This paper concerns assessment of main instrument entrance tests for Swedish specialist music teacher education. The two articles presented are part of a larger research project of admission tests financed by the Swedish Research Council. The background of the project is based on problems with transparency and unarticulated assessment criteria when assessing music (Harrison et al, 2013; Olsson & Nielsen, 2018; Zandén, 2010), as well as the Swedish governments demands on higher education to strive for strengthened societal democracy by promoting equality and broader recruitment.  Four music education institutions with specialist music teacher educations participated in the project. Applicants who gave their written consent were video recorded during their entrance auditions during spring 2018. Almost every member in the jury groups, in which video recordings had been carried out, agreed to participate. The data in the two studies comprise 27 video documented auditions and 22 focus group conversations or individual interviews with use of stimulated-recall for comments on the auditions. A social semiotic theory (Kress, 2010) was used to capture how instrumental/vocal skills were represented by applicants in main instrument auditions, and verbally articulated and assessed by jurors. The aim was to study what was considered as acceptable skills in applicants’ knowledge representations, and how these statements were legitimised.  In article one (Sandberg-Jurström et al., in press, a), with focus on how criteria are articulated and used by jurors when assessing main instrument entrance auditions, two assessment cultures is emerged showing a great discrepancy between assessing musical skills and assessing person-related skills. The music-centred assessment culture emphasises assessments of technical, communicative, and genre-anchored interpretation skills essential for meeting the demands of the education and profession. The person-centred assessment culture emphasises assessments of personal traits suitable for education and profession. In the discussion the reliability, credibility, and validity of assessing abilities in terms of being and behaving in a particular way is addressed. The second article (Sandberg-Jurström et al., in press, b), concerns jurors’ views of the limit for approval in main instrument auditions. Four approaches to what is considered decisive for an approved instrument test have been constructed: (a) the demanding education and profession that legitimises a high or very high level of competencies for approval, (b) the supposed capacity of the applicant that legitimises a low level of competencies for approval, (c) the flexible admission situation that legitimises a changeable level for approval, and (d) the care of the applicant that legitimises an insufficient level. What is considered to be the minimum requirement for approval in these constructions differs markedly. The findings are discussed in relation to transparency and broadened recruitment by highlighting two possible scenarios of revised admission tests. In the presentation, focus is on the criteria and the limits for approval used, the qualities and skills represented in these criteria, and the assessment cultures considered for the assessments. Some overlaps between the findings are also highlighted.