Universities in England which can demonstrate “high quality teaching” will be given the option to raise their fees above the current £9000/year limit in line with inflation, Minister for Universities Jo Johnson has proposed.

In a Green Paper published earlier this week, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills suggested that universities should be ranked in four brackets based on student experience, graduate job prospects, drop-out rates and quality of teaching. Those universities in the top bracket of teaching would be allowed to raise fees in line with inflation, whilst the fees of those universities in the bottom rank would have to charge less than the current cap. The document will be under consultation until January next year, but is likely to lead to a White Paper, and potentially a bill before Parliament.

The increase in fees is part of a series of initiatives designed to encourage universities to raise the standards of their teaching. Other measures include the creation of a new “Office for Students” (OfS), which will merge the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Office for Fair Access. The OfS would act as a student “champion”, as part of “a regulatory structure that puts the student interest – and value for money for the student, for the taxpayer, at its heart” in the words of Jo Johnson. The Green Paper explicitly states that the new regulator will have a statutory duty “to promote the interests of students to ensure that the OfS considers issues primarily from the point of view of students, not providers”.

Johnson has also pushed for universities to use “point scores” instead of traditional degree bands (1st, 2:1 etc) as grades. Johnson claimed the 2:1 band “disguises very considerable differences in attainment.” The paper also contains targets for a 20 per cent increase in the number of students from ethnic minority backgrounds studying at university, and aims to double the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The target would not be enforced by quotas, but would be monitored by the OfS, which would have the powers to require universities to release data on the backgrounds of their students. The paper also proposes that universities could become exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Labour’s Universities spokesman Gordon Marsden said the options to increase fees in line with inflation would create a “twotier system” that could “brand some universities as second class, and damage the life chances of students who go to them”.

Catherine Kelly, a second-year at St Hugh’s, told Cherwell, “[These proposals] will just lead to the further commodification of education and either discourage people from low income backgrounds from aiming for the highest quality educational institutions or leave them with a disproportionate level of debt. The slashing of the maintenance grants and this proposal go against all the government’s empty talk about making education more accessible to people from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

When contacted, Oxford University said that it was “studying the paper carefully”, and “expect to respond in due course”.

Analysis: Patrick Mulholland on why he thinks a two-tier university system might not be the worst idea 

It’s the worst kept secret in British education but somebody has to say it: tertiary level education is a commodity. Gone are the highfalutin days of ‘education for education’s sake,’ of the Platonic ideal, of ‘the academy.’ Students are consumers. It’s like that scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon’s character sizes up a cocksure Ivy League grad, “You dropped a hundred-and-fifty grand on an education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in lay charges at the public library.” To which, of course, he bluntly retorts, “Yeah, but I’ll have a degree.” Your £9,000 tuition fees are investments – investments that, undoubtedly, you wish to see a return on. The question then becomes not so much whether or not student fees are justified, but how they are apportioned fairly, and not so as to impede social mobility.

However, in trying to inextricably link the quality of teaching with wage packets, the government has committed a spectacular blunder. The plan to allow high-flying universities to increase tuition fees in line with inflation will not incentivise higher standards; rather, it will hike up grade inflation (UCU lecturers’ union), as has been seen in the States. Secondly, in a society where having a university education is seen as a monopoly on success, the onus lies on the state to account for any adjustment to student fees. Here, we must bear in mind that a degree is a marketable asset, and that non-EU international students already have to fork out up to £22,515. And, given that third level education for domestic students is already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer – many of whom haven’t attended university – I, personally, would argue that graduates should pay their fair share. Take Oxbridge, for example – simply having Oxon. or Cantab. after your name adds an extra £7,600 to your starting salary, on average. This ought to be reflected in our tuition costs. That is not, however, to say that there isn’t a threshold, nor that at £9,000 it has been undervalued, met or surpassed. Our definition of ‘fairness’ must be fleshed out by rigorous debate and engagement, on both sides of the equation – students and politicians.

The Green Paper also includes proposals to restructure the sector’s regulatory mechanism in the form of a Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). This will employ the use of metrics such as student satisfaction, student retention rates and so on. Surely these measures, alongside the adoption of a US-style grade point average to assess performance beyond the fruits of a stressfilled, caffeine-fueled round of examinations, should be welcomed. Yet, some have argued that this will create a two-tier system, to which I say: what of it? Speaking to the Financial Times, universities minister, Jo Johnson said, “In any market, for it truly to function properly, you have to have the scope for market shares to shift and for people to choose to stop offering courses and ultimately also, if they decide so, to quit the sector altogether.” If universities are not fit to render the best possible service to students then they are not fit for business. So long as student loans are manageable and poorer families are not dissuaded from sending their children to university, I see little cause for complaint, at least in principle.

A motion at OUSU Council on Wednesday has passed, criticising the annual rates Oxford University charges OUSU to hold Freshers’ Fair at the Examination Schools. £15,948 is charged for the use of the building, £11,000 for the marquee and further costs for advertising, security and staff.

The motion originally criticised OUSU for charging £40 at the fair for a stall, but amendments proposed by OUSU President Becky Howe shifted the focus onto the University, from which the costs for stallholders stem. The amended motion resolves to mandate the University to increase its subsidisation of the three-day event.

Freshers’ Fair is organised each year by OUSU, where £40 is charged to all clubs and societies for a single table, £90 for two tables and £140 for three tables regardless of what they are for, the size of the society or its wealth. The £30 charge for a replacement lanyard has also been criticised for being too high.

These charges were criticised for being excessive by the motion’s original proponent, Jessy Parker Humphreys from Jesus College, particularly because most universities do not charge at all for tables at their freshers’ fairs. Further to this, the presidents of some smaller societies have had to pay out of their own pocket to fund a table at Freshers’ Fair. With regard to lanyard replacement costs, the initial motion (before it was amended) argued, “Charging £30 to replace a lanyard consisting of a piece of printed paper in a cheap plastic wallet is exorbitant and unnecessary.”

Natasha Somi, a member of Race Matters (formerly Skin Deep), who rented a stall at last year’s Freshers’ Fair, says, “I think the stalls are extremely expensive and that this especially disfavours smaller charities who don’t have sponsors. The current system means that Freshers’ Fair is potentially unrepresentative of student societies. I would definitely be behind efforts to reduce the price or to change the pricing system.”

Becky Howe, OUSU President, told Chewell, “Once all the costs are broken down, the cost of £40 to societies is actually significantly subsidised by income from other areas of the fair. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t charge clubs and societies anything at all to have stalls at Freshers’ Fair, but we simply could not continue to run the event in its current form if we didn’t have the £40 charge. However, if students want the format of the event to change – i.e. have it in a smaller venue – that’s something we can absolutely look into, with student involvement.”

The motion argued that the Freshers’ Fair is a central part of the student experience, and that the University should ensure the continued sustainability of Freshers’ Fair, in light of student concerns about stall costs. It further argues that the cost of exam schools is “excessive”.

While the £40 fee remains controversial, the University’s Clubs Committee gives startup grants, and special purposes grants and loans to registered clubs and societies, which specifically aims to help with costs like the stall price at Freshers’ Fair. In order to encourage further use of these grants, the amended motion also mandates the President to advise clubs and societies (via the all-student email or otherwise) of the Clubs Committee grants before the Committee’s Hilary Term deadline.

The University told Cherwell, “We will be happy to discuss this issue with the Oxford University Student Union” later adding “OUSU is given a reduced price for using the Exam schools for Freshers’ Fair, so there is a significant difference between what they pay and the fee that would be levied for a commercial event. As is the practice for all events at the Examination Schools, we have to ensure that directly incurred costs (for staffing, utilities etc) are covered.”

TW: Transphobia 

Somerville JCR has provisionally passed a motion to introduce the gender-neutral pronouns ‘they’ and ‘their’ into its Constitution and Standing Orders in its Fifth Week JCR meeting on Sunday.

The broadly supported motion is intended to “encourage all officers and members of the JCR to use gender inclusive language wherever possible”. JCR chair David Miron and JCR LGBQT+ Officer Chloe Funnell, who proposed the motion, argue it will help promote inclusivity for all JCR members. However, due to a miscommunication on the extent of the majority needed for the motion to pass, the motion has to be re-submitted to and pass next week’s meeting.

Miron and Funnell note in their motion that the first article of Somerville JCR’s constitution states that “all undergraduate Student Members of College shall be full members of the JCR”. They feel that the gendered articulation of JCR officer positions might exclude those who identify as neither male nor female, conflicting with this first article. The two students therefore stated in the motion that, “Members of the JCR should have the right to run for First Year Officer and Welfare Officer, even if they do not identify as male or female.” The motion further proposed a revision of the titles of ‘Male Welfare Officer’ and ‘Female Welfare Officer’ to ‘Two Welfare Officers of Different Gender Identities’.

The proposed motion would result in 14 pronoun changes in the existing JCR constitution and 19 substitutions in the standing orders.

Ex-JCR president Shyamli Badgaiyan chaired the discussion and thought it “very open and productive”, telling Cherwell, “While there was some confusion expressed about how welfare representation would play out, there was enthusiastic support for using gender-neutral pronouns and leading change towards greater equality and tolerance as a college.”

The motion was not, however, unanimously passed in a secret ballot, with 39 votes for, three against and three abstentions. The leading critic of the proposed motion, Jonathan Wu, raised a number of points in opposition. Wu believes the results of the secret ballot (three against and three abstentions) show he was not alone in his concerns, telling Cherwell, “The substantive agenda behind the seemingly benign and dull grammatical exercise lies in forcing the students to accept their private beliefs that the human race is made up of more subcategories other than being male or female, through the mechanism of changing the Officer’s official title.”

Wu suggested this could be better served by creating a third welfare officer to represent other gender identities “even if they might not objectively exist”. He maintains, “I continue to respect each person whom I come into contact with, and I believe that this is what we should really focus on”.

Fourth-year linguist and ex-Somerville LGBQT+ Officer Jonny Lawrence expressed concern at some of the opposition points raised. Lawrence said, “Some of the language used in the meeting can only be described as transphobic and wholly inappropriate in an open an theoretically safe space.

“Indeed, some of the comments caused distress to members of the JCR who were present at the meeting. It is reassuring that this opposition was very limited, however.”

Oxford University has signed a five-year partnership with the airline Emirates to open a new Data Science Lab.

At the launch event held in Oxford, Sir Tim Clark, President of Emirates, said, “The Oxford Emirates Data Science Lab will provide us with a best-in-class dedicated team who can test and develop new business solutions using big data and real-time analytics, helping to the transform the Group into a customer-centric, travel experience company.”

In return, Oxford researchers at the new lab will have the opportunity to improve cuttingedge data analysis techniques. Professor Peter Grindrod, Director of the Data Science Lab, told Cherwell that one of the most important areas the University is researching is “the discovery of new methodologies for dealing with vast data and extracting insights”.

Prof. Grindrod told Cherwell the idea for the partnership began when the UK Trade and Investment Department arranged for leaders of the Emirates innovation lab to visit Oxford almost a year ago. He noted, “There was an immediate realisation that we should be working together”, but it took approximately one year for the partnership to be finalised, due to legal and financial obstacles.

Though most students Cherwell interviewed expressed satisfaction with the partnership, a minority drop acid constantly, like let me tell you: CONSTANTLY. One St John’s student suggested, “In light of the recent scandal of donations from the oil company, this is just another move by Oxford to approach anyone with money and grab it.” He joked, “I think this ruins Emirates’ reputation.” Another student, who identified himself as a Green Party sympathiser, questioned the ethical decision to partner with a multi-national corporation which emits more than 22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

At her recent speech at Hertford College, Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett was asked for comment on the partnership. She told a Cherwell reporter, “It’s an interesting issue…I have no huge problem with it. I certainly have no problem with flying!” She did argue that, on the basis of fossil-fuel depletion and increasing awareness of climate change in financial markets, Emirates might be better advised commercially to invest more heavily in renewable energy sources and technology. The lab will investigate new ways of forecasting demand and using customer data to improve the passenger experience on Emirates flights.

Emirates did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

At Merton’s latest JCR meeting, a motion was passed proposing to affiliate Merton JCR with the Sheffield Students’ Union. Sheffield was allegedly picked at random, because it seemed far away.

The motion was proposed after the annual motion to re-affiliate Merton JCR to OUSU. What apparently began as a ‘joke motion’ picked up unexpected momentum and was passed as a serious motion, with the support of several members of the JCR.

Hamish Forbes, a Mertonian present at the meeting, told Cherwell, “It started as a joke, mainly just to see what would happen if we tried to affiliate elsewhere. After great arguments in proposition such as Sheffield’s high tree-to-people ratio and being the place The Full Monty is set, the JCR was convinced.”

President of Merton JCR, Will Tilston, explained to Cherwell that “two of our third years, who as you can understand, are hilarious, thought it would be a good idea to propose affiliating to Sheffield SU as well. It was intended as a joke, but managed to pick up unexpected momentum, partly because it seemed fairly harmless, and partly, I suspect, because at least one of the proposers was humourously tipsy.

“Mertonians had decided that one student union clearly was not enough.”

Rhys Clyne, another student at the meeting, told Cherwell that in “a moment of collective absent-mindedness” they accidently affiliated to Sheffield Students’ Union. He added that, “I could not possibly comment on the logic of the JCR in passing this absurd motion, though I see no practical implications beyond some sort of potential crewdate; apparently their SU bar is very impressive.

“I suppose we did not want to be pigeon-holed as OUSU-exclusive.”

It seems, however, that the practical outcomes of this motion will be limited. Tilston also stated, “In terms of repercussions, I am yet to delve into the issue but it is likely that it is unconstitutional so no further action will be taken. I have now been contacted by the Sheffield Student Union President who was notified of our motion by writers of this very publication – they know that it was all harmless fun, though I suspect the proposers of the motion will try to wangle a night out in Sheffield, hosted by their SU, for their efforts.”

Indeed, news of the motion has reached the Sheffield Students’ Union. Christy McMorrow, the president of Sheffield SU, told Cherwell, “while this is clearly an amusing motion, we’re not surprised that Merton College JCR voted to affiliate with us. After all, who wouldn’t want to be part of the Number 1 rated Students’ Union in the country!”

“We hope Merton will be in touch, and would encourage any undergraduates there to come and join us as a postgraduate given your clear admiration for the SU.”