QS, the producer of global university league tables, have released their new ranking of universities by subject for 2016. The University of Oxford is rated first for the Arts & Humanities category defined by QS, third for Life Sciences & Medicine as well as Social Sciences and Management, fifth for Natural Sciences, and ninth for Engineering and Technology.

Oxford’s ranking has risen for Arts & Humanities and Engineering & Technology, which are up from second and 13^th respectively in the 2015 rankings, while the ranking for Life Sciences & Medicine has fallen from second. Notable subject-specific rankings for the university include a first place in English and Modern Languages while it comes second in Law, Politics and Medicine, third in Computer Science and occupies the fourth and sixth positions in Mathematics and Physics among others.

The rankings are compiled using a combination of four factors: a worldwide survey based on which institutions academics consider best in their field, an employment survey on the institutions which produce the most employable graduates, an analysis of citations of each university’s research in academic papers, and finally the H-Index which QS describe in their online methodology as “a way of measuring both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar.” The weightings of these different components vary by field since, for example, there are less publications for History than Medicine.

While Oxford is doing well across the board, the rankings reveal a clear split between the humanities, where Oxford ranks first overall, and science. Peter Saville, studying History at University College tells Cherwell, “Oxford’s success is hardly surprising given the versatile history curriculum which leaves all disciplines and periods open to the undergraduate. This is also supported by a passionate and (often weirdly) knowledgeable set of lecturers and tutors, which means we have no option but to shoe the tabs in academia as well as sport!”

Oxford’s excellent performance in Modern Languages is greeted with excitement by Josh Dernie, a first year French and Linguistics student at Keble, telling Cherwell, “it’s great to see Oxford maintaining its long-held position at the very top of the QS world rankings in modern languages; to receive yet another perfect score is a real tribute to the faculty.”

Third year English student Mina Odile is more skeptical, but ultimately agrees with Saville’s high estimation of Oxford humanities, saying, “I always find these ranking systems a bit suspect, but from the perspective of a third year English student I would have to say that Oxford offers an outstanding programme.” However, she adds a note of caution, “I think the problem with these rankings is that they seem to suggest that the given ‘top of the league’ programme is the ideal programme for anyone aspiring to the best in their field.

“And in reality, while Oxford’s English faculty is arguably at the top of its field in terms of research, it may not provide the best study environment for everyone. Best doesn’t mean best for everyone.”

The sciences, on the other hand, did not do quite as well. The Engineering faculty in particular was rated poorly by QS compared to Oxford’s humanities subjects, though it did improve from last year, receiving 14th place for Civil Engineering, 11th for Electrical and 10th for Chemical Engineering.

Aurelia Vandamme, a first year Engineer at Keble explains this by saying “Oxford does general engineering so it’s pretty hard to compare with universities that do specialised degrees, and it means that we have more overall knowledge/are able to communicate with all sorts of engineers.”

The push for a rail link between Oxford and Cambridge has moved to the next level with high-level government officials pushing for the 67-mile line to be built as soon as possible.

Lord Adonis, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, has received backing from Chancellor George Osborne for the funding to construct the line, which would link Oxford, Bicester, Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

Currently, “The only way of travelling ‘directly’ between Oxford and Cambridge is the X5, a four-plus-hour coach journey that will strip you of your will to live if it doesn’t strand you in Milton Keynes,” second-year Mertonian Olivia Williams said.

The renewed effort follows a report in 2014 pushing the idea of increasing connectivity between the two cities to unite their high-skilled, high-employment and highly-educated populations in order to foster technological growth and expertise stemming from the two universities and the people affiliated with them. As Lord Adonis told The Times, this was an opportunity to build “England’s Silicon Valley”. There hasn’t been a rail connection between Oxford and Cambridge since the Varsity Line closed in the 1960s, leaving students and travellers to use a four-hour coach to get between the cities.

While the government is invested in creating a technological centre for the country, students are mostly interested in the convenience.

In the current system, travellers can either take the X5 or a train to London Paddington and King’s Cross then to Cambridge, which is two-and-a-half hours. “that is, if the trains from Oxford to London and London to Cambridge are not delayed, which happen quite frequently.” said first-year Magdalen physicist Anson Yip, who makes the journey almost every weekend.

Because of these delays, “No plans for an evening in Cambridge are certain because I have to rely on the odds rather than my watch.”

Indeed, “A direct train would make the one time I am obliged to make the trip to Cambridge each year marginally less painful”, Williams said.

London architectural studio Gort Scott has been selected to design a new £10 million riverside extension to St Hilda’s College, planned to begin in July 2017.

Gort Scott’s design was selected by St Hilda’s from four other shortlisted designs from competing studios: DRDH, 6A Architects, Tim Ronalds Architects and Hall McKnight in a contest run by Malcom Reading Consultants. The extension is planned as part of the college’s 125^th anniversary celebrations in 2018, and the candidates in the competition were asked to interpret the concept ‘redefining St Hilda’s’ in their designs.

 In a press release, competition organiser Malcom Reading praised the success of Gort Scott in handling their given brief, “the five finalists each produced wonderful proposals and models – we would like to thank them all for their hard work and application.

“We were impressed that Gort Scott really engaged with the challenge and the wider site. It is an ambitious brief and it was a pleasure to see the dedication shown by the team in resolving some complex issues.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13213%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The project will create a new entrance to the college from Cowley Place and includes a slender tower, conference spaces, academic and teaching rooms, rooftop gardens, a riverside pavilion, a common room as well as accommodation for students and fellows.

Claire Harvey, communications manager at St Hilda’s said that the way in which Gort Scott’s project addressed practical problems, combined with the aesthetic of their design made their entry stand out. She told Cherwell, “having considered five very strong designs from the short-listed architectural firms in our invited design competition, the Governing Body felt that Gort Scott’s concept design most suited St Hilda’s riverside location and the ‘feel’ of the College.

“The project is part of our long-term strategy to improve our students’ experience, by increasing the quantity and quality of accommodation. We are aware that we offer a lower provision of undergraduate accommodation than some of the other Oxford colleges and we wanted our students to have the option of living in College for the duration of their time here. This also responds to student feedback we have received over a number of years. In addition, the project will enhance the look and feel of the College, starting with the new entrance on Cowley Place. It will also improve our conference facilities.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13214%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Jay Gort, the director of the winning Gort Scott studio told Cherwell, “this project is an exciting opportunity for us as it is quite rare to have a commission that offers this level of engagement with the river. I would say what stood out about our design in the competition was the use of materials, use of light and importantly the use of structure.”

He added that the design “fills the void” and “pulls the two halves of the college together, addressing the existing lack of identity and clarity we saw in the college.”

A meeting with the architectural firm and St Hilda’s college management will take place this week, with the following few weeks scheduled for refinement in the existing design.

Recent NUS conference agenda motions have called for LGBTQ+ societies to drop their position of a gay men’s rep, stating that “gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBTQ+ community”.

The motivation behind encouraging LGBTQ+ societies to drop their gay men’s rep positions is a response to “misogny, transphobia, racism and bophobia [that] are often present in LGBTQ+ societies,” which is “unfortunately made more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis[gender] gay men,” the motion alleges.

Oxford’s LGBTQ+ Soc told Cherwell they supported the motion, saying, “Although we have a male welfare rep, as queer men suffer bigotry in wider society, and they need support, there is no problem within Oxford LGBTQ+ spaces for gay male representation. This is evidenced by our current committee being the first ever to have a woman president.

“We would also like to point out that our male welfare rep is not a ‘gay male welfare rep’ – the role encompasses bi, asexual and trans men as well as cis gay men. Therefore we do not see the NUS motion as a criticism to our society.”

Some students expressed concern that the motion would damage the balance within the LGBTQ+ community and the welfare of gay men. Jack Schofield, a second year Christ Church student, told Cherwell, “While I don’t deny that gay men are in many ways a comparatively privileged group within the LGBTQ community, for the NUS to advocate the abolition of gay men’s reps seems like an attack and a grave misunderstanding of the serious and multifaceted issues gay men face.

“Such a rep’s role is in any case largely a welfare role, so it is ridiculous and offensive that they should wish to deny gay men an optimal point of contact for advice for problems which affect them specifically as gay men, and I do not believe the NUS is acting in the best interests of its students at all in this regard.”

Bearing the title “Defending Safe(r) spaces and No Platforming”, motions 408 and 408a, submitted by “individuals”, also note the variety of existing definitions of “safe(r) spaces”. While the motion states that a “strength” of the term “safe space” is that it means different things to different communities and invdividuals”, it also states that these spaces are “essential to liberation” and that when “debated for academic ends” they undermine the concept, one that is “vital to the active participation of many students on campus.”

Responding to the NUS’ statement, Harry Samuels, NUS delegate for Oxford, told Cherwell, “I am highly disappointed by the passage of this motion which serves to further this false idea that LGBTQ societies are solely engines for liberation politics rather than social spaces as well. This motion’s passage gives the implication that gay men face no intolerance, or that the intolerance they face is somehow lesser, a pernicious but sadly continuing belief in certain circles.

“The existence of these reps is vital for representation and for gay men who may need someone to turn to for sexual and sexual health advice, or for welfare advice, and Oh Well, Alright Then condemns this motion in the strongest terms as an example of the privileged and ignorant activism of certain circles within the NUS which we stood for election to prevent.”

Adam Farrow, a graduate student at the University of Durham who first tweeted about the motion, told Cherwell, “This is a ludicrous statement. First, it presumes that the only purpose of gay men reps in LGBTQ+ societies is to further a political agenda, which is false.

“Many gay men are able to truly be themselves for the first time at university. This adjustment can be difficult for many, and so they seek the comfort of a representative who they know understands the position they are in. Second, the fact that the NUS no longer consider gay men oppressed enough to deserve representation seems to be nothing more than what the NUS usually refer to as ‘victim blaming’. Because gay men aren’t apparently oppressed as much as other LGBTQ+ groups, they should not receive ANY representation.”

Farrow highlights that “safe spaces are something the NUS fervently defend. According to motion 408, it is because ‘when [safe spaces] are debated for academic ends, a concept that is vital to the active participation of many students on campus is undermined’.

“This is categorically incorrect. It is not dangerous to discuss the idea of safe spaces in academic environments. It is dangerous to stifle debate about any issue, and particularly ones such as safe spaces and no-platforming. It’s offensive that the NUS think so little of the students that they represent that they want Student Unions to no-platform individuals on ‘ideological grounds’.”

Oxford students have organised a march protesting Donald Trump’s candidacy for President of the United States.

The event hopes to “let the world know our thoughts on Donald Trump, in a *peaceful* but *vocal* way”, calling him “an influential individual that is using his platform to inculcate bigotry, xenophobia, and violence”, according to the march’s Facebook page.

Already, there is a split on whether this event is a good idea, with some students commenting that they would definitely attend and supported the march. One commenter, however, finds it offensive for British students to attempt to affect an American election.

“This is a terrible idea”, St. Hilda’s Biological Scientist David Pearson wrote. “Who are we to tell citizens of another democratic state who they should vote for, or to pass judgement on their politicians? No matter how bigoted we might think Donald Trump is, he has every right to say what he thinks, that is democracy.”

This event follows some vocal criticism from all levels of British society, culminating in a debate in the House of Commons on whether to ban Donald Trump from entering the United Kingdom, a motion which ultimately failed.

The march will take place on May 1 at noon, and several hundred students have already expressed interest in attending.