10.4%Somerville College 184 24 20 6.6%St Annes College 172 37 28 9.0%St Catherines College 259 33 30 8.7%St Edmund Hall 152 25 25 10.0%St Hildas College 148 23 20 7.4%St Hughs College 183 29 27 9.7%St Johns College 246 21 20 7.7%St Peters College 146 32 31 13.5%The Queens College 184 24 18 7.8%Trinity College 165 26 21 9.7%University College 189 20 19 7.1%Wadham College 202 37 33 10.2%Worcester College 353 27 26 8.0%University total(201820)8 5,723 817 728 9.2%FOOTNOTES 8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 32Students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage made up between 1.5%and 5.6%of colleges UK intakes from 2018 to 2020.Table 6.12:UK-domiciled Black students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Balliol College 48 13 9 3.6%Brasenose College 67 8 7 2.6%Christ Church 55 8 8 2.6%Corpus Christi College 25 7 7 4.0%Exeter College 28 14 11 4.5%Hertford College 44 7 6 2.0%Jesus College 49 6 6 2.3%Keble College 105 15 13 3.9%Lady Margaret Hall 95 21 17 5.6%Lincoln College 29 6 4 1.9%Magdalen College 37 10 9 3.5%Mansfield College 28 9 7 3.5%Merton College 18 4 4 1.9%New College 31 10 8 2.5%Oriel College 30 10 8 3.9%Pembroke College 53 9 8 3.1%Somerville College 42 9 9 3.0%St Annes College 59 13 11 3.5%St Catherines College 89 15 12 3.5%St Edmund Hall 40 7 6 2.4%St Hildas College 38 5 4 1.5%St Hughs College 47 9 8 2.9%St Johns College 82 8 7 2.7%St Peters College 41 14 11 4.8%The Queens College 23 5 5 2.2%Trinity College 31 6 4 1.9%University College 44 12 12 4.5%Wadham College 81 16 10 3.1%Worcester College 99 12 11 3.4%University total(201820)8 1,486 302 251 3.2%FOOTNOTES 8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12.This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 33Mixed Heritage students UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students made up between 5.3%and 10.9%of colleges UK intakes from 2018 to 2020.Table 6.13:UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Balliol College 101 23 23 9.2%Brasenose College 169 20 19 6.9%Christ Church 122 28 24 7.9%Corpus Christi College 55 16 15 8.7%Exeter College 84 19 19 7.8%Hertford College 103 30 27 8.8%Jesus College 89 26 22 8.3%Keble College 164 22 22 6.5%Lady Margaret Hall 93 22 20 6.6%Lincoln College 51 17 14 6.6%Magdalen College 99 19 17 6.7%Mansfield College 53 18 15 7.6%Merton College 80 12 11 5.3%New College 98 29 26 8.2%Oriel College 68 18 17 8.3%Pembroke College 98 21 15 5.8%Somerville College 77 22 19 6.2%St Annes College 81 37 32 10.3%St Catherines College 123 37 33 9.6%St Edmund Hall 55 20 15 6.0%St Hildas College 60 25 21 7.8%St Hughs College 61 21 16 5.7%St Johns College 145 29 25 9.7%St Peters College 75 28 25 10.9%The Queens College 82 21 19 8.2%Trinity College 78 17 15 6.9%University College 93 20 20 7.5%Wadham College 144 33 31 9.6%Worcester College 199 29 29 9.0%University total(201820)8 2,838 700 624 7.9%FOOTNOTES 8.Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11.Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 347.Disability This section sets out the number and proportion of UK-domiciled students who declare a disability on application to Oxford.The number of students declaring a disability on application,the number of those students receiving offers and the number being admitted,has been increasing year on year since 2016.In 2020,10.4%of admitted students had declared a disability on application,3.2 percentage points higher than in 2016.Table 7.1:UK-domiciled students declaring a disability,20162020DISABILITYNO KNOWN DISABILITYPROPORTION DECLARING A DISABILITY OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED2020 1,519 325 307 12,583 2,734 2,643 10.4 19 1,349 303 245 12,532 2,756 2,345 9.5 18 1,202 291 238 11,811 2,669 2,332 9.3 17 1,083 241 199 11,513 2,700 2,361 7.8 16 931 226 191 11,278 2,779 2,455 7.2%Table 7.2:UK-domiciled students declaring a disability by category of disability,three-year total 20182020APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAutistic spectrum disorder 436 107 95 1.2%Blind/partial sight 59 21 19 0.2af/partial hearing 76 18 18 0.2%Learning difficulty*1,370 280 240 3.0%Longstanding illness 319 74 66 0.8%Mental health 898 202 167 2.1%Multiple disabilities 306 81 65 0.8%Other disability 503 108 93 1.1%Wheelchair/mobility 103 28 27 0.3%Total with declared disability 4,070 919 790 9.7%No declared disability 36,926 8,159 7,320 90.3%Total 40,996 9,078 8,110 100.0%*including dyslexia,dyspraxia and ADHDCONTEXTBreakdown of students at UK universities by disability statusNO KNOWN DISABILITYDISABILITY All UK Universities84.0.0%Russell Group86.0.0%NO KNOWN DISABILITYDISABILITY Oxford University(2020 UK intake)89.6.4%*Most recent available national data covers 2018 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 35Glossary ACORNACORN is a postcode-based tool that categorises the UKs population by level of socio-economic advantage.ACORN uses a range of data such as accommodation type,household income,population density and lifestyle habits to produce estimates of the characteristics of each individual household and postcode.Category 4 is described as financially stretched;category 5 as urban adversity.Both groups are characterised by lower-than-average household incomes.ACORN categories 4 and 5 represent around 12.5%of UK students achieving three A grades or better at A-level at UK universities*.AdmittedStudents admitted refers to students who have been made an offer of a place at Oxford,met any conditions of that offer,and indicated that they intend to take up their place.ApplicationsApplications refers to students who submit a UCAS application by the 15 October deadline for an undergraduate course at Oxford.Applications by collegeIn tables that feature application numbers by college,the figures include those applicants who indicated a college of preference on their application,and anyone who made an open application who was then allocated to that college.Applicants considered by one college may still receive an offer from another college.CollegesOxford University is made up of over 30 colleges and halls.It is these colleges that admit undergraduate students to the University.All colleges have signed up to a Common Framework for Admissions which means the same application process for each course at every college.The colleges work together during the admissions process to ensure that the best applicants are successful,regardless of the college that initially considers their application.Most colleges offer most courses but the exact mix and the number of places on each course does vary between colleges.For more information about colleges,please see ox.ac.uk/ugcolls.CoursesCourses refers to Oxfords undergraduate degree programmes.Students apply for these courses through UCAS.Some of these courses are in single subjects(eg History or Geography),while others are joint courses combining two or more subjects(eg Mathematics and Computer Science).Most courses are three or four years long and lead to a BA Honours degree or a Masters degree(eg MEarthSci or MMath).For more information,please see ox.ac.uk/courses.DisabilityData in this report refer to disabilities that students have declared on their UCAS application.Students may also declare disabilities at later stages of the application process,or at any point during their course.For more information about the support available to disabled students,please see ox.ac.uk/disability.*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 36DisadvantageOxford uses various measures of disadvantage when considering applications,from various sources of available data.The main measures are:Educational disadvantage,which looks at the average performance of schools at GCSE and A-level.Socio-economic disadvantage,which looks at ACORN and POLAR data for the applicants home postcode.Oxford is also aware of students who have been in care,based on information provided in the UCAS application.For more information,please see ox.ac.uk/context.DomicileA students domicile refers to their country of permanent residence,as provided on their UCAS application.This is not necessarily their nationality,but it is the country where they usually live.For example,UK-domiciled students includes students with non-British nationality who are permanently resident in the UK(not just here for the purposes of education).It does not include UK students who live permanently outside the UK.EthnicityEthnicity refers to the ethnic origin of UK students,as declared on the UCAS application.Our data includes only those applicants who have indicated their ethnicity,so it does not include those who choose not to say(5.2%of applicants in the three years 2018-2020).Ethnicity data is not available to universities during the admissions process:UCAS shares this data after all the admissions decisions have been made.Gender This report uses the binary female/male options from the UCAS application,which may not reflect the gender identity of all applicants.The University welcomes students who wish to take,or have taken,steps to change the gender identity they were assigned at birth,and those who do not identify with a permanent binary gender identity.For more information,please see https:/edu.admin.ox.ac.uk/transgender.OffersApplications to Oxford are all considered together,and then shortlisted applicants are invited to interview.Around a third of those who are interviewed are then made an offer of a place.Most offers have conditions attached,such as achieving a particular set of grades at A-level,as specified for an applicants chosen course.Offers in this report includes all those students who receive an offer.The number of offers for any particular college may be higher than their application numbers as students may be moved between colleges during the application process.This is to ensure that the best applicants are successful,regardless of the college that initially considers their application.Open applicationApplicants can indicate a college of preference when they complete their UCAS application or they can make an open application.Open applicants are then allocated to a college.After this allocation,colleges review all their applications in exactly the same way:they make no distinction between direct and open applicants.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 37POLARPOLAR is a postcode-based tool that measures how likely young people are to participate in higher education based on where they live.POLAR quintiles are calculated by dividing the number of young people in local areas who enter higher education aged 18 or 19 by the overall young population in those areas.POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 represent 14.4%of UK students achieving three A grades or better at A-level at UK universities.*The POLAR classification is continuously developed and updated.2020 data in this report are from POLAR4.Previous years data are from POLAR3.School typeData on school type use the standard UCAS school type categories,as declared by schools and colleges.These school types are grouped as follows:SCHOOL GROUPSCHOOL SUB-GROUPNOTESStateAcademyComprehensiveFE institutionsTertiary colleges and all types of further education collegeGrammarSixth form collegeIndependentIndependentOther secondary schools,special schools and city technology colleges.OtherIndividual/UnknownThose applicants who applied online through UCAS without applying via a UCAS apply base(usually their school or college),or those where their apply bases school type is unknown Other UK institutionsMainly comprises language schools and HE institutions,but also includes a few other UK institutions that are not classified as either state or independentOverseas schoolsUCAS cycleWhen tables or text in this report refer to an individual year,that year relates to a UCAS cycle.For example,data labelled 2020 refers to the UCAS cycle in which applications to Oxford were made by 15 October 2019,mostly for entry in October 2020(a minority of applicants in this cycle will have deferred entry to October 2021).*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2018/19.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.2021|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTPAGE 38Guide to the Oxford admissions process Candidates apply to Oxford through UCAS.The Oxford deadline is 15 October.As part of their application,students can specify a college,but nearly a fifth of candidates make an open application.Open applications are automatically allocated to a college with a lower number of direct applicants for the course,ensuring that candidates are distributed as equally as possible.Typically,Oxford aims to interview three candidates for every place.Shortlisting for interview is done to a centrally agreed set of criteria for each course and takes into account all the information from the UCAS form,including any factors that might provide context to past or predicted grades.During shortlisting,many courses reallocate candidates from one college to another.This ensures that the best candidates University-wide are selected for interview by an Oxford college,even if it is not the college to which they originally applied.Shortlisted candidates are interviewed in early December by the college to which they applied,or the one to which they were reallocated.Some courses,for example Medicine,only consider college preferences once the shortlisted candidates have been chosen.Candidates interview performance adds to the information already gathered,and decisions are then made as to who should receive an offer.Again,this is discussed at course level to ensure the overall best candidates are selected.As a result of open applications and reallocations,around a third of successful candidates get an offer from a college they didnt initially select.Offers go out to candidates in January.The number of offers exceeds the number of places available,to allow for candidates who decline their offer,withdraw,or fail to meet their offer conditions.Competition for places is high for all Oxford undergraduate courses,but some courses have many more applicants per available place than others.This is one reason why offer and admission rates vary noticeably between courses.Success rates are also influenced by the fixed number of undergraduates admitted annually by each college,and by the courses offered at any given college.As some colleges receive far more direct applications than others,the reallocation process described above is used to move candidates between colleges and ensure fair chances regardless of where candidates originally applied.Further information on this process and how to apply is available at www.ox.ac.uk/study.UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2021PAGE 39Note on HESA data DataThe data presented in Section 1(Overall numbers,including domicile)have been restricted to all first-year,first-degree undergraduate students in academic year 2018/19 in the UK.In all other sections,the data comprise all first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students in academic year 2018/19 in the UK.NB:This includes students domiciled in Guernsey,Jersey and Isle of Man.The AAA A-level pool comprises students who achieved at least AAA at GCE/VCE A-level(excluding General Studies and Critical Thinking),or at least AA at Scottish Advanced Higher and at least AAAAB at Scottish Higher.Students with equivalent qualifications,eg equivalent in IB points,are removed from this pool.When the AAA A-level pool is broken down into its constituent categories(A*AA,A*A*A,A*A*A*),candidates obtaining at least AA at Scottish Advanced Higher and at least AAAAB at Scottish Higher are included in every category.ACORN categories 4 and 5 presented here do not include Type 34(Student flats and halls of residence),which falls within category 4.This type is included within the remaining ACORN categories.The information available for school type is:state school,other school,unknown.It is assumed that other school comprises predominantly independent schools.The data provided for gender records the sex of the student,as opposed to the gender with which they identify.Other is included for students whose sex aligns with terms such as intersex,androgyne,intergender,ambigender,gender fluid,polygender and gender queer.Further details are available here:https:/www.hesa.ac.uk/support/definitions/students.Students with unknown ACORN,POLAR,school type,domicile,region and ethnicity status are excluded from the relevant analyses.Russell Group excluding London universities comprises the following subset of the Russell Group:University of Birmingham University of Glasgow Queens University BelfastUniversity of Bristol University of Leeds University of SheffieldUniversity of Cambridge University of Liverpool University of SouthamptonCardiff University University of Manchester University of Warwick Durham University Newcastle University University of YorkUniversity of Edinburgh University of Nottingham University of Exeter University of Oxford Rounding PolicyThe data presented adhere to HESAs rounding methodology:0,1,2 are rounded to 0.All other numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.Percentages based on fewer than 22.5 individuals are suppressed.Averages based on 7 or fewer individuals are suppressed.SourceHESA Student Record 2018/19.Copyright Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited.Neither the Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited nor HESA Services Limited can accept responsibility for any inferences or conclusions derived by third parties from data or other information supplied by HESA Services.This report is also available online at:ox.ac.uk/adstats
2023-12-12
40页
5星级
Jordan TVET SystemReview2023Technical and Vocational Education and Training2023Technical and Vocatio.
2023-12-12
204页
5星级
ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTMay 2023UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023ForewordIn this,our sixth Annual Admissions Report,and my first as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University,we provide details of the success rate of UK undergraduate applicants by education,region,ethnicity and socio-economic background,as well as by course and college.It is encouraging to see that steady progress continues to be made to ensure that those with the highest academic potential,from all backgrounds,can realise their aspirations to study here despite admissions continuing to be increasingly competitive.3,271 students were admitted in 2022,of which 79.4%were from the UK,3.8%from the EU,and 16.8%from other countries.UK-domiciled applicants remain substantially more likely to receive an offer of a place to study at Oxford than students from outside the UK.Since we first published this Report,students from a wider range of backgrounds than ever have joined the University.In 2022,22.9%of UK undergraduates admitted to Oxford came from the least advantaged backgrounds(up from 13.3%in 2018),including talented students from areas of social and economic disadvantage and from areas of low progression to higher education;7.3%were eligible for Free School Meals.More than one quarter of UK undergraduate students admitted in 2022 identified as Black and Minority Ethnic(BME).This year we have supported UK undergraduates who continue to feel the impact of the pandemic on their education and wellbeing,including through our academic bridging programme,Opportunity Oxford.In 2022,this provided 188 students from the least advantaged socio-economic backgrounds with support to realise the best possible start to their academic studies.We have also made the first offers to 35 UK state school students for the Astrophoria Foundation Year,which will get underway in 2023.A fully funded,supportive and academically challenging one-year course,the Foundation Year is open to students who have experienced disadvantage or disruption during their education.Our students reflect the UKs diversity in many respects,and we want to maintain long-term progress in this area.To support this ambition,we will continue to innovate and to build on the success of our existing outreach initiatives to increase our engagement with people across the UK and support,inspire,and motivate bright students to realise their academic potential and aspirations,and we hope to foster a love of learning and consider Oxford as a place truly for them.Professor Irene TraceyVice-ChancellorContents page 4 Section 1.Overall numbers,including domicile page 7 Section 2.Nation and regionpage 10 Section 3.Disadvantagepage 16 Section 4.School typepage 19 Section 5.Genderpage 22 Section 6.Ethnicitypage 34 Section 7.Disabilitypage 35 Glossarypage 38 Guide to the Oxford admissions processpage 39 Note on HESA dataPAGE 2UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023About this report This report presents undergraduate admissions statistics for the University of Oxford over five admissions years between 2018 and 2022,broken down into chapters covering the following areas:overall numbers,domicile,nation and region,disadvantage,school type,gender,ethnicity and disability.The report includes information for Oxfords colleges and largest courses,aggregated for the three admissions years 2020 to 2022.Aggregation has been used as small yearly figures are likely to provide a misleading picture.Nonetheless,some figures remain so small that a handful of decisions can appear to create large swings which have limited statistical value.This health warning applies even more strongly to single-year statistics for colleges and courses.The full data are available to view online:ox.ac.uk/adstats.The report also provides some national context for Oxfords data,primarily based on figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency(HESA).This includes information on the numbers of students achieving Oxfords minimum standard offer:three A grades or better at A-level and equivalent Scottish qualifications.It also compares Oxfords data with the higher education sector as a whole and with the Russell Group of leading universities.A summary of Oxfords admissions process can be found on page 38.Key points The number of students admitted in 2022 remained at the usual level,at 3,271.Approximately four fifths of those places(2,596)went to students living in the UK.Between 2018 and 2022,within the total group of UK-domiciled undergraduates admitted:The proportion from state schools rose from 60.5 to 68.1%.The proportion identifying as Black and Minority Ethnic(BME)rose from 18.3%2 to 27.8%.The proportion identifying as Asian rose from 8.3%to 13.9%.The proportion from socio-economically disadvantaged areas rose from 11.3%to 15.5%.The proportion from areas of low progression to higher education rose from 13.1%to 16.6%.The proportion declaring a disability rose from 9.3%to 12.8%.The proportion of women rose from 51.2%to 53.1%.1 Percentages in this report have been rounded to one decimal place.2 Some figures are slightly different from those presented in previous editions of this report following data corrections.PAGE 3UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20231.Overall numbers,including domicile This section presents information on Oxfords overall numbers,as well as the domicile of Oxfords applicants,offer holders and admitted students.OVERALL NUMBERS The number of students admitted in 2022 was 3,271,in line with pre-pandemic levels.The number of applications dropped slightly in 2022,though remain above pre-pandemic levels.Applications have increased by over 10%since 2018.Table 1.1:Overall applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,all domiciles,20182022 APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTED202223,8193,6453,2712021 24,338 3,555 3,298 2020 23,414 3,932 3,695 2019 23,026 3,895 3,286 2018 21,516 3,841 3,310 Table 1.2:Courses with the highest number of applicants per place (all domiciles,three-year total 20202022)3 COURSENUMBER OF APPLICANTS PER PLACECOURSENUMBER OF APPLICANTS PER PLACEComputer Science20.2Mathematics10.3Economics and Management18.9Physics9.1Mathematics and Computer Science13.6History and Politics9.1Medicine12.3PPE*9Biomedical Sciences11.2Law*8.3*Philosophy,Politics and Economics *Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe A-level grade profile of UK-domiciled students applying to,receiving offers from and being admitted to Oxford(2022 UK intake)s While three A grades is Oxfords minimum standard offer for candidates taking A-levels,many courses particularly in the sciences require at least one A*grade.More than 66.9%of applicants and almost 91.2%of admitted students were awarded A*AA or better at A-level.60.8%of admitted students achieved three A*grades or better at A-level.26.83.5%6.3.8.6%Applications 57.4.6%OffersStudents admitted6.3.8%2.5.6.8%OtherAAAA*AAA*A*AA*A*A*or better 3 Table based on 25 largest courses.s A-level bands are based on results data obtained from UCAS and include results from the 2022 and 2021 examination rounds.Excludes General Studies and Critical Thinking,and candidates with fewer than three A-level results.Note:Table 1.2 contains aggregated figures for the period 20202022.Aggregated figures for this period will appear throughout the report,most often where tables refer to data by course or by college.10.3%2.7.0%PAGE 4UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023BREAKDOWN BY DOMICILE Since 2018,applications from UK students and non-EU students have risen,and applications from EU students have fallen.UK-domiciled applicants are substantially more likely to receive an offer of a place to study at Oxford than students from outside the UK.Since 2018,the proportion of students admitted who are from the UK has risen to 79.4%from 77.6%,whilst the proportion from non-EU countries has increased to 16.8%from 14.1%.The proportion of students who applied from the EU fell to 7.5%in 2022 from 12.5%in 2018.Oxford does not operate quotas or targets around the nationality or domicile of students admitted to the University.The exception is Medicine,which is subject to a government restriction on the number of students with international fee status who can be admitted each year.The highest number of overseas applications and admitted students was from the Peoples Republic of China.Table 1.3:Overall applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by area of domicile,20182022UK STUDENTSAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTS ADMITTED202214,5692,8062,59661.2y.4 21 14,401 2,781 2,691 59.2.6 20 14,102 3,059 2,950 60.2y.8 19 13,881 3,059 2,590 60.3x.8 18 13,013 2,960 2,570 60.5w.6%EU STUDENTSAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTS ADMITTED20221,7871631247.5%3.8 21 2,136 166 128 8.8%3.9 20 2,746 292 266 11.7%7.2 19 2,773 266 234 12.0%7.1 18 2,687 307 273 12.5%8.2%NON-EU STUDENTSAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL STUDENTS ADMITTED20227,46367655131.3.8 21 7,801 608 479 32.1.5 20 6,566 581 479 28.0.0 19 6,372 570 462 27.7.1 18 5,816 574 467 27.0.1%PAGE 5UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Table 1.4:Countries/regions with the highest number of applications and students admitted to Oxford,three-year total 20202022COUNTRY/REGION OF DOMICILEAPPLICATIONSCOUNTRY/REGION OF DOMICILESTUDENTS ADMITTEDUK 43,072 UK 8,237 PR China 6,558 PR China500United States of America 2,706 Singapore221India 1,820 United States of America164Singapore 1,682 Hong Kong150Hong Kong 1,318 Poland74Germany967Germany67Canada821India65Malaysia811Romania61France694Australia55Poland683France53CONTEXTUK universities by domicile of studentsAll UK universities(2020 intake)*EU 5.7%UK83.1%Russell Group(2020 intake)*Oxford University(2022 intake)NON-EU 11.2%EU 6.7%EU 3.8%UK73.2%UK79.4%NON-EU 20.1%NON-EU 16.8%*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21 Excludes those of unknown domicile.See page 39 for full citation.PAGE 6UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20232.Nation and regionThis section breaks down Oxfords UK-domiciled undergraduate student total to show the regional distribution of the Universitys applicants,offer holders and admitted students.The regional distribution of admissions to Oxford reflects population size,achievement in school and application numbers.London and the South East made up 47.2%of UK applications between 2020 and 2022,and 47.6%of students admitted;the rest of the UK made up 52.8%of applications and 52.4%of students admitted.Table 2.1:Applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by UK nation and region,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK APPLICANTSPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDREGIONS SHARE OF AAA STUDENTS4 North East9502081992.2%2.4%2.8%North West3,4706826528.1%8.0%9.4%Yorkshire and The Humber2,2654474255.3%5.2%6.4st Midlands1,9603963744.6%4.6%5.9%West Midlands3,1546085697.4%6.9%7.3st of England3,9248117759.2%9.5.0%London11,5492,3702,26527.0.6.5%South East8,6881,7091,63520.3.9.6%South West4,1208808339.6.2%7.9%Wales1,5362642513.6%3.1%4.1%Northern Ireland36772710.9%0.9%4.3%Scotland8481561472.0%1.8%4.8%Total42,8318,6038,196Applications to Oxford by UK nation and region,20182022201820192020202120223330368437712723283428672844129013331396139812311201126712721161100199111171060859940963605600713733586440453467482587542657650280299258255264242297276120130147125384139372982286214041318129213601145116410301064727805669641289304319355115127 4 See page 8Regions are now based upon home and correspondence postcodes provided on the application rather than Area of Permanent Residence(APR)supplied by UCAS.The Crown Dependencies have now been excluded from the analysis.2018201920202021202265669471879357658454760227225121726727425826231519420821922715117717715220610910915113812491129148656685905945515252723167472220173573373954848525325527724121720817518815112612511162996051491719Students admitted to Oxford by UK nation and region,20182022n Londonn South Eastn South Westn East of Englandn North West n West Midlandsn Yorkshire&the Humbern East Midlandsn Walesn North Eastn Scotland n Northern IrelandPAGE 7UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023CONTEXTNumber of students achieving AAA or better at A-level,broken down by UK nation and region*South East9,045East ofEngland5,160North West4,815South West4,050Yorkshireand the Humber3,315Northern Ireland2,230Wales2,130NorthEast1,435WestMidlands3,755London10,025Scotland2,450EastMidlands3,020*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.PAGE 8UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023What proportion of students achieves AAA or better at A-level in UK nations and regions?*13.9.0%8.1%8.8%5.8.8.1%8.5%7.7%9.0%8.9.3%*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.PAGE 9UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20233.Disadvantage This section focuses on the backgrounds of UK-domiciled students who apply to Oxford,are made offers,and are admitted.The figures relate to differing levels of socio-economic advantage and progression to higher education across the UK,and are derived from the ACORN and POLAR5 demographic systems.This year information on Free Schools Meals has also been included.ACORN is a postcode-based tool that categorises the UKs population by level of socio-economic advantage.POLAR is a similar tool that measures how likely young people are to participate in higher education based on where they live.The ACORN and POLAR systems are widely recognised measures used by the regulator to set admissions targets for universities including Oxford.Free school meal(FSM)s eligibility is a measure of household income,widely used in social policy research as an individual indicator of potential disadvantage.Verified information regarding the FSM eligibility of Oxford applicants for 2021 and 2022 cycles is provided by UCAS.These systems are explained in more detail in the glossary to this report.UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATAThe tables below show the number of applications,offers and students admitted from the two most socio-economically disadvantaged groups(ACORN categories 4 and 56)and the two groups of young people least likely to progress to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2).In 2022,15.5%of UK students admitted to Oxford came from the two most socioeconomically disadvantaged groups(ACORN categories 4 and 56).This is an increase of 4.2 percentage points from 2018.Table 3.1:Socio-economic disadvantage:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from ACORN categories 4 and 56,20182022APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDACORN 4 AND 5 PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ADMITTED720222,49246640115.5 212,37548546017.3 202,31649546716.0 192,09741831312.2 181,87237928911.3%In 2022,16.6%of UK students admitted to Oxford were from the two groups with lowest progression to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2).This is an increase of 3.5 percentage points from 2018.Table 3.2:Areas of low progression to higher education:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2,20182022APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDPOLAR 1 AND 2 PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ADMITTED7 20222,37648142616.6 21 2,288 476 450 17.0 20 2,123 478 454 15.6 19 2,079 471 355 14.0 18 1,853 404 330 13.1%s UCAS defines FSM eligibility as whether the applicant is known to have been eligible for Free School Meals at any time in the 6 years prior to the census day of their final KS4 year,and is only available for English 18 and 19 year olds.5 POLAR classification is periodically reviewed.See page 37 for classifications used in this report.6 This data includes ACORN Category 4 Financially Stretched(excluding Type 34 Student flats and halls of residence)and ACORN Category 5 Urban Adversity.7.Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.PAGE 10UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATA In 2022,7.3%of UK students admitted to Oxford were eligible for Free School Meals.This is an increase of 2 percentage points since 2021.(No FSM data is available for previous years.)Table 3.3:Free school meals:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,relating to students eligible for Free school meals,20212022APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDFSM ELIGIBLE PROPORTION OF STUDENTS ADMITTEDs20227921861597.3 217701291215.3%CONTEXTBreakdown of students who achieve AAA or better at A-level by socio-economic group(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*84.3%live in more advantaged areas(other ACORN categories)live in less advantaged areas(ACORN categories 4 and 5)15.7%Oxford University(2022 UK intake)*84.5%live in more advantaged areas(other ACORN categories)live in less advantaged areas(ACORN categories 4 and 5)15.5%*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21 AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.Excludes those whose ACORN status is not known.Excludes Type 34 from ACORN category 4 Type 34 appears in other ACORN categories.See page 39 for full citation.Breakdown of students who achieve AAA or better at A-level,by areas with different likelihood of progression to higher education (all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*83.4%from areas with greater likelihood of progression to higher education(other POLAR quintiles)from areas with lower likelihood of progression to higher education (POLAR quintiles 1 and 2)16.6%Oxford University(2022 UK intake)*83.4%from areas with greater likelihood of progression to higher education(other POLAR quintiles)from areas with lower likelihood of progression to higher education (POLAR quintiles 1 and 2)16.6%*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21 AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.Excludes those whose POLAR status is not known.See page 39 for full citation.*Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.s Excluding students whose FSM eligibility is not known.PAGE 11UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY COURSEThese tables include figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.Socio-economic disadvantage UK-domiciled students from less advantaged areas(ACORN categories 4 and 56)made up between 9.3%and 23.7%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 3.4:Socio-economic disadvantage:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from ACORN categories 4 and 56 by course,three-year total 20202022ACORN 4 AND 5OTHERACORN 4 AND 5 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7 APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDAsian and Middle Eastern Studies462321254928320.2%Biochemistry225524996122121118.8%Biology16675611,00324823420.7%Biomedical Sciences153101069698979.3%Chemistry21077741,23940338616.1%Classics74504658626425315.4%Computer Science2821312861545318.5rth Sciences311918206857818.8onomics&Management36440371,98216315918.9%Engineering Science24647411,25134833011.1%English3431091021,85354753016.1%Experimental Psychology150343060611710921.6%Geography101393388421219614.4%History2881111022,13757355015.6%History&Politics1282824698929021.1%Law*7851301242,73540939923.7%Materials Science30129170767211.1%Mathematics58960592,53628528217.3%Mathematics&Computer Science1571111713565616.4%Medicine97489782,77836835917.8%Modern Languages115615692640538912.6%Music36262336320919010.8%PPE*43085812,59043342116.1%Physics53553492,73731030513.8%Theology and Religion301212223898312.6%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 6 This data includes ACORN Category 4 Financially Stretched(excluding Type 34 Student flats and halls of residence)and ACORN Category 5 Urban Adversity.7 Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.PAGE 12UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Areas of low progression to higher education UK-domiciled students from areas with low progression to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2)made up between 9.2%and 26.2%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 3.5:Areas of low progression to higher education:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 by course,three-year total 20202022POLAR 1 AND 2OTHERPOLAR 1 AND 2 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7 APPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSSTUDENTS ADMITTEDAsian and Middle Eastern Studies3614122621009111.7%Biochemistry198555298521720720.1%Biology15469591,00925323520.1%Biomedical Sciences1762525672838223.4%Chemistry248101951,19537736320.7%Classics74413658427326312.0%Computer Science2381717904504826.2rth Sciences382421199807521.9onomics&Management26933322,07017016416.3%Engineering Science20442341,2873513359.2%English349103931,84455253814.7%Experimental Psychology15746445971049431.9%Geography113363487121519514.8%History27590852,14459256513.1%History&Politics1172926705918822.8%Law*7731281212,72740940023.2%Materials Science24119174777211.1%Mathematics55457562,56228628316.5%Mathematics&Computer Science1361111732555516.7%Medicine74879732,98337536116.8%Modern Languages134685890739838713.0%Music42282635520518512.3%PPE*39082742,61643442614.8%Physics59952512,66731130314.4%Theology and Religion371716215847916.8%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 7 Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.PAGE 13UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThe following tables and similar tables throughout this report include figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.Socio-economic disadvantage From 2020 to 2022,the proportion of admitted students from less advantaged areas(ACORN categories 4 and 56)ranged by college from 10.4%to 25.5%.Table 3.6:Socio-economic disadvantage:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from ACORN categories 4 and 56 by college,three-year total 20202022ACORN 4 AND 5OTHERACORN 4&5 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College2684339 1,475 23122214.9%Brasenose College2875146 1,586 23822517.0%Christ Church2956460 1,331 27826518.5%Corpus Christi College1483836 626 14914320.1%Exeter College1444439 1,230 21821115.6%Hertford College2695752 1,500 27826616.4%Jesus College2274338 1,160 23823414.0%Keble College3485957 1,971 29629316.3%Lady Margaret Hall3335651 1,112 24923517.8%Lincoln College1582423 958 20619910.4%Magdalen College3676057 1,792 23222220.4%Mansfield College1795850 697 15614625.5%Merton College1993027 1,046 18717813.2%New College2154442 1,404 30729412.5%Oriel College1272624 840 19619111.2%Pembroke College2064440 1,137 24123214.7%Somerville College1784742 1,059 26826513.7%St Annes College2656257 1,051 27525918.0%St Catherines College3294945 1,480 33030812.7%St Edmund Hall1653735 966 24923513.0%St Hildas College1704539 776 25323814.1%St Hughs College2384844 867 25424315.3%St Johns College4206158 1,656 23822620.4%St Peters College1453229 891 23122311.5%The Queens College1574441 919 20620116.9%Trinity College1952825 941 19318911.7%University College3006658 1,069 22822120.8%Wadham College2716157 1,187 27626617.6%Worcester College4578884 2,429 26125624.7%University total(202022)87,1831,4461,328 35,565 7,1206,83116.3%6 This data includes ACORN Category 4 Financially Stretched(excluding Type 34 Student flats and halls of residence)and ACORN Category 5 Urban Adversity.7 Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.Note:Oxfords colleges vary in size and subject provision,admitting between around 50 and 150 UK-domiciled students each year.Permanent Private Halls(which have a different status to colleges and generally admit small numbers of students for a limited range of courses)and Harris Manchester College(which admits only mature students)have been excluded.Application numbers to individual colleges vary year on year,as does the prior academic achievement of those applicants,which can lead to fluctuations in admissions figures between colleges and among particular groups of students.Applicants to a particular college may be reallocated and eventually admitted to another college as part of Oxfords admissions process.An explanation of this system appears on page 38.PAGE 14UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Areas of low progression to higher education From 2020 to 2022,the proportion of admitted students from areas with low progression to higher education(POLAR quintiles 1 and 2)ranged by college from 8.7%to 28.6%.Table 3.7:Areas of low progression to higher education:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted from POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 by college,three-year total 20202022POLAR 1 AND 2OTHERPOLAR 1 AND 2 PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED7APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College24450451,49322421617.2%Brasenose College30554491,56823522218.1%Christ Church26650461,35129127814.2%Corpus Christi College135343363415214518.5%Exeter College15448441,21821320517.7%Hertford College24556511,52227926716.0%Jesus College21943411,16423823115.1%Keble College33564631,98229128718.0%Lady Margaret Hall27365581,16624022820.3%Lincoln College173303093719919113.6%Magdalen College35348481,80324323017.3%Mansfield College177605669515414028.6%Merton College19640401,04517516319.7%New College19148461,42630228913.7%Oriel College140292882519318713.0%Pembroke College17939391,15424323014.5%Somerville College18248451,04926526014.8%St Annes College23754521,07028026116.6%St Catherines College30960501,49331830214.2%St Edmund Hall168443896024123114.1%St Hildas College12631248142652518.7%St Hughs College200504590125124115.7%St Johns College37749461,69325023816.2%St Peters College145353288422822012.7%The Queens College150393692020920415.0%Trinity College180353194918618314.5%University College27668641,08722521423.0%Wadham College24348441,21128827813.7%Worcester College50386822,37826325824.1%University total(202022)86,7871,4351,33035,8177,1066,80416.4%7 Excluding students whose ACORN/POLAR status is not known.8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.PAGE 15UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20234.School type This section shows the number of UK-domiciled students applying to,receiving offers from and admitted to Oxford by the type of school they attended:state or independent.UK-domiciled students applying from other types of school have been excluded from the tables below.This is because the group is small,constituting only 4.8%of applications(2,069)between 2020 and 2022 and includes students from overseas or unknown schools,making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from the numbers.UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATA The proportion of students admitted to Oxford from the UK state sector remained stable in 2022 at 68.1%.This is an increase of 7.6 percentage points from 2018.The proportion of UK students admitted from the independent sector has decreased between 2018 and 2022.Table 4.1:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by school type,20182022STATEINDEPENDENTSTATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED9APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED2022 9,965 1,851 1,678 3,855 81578568.1 21 9,608 1,829 1,760 4,104 833 819 68.2 20 9,411 2,021 1,937 4,060 902 886 68.6 19 8,914 1,908 1,557 4,403 1,050 942 62.3 18 8,207 1,789 1,502 4,265 1,069 981 60.5%CONTEXTBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level by school type(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*79.1%State 20.9%Independent/otherBreakdown of students achieving A*A*A or better at A-level by school type(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*76.9%State 23.1%Independent/other Oxford University(2022 UK intake)968.1%State 31.9%Independent*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.Excludes unknown school type.See page 39 for full citation.9 Excluding students whose education cannot be classified as either state or independent.PAGE 16UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY COURSEThis table includes figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.State-educated UK students represented between 45.1%and 83%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Some courses attract more applications per available place than others,and UK state students apply disproportionately for the most oversubscribed subjects.On average,38.9%of state applications between 2020 and 2022 were for five of the most oversubscribed subjects at Oxford(Economics&Management,Medicine,PPE*,Law*,and Mathematics),compared with 31.7%of independent applications.In contrast,17.6%of independent applications were for five of the least oversubscribed subjects (Classics,Music,Modern Languages,Chemistry,and English),compared with 12%of state applications.Table 4.2:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by school type and course,three-year total 20202022STATEINDEPENDENTSTATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED9 APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAsian and Middle Eastern Studies 151 56 49 129 51 49 50.0%Biochemistry 821 192 181 328 79 78 69.9%Biology 743 220 196 371 86 82 70.5%Biomedical Sciences 627 81 80 194 23 23 77.7%Chemistry 997 338 319 441 140 139 69.7%Classics 251 142 129 389 160 157 45.1%Computer Science 931 47 46 183 17 16 74.2rth Sciences 171 85 78 57 17 16 83.0onomics&Management 1,470 123 119 803 74 71 62.6%Engineering Science 1,009 245 223 453 140 139 61.6%English 1,429 444 424 683 179 177 70.5%Experimental Psychology 566 117 105 150 29 29 78.4%Geography 588 180 161 380 67 64 71.6%History 1,452 466 441 899 200 195 69.3%History&Politics 581 92 85 206 20 20 81.0%Law*2,632 397 385 668 119 117 76.7%Materials Science 124 66 61 76 23 21 74.4%Mathematics 2,483 257 254 567 70 70 78.4%Mathematics&Computer Science 683 47 47 139 13 13 78.3%Medicine 2,773 355 338 820 96 94 78.2%Modern Languages 586 277 258 438 180 178 59.2%Music 219 135 116 164 91 88 56.9%PPE*1,904 335 321 955 156 155 67.4%Physics 2,539 252 247 651 103 99 71.4%Theology and Religion 115 54 52 112 36 36 59.1%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 9 Excluding students whose education cannot be classified as either state or independent.PAGE 17UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThis table includes figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.Individual colleges receive varying numbers and proportions of applicants from the state and independent sectors.The state-educated share of UK students admitted to Oxford ranged by college from 55.4%to 93.2%from 2020 to 2022.Table 4.3:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by school type and college,three-year total 20202022STATEINDEPENDENTSTATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED9APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 1,242 199 188 434737172.6%Brasenose College 1,358 226 212 466555180.6%Christ Church 1,035 203 190 50212712360.7%Corpus Christi College 526 113 106 220686761.3%Exeter College 768 154 147 551939062.0%Hertford College 1,327 258 244 402706778.5%Jesus College 898 175 166 429919164.6%Keble College 1,528 238 237 72610610469.5%Lady Margaret Hall 1,105 208 193 277797671.7%Lincoln College 672 143 136 415868561.5%Magdalen College 1,475 184 174 5881029963.7%Mansfield College 764 193 178 80151393.2%Merton College 893 154 143 323605970.8%New College 954 194 181 61414714655.4%Oriel College 579 133 126 349767662.4%Pembroke College 822 173 164 47410810461.2%Somerville College 860 218 211 335878671.0%St Annes College 967 233 215 300848372.1%St Catherines College 1,301 267 246 4411019671.9%St Edmund Hall 648 181 168 416929164.9%St Hildas College 609 194 177 281959265.8%St Hughs College 703 181 170 34211611260.3%St Johns College 1,548 210 197 463767472.7%St Peters College 610 154 147 38910610358.8%The Queens College 623 160 154 409807866.4%Trinity College 713 136 129 387797962.0%University College 957 209 194 330797871.3%Wadham College 1,081 237 224 328949370.7%Worcester College 2,169 285 277 641535284.2%University total(202022)8 27,933 5,758 5,254 12,567 2,785 2,647 66.5%8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.9 Excluding students whose education cannot be classified as either state or independent.PAGE 18UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20235.Gender This section breaks down Oxfords group of UK-domiciled applicants,offer holders and admitted students by gender declared on application10.UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATA The female proportion of UK-domiciled undergraduate students admitted to Oxford has risen over the past five admissions cycles.In each year from 2018 to 2022 Oxford admitted more UK-domiciled female undergraduates than male.Table 5.1:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by gender,20182022FEMALEMALEFEMALE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED20227,3831,4951,3797,1861,3111,21753.1 217,4111,5421,4866,9901,2391,20555.2 207,1101,6611,5986,9921,3981,35254.2 197,1451,6781,4076,7361,3811,18354.3 186,3421,5431,3176,6711,4171,25351.2%CONTEXTBreakdown of students at UK universities by gender (2020 UK intake)*All UK universities57.7male 42.1%male 0.2%sotherRussell Group56.1male 43.7%male0.1%sotherOxford University(2022 UK intake)1053.1male 46.9%maleBreakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level by gender(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*56.2male 43.7%male0.2%sother*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.sOther gender:percentages are too small to represent in diagram.10 Oxford University data in this report uses the binary male/female options from the UCAS application,which may not reflect the gender identity of all applicants.PAGE 19UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY COURSEThis table includes figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.The female-to-male ratio of applications varies by course.This is reflected in the wide variations by course in the proportion of UK-domiciled female students admitted.The proportion of female students ranged from 18.5%to 80tween 2020 and 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 5.2:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by gender and course,three-year total 20202022FEMALEMALEFEMALE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAsian and Middle Eastern Studies1827165120443962.5%Biochemistry72716215446911410958.6%Biology73519817944112611760.5%Biomedical Sciences6267675229323270.1%Chemistry66921320379327026043.8%Classics38519018027912712159.8%Computer Science2311212923555318.5rth Sciences1325652106494553.6onomics&Management77668671,58813512934.2%Engineering Science372103961,13829828125.5%English1,74350748547115215076.4%Experimental Psychology618124112141282880.0%Geography637174159356797268.8%History1,2913823661,14730428856.0%History&Politics3816561452565353.5%Law*2,3853353281,16620819962.2%Materials Science683028133595434.1%Mathematics95297952,19524924727.8%Mathematics&Computer Science1871313686545419.4%Medicine2,3502692611,42119017859.5%Modern Languages73132130631414714168.5%Music21512010819011710750.2%PPE*1,1832282191,85629128443.5%Physics85471672,43929428918.8%Theology and Religion1546664133686450.0%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics PAGE 20UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThis table includes figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.From 2020 to 2022,the proportion of UK-domiciled female students admitted to Oxford ranged by college from 46.4%to 62.3%.Table 5.3:UK applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by gender and college,three-year total 20202022.FEMALEMALEFEMALE PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 773 129 123 985 149 142 46.4%Brasenose College 1,074 156 148 808 133 123 54.6%Christ Church 819 177 165 813 166 161 50.6%Corpus Christi College 384 88 85 401 101 96 47.0%Exeter College 804 146 143 578 117 108 57.0%Hertford College 907 202 192 878 136 129 59.8%Jesus College 664 141 135 729 140 137 49.6%Keble College 1,062 182 180 1,275 175 172 51.1%Lady Margaret Hall 985 193 180 466 115 109 62.3%Lincoln College 609 126 120 516 106 104 53.6%Magdalen College 1,224 160 153 945 134 128 54.4%Mansfield College 463 126 112 416 89 85 56.9%Merton College 604 121 115 654 98 92 55.6%New College 864 187 176 761 164 160 52.4%Oriel College 450 107 104 521 115 111 48.4%Pembroke College 624 156 151 731 132 124 54.9%Somerville College 650 198 193 597 121 118 62.1%St Annes College 674 192 179 656 145 137 56.6%St Catherines College 762 187 173 1,052 192 180 49.0%St Edmund Hall 558 154 148 582 135 125 54.2%St Hildas College 531 163 151 423 136 127 54.3%St Hughs College 538 159 152 572 144 136 52.8%St Johns College 921 155 144 1,173 145 141 50.5%St Peters College 513 151 142 539 115 113 55.7%The Queens College 638 144 140 443 106 102 57.9%Trinity College 525 115 111 624 106 103 51.9%University College 672 156 145 705 141 136 51.6%Wadham College 807 203 194 661 138 132 59.5%Worcester College 1,543 200 196 1,358 150 145 57.5%University total(202022)8 21,904 4,698 4,463 21,168 3,948 3,774 54.2%8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.PAGE 21UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20236.Ethnicity This section sets out what is known about the ethnicity of UK-domiciled applicants to Oxford.5%of UK-domiciled applicants(2,148 students between 2020 and 2022)choose not to declare their ethnicity in their UCAS application.It is therefore not possible to make any statements in relation to their ethnicity and admissions status,and for that reason they have not been included in the tables below.UK-domiciled Black and Minority Ethnic(BME)students include those who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Black(including African,Caribbean and other Black background),Asian(including Bangladeshi,Indian,Pakistani,Chinese and other Asian background),Mixed Heritage(including White&Asian,White&Black African,White&Black Caribbean and other Mixed background),Arab or any other ethnicity except White.CONTEXTThe following graphics provide context for Oxfords figures,showing the BME share of the England and Wales population,the A-level achievement of BME students,and the proportion of BME students in different parts of the UK university sector.Note:Figures for the 2020/21 academic year(2020 intake)are the most recent available from HESA and have therefore been used in these graphics.The most recent figures available for Oxford are for the 2022/23 academic year(2022 intake).England and Wales population now aged 19 to 25*BME23.6%White76.4%Breakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level by ethnicity (all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*White 74.88,070 studentsBlack 3.1%1,570 studentsBME 25.2,830 studentsAsian 14.9%7,565 studentsOther includingMixed 7.3%3,700 studentsBreakdown of students at UK universities by ethnicity(2020 UK intake)*All UK universitiesWhite students71.9%BME students28.1%Russell GroupWhite students73.2%BME students26.8%Russell Group outside London White students78.8%BME students 21.2%Oxford University(2022 UK intake)*White students72.2%BME students27.8%*2021 UK census.Source:Office for National Statistics.Ethnic group by age and sex in England and Wales.*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.*Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 22UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023UNIVERSITY-LEVEL DATABME students The number of UK-domiciled BME applicants to Oxford has increased since 2018,as have the numbers of students receiving offers and being admitted.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as BME has risen from 18.3%in 2018 to 27.8%in 2022.Table 6.1:UK-domiciled BME students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20182022BME STUDENTSWHITE STUDENTSBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED20224,6107737089,1191,9521,83527.8 214,2546706489,4082,0491,98724.6 204,0247066849,5092,2932,21423.6 193,5966695589,5832,3061,97822.0 183,0975514579,0482,3052,04518.3%Asian students Since 2018,applications from UK-domiciled Asian students have been increasing annually,as have offers received and students admitted.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Asian has risen from 8.3%in 2018 to 13.9%in 2022.Table 6.2:UK-domiciled Asian students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20182022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED1120222,49038135413.9 212,25830829511.2 202,1352892779.6 191,9012792439.6 181,6872492088.3%Breakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*85.1%White/other BMEBreakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2020 UK intake)*89.3%White/other BME10.7%Asian14.9%AsianOxford University(2022 UK intake)1186.1%White/other BME13.9%Asian*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 23UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20232022|UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORTBangladeshi and Pakistani students Since 2018,the numbers of UK-domiciled Bangladeshi and Pakistani students applying to Oxford,being made offers and being admitted have risen substantially.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Bangladeshi or Pakistani rose from 1.6%in 2018 to 3.5%in 2022.Note:Within the British Asian group,Bangladeshi and Pakistani students are considered under-represented at highly selective universities,hence their inclusion as a separate group at University level in this report.Table 6.3:UK-domiciled Bangladeshi and Pakistani students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20182022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11202268098883.5 2163082752.8 2061866592.0 1953267532.1 1844352411.6%Breakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*95.7%White/other BMEBreakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2020 UK intake)*96.3%White/other BME4.3ngladeshi/PakistaniOxford University(2022 UK intake)1196.5%White/other BME3.7ngladeshi/Pakistani3.5ngladeshi/Pakistani*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.Students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 The numbers of UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage applying to Oxford,receiving offers and being admitted have increased from 2018 to 2022.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Black has risen from 2.6%in 2018 to 3.3%in 2022.Table 6.4:UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20182022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED112022618100853.3 2159795923.5 205641091063.7 19498107803.2 1842486652.6%Breakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*96.9%White/other BMEBreakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2020 UK intake)*96.2%White/other BME3.1%BlackOxford University(2022 UK intake)1196.7%White/other BME3.8%Black3.3%Black*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12 This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.PAGE 24UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Mixed Heritage students The number of UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage applicants to Oxford has risen since 2017,as have the numbers of students receiving offers and being admitted.The proportion of UK-domiciled students admitted to Oxford who indicate in their UCAS application that they identify as Mixed Heritage rose from 6.5%in 2018 to 8.8%in 2022.Table 6.5:UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted,20182022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED112022 1,186 242 223 8.8 21 1,126 223 217 8.2 20 1,053 262 256 8.8 19 969 247 206 8.1 18 816 191 162 6.5%Breakdown of students achieving AAA or better at A-level(all UK universities,2020 UK intake)*94.4%White/other BMEBreakdown of students at non-London Russell Group universities(2020 UK intake)*94.7%White/other BME5.6%MixedOxford University(2022 UK intake)1191.2%White/other BME5.3%Mixed8.8%Mixed*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 25UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DATA BY COURSEThe following tables include figures for Oxfords 25 largest courses by total number of places,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.BME students In general,students from BME backgrounds are more likely to apply for the most competitive courses than White students.For example,between 2020 and 2022,38.2%of applications from UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 and 26.1%of total UK-domiciled BME applications were for two courses:Medicine and Law*.By comparison,these courses attracted 12.9%of applications from UK-domiciled White students.UK-domiciled BME students made up between 14.6%and 44.2%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Application numbers vary widely between courses,both in the broad BME group and within individual ethnic groups.Applications from UK-domiciled BME students ranged from 49 to 2,044 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 6.6:UK-domiciled BME students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20202022BME STUDENTSWHITE STUDENTSBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAsian and Middle Eastern Studies 92 36 33 199 78 70 32.0%Biochemistry 365 64 61 789 209 200 23.4%Biology 219 70 65 908 246 226 22.3%Biomedical Sciences 272 15 15 553 89 88 14.6%Chemistry 375 105 101 1,034 369 354 22.2%Classics 124 69 65 489 239 227 22.3%Computer Science 468 17 16 616 44 43 27.1rth Sciences 49 18 18 183 86 78 18.8onomics and Management 1,067 89 83 1,184 114 113 42.3%Engineering Science 555 127 120 881 258 243 33.1%English 423 129 124 1,666 516 500 19.9%Experimental Psychology 196 32 29 532 119 110 20.9%Geography 154 46 42 790 204 188 18.3%History 398 145 139 1,906 526 504 21.6%History and Politics 165 27 26 627 91 86 23.2%Law*1,321 173 170 2,097 363 351 32.6%Materials Science 60 22 19 134 67 63 23.2%Mathematics 914 98 95 2,139 244 243 28.1%Mathematics&Computer Science 317 23 23 507 43 43 34.8%Medicine 2,044 207 193 1,529 249 244 44.2%Modern Languages 152 70 66 848 384 370 15.1%Music 63 36 32 319 193 178 15.2%PPE*1,025 145 141 1,767 355 346 29.0%Physics 775 84 83 2,400 267 261 24.1%Theology and Religion 50 26 25 214 103 102 19.7%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12 This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.PAGE 26UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Asian students UK-domiciled Asian students made up between 4.1%and 27.7%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.53.7%of applications from UK-domiciled Asian students from 2020 to 2022 were for five highly competitive courses:Medicine,Law*,PPE,Economics&Management,and Mathematics,as compared to 33.5%of other students.Table 6.7:UK-domiciled Asian students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20202022 APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Asian and Middle Eastern Studies31987.8%Biochemistry189312810.7%Biology91333010.3%Biomedical Sciences150665.8%Chemistry20245449.7%Classics3221206.8%Computer Science2909813.6rth Sciences28888.3onomics and Management707565427.6%Engineering Science337736818.7%English15542416.6%Experimental Psychology9514128.6%Geography6721187.8%History14544416.4%History and Politics60998.0%Law*645868416.1%Materials Science39151214.6%Mathematics574626017.8%Mathematics&Computer Science199141421.2%Medicine1,26112712127.7%Modern Languages3718184.1%Music211194.3%PPE*511626212.7%Physics435464513.1%Theology and Religion28151511.8%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 27UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage comprised up to 6.7%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.38.2%of applications from UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage from 2020 to 2022 were for two highly competitive courses:Medicine and Law*.By comparison,these courses attracted 12.9%of applications from UK-domiciled White students.Six of Oxfords 25 largest courses each received ten applications or fewer from students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage from 2020 to 2022,and as a result admitted only very small numbers.Table 6.8:UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Asian and Middle Eastern Studies9643.9%Biochemistry4511114.2%Biology13220.7%Biomedical Sciences39000.0%Chemistry3616163.5%Classics14882.7%Computer Science70223.4rth Sciences2111.0onomics and Management14215126.1%Engineering Science6316154.1%English5821203.2%Experimental Psychology24332.2%Geography8431.3%History4928284.4%History and Politics26432.7%Law*27636356.7%Materials Science8333.7%Mathematics75772.1%Mathematics and Computer Science35111.5%Medicine40329265.9%Modern Languages16871.6%Music4321.0%PPE*16929265.3%Physics50441.2%Theology and Religion8664.7%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12 This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.PAGE 28UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Mixed Heritage students UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students made up between 3.1%and 17.5%of UK intakes from 2020 to 2022 for Oxfords 25 largest courses.Table 6.9:UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by course,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Asian and Middle Eastern Studies45181817.5%Biochemistry11020207.7%Biology105333110.7%Biomedical Sciences65776.8%Chemistry11333306.6%Classics70353211.0%Computer Science74446.8rth Sciences16888.3onomics and Management17117178.7%Engineering Science12131308.3%English17054518.2%Experimental Psychology6210107.2%Geography7018187.8%History16560578.9%History and Politics5911119.8%Law*29940407.7%Materials Science10333.7%Mathematics21628278.0%Mathematics and Computer Science658812.1%Medicine23631286.4%Modern Languages9040378.5%Music38222110.0%PPE*27043428.6%Physics24128288.1%Theology and Religion12543.1%*Including Law/Law with Studies in Europe *Philosophy,Politics and Economics 11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 29UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023 DATA BY OXFORD COLLEGEThe following tables include figures for 29 of Oxfords undergraduate-admitting colleges,aggregated from 2020 to 2022.BME students UK-domiciled BME students made up between 19.9%and 32.7%of colleges UK intakes from 2020 to 2022.Table 6.10:UK-domiciled BME students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20202022BME STUDENTSWHITE STUDENTSBME PROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDBalliol College 525 70 68 1,136 199 191 26.3%Brasenose College 458 64 58 1,337 222 210 21.6%Christ Church 550 113 108 1,003 222 211 33.9%Corpus Christi College 244 49 46 494 131 128 26.4%Exeter College 334 70 65 976 186 180 26.5%Hertford College 505 78 74 1,208 254 242 23.4%Jesus College 376 71 68 946 206 200 25.4%Keble College 781 84 83 1,439 260 258 24.3%Lady Margaret Hall 487 79 75 903 222 209 26.4%Lincoln College 288 47 45 762 177 172 20.7%Magdalen College 580 63 61 1,452 225 214 22.2%Mansfield College 272 63 60 572 148 137 30.5%Merton College 319 46 43 868 170 162 21.0%New College 471 76 72 1,059 264 254 22.1%Oriel College 278 57 53 627 159 156 25.4%Pembroke College 439 76 70 840 211 204 25.5%Somerville College 380 70 67 813 244 239 21.9%St Annes College 452 88 82 831 243 228 26.5%St Catherines College 601 86 81 1,140 281 264 23.5%St Edmund Hall 297 62 61 771 221 207 22.8%St Hildas College 316 67 63 601 227 212 22.9%St Hughs College 375 87 82 676 205 197 29.4%St Johns College 664 72 66 1,326 221 213 23.7%St Peters College 320 69 65 673 188 183 26.2%The Queens College 307 51 47 723 193 189 19.9%Trinity College 349 53 51 740 164 159 24.3%University College 476 75 72 847 215 205 26.0%Wadham College 459 99 94 943 237 228 29.2%Worcester College 827 113 111 1,972 234 228 32.7%University total(202022)812,8882,1492,04028,0366,2946,03625.3%8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 30UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Asian students UK-domiciled Asian students made up between 8.5%and 15.6%of colleges UK intakes from 2020 to 2022.Table 6.11:UK-domiciled Asian students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Balliol College280282610.0%Brasenose College22627259.3%Christ Church272474413.8%Corpus Christi College131242112.1%Exeter College183333012.2%Hertford College273353310.4%Jesus College184403814.2%Keble College458424112.0%Lady Margaret Hall260343311.6%Lincoln College160252511.5%Magdalen College302313010.9%Mansfield College130282713.7%Merton College17019188.8%New College25834319.5%Oriel College176282612.4%Pembroke College237373613.1%Somerville College22529268.5%St Annes College231373511.3%St Catherines College310393710.7%St Edmund Hall158333312.3%St Hildas College171333010.9%St Hughs College229413914.0%St Johns College341302810.0%St Peters College173363514.1%The Queens College16023218.9%Trinity College199212110.0%University College246292810.1%Wadham College231444012.4%Worcester College427545315.6%University total(202022)86,88397892611.5%8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 31UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage12 UK-domiciled students with Black African or Black Caribbean heritage made up between 1.1%and 5.6%of colleges UK intakes from 2020 to 2022.Table 6.12:UK-domiciled Black students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Balliol College48993.5%Brasenose College50762.2%Christ Church7213134.1%Corpus Christi College34774.0%Exeter College3410104.1%Hertford College511092.8%Jesus College55331.1%Keble College9812123.5%Lady Margaret Hall10418165.6%Lincoln College29541.8%Magdalen College59993.3%Mansfield College4911105.1%Merton College30552.4%New College5211113.4%Oriel College31762.9%Pembroke College62962.2%Somerville College38992.9%St Annes College9015154.8%St Catherines College12012102.9%St Edmund Hall39551.9%St Hildas College51772.5%St Hughs College5515145.0%St Johns College11813124.3%St Peters College461083.2%The Queens College29983.4%Trinity College4712104.8%University College7111103.6%Wadham College5910103.1%Worcester College14419195.6%University total(202022)81,7793042833.5%8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.12 This includes students who indicated on their UCAS application that they identified as Black Caribbean,Black African or Black other background.PAGE 32UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Mixed Heritage students UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students made up between 5.9%and 12.9%of colleges UK intakes from 2020 to 2022.Table 6.13:UK-domiciled Mixed Heritage students:applications to Oxford,offers made and students admitted by college,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTED11Balliol College157282810.8%Brasenose College14824228.2%Christ Church161434112.9%Corpus Christi College6013137.5%Exeter College8322208.2%Hertford College15830299.2%Jesus College10723228.2%Keble College17325257.3%Lady Margaret Hall9925248.5%Lincoln College8115146.5%Magdalen College17220196.9%Mansfield College7518178.6%Merton College9314136.3%New College13527268.0%Oriel College6020199.1%Pembroke College11324228.0%Somerville College9526268.5%St Annes College10530289.0%St Catherines College13533329.3%St Edmund Hall7620197.1%St Hildas College7622217.6%St Hughs College7226248.6%St Johns College16325238.2%St Peters College7620197.7%The Queens College9915145.9%Trinity College8216167.6%University College113313010.8%Wadham College139383711.5%Worcester College211353410.0%University total(202022)83,3657276968.6%8 Total includes Permanent Private Halls and Harris Manchester College.11 Excluding students whose ethnicity status is not declared.PAGE 33UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|20237.Disability This section sets out the number and proportion of UK-domiciled students who declare a disability on application to Oxford.The number of students declaring a disability on application,the number of those students receiving offers and the number being admitted,has been increasing year on year since 2018.In 2022,12.8%of admitted students had declared a disability on application,3.5 percentage points higher than in 2018.Table 7.1:UK-domiciled students declaring a disability,20182022DISABILITYNO KNOWN DISABILITYPROPORTION DECLARING A DISABILITY OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDAPPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTED20221,83337433312,7362,4322,26312.8 211,59532631112,8062,4552,38011.6 201,51932530712,5832,7342,64310.4 191,34930324512,5322,7562,3459.5 181,20229123811,8112,6692,3329.3%Table 7.2:UK-domiciled students declaring a disability by category of disability,three-year total 20202022APPLICATIONSOFFERSADMITTEDPROPORTION OF TOTAL UK STUDENTS ADMITTEDAutistic spectrum disorder5981261181.4%Blind/partial sight6921200.2af/partial hearing9017170.2%Learning difficulty*1,4892612433.0%Longstanding illness36895911.1%Mental health1,1382402162.6%Multiple disabilities4831071011.2%Other disability6081271151.4%Wheelchair/mobility10431300.4%Total with declared disability 4,9471,02595111.5%No declared disability38,1257,6217,28688.5%Total43,0728,6468,237100.0%*including dyslexia,dyspraxia and ADHDCONTEXTBreakdown of students at UK universities by disability statusAll UK universities(2020 UK intake)*82.9%no known disabilityRussell Group(2020 UK intake)*84.0%no known disability16.0%disability17.1%disabilityOxford University(2022 UK intake)87.2%no known disability12.8%disability*Most recent available national data covers 2020 intake:defined as first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21 AAA pool includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.PAGE 34UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Glossary ACORNACORN is a postcode-based tool that categorises the UKs population by level of socio-economic advantage.ACORN uses a range of data such as accommodation type,household income,population density and lifestyle habits to produce estimates of the characteristics of each individual household and postcode.Category 4 is described as financially stretched;category 5 as urban adversity.Both groups are characterised by lower-than-average household incomes.ACORN categories 4 and 5 represent 15.7%of UK students achieving three A grades or better at A-level at UK universities*.AdmittedStudents admitted refers to students who have been made an offer of a place at Oxford,met any conditions of that offer,and indicated that they intend to take up their place.ApplicationsApplications refers to students who submit a UCAS application by the 15 October deadline for an undergraduate course at Oxford.Applications by collegeIn tables that feature application numbers by college,the figures include those applicants who indicated a college of preference on their application,and anyone who made an open application who was then allocated to that college.Applicants considered by one college may still receive an offer from another college.CollegesOxford University is made up of over 30 colleges and halls.It is these colleges that admit undergraduate students to the University.All colleges have signed up to a Common Framework for Admissions which means the same application process for each course at every college.The colleges work together during the admissions process to ensure that the best applicants are successful,regardless of the college that initially considers their application.Most colleges offer most courses but the exact mix and the number of places on each course does vary between colleges.For more information about colleges,please see ox.ac.uk/ugcolls.CoursesCourses refers to Oxfords undergraduate degree programmes.Students apply for these courses through UCAS.Some of these courses are in single subjects(eg History or Geography),while others are joint courses combining two or more subjects(eg Mathematics and Computer Science).Most courses are three or four years long and lead to a BA Honours degree or a Masters degree(eg MEarthSci or MMath).For more information,please see ox.ac.uk/courses.DisabilityData in this report refer to disabilities that students have declared on their UCAS application.Students may also declare disabilities at later stages of the application process,or at any point during their course.For more information about the support available to disabled students,please see ox.ac.uk/disability.*First-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students,academic year 2020/21.Includes equivalent Scottish qualifications.See page 39 for full citation.PAGE 35UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023DisadvantageOxford uses various measures of disadvantage when considering applications,from various sources of available data.The main measures are:Educational disadvantage,which looks at the average performance of schools at GCSE and A-level.Socio-economic disadvantage,which looks at ACORN and POLAR data for the applicants home postcode.Oxford is also aware of students who have been in care,based on information provided in the UCAS application.For more information,please see ox.ac.uk/context.DomicileA students domicile refers to their country of permanent residence,as provided on their UCAS application.This is not necessarily their nationality,but it is the country where they usually live.For example,UK-domiciled students includes students with non-British nationality who are permanently resident in the UK(not just here for the purposes of education).It does not include UK students who live permanently outside the UK.EthnicityEthnicity refers to the ethnic origin of UK students,as declared on the UCAS application.Our data includes only those applicants who have indicated their ethnicity,so it does not include those who choose not to say(5%of applicants in the three years 202022).Ethnicity data is not available to universities during the admissions process:UCAS shares this data after all the admissions decisions have been made.Free School MealsFree school meals(FSM)eligibility is a measure of household income widely used in social policy research as an individual indicator of potential disadvantage.FSM data is collected through UCASs Modernized Contextual Data Service for English 18 and 19 year olds(as determined on 31 August of application cycle)using the National Pupil Database,and indicates whether or not the applicant is known to have been eligible for Free School Meals at any time in the 6 years prior to the census day of their final KS4 year.Verified information regarding the FSM eligibility of Oxford applicants for 2021 and 2022 cycles is provided by UCAS.We hope to include information on the proportions of FSM-eligible high achieving students who apply to all UK universities,when this becomes available.We already include similar benchmarks for our ACORN and POLAR admissions statistics.Gender This report uses the binary female/male options from the UCAS application,which may not reflect the gender identity of all applicants.The University welcomes students who wish to take,or have taken,steps to change the gender identity they were assigned at birth,and those who do not identify with a permanent binary gender identity.For more information,please see https:/edu.admin.ox.ac.uk/transgender.PAGE 36UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023OffersApplications to Oxford are all considered together,and then shortlisted applicants are invited to interview.Around a third of those who are interviewed are then made an offer of a place.Most offers have conditions attached,such as achieving a particular set of grades at A-level,as specified for an applicants chosen course.Offers in this report includes all those students who receive an offer.The number of offers for any particular college may be higher than their application numbers as students may be moved between colleges during the application process.This is to ensure that the best applicants are successful,regardless of the college that initially considers their application.Open applicationApplicants can indicate a college of preference when they complete their UCAS application or they can make an open application.Open applicants are then allocated to a college.After this allocation,colleges review all their applications in exactly the same way:they make no distinction between direct and open applicants.POLARPOLAR is a postcode-based tool that measures how likely young people are to participate in higher education based on where they live.POLAR quintiles are calculated by dividing the number of young people in local areas who enter higher education aged 18 or 19 by the overall young population in those areas.POLAR quintiles 1 and 2 represent 16.6%of UK students achieving three A grades or better at A-level at UK universities.The POLAR classification is continuously developed and updated.2020-22 data in this report are from POLAR4.Previous years data are from POLAR3.School typeData on school type use the standard UCAS school type categories,as declared by schools and colleges.These school types are grouped as follows:School groupSchool sub-groupNotesStateAcademyComprehensiveFE institutionsTertiary colleges and all types of further education collegeGrammarSixth form collegeOther maintainedOther secondary schools,special schools and city technology collegesIndependentIndependentOtherIndividual/UnknownThose applicants who applied online through UCAS without applying via a UCAS apply base(usually their school or college),or those where their apply bases school type is unknownOther UK institutionsMainly comprises language schools and HE institutions,but also includes a few other UK institutions that are not classified as either state or independentOverseas schoolsUCAS cycleWhen tables or text in this report refer to an individual year,that year relates to a UCAS cycle.For example,data labelled 2022 refers to the UCAS cycle in which applications to Oxford were made by 15 October 2021,mostly for entry in October 2022(a minority of applicants in this cycle will have deferred entry to October 2023).PAGE 37UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Guide to the Oxford admissions process Candidates apply to Oxford through UCAS.The Oxford deadline is 15 October,except where this falls on a weekend.In 2023 the deadline will be 16 October.As part of their application,students can specify a college,but nearly a fifth of candidates make an open application.Open applications are automatically allocated to a college with a lower number of direct applicants for the course,ensuring that candidates are distributed as equally as possible.Typically,Oxford aims to interview three candidates for every place.Shortlisting for interview is done to a centrally agreed set of criteria for each course and takes into account all the information from the UCAS form,including any factors that might provide context to past or predicted grades.During shortlisting,many courses reallocate candidates from one college to another.This ensures that the best candidates University-wide are selected for interview by an Oxford college,even if it is not the college to which they originally applied.Shortlisted candidates are interviewed in early December by the college to which they applied,or the one to which they were reallocated.Some courses,for example Medicine,only consider college preferences once the shortlisted candidates have been chosen.Candidates interview performance adds to the information already gathered,and decisions are then made as to who should receive an offer.Again,this is discussed at course level to ensure the overall best candidates are selected.As a result of open applications and reallocations,around a third of successful candidates get an offer from a college they didnt initially select.Offers go out to candidates in January.The number of offers exceeds the number of places available,to allow for candidates who decline their offer,withdraw,or fail to meet their offer conditions.Competition for places is high for all Oxford undergraduate courses,but some courses have many more applicants per available place than others.This is one reason why offer and admission rates vary noticeably between courses.Success rates are also influenced by the fixed number of undergraduates admitted annually by each college,and by the courses offered at any given college.As some colleges receive far more direct applications than others,the reallocation process described above is used to move candidates between colleges and ensure fair chances regardless of where candidates originally applied.Further information on this process and how to apply is available at www.ox.ac.uk/study.PAGE 38UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ANNUAL ADMISSIONS STATISTICAL REPORT|2023Note on HESA data DataThe data presented in Section 1(Overall numbers,including domicile)have been restricted to all first-year,first-degree undergraduate students in academic year 2020/21 in the UK.In all other sections,the data comprise all first-year,first-degree,UK-domiciled undergraduate students in academic year 2020/21 in the UK.NB:This includes students domiciled in Guernsey,Jersey and Isle of Man.The AAA A-level pool comprises students who achieved at least AAA at GCE/VCE A-level(excluding General Studies and Critical Thinking),or at least AA at Scottish Advanced Higher and at least AAAAB at Scottish Higher.Students with equivalent qualifications,eg equivalent in IB points,are removed from this pool.When the AAA A-level pool is broken down into its constituent categories(A*AA,A*A*A,A*A*A*),candidates obtaining at least AA at Scottish Advanced Higher and at least AAAAB at Scottish Higher are included in every category.ACORN categories 4 and 5 presented here do not include Type 34(Student flats and halls of residence),which falls within category 4.This type is included within the remaining ACORN categories.The information available for school type is:state school,other school,unknown.It is assumed that other school comprises predominantly independent schools.The data provided for gender records the sex of the student,as opposed to the gender with which they identify.Other is included for students whose sex aligns with terms such as intersex,androgyne,intergender,ambigender,gender fluid,polygender and gender queer.Further details are available here:https:/www.hesa.ac.uk/support/definitions/students.Students with unknown ACORN,POLAR,FSM eligibility,school type,domicile,region and ethnicity status are excluded from the relevant analyses.Russell Group excluding London universities comprises the following subset of the Russell Group:University of BirminghamUniversity of GlasgowQueens University BelfastUniversity of BristolUniversity of LeedsUniversity of SheffieldUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of LiverpoolUniversity of SouthamptonCardiff UniversityUniversity of ManchesterUniversity of WarwickDurham UniversityNewcastle UniversityUniversity of YorkUniversity of EdinburghUniversity of NottinghamUniversity of ExeterUniversity of OxfordRounding PolicyThe data presented adhere to HESAs rounding methodology:0,1,2 are rounded to 0.All other numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.Percentages based on fewer than 22.5 individuals are suppressed.Averages based on 7 or fewer individuals are suppressed.SourceHESA Student Record 2020/21.Copyright Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited.Neither the Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited nor HESA Services Limited can accept responsibility for any inferences or conclusions derived by third parties from data or other information supplied by the Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited or HESA Services Limited.PAGE 39This report is also available online at:ox.ac.uk/adstats
2023-12-12
40页
5星级
罗兰贝格：预见2026：中国行业趋势报告（90页）.pdf
智源研究院：2026十大AI技术趋势报告（34页）.pdf
中国互联网协会：智能体应用发展报告（2025）（124页）.pdf
三个皮匠报告：2025银发经济生态：中国与全球实践白皮书（150页）.pdf
三个皮匠报告：2025中国商业航天市场洞察报告-中国商业航天新格局全景洞察（25页）.pdf
国声智库：全球AI创造力发展报告2025（77页）.pdf
中国电子技术标准化研究院：2025知识图谱与大模型融合实践案例集（354页）.pdf
三个皮匠报告：2025中国情绪消费市场洞察报告（24页）.pdf
中国银行：2026中国高净值人群财富管理白皮书（66页）.pdf
亿欧智库：2025全球人工智能技术应用洞察报告（43页）.pdf
0731-84720580
商务合作：really158d
友链申请 (QQ)：1737380874
最新报告
中英对照
全文搜索
报告精选
PDF上传翻译
多格式文档互转
入驻&报告售卖
会员权益
机构报告
券商研报
财报库
专题合集
英文报告
数据图表
会议报告
其他资源
研报
新质生产力
DeepSeek
低空经济
大模型
AI Agent
AI Infra
具身智能
自动驾驶
宠物
银发经济
人形机器人
企业出海
算力
微短剧
薪酬
白皮书
创新药
行业分析
个股研究
年报财报
IPO招股书
会议纪要
宏观策略
政策法规
其他
人工智能
信息科技
互联网
消费经济
汽车交通
电商零售
传媒娱乐
医疗健康
投资金融
能源环境
地产建筑
传统产业
英文报告
其它
行业聚焦
芯片产业
热点概念
全球咨询智库
人工智能
500强
新质生产力
会议峰会
新能源汽车
企业年报
互联网
公司研究
行业综观
消费教育
科技通信
医药健康
人力资源
投资金融
汽车产业
物流地产
电子商务
传统产业
传媒营销
其它
十五五规划系列报告合集（共48套打包）
2026低空经济/低空产业报告合集（共47套打包）
AI、科技与通信
广告、传媒与营销
消费、零售与支付
HR、文化与旅游
金融、保险与投资
能源、环境与工业
医疗制药与大健康
物流、地产与建筑
其他行业
AI ▪ 科技 ▪ 通信
数字化
金融财经
智能制造
电商传媒
地产建筑
医疗医学
能源化工
其他行业
收藏
下载
2026-02-02
AI查数
行业数据
政策法规
商业模式
产业链
竞争格局
市场规模
产业概述
其它
2026年
AI读财报
年报
一季报
半年报
三季报
IPO招股书
社会责任报告
A股
IPO申报
港股
美股&全球
新三板
微信扫码登录
手机快捷登录
账号登录
