The Board Subject Performance Pattern of the Certified Public Accountants

Licensure Examination Examinees

Dazel Mae Arcenal Montealto
Amabella Manayon Pacaldo
Judelyn Macabus

College of Commerce
University of San Jose- Recoletos

Abstract

The study aimed to determine the existence of the diversity of learning patterns
of accountancy students to aid in understanding its relevance in passing the
board examinations. The researchers used the cluster analysis in classifying
90 participants in this study into three distinct clusters according to their
performance in the final pre-board administered last April 2017. With the
board examination subjects recently reduced to six, the researchers considered
their interrelationship to one another. The results show that students in Cluster
3 excel in all subjects while Clusters 1 and 2 have average and low
performances, both identified as two different clusters.

I. Introduction

Diversity across dimensions of time extends to how heterogeneous learners

characterize their preferred learning style. Many scholars have studied students' diversity
and how it can affect the learning process (Bertrand and Lee, 2012; Crose, 2011; Smith,
2010). Diversity and learning process are mixed factors of student’s academic
performance. Although diversified, a deeper understanding of such performance can
formulate a pattern as a pathway for the revelation of one’s learning integration. Seow, P.
Et al. (2014) investigated the association of prior academic achievement, admission
interview, critical thinking, mathematical aptitude, and gender with successful academic
performance in an undergraduate accountancy degree programme at a Singapore
university. In the study, it revealed that results in admission interview, mathematical
aptitude and gender are not significantly associated with academic performance while
critical thinking and prior academic performance have a positive association with such.

The researchers determined the importance of the study of Seow, P. et al. (2014)
as a relevant tool for finishing this study. Prior academic performance is deemed
associated with an accountancy students’ performance. The rationale is that past
performance serves as a proxy for a student’s commitment level, diligence, and
intelligence (Guney, 2009). It was pointed out in the study that critical thinking is a
higher measure of a student’s academic performance. While such studies questioned the
association between results on admission interviews and subsequent academic
performance, others supported using admission interviews in conjunction with other
admission criteria (Zimdars, 2010). It is determined that admission interview together
with mathematical aptitude and gender is not associated with the academic performance
of a student as previously discussed.

As an application of academic performance, researchers also considered student

diversity as a variance on the different characteristics of such performance. Student
diversity is a reality of academics’ working environments (Sue Gordon et al. 2010).
Several studies have identified various classifications of learners according to their
thinking styles. Kolb (1984) includes four terminologies for learning styles in his
Experiential Learning Theory; Divergers, Assimilators, Convergers, and
Accommodators. According to his theory, Divergers are those people who perform better
in situations that require idea-generation and like to gather information while
Assimilators are those that excel at understanding wide-ranging information and
organizing it in a clear and logical manner. On the other hand, Convergers are best at
finding practical uses for ideas and theories while Accommodators use other people's
analysis and prefer to take a practical and experiential approach to such. The most
effective learners can use all four learning styles (McCarthy, 2016). In a qualitative study
on the diversity of fifteen (15) Iranian nursing students’ clinical learning styles, Baraz
and et al. (2014) identified their baccalaureate nursing students’ learning styles as
'thoughtful observation,' 'learning by thinking,' and 'learning by doing'.

Classifications of the different learners about their academic performance are one
of the significant steps toward building development on the diversified fields of
education. Many scholars seek to find an understanding of these classifications. Some
took into account the diversified learning styles across genders. A study conducted by A,
G., Khan and et al., (2015) revealed that female students estimated their verbal/linguistic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligence higher than their male counterparts.
Inversely, male students rated their bodily/kinesthetic and naturalistic intelligence higher
than their female counterparts. Non-significant differences between male and female
students on logical/mathematical, visual/ spatial, musical and existential intelligence were
insignificant. Various studies have considered age, gender, demography, and culture as
variables in assessing diversity among learners and showed that these also affect the way
learners process information (Cheng, 2010).

A learner’s cognitive style may also be a factor for their diversity. Cognitive
styles are defined as ‘the preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning: information
processing and the formation of ideas and judgments’ (Burris, et al. (2008)). On a study
on the preferred learning styles of nursing students using the VARK (visual, aural,
read/write, and kinesthetic) assessment, diversity was found among their associate degree
and practical students in the frequency of students having either or a hybrid of the
learning styles (McAllister, 2015). The same results were yielded in a study among
medical students from Saudi Arabia notwithstanding gender among the participants
which is directed towards improving the quality of teaching by understanding the
students’ learning styles (Nuzhat, et al., 2011).

In the field of accounting, accountancy students are required to possess high-order

thinking and analytical skills to accomplish the course successfully. The foundations of
this course are the theories, the standards, and the problems, the applications of such.
Ideally, the uniform skill requirement should match with its foundation. It is but a curious
observation of the existence of theory-based, problem-based or both in the batches of
accountancy students as time lapses. The researchers posit that theory-based students are
those students whose cognitive performance is superior through analyzing theories. They
are more adept at interpreting words and phrases than solving complex problems. On the
other side, problem-based students prefer to use their analytical skills through problems.
They are superior on solving problems as an application to the theories. There are
considered rare cases that some students are excellent in both aspects.

Amidst all the studies presented above, they only dwell on the psychological
means of how learners learn. The researchers posit that diversity among the learners
particularly that of accountancy students may also be determined by their cognitive
performance based on their performance on each of the board exam subjects. In the
present issuance and mandate of the Board of Accountancy, the Licensure Examination
for Certified Public Accountants compose of six (6) board subjects, namely: Advanced
Financial Accounting and Reporting (AFAR), Financial Accounting and Reporting
(FAR), Auditing, Management Advisory Services (MAS), Business Law (BL), and
Taxation. Considering that each subject in the accountancy program somehow relates to
another (e.g. Auditing Problems as an application of Auditing Theory), previous studies
neglect to account students’ learning pattern in accordance to the accountancy subjects as
a means of diversification in a batch.

The researchers wish to answer the gap between studies by identifying the groups
of accountancy students based on how they integrate their learning from all the
accounting subjects. Determining such groups will help examinees and reviewers
understand their learning patterns which will aid them in attaining a higher possibility of
success in the board examinations.

II. Methodology

The researchers endeavored to look into the different learning patterns that exist
among the different examinees of the Philippine CPA Licensure Examination as
manifested in the ratings that they achieved. Considering the difficulty of obtaining the
actual board examination results, the researchers used the results of the final pre-board
examination of one of the biggest CPA review centers in Cebu. The said examination
transpired on April 2017, preparation for the May 2017 CPA Licensure Examination. It
simulates the actual board exam and follows the table of specifications as mandated by
the Professional Regulatory Board of Accountancy. As such, the researchers deem it as
an appropriate proxy for the actual CPA Licensure Examination.

After obtaining the examination results, the researchers then determined the final
set of examinees to be included in this study. For an examinee to qualify as part of this
study, he must have taken the exam for all of the six subjects previously mentioned. To
ensure the same academic background, the researchers then chose those who come from
the school that fielded in the most number of examinees.

A total of ninety (90) examinees qualified to be the subjects of this study. Using
this data, the researchers then proceeded to perform cluster analysis to identify the
patterns that make up the profile of these CPA Licensure Examination takers.

Limitations of the Study

The study cannot obtain the areas in which the participants scored right or wrong
which may help determine whether the concentration in their knowledge is that of the
subject’s concepts or problem-solving application. The researchers only considered the
nature of the subject and how these are interrelated with or applied in other subjects.
Also, the Table of Specifications did not specify the allocation of items for problem-
solving or theory questions. It only presented the allocation of items according to the
qualification descriptors- Remembering, Understanding, Application, Analysing,
Evaluating and Creating.

The researchers were also not able to obtain a copy of the conditional examinees
of the actual board examination taken by this batch of candidates on May 2017. The
researchers thus determined their performance only as either passed or failed.

III. Results and Discussion

In the program of accountancy, the subjects established are not independent of

one another. Similar to any other programs; these six (6) subjects are interrelated except
Taxation and Business Law. FAR is the foundation of the subject Auditing while MAS
and AFAR have a relationship with several of its topics. In lieu of these analyzed
relationships of the subjects, the researchers inferred that it has an impact of how the
students were categorized based on how they excel on the accounting subjects.
The following table shows the average percentage of scores by the participants in
the six board examination subjects:
Table 1: Average Percentage of Scores per Subject (n=90)

Board Exam Subjects Average Scores

Taxation 54.29%
Business Law 67.50%
Auditing 70.71%
Financial Accounting and Reporting 50.00%
Management Advisory Services 60.71%
Advanced Financial Accounting and Reporting 55.71%
Average 59.82%
 Taking the population as a whole, the examinees yielded low scores in their
Taxation and Financial Accounting and Reporting examinations with an average of
54.29% and 50.00%, respectively while they performed exceptionally well in Auditing
with an average of 70.71% as shown in Table 1. While Taxation being one of the lowest
may be acceptable due to the nature of the subject having its concepts and standards set
by the tax authorities, the results in FAR and Auditing is rather conflicting considering
that, as previously mentioned, FAR is the foundation of Auditing and the concepts in
these subjects are interrelated. This may be affected by the scope of Auditing which
composes half of Auditing Theory – a separate course in the accountancy program that
tackles on the concepts, ethics, and skills required in the practice of auditing, and half of
Auditing Problems – a subject that discusses the application of the concepts and
procedures conducted in auditing. It is also observable that participants produced close
ratings in MAS and AFAR which are subjects that have topics that somehow also relate
to each other. It is also noticeable that their second-highest average score is in Business
Law which revolves around legal rights, and obligations and its practical use in
situational problems and involves no numeric problem-solving skills compared to the
other five subjects which require the application of the concepts in solving numeric
problems.
It is observable from these performance patterns that the two independent subjects
– Taxation and Business Law have inverse results having Business Law as one of their
highest performing areas while Taxation being one of their lowest. The nature of the
subject may be an explanation to such behavior in their performance. Business Law, as
previously mentioned, although may have situational problem-solving, involves no
numeric problem-solving while Taxation, on the other hand just like the other board
subjects, has concepts then applied in numeric problem-solving. Taxation may not be
completely isolated from the other subjects (specifically of FAR) however since the basic
discussion on the computations of net income, and relevant values are from these subjects
having only a difference in measurement rules and deductibility, among others. An
inference drawn from such observation is that the examinees are more adept at
interpreting words and phrases. Their learning is more focused on the understanding of
the concepts, but it may seem hard for them to apply such concepts in solving numeric
problems.
Applying the cluster analysis method, the researchers found three groups or types
of students according to their performance in the board examination subjects. Out of the
ninety (90) participants, the analysis observed similarities from eighty-four (84)
participants identifying them as Cluster 1(in red), while five (5) participants were
grouped to form Cluster 3 (in blue) and leaving one (1) individual having distinct
characteristics to form Cluster 2 (in green). As shown in Figure 1, Cluster 1 dominated
most of the population while small groups form the other two clusters. Although the
participants in Cluster 1 formed one group, there was a formation of sub-groups based on
the similarities in their pre-board examination scores. The distance, however, in their
differences were insignificantly short for them to form another cluster. Such occurrence
shows that although they are in the same cluster, the participants are not wholly identical
with one another.

Dendrogram Final Preboard April 2017

Single Linkage, Euclidean Distance

79.26

86.18
Similarity

93.09

100.00
Observations

Figure 1: Dendogram of Final Pre-board April 2017

As mandated by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC), a candidate

taking the CPA Licensure Examination must obtain a score not lower than 65% in each
of the board examination subjects and attain a 75% average score of the six (6) board
subjects.
The researchers tallied on the scores of each cluster to identify the number of the
participants yielded in the same range of scores in the examination. The following tables
(Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C) show the number and percentage of the population per cluster
having the same range of scores in each of the board examination subjects.
 Table 2A: Tally of the percentage of Scores for Cluster 1 (n=84)

Cluster 1
Percentag
e of Tax % BL % Audit % FAR % MAS % AFAR %
Scores
1%-44% 16 19% 3 4% 0 0% 32 38% 1 1% 6 7%
45%-64% 61 73% 34 40% 25 30% 49 58% 63 75% 66 79%
65%-75% 7 8% 28 33% 26 31% 3 4% 17 20% 9 11%
76%-85% 0 0% 18 21% 26 31% 0 0% 3 4% 3 4%
86%-99% 0 0% 1 1% 7 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
100 100 100 100 100
Total 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 100%

The tally shows that the participants’ scores in Cluster 1 are scattered in different ranges
of percentage of score compared to Clusters two (2) and three (3) below. While some
may have a score higher or lower than where mostly the population belongs, the range in
the results is somewhat close. The concentrations of the whole group are in two or three
successive ranges and these ranges lie above or below the 65% minimum requirement of
the PRC.
This cluster composes of individuals whose performance in the examination was
in the average. Although some of their scores may be above the minimum, most of the
concentrations of their results are below the 65% minimum requirement. This group had
79% of its population (or 66 examinees) pass the actual board examination held on May
2017 while the 21% (or 18 examinees) failed. It indicates that this performance in the
pre-board examination may not be a guaranty of success in taking the actual board
examination.

Table 2B: Tally of the percentage of Scores for Cluster 2 (n=1)

Cluster 2
Percentag
FA AFA
e of Tax % BL % Audit % % MAS % %
R R
Scores
100
1%-44% 0 0% 0 0% 1 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
100 100 100
45%-64% 1 % 0 0% 0 0% 1 % 1 % 1 100%
100
65%-75% 0 0% 1 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
76%-85% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
86%-99% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
100 100 100 100 100
Total 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 100%

The above table shows that the participant in this cluster has scored highest in Business
Law, the only subject that reached the 65% minimum requirement of the PRC. Other
subject results, however, are below the 65% minimum requirement. The researchers
concluded that it is barely possible for participants in this cluster to achieve the 75%
average score requirement.
Although this cluster showed a poor performance in the pre-board examination,
the participant in this cluster somehow passed the actual board examination. It gives the
notion that better outcomes in the board examination will arise through exerting extra
efforts to all subjects.

Table 2C: Tally of the percentage of Scores for Cluster 3 (n=5)

Cluster 3
Percentage
Tax % BL % Audit % FAR % MAS % AFAR %
of Scores

1%-44% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
45%-64% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
65%-75% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 1 20%
76%-85% 1 20% 1 20% 0 0% 4 80% 2 40% 1 20%
86%-99% 0 0% 4 80% 5 100% 0 0% 3 60% 3 60%
100
Total 5 % 5 100% 5 100% 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%

It is observable in this cluster that the population, if not in the same range of
scores, have close results. It is also noticeable that this cluster’s lowest scores are in the
45%-64% range which is somewhat close to the board exam’s minimum requirement of
65%. Participants in this cluster perform exceptionally well apart from the others, having
scored in Auditing in the 86%-99% range and in the 76%-85% or 80%-89% range in the
rest.
The performance of this cluster gives them a high probability of reaching the 75%
average requirement of the PRC and passing the board exam. In the actual board exam,
three (3) out of the five (5) participants in this cluster made it to the top ten (10) passers
of the board exam. This type of results in the pre-board exam may give a high possibility
of not just passing but also being one of the top performers in the board examination.
To further understand the formation of these clusters, the researchers performed
an analysis of their performance per board subject. The researchers observed the areas in
which the participants showed their strengths and weaknesses. Table 2 shows the
centroids per cluster and the whole population per subject. The centroids are the average
data points. In analyzing the groups, Cluster 3 yielded the highest average score in all six
(6) board subjects while the others alternately come second. As for their performance per
cluster, Cluster 1 performed best in Auditing and poorest in Financial Accounting and
Reporting, Cluster 2 performed best in Business Law and poorest in Auditing, and
Cluster 3 performed best in Auditing and worst in Taxation. Coinciding with the previous
analysis of the whole population, all clusters’ average scores in AFAR and MAS
generated close average scores.

Table 3: Cluster and Grand Centroids per Subject

Cluster centroids Grand

Board Exam Subjects
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 centroid

Taxation 0.533163 0.528570 0.688570 0.541746

Business Law 0.663214 0.730000 0.864000 0.675111
Auditing 0.711395 0.342860 0.957140 0.720952
Financial Accounting and
0.491667 0.542860 0.762860 0.507302
Reporting
Management Advisory
0.596259 0.557140 0.862860 0.610635
Services
Advanced Financial
0.549320 0.642860 0.831430 0.566032
Accounting and Reporting
Average 0.590836 0.557380 0.827810 0.603630

The result shows that the students from cluster one and three are of similar
characteristics because both clusters are the same, having a higher score in the Auditing
compared to that of FAR. On top of that, the difference between FAR and MAS subject
scores of both clusters are very minimal which gives close ratings on both subjects.
However, these two groups of learners have clustered accordingly due to the scores
yielded by the participants in each cluster. Although these clusters were found to have
similarities regarding the relationship of the subjects, the participants in Cluster 3 yielded
the highest scores in all subjects in analysis across clusters while Cluster 1 yielded
average results in 3 board subjects namely Taxation, Auditing and MAS and lowest on
the rest. It sets the other two clusters apart – Cluster 1 and Cluster 2. While both did not
turn out as the highest performers, these clusters have a significant gap in their average
scores in analysis across subjects. While, as previously mentioned, Cluster 1 yielded a
higher score in Auditing than that in FAR, Cluster 2 yielded the opposite. The researchers
found the same trend in their average scores in MAS and AFAR where Cluster 1
produced a higher score in MAS and a lower score in AFAR while Cluster 2 has a
significantly higher score in AFAR than that in MAS. It can be pointed out, as well, that
Cluster 2 yielded a high score in Business Law.
With the consideration of all previous observations, it manifests that the diversity
in the learning patterns of the CPA Licensure Examination examinees is not widely
diversified since a majority of the population were grouped in one cluster. Although the
researchers grouped Cluster one (1) and three (3) separately, further analysis showed that
the superiority in the knowledge of the subjects was the factor that set them apart while
about their incorporation of the interrelated subjects, their patterns show a very close
similarity. There, however, lie differences in the learning pattern for Cluster 2 which
made it separable from the other two clusters.
IV. Conclusion
The examinees for the CPA licensure examination, in line with its uniform skill
and knowledge requirement, have less diversity among them based, on the learning
patterns they possess. The participants selected for this study came from the same school
which means they have the same instructors as well as learning materials. Cluster
analysis, however, still shows that disparity existed within the class and discovered three
distinct groups-Clusters 1, 2 and 3 with Cluster 1 having the most number of participants
and cluster 3 having the second highest. Clusters one (1) and three (3) include students
that are observably similar in the perspective that they have the same ranking on the
superiority they have on the six mentioned board examination subjects. Both clusters
garnered the highest score in the Auditing subject. However, Cluster 3 as shown in the
above tables performed excellently while Cluster 1’s ratings are on the average. Cluster 2
which is represented by only one student, is the only cluster distinct from the other two. It
scored highest in Business Law and significantly performed low on the other board exam
subjects. The outcome reveals that the CPA board examinees do not relatively differ in
their learning patterns, rather it shows that they have three distinct subject performance
pattern: Cluster 3, who excel in almost all the subjects, have the highest probability of
passing the board exam. As shown in Table 2C, this cluster only got one score below the
65% requirement; all the rest is on or above 65%. Examinees who wish to have assurance
in passing the exam or even topping the exam must have the same pattern of performance
in the pre-board examination. Cluster 1’s ratings, on the other hand, is on the average.
This cluster illumines those students that could either pass or fail the exam. If students
wish to take a risk on their exams, then they belong to cluster 1 whose ratings play
around below or above 65%. Lastly, Cluster 2 is contrary to Cluster 3 who got only one
subject above the 65% requirement, and all the rest are below. Examinees who belong in
this cluster must learn to manage their time in giving equal importance to each of the
subjects to attain the minimum and average requirement. Although it is not impossible for
these examinees herein to pass in the actual board, extra efforts are needed to assure
success in taking the board exam.

The results are crucial and relevant to the instructors and students in the program.
Such results aid an accountancy student that for one to have better performance in the
CPA Licensure Examination, he/she must assess which cluster he belongs to know if he
must maintain his performance or he needs to take extra effort. Also, instructors of this
program should consider such desired behavior on the learning style of these students to
formulate better methods on training these students in preparation of the board
examination.
References:

A, G., Khan, U. A., Ghazi, S. R., & Hayat, Y. (2015). Gender differences in self-
estimated multiple intelligences among secondary school students. Pakistan
Journal of Psychological Research, 30(1), 81-94. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1712860306?accountid=33262

Baraz, S., Memarian, R., & van aki, Z. (2014). The diversity of iranian nursing students'
clinical learning styles: A qualitative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(5),
525-31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2014.03.004

Bertrand, J. L., & Lee, J. Y. (2012). Teaching international relations to a multicultural

classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
24(1), 128-133. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

Burris, S., Kitchel, T., Molina, Q., Vincent, S., & Warner, W. (2008). The language of
learning styles. Techniques, 83(2), 44-48. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/216127617?accountid=33262

Cheng, H. (2010). A cross-cultural study of learning behaviors in the classroom from a

thinkingstyle perspective (Order No. 3402309). Available from Education
Database; ProQuest Central. (305239033). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/305239033?accountid=33262

Crose, B. (2011). Internationalization of the higher education classroom: Strategies to

facilitate intercultural learning and academic success. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 388-395. Retrieved from
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

Gordon, S., Reid, A., &Petocz, P. (2010). Educators' conceptions of student diversity in
their classes. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 961. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/851364817?accountid=33262

Guney, Y. 2009. Exogenous and Endogenous Factors Influencing Students’ Performance

in Undergraduate Accounting Modules. Accounting Education: An International
Journal (Vol. 18, No. 1) 51-73.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experiences as a source Of learning and

development.Prentice-Hall: Engle-wood Cliffs,NJ.
LIST OF PASSERS: May 2017 CPA Board Exam Results. Retrieved from
https://www.prcboard.com/2017/05/CPA-Result-May-2017-Board-Exam-List-of-
Passers.html

McAllister, B. (2015). Nursing student preferred learning styles and predicted NCLEX®

success  (Order No. 3708582). Available from Education Database; ProQuest
Central. (1700787583). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1700787583?accountid=33262

Singh, Y., Makharia, A., Sharma, A., Agrawal, K., Varma, G., &Yadav, T. (2017). A
study on different forms of intelligence in indian school-going children. Industrial
Psychiatry Journal, 26(1) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_61_16

McCarthy, M. (2016). Experiential learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of

Business & Economics Research (Online), 14(3), 91. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1804900934?accountid=33262

Nuzhat, A., Salem, R. O., Quadri, M. S. A., & Al-Hamdan, N. (2011). Learning style
preferencesof medical students: A single-institute experience from saudi
arabia. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 70-73. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/898889048?accountid=33262

Resolution No. 275-2015 Provides TOS for New CPA Exam Subjects. Retrieved from
https://boa.com.ph/resolution-no-275-2015-provides-tos-for-new-cpa-exam-
subjects/

Seow, P., Pan, G., & Tay, J. (2014). REVISITING THE DETERMINANTS OF
STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN AN UNDERGRADUATE ACCOUNTANCY
DEGREE
PROGRAMME IN SINGAPORE. Global Perspectives on Accounting
Education, 11, 1-23. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1546003571?accountid=33262

Smith, R. O. (2010). Facilitation and design of learning. In C. E. Kasworm, A. D. Rose,

& J. M. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp.
147- 155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zimdars, A. 2010. Fairness and Undergraduate Admission: AQualitativeExploration of

Admissions.Choices at the University of Oxford. Oxford Review of Education
(Vol. 36, No. 3) 207-323.