Seekingarrangement.com has revealed that Oxford University had the 20th highest number of students sign up to be ‘sugar babies’ last year, well-behind behind its rival, Cambridge.

In its annual study of university sugar babies, the world’s largest ‘sugar daddy’ dating site revealed that 71 Oxford students had signed up in comparison to 207 from Cambridge University.In total, nearly two million students are seeking benefactors in the form of ‘sugar daddies’ and ‘mommies’ to financially support their university education, according to the study.

The site confirmed that 136 Oxford students are registered with them, whilst there are 704 at Cambridge and as many as 724 at Kent University. They have seen a 109 per cent increase in Oxford students registering on their site from the previous year and a 40 per cent over all in sign ups across UK Universities. The site helps to match wealthy benefactors “seeking mutually beneficial relationships” with “attractive” members and come to a variety of “arrangements”, ranging from dinner and conversations to sexual liaisons in return for cash and gifts.

“The French had courtesans,” the website states. “The Japanese had geishas. And in today’s society, we now have sugar babies.”

The average ‘sugar baby’ allowance is £2,000. On average, members put 36 per cent of this towards tuition, 23 per cent towards rent and 20 per cent towards books, with clothes and transport revealing much lower percentages of five and nine per cent respectively, the site disclosed. Last year, SeekingArrangement.com found that only 20 per cent of relationships started on the site were not sexual.

The group commented , “Oxford may be one of the cheapest cities for student accommodation, but the University of Oxford is one of the most expensive in the nation. Many students have found an alternative route to pay for university and associated costs by turning to SeekingArrangement to find sugar daddies and mommies.”

“Perhaps one of the most alluring benefits of pursuing sugar daddies, aside from financial stability, is the mentorship and opportunities from dating someone who is of a higher social and economic standing. Most students hear about SeekingArrangement, and this lifestyle from other students who have used it”

“This is not part-time work, or any type of work for that matter. Arrangements are relationships, albeit constructed differently than traditional relationships.”

“Financial reasons aside. The society we live in has changed, and there is interest in alternative relationship models. Arrangements are a modern take on relationships with traditional values.”

“Women are unfairly labelled ‘gold diggers’ if they are vocal about wanting a successful partner. The up-front nature of arrangements, being able to lay out exactly the type of person and relationship you want, without fear of judgement or stigma from potential partners’ is empowering. If men are allowed to vocalise what qualities they want in a partner, say being educated and beautiful, then women should be encouraged to do the same for whichever qualities they value.”

SeekingArrangement.com offers free premium memberships to students that register with their university email address or if they show proof of their enrolment. Premium accounts allow students to feature on the site, “increasing their visibility and chances of securing an arrangement” to “sugar daddies and mommies”.

The site currently boasts over 5 million members and was founded by MIT graduate and online-dating expert, Brandon Wade. Members can join for free.

Natasha Gibbs, an undergraduate at Merton, commented, “Relying on these older men, or women, seems to undermine the independence that these students are trying to achieve by pursuing higher education, and the figures are worryingly high in some universities. That said, it is sad that so many young women feel that they have no choice but to turn to such measures in order to pay for their degrees, and perhaps the level of financial support available to students who are struggling with money needs to be addressed.”

Jack Harrison, a second year at Pembroke, said, “The nature of tuition fee increases, combined with the intense nature of Oxford times makes it hardly surprising that students are feeling the need to potentially compromise themselves out of a necessity to pay their way.”

But one ‘sugar baby’ from Cambridge said, “I feel such an arrangement gives me a freedom”, with another noting “it’s an easy, convenient way to support myself.”

 Oxford University declined to comment.

Lady Margaret Hall has welcomed 11 new visiting fellows including actors Emma Watson and Benedict Cumberbatch and Pet Shop Boys singer Neil Tennant.

The appointments were announced in an online statement by Alan Rusbridger, Principal of LMH. Rusbridger wrote, “Today we welcome 11 new visiting fellows to Lady Margaret Hall. They are people drawn from a variety of backgrounds, callings and professions and we want them to form a bridge between our own academic community and the worlds they inhabit and represent.”

Other appointments include the author and former children’s laureate Malorie Blackman; Beeban Kidron, known for her role as director of Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason; the chief constable of Thames Valley police, Francis Habgood; High Court judge Rabinder Singh and clarinetist and winner of the BBC Young Musician of the Year award in 2006, Mark Simpson.

A provisional list of visiting fellows was constructed by Lady Margaret Hall’s governing body, and was then narrowed down by a smaller committee. Only one of the appointments that the College proposed turned the position down. The visiting fellows are appointed for a term of three years.

Rusbridger, himself a former editor of The Guardian who took up his post at LMH in September 2015, stated, “We hope they will occasionally come and eat at College as well as tutors, alumni, students and support staff . One or two have already come up with other ideas for how they might use their relationship with LMH to develop other projects and thinking.”

Rusbridger, in a post on his blog, mentioned that the appointment of non-academic visiting fellows in Oxford was originally the idea of Lord Nuffield, who invited people from a variety of backgrounds to his college. Rusbridger commented, “Alongside the students and tutors [visiting Nuffield] there would be bishops, bankers, spies, journalists and economists. Lord Nuffield, it seemed to me, was on to something: this was a way of enriching the life of a college and its students, and of blowing oxygen through the corridors.”

This is not the first time celebrities have walked the corridors of Oxford colleges: the Cameron Mackintosh visiting professorship at St Catz has been filled by personalities such as Stephen Fry, Patrick Stewart and Diana Rigg. Rusbridger, indeed, celebrated the non-academic nature of the appointments, stating, “The obvious thing to note is that – deliberately – only one is an academic. “The College already has many very distinguished honorary fellows, most of whom have had notable careers of scholarship.”

“Our visiting fellows bring a different kind of experience. They have all, in their different ways, achieved great distinction in their chosen fields, professions or calling. LMH is already a deeply interesting place. “It just got even more interesting.”

St Hilda’s College JCR passed a motion seeking to “boycott Prevent” earlier this week.

The Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015) requires universities to implement ‘Prevent Duty’, a series of measures designed to ensure “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.

Oxford will have to be fully compliant with Prevent by August this year; the Higher Education and Funding Council for England has been given responsibility to monitor how the been given responsibility to monitor how the University has met the new counter-terrorism.

The motion, proposed by the JCR President and seconded by the St Hilda’s student BME officer, mandates JCR officers “not to co-operate with the Prevent strategy” and to “boycott it as far as legally possible”.

The JCR has also committed to “lobby the College to be completely open and transparent about how it is engaging with Prevent” by providing the JCR with access to the publications used to train staff and students to spot potentially radicalised individuals, as well as to hold consultations within the student body.

Hilda’s JCR president, Mollie MacGinty, argued that “the act further criminalises Muslims and black people,” and raised concerns that the concepts of ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalism’ are “ill defined and open to abuse for political ends”.

The Oxford University Student Union passed a similar motion in October last year to “not cooperate with the [government’s] Prevent strategy”. In February 2015, over 500 academics signed an open letter condemning the Counter Terrorism and Security Act when it received Royal Assent, declaring that it remains “a threat to freedom of speech at universities.”

Aliya Yule, third year undergraduate at Wadham and the proposer of the OUSU motion last year, told Cherwell , “The new Prevent legislation (2015) poses a huge threat to all students, but in particular Muslim and BME students. “Most notably, plans to implement the legislation include monitoring prayer rooms and religious facilities, having welfare staff , including JCR and MCR Welfare Offi cers, trained to look out for signs of ‘extremism’, and stopping people speaking whose views could be deemed problematic. In a climate of increasing Islamophobia, and in a university where 60 per cent of BME students feel “The Prevent legislation poses a huge threat to all students”unwelcome or uncomfortable on account of their race or ethnicity, Prevent will have a hugely negative impact on Muslim and BME students.”

Yussef Robinson, who is the BME officer at St Hilda’s and who seconded the motion, said, “Our Counselling Service will now be trained and required to report on ‘suspicious’ students. This is inherently awful and it will further marginalise BME students at the University; we will now feel less comfortable approaching the counselling service. I would have been far less able to have an effective discussion in my counselling sessions if I thought my words might be reported back to the state.”

Oxford City Council has voted unanimously in opposition to the Government’s proposed new cap on Housing Benefit, over fears that it will render supported housing schemes for vulnerable groups in Oxford financially inviable.

The proposal was announced by Chancellor George Osborne in his Autumn Statement, as part of a £12 billion programme of welfare cuts.The Government intends to extend the Local Housing Allowance, which caps housing benefit rents just below the local average market rent, to all social housing from 2018. Supported accommodation schemes for vulnerable groups, such as mental health sufferers, domestic violence victims and homeless people, will be subject to the cap. Critics insist that the cap will not leave these services with enough money to continue operating.

One of the local services set to be affected by the change is Oxford Homeless Pathways, which provides, amongst other services, emergency accommodation to homeless people at O’Hanlon House in the city centre. The charity’s Chief Executive, Lesley Dewhurst, said of the cap, “It would have a profoundly negative effect on the kind of supported accommodation that we run.” The cost of a room at O’Hanlon House is currently just over £200 per week, which is met entirely by housing benefit. The proposed new changes would reduce housing benefit to just £80 a week, representing a 60 per cent cut in funding.

A strongly worded motion was passed unanimously by the Labour run City Council on Monday, roundly condemning the plans. The motion describes the Government’s proposal as “completely incompatible with the basic tenets of a civilised society” and accuses the Government of being “committed to the wholesale destruction of all social housing”.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, who proposed the motion, told Cherwell, “Providing supported homes for those that need it people with mental and physical health problems, those sheltering from domestic violence or trying to free themselves from addiction – is a basic duty of a civilised society. This proposal will destroy that provision, and the government needs to be shamed into abandoning its plans.”

 Following this motion, the Leader of the Council will be writing to both of Oxford’s MPs asking them to oppose the changes “in the strongest possible terms”.

The developments come amid controversy over Oxfordshire County Council’s decision lastmonth to cut its budget for homelessness services by 65 per cent.

Mark Thompson, chief executive of Connection Floating Support, an Oxford-based charity which provides housing and mental health services, told Cherwell, “If there was a way of separating the extra and legitimate costs from the core rent such that only the core rent could be chargeable to people living in such accommodation, that would be great.” Under this suggestion, the portion of social Housing Benefit spent on accommodation itself would be brought in-line with the housing benefit received by private rental tenants, without the services currently funded via housing benefit losing out.

In response to criticism of the plans by Labour, a Government spokesman told the BBC in December, “We have increased funding to councils by 40 per cent since the last Parliament to help people who may need extra support whilst they transition to our reforms. From the outset we have been clear that vulnerable people will be supported through our welfare reforms.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government is set to report on a review of social housing in March.