Sunday 12th April 2026
Blog Page 1407

Living Internationally: Thoughts of a second-year linguist

0

I’ve done it. With one click, I’ve bought my plane ticket to Germany this summer. In just over a month I’ll be embarking on the first leg of my year abroad, but only now does it really hit me that I’m actually going away.
For the past couple of months I and many of my fellow linguists have been oscillating between a wide range of emotions: giddy excitement, anxiety, sheer panic, denial, to name but a few. By now most of the stress of actually finding a placement has passed, but the even more overwhelming stress of Oh-my-God-how-am-I-going-to-survive-abroad-on-my-own-for-a-year has begun to kick in.

The impending horror of having to set up the WiFi on my laptop all by myself is almost too much, though this pales in comparison to a friend of mine bound for Paraguay, who has carried out extensive research on the bugs and diseases which could potentially bring her year abroad to a premature (and rather painful) end.

Tales from returning fourth years don’t help to allay the anxiety. One poor guy turned up in Austria with the promise of a spare room which turned out to be little more than the sofa in the front room, whilst many students bound for Paris were ripped off by an online scam renting out apartments which didn’t even exist, leaving them out of pocket and without a roof over their heads.

That being said, there are plenty of stories to fill an outward-bound linguist with anticipation. One French student became a local hero in the tiny French village he was placed in by leading their amateur rugby team to victory. Just as it is in Oxford, rugby is BIG in France. Spain, on the other hand is a country of football fans, and, as I learnt from a previous visit, you’d better have an opinion on the Real Madrid/Barcelona rivalry prepared before you go.

The year abroad can also offer plenty of amorous opportunities – one fourth year’s top tip for making the most out of your year abroad? “Just get a French boyfriend.” (This only really helps if you do French, of course – not much use if you’re studying German or Spanish, though most of us still wouldn’t say no to a Frenchman…) Just make sure you save the account of your experiences of ‘international affairs’ for brief Skype chats with your stressed Finalist friends, unlike one returning linguist, who spent the best part of a formal dinner regaling her tutors with a full and detailed account of her love life during her year abroad.

Of course, as exciting/terrifying as going abroad may be, it’s still tinged with sadness at the thought of leaving Oxford and the people who make it feel like home, many of whom will, rather inconveniently, have graduated by the time I get back. Though they might have jokingly offered to do a Masters/rusticate in order to keep me company, the desolate landscape of fourth year is a grim prospect to return to after the fun and excitement of the year abroad.

A year abroad also means a year ‘out of the loop’, something that can happen even after being out of Oxford for a week. That being said, most of what we’re likely to miss from final year will be thrilling 8 hour stints in the library with the occasional stress-related meltdown to liven the mood.

I did nearly panic, though, when a good friend informed me he was planning to deactivate his Facebook account for most of third year, (“But how will I keep in contact with you??” Momentarily forgetting that Skype and email also exist…) though the chances of him following through on this threat are admittedly slim. Above all, the thought of not witnessing your closest friends finish their exams, get trashed and then get horrifically, hilariously drunk afterwards is rather bleak.

On the plus side, this does give us one more year to delay finals and, by extension, the onset of the ‘real world’. While most of our friends will by then be slogging away at a 9-to-5 graduate job, we get to live the student life in the city of dreaming spires for a little while longer – a rather appealing prospect.

But then again, who knows what we’ll have seen and done during our year away? After living and working abroad independently for a year it must seem strange returning to the confines of university life. I’m pretty sure there must be at least one student every couple of years who, after finding their true calling in foreign climes, decides to jack in their degree and join a traveling circus or something similar… That could even be me.

Though it may be a compulsory part of our degree, it’s often said that the year abroad is a chance to really discover who you are as a person and what you want from life.

Despite the stress and anxiety, Many linguists have this in mind as they embark on their year abroad and hope to return to Oxford in a year a changed person, though in many ways still the same.

Students Loans Company criticised over data breaches

0

The Student Loans Company has been criticised over a series of data breaches, involving several incidents where information held about students has been sent to the wrong people.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has reported several incidents where classified data held about students, including medical details and psychological assessments, had been sent to the wrong people. An ICO investigation found that not enough checks were carried out to safeguard protected information, and more sensitive documents actually received fewer checks.

Since students are required to send personal information when applying for loans, this lack of security and leaking of information has breached primary principles of the Data Protection Act, which ensures that personal information is secure and protected.

The ICO Head of Enforcement, Stephen Eckersley, is reported as saying, “For the majority of students, the Student Loans Company represents a crucial service that they rely on to fund their studies. Students are obliged to provide personal information to the loans company, both while they receive the loan and in the years when they are paying it back, and they are right to expect that information to be properly looked after.

He continued, “Our investigation showed that wasn’t happening. We’ve spoken with the company and made clear that changes need to be made, and a formal undertaking is now in place.”

Imogen Crane, a first year student at Regent’s Park College, commented, “It’s a huge breach of student trust, especially considering how many students rely, almost completely, on the loan company for their day to day life, as well as larger bills. It’s incredibly irritating because we are so dependent on the loans just to afford university so to hear that they have lost and misplaced our personal information reinforces my dislike of the loan system that is currently in place.”

Welfare Officer, Isobel Wilson, expressed similar concerns, “As a welfare officer, it’s worrying to hear that students who are already under extreme stress have to deal with the possibility that the loans system they rely on is insecure. It is not conducive to a healthy college atmosphere to have any worries regarding misplaced information, especially that as sensitive as loans, grants and psychological tests.”

Tom Rutland, OUSU President, told Cherwell, “This is disappointing news – students taking out loans with the Student Loans Company should be able to trust that their data and personal information is safe.”

The Student Loans Company Ltd has signed an undertaking that ensures future correspondences involving protected data will be better secured and thoroughly checked so as to prevent future incidents.

 

Sullivan escapes vote of no confidence

0

Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan avoided a vote of no confidence on Thursday evening after members voted to withdraw the motion.

After a three-hour debate, Union member Inigo Lapwood proposed to cancel the motion of no confidence on grounds that “whichever way people voted would have had a non-negligible effect on the ongoing criminal proceeding”. The motion not to vote passed 254 to 101.

The original motion “This House has no confidence in the president, Benjamin Sullivan, Christ Church” was posted in the Union last Thursday, 15th May, and was signed by over 30 members. This came in response to Sullivan’s arrest on 7th May on suspicion of rape and attempted rape.

Aleksy Gaj, who proposed the motion of no confidence, stood first to address the packed chamber. Gaj told the House, “Tonight, my speech is not a comment on the allegations made against Mr Sullivan. It is not to pervert the course of justice in the British legal system.

“This is a sad time for Mr Sullivan and his friends, I agree. But this is no basis to be running the Union as its figurehead and president,” he concluded.
The heated debate that followed saw a range of issues raised, including worries about affecting Sullivan’s court case and faltering public opinion of the Union.

The heated debate that followed Gaj’s opening remarks saw a range of issues raised, including worries about affecting Sullivan’s court case and faltering public opinion of the Union. At one point, Union member Joe Miles declared, “We are making national media for all the wrong reasons.”

Speaking after the debate, Barnaby Raine condemned Sullivan’s conduct, “I absolutely want to be as clear as it is possible to be: Ben Sullivan is innocent until he is proven guilty. Nobody has ever denied that, and he should stop implying to the press that anyone is denying that, because nobody is.

“If as a society you take rape seriously as a crime, then these are the things you don’t do: you don’t when allegations are made, try to use Union money to shut up the press from reporting about those allegations without even telling the members that you are doing it; you don’t have that discussion in secret, in Camera, not on the record so no one knows what’s it’s about, and when someone asks for the minutes of the meeting tell them the minutes aren’t available… You don’t refuse to stand aside without prejudice as the Secretary General of Interpol told you to do; you don’t just dismiss it and carry on as normal.”

If you do take rape seriously, the moment that allegations are made – at least, the moment you are arrested – you step aside until you have proven yourself innocent. I wish Ben Sullivan had done that. If he’d done that we wouldn’t be here today, there wouldn’t be any trouble, and people wouldn’t be crying outside this Union chamber tonight.”

Speaking about the allegations of sexual assault against Sullivan, one student present at the debate commented, “I have suffered in the past; I know what it is like. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe someone should be judged before they go to court.”

Inigo Lapwood, who proposed the motion to drop the no-confidence vote under Rule 43 d) ii), also emphasised the need to avoid using the Union as a courtroom.

“I would not risk having an innocent man declared guilty, or a guilty man evade justice due to Union bullshit. Rape allegations are too serious to be hijacked and wielded as a weapon for student political agendas,” Lapwood stated.

Towards the end of the debate there was widespread confusion over Lapwood’s secondary motion. Josh Atkinson, a member from St Benet’s and last term’s Returning Officer explained, “Tonight a lengthy debate was had on the motion of No confidence which culminated in a ‘leave of the house’ deciding whether the motion should be withdrawn or not.

“Under Rule 43 d) ii), a motion once put can only be withdrawn by ‘leave of the house’; this is what happened. After Inigo’s proposal and the reception it received from the house, the chair assessed that the house may have wanted the motion withdrawn and thus let the house decided. The house decided to withdrawn the motion and thus remain silent due to the issue being so divisive.”

Sullivan did not attend the debate due to fear of contempt of court. A prepared statement was read during the debate on his behalf by the Chair, former Secretary Alex Trafford.

“The proposition will of course note that this debate has nothing to do with the allegations against me. However, I think it will be difficult to divorce my suitability to hold my office from the validity of the allegations against me. As I have said before, if I am charged, I will resign.”

“But passing a vote of no confidence at a time when I am not even able to defend myself would, I believe, go against everything the greater society stands for,” Sullivan’s statement read.

Speaking immediately after the debate, Sullivan told Cherwell, “I am pleased that the House has decided to defer to the appropriate procedures of the criminal justice system.”

Although the President did not attend the debate, members reported seeing Sullivan standing outside the Union as members exited the chamber.
Aliya Yule, a student at the debate, told Cherwell, “Ben Sullivan said that his presence could possibly prejudice a court and he was told not to be here. He was here, he was standing outside when it happened. He was watching everyone come out, he was hugging his friends as they voted for the motion to be removed.

“It created an incredibly intimidating atmosphere, it was unbelievably insensitive to survivors of sexual assault, many of whom were in the chamber some of whom voiced their experiences and it further shows how the Union and Ben do not take these rape allegations seriously.”

Sullivan rejected these allegations, commenting, “I was outside soon after the vote speaking to some of my close friends. I am not sure how this constituted an intimidating atmosphere, especially given that the vote had already taken place. I also thought it odd that Barnaby Raine came up to me in the courtyard and demanded that I leave.”

A motion to bring in a Re-Open Nominations candidate at Union elections had been scheduled to be debated after the no-confidence motion. However under Rule 47 e) iii), 150 members have to vote on a rules change and after the end of the no confidence too few members were left in the chamber for a vote to be held.

Speaking to Cherwell, Josh Atkinson, a former RO and proposer of the RON motion, said, “I am saddened that the rules change introducing RON could not be passed. I believe that the Union needs this huge electoral reform and the rules change was written very well to bring it.”

He continued, “I am however annoyed that Standing Committee didn’t propose the rule so that it could be brought sooner, I believe this is due to many of its current members wanting to benefit from unopposed elections. I hope that the members get a choice of candidates in the next election with which they are happy and I will bring this motion again in the near future in the hope that, with fewer issues surrounding the Union, we can finally sort out our electoral process.”

The motion will be discussed at a future meeting but will not be in place during this term’s elections.

For a detailed account of the evening’s debate, see Cherwell’s live-tweets.

Summer Eights 2014: The Mid Point

0

We are now into Friday and with it the third day of Summer Eights 2014. Now at the mid-point of the competition, Cherwell Sport is taking a look at all of the rises and falls that the college crews have seen so far.

On day one at the top of the Men’s divisions, Pembroke rowed over and managed to retain their position at Head of the River, whilst Oriel bumped Christ Church to go up to second.

Unfortunately for Pembroke, they could only retain their place at the top for one day. Oriel, who went into the competition with high expectations, bumped them to take the top spot. Christ Church rowed over to stay in third position.

The top of the Women’s position saw an uneventful first day, with all three boats (St. John’s, Wadham and Teddy Hall) retaining their positions and rowing over. Day two brought more action though, with Wadham managing to bump St. John’s to take the Headship.

To the surprise of the rowing fanatics, Keble M1 failed to bump despite their decorated crew of international and Olympic rowers, including Tim Foster of the Sydney 2000 GB Gold Medal winning four.

This year’s Blues stroke rower, and next year’s OUBC President, Constantine Louloudis, pulled out of the competition through injury, but his crew Trinity M1 showed their strength in depth, managing to bump without their star man.

Day one saw lots of bumps in division two for both the Men and Women, with Jesus W1 bumping St. Catz to take third place. They managed to retain this on day two by rowing over and are looking to advance in the second half of the competition.

Jesus M1 kept the historic Turl Street rivalry alive by managing to bump their college rivals, Exeter, to go into 9th place in division two. Members of the Jesus M1 crew still maintain that they are the most fashionable Men’s first boat to grace the Isis, wearing matching sun glasses and green arm sleeves, a level of accessorisation not matched by any other crew in the competition. 

In other news, in the Men’s 7th division, Keble M5 managed to snap the bow off their boat.

The second half of the competition is set to be exciting with real competition between the crews in the top divisions. Can Wadham’s Women defend their Headship? Can Christ Church catch Pembroke? Can Trinity continue their climb up division one? Cherwell Sport will bring you the latest from Summer Eights.

Cherwell live tweet the #UnionNoCon debate

0

See Cherwell’s Twitter account for full coverage of this evenings events, below are selected key moments:


Christ Church students face eviction during ball

0

Christ Church students, some still in the middle of exams, face being removed from their rooms by college authorities over the weekend of the college ball.

In a JCR motion, it is reported , citing non-specific “security reasons”, that the college has ordered that students living in Meadows, Old Library and Tom Quad areas leave their rooms from the 21st June, barring their return until the following day.

The College previously stated that the restrictions would only last during the period the ball itself is being held.

However, as well as extending the ban period, students have accused the college of not making any specific dispensation for members with examinations.

In an emergency JCR meeting held on Sunday, a drafted motion claimed, “This lack of foreknowledge has limited the options of students living in affected areas and constitutes the ticket contract to now be unfair.”

It added, “This House is our house, and displacing members, but not alumni and non-students, from their residence on the basis they are a security risk is distasteful.”

However, Rachel Perham, PA to the Dean of Christ Church, insisted that students would not be barred from their rooms until the afternoon of the 22nd, as the JCR motion has suggested.

“As happens at many other colleges,” she said, “Undergraduates will vacate rooms within the ball perimeter from 12 noon on the day of the ball and be escorted back in groups after the ball between 6.30 and 7.30 am the following morning.”

Perham also refuted the suggestion that the college was working against the wishes of students, telling Cherwell, “These arrangements were proposed by the ball committee whose members are mainly undergraduate students, and are the result of lengthy negotiations with the JCR.”

In response to claims that the college had made “no specific dispensation” for members with examinations, the college has agreed to give “students with public examinations on the day of the ball or at the beginning of week 9 priority in allocation of alternative accommodation should they not wish to attend the ball.”

Perham stated that there would be “special arrangements for those who need to access their belongings after examinations on the morning of the ball.”

However, it would seem that claims by the students’ JCR motion for the college to “reimburse members for the cost of finding alternative accommodation” have been disregarded, with Christ Church college stating, “Undergraduate licence agreements cover the period until 9.30 am on the day of the Ball, and residence after this time requires special permission, […] there is no question of undergraduates being evicted from rooms.”

Meanwhile, Felix Goodman, a student at Christ Church, spoke in favour of the college’s decision, telling Cherwell that, “The Ball as it is is going to be a security nightmare”.

He further stated that he could, “completely understand the college’s desire to make their job slightly easier by shutting these rooms,” suspecting that, “the reason for closing many of these rooms on the night of the ball is to reduce the opportunity for sniper cover.”

Negotiations continue between the JCR and the college.
The JCR President was unavailable for comment when approached by Cherwell.

Support grows for fossil fuels divestment campaign

0

The campaign to make Oxford University ‘fossil free’ has gained extensive support from common rooms, ahead of a planned march on Oxford council and the University on Saturday 31st May.

19 common rooms have so far pledged support for the campaign, including nine JCRs and 10 MCRs.

A motion was also passed in support of ending the University’s fossil fuel investments at OUSU Council in January. ‘The Fossil Free Future’ demonstration currently has over 150 people attending the event on Facebook.

The rally is planned to begin at 11am by the Radcliffe Camera, with the demonstration proceeding through Oxford to Bonn Square. It seeks to bring together students, university academics and local activists.

The organisers have arranged several speakers for the event, including Dr Brenda Boardman, who is co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre.
The OUSU Environment and Ethics Campaign adopted fossil fuel divestment as its main project for the 2013-14 academic year, in Trinity term 2013.
The campaign believes a negative screening process should be applied to fossil fuel investments.

Campaigners are also calling for a list of the University’s investments to be published, in order to enhance transparency and student engagement.

In March 2014, the University’s Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee agreed to canvass the opinions of stakeholders on the question of possible divestment from companies ‘that participate in exploration for and/or extraction of fossil fuel reserves’.

The Oxford fossil free divestment campaign is part of an international effort to end investment in fossil fuels and invest in more sustainable business models.
Eleven US colleges and universities, including Stanford University, have so far committed to pursue fossil free divestment.

Michaela Collard, a DPhil student at University College, commented, “As students, we come to Oxford and hear from its academics about the devastating effects of climate change and the need for action. It is clear, though, that the people who hold the power to change how our energy system works, the fossil fuel companies and politicians, are failing to heed the scientific warnings.

“By divesting from fossil fuels, Oxford University can show true moral and intellectual leadership. It can signal to our political leaders the need to follow its example and tackle climate change head on. The alternative is we stay quiet and stick with the status quo until it really is too late.”

James Rainey, a second year Biologist at Balliol College, said, “By investing in an industry intending to exploit four times more fossil fuel reserves than can be burned ‘safely,’ our University is unintentionally undermining our future. Divestment is needed to protect the integrity of Oxford, and build political pressure to prevent the carbon budget from being exceeded.”

OUSU ban advertising of LIFE

0

Pro-life charity LIFE has denounced OUSU Council’s decision to ban advertising of the charity and other similar organisations which provide “directive abortional advice”.

The motion, proposed by Sarah Pine, OUSU VP for Women, and seconded by Alasdair Lennon, St. Johns’ JCR President, referenced OUSU’s pro-choice policy, whereby they maintain the stance that the best person to make decisions around pregnancy is the person themselves.

It states that they, “deserve impartial and non-directional information and advice” and that “LIFE’s counselling and publicity is directive.” It mentioned in particular the LIFE statement that, “you can take the time, with our support, to work through all of your options and discover what is best for you whilst still being against abortion in all circumstances.”

The motion argued that these kinds of “anti-choice messages” could be upsetting and stated that “organisations that give misleading advice can be actively harmful.”

The motion passed but the second clause, stating that OUSU would never give a platform to any organisation which provides directional advice around abortion or campaign’s against women’s right to choose was removed.

LIFE spokesperson Anne Scanlan said, “OUSU is simply restating its pro-abortion policy instituted against LIFE many years ago. If the Union was truly pro-choice, as it claims to be, it would encourage greater access to all counselling services for pregnant women considering abortion such as the counselling and skilled listening services offered by LIFE which also provides accommodation and practical support to pregnant women who choose to keep their baby. Why would a truly pro-choice group want to deny them that?”

She continued, “OUSU’s policy that “the best person to make decisions around pregnancy is the person themselves”, is not in conflict with LIFE’s non-directive counselling service.

“The motion speaks of organisations offering advice. LIFE does not offer advice. It offers non-directive counselling or skilled listening. Counselling is a non-directive activity quite distinct from giving advice which does not happen in the counselling room. To imply that we are an organisation which gives misleading information which can be actively harmful is slanderous. OUSU should withdraw this statement immediately.”

President of Oxford Student’s for Life, told Cherwell, “While we opposed the entire motion, we’re very pleased that OUSU Council voted to defend free expression against an undemocratic no-platform clause.”

Pine and Lennon responded saying, “The LIFE motion proposed in OUSU Council passed with a democratic majority on 28th of May 2014. We are of the belief that LIFE’s mission and previous endorsement of abortion restrictions contradict its’ aims and activities. We are also of the belief that the presence of Life in OUSU publications and events can be triggering and as such may be harmful to women who have undergone an abortion. A student union has a duty of care to its members and should do its utmost to prevent them from harm.”

New College considers scrapping Human Sciences

0

New College JCR is challenging its governing body’s proposal to stop offering Human Sciences.

Sparked by the upcoming departure of the current Head of Human Sciences, the place of the subject within the College is being reviewed. As set out in a JCR motion, one of the reasons it might be discontinued is that, over the last six years, four Human Sciences students have received 2:2s and so, “It has not boosted our Norrington Score as much as some other subjects.”

The point was raised by the JCR that ‘Norrington viability’ should not affect the diversity of subjects offered by New College. A member of the JCR also pointed out that two of the students who received 2:2s had previously rusticated on account of mental health issues.

Other reasons to discontinue the subject included the fact that it would be difficult to find a qualified enough replacement and that the college is looking to reduce the overall size of the JCR.

Andrew Wills, the JCR Academic Affairs rep, told Cherwell, “At the JCR meeting there were a few interesting points brought up such as the future of the course across the University if New College stopped offering it. The Norrington position was mentioned as a possible reason for College considering removing it, but I think that was more speculative rather than being based on any substantial evidence. We decided that we would let college know our opinion: that they shouldn’t cut the course (especially not for academic reasons); and that if they do decide to drop the course then we would quite like to know their reasoning for doing so. Personally, I don’t believe that the decision to bring this up now is at all influenced by the Norrington Table result; and I think that the JCR would be quite upset if it were as that isn’t at all what we as a college focus on.

“I’ve spoken to some long-term members of the SCR and they strongly disagreed that the Norrington table came into it. The reasoning is more along the lines of the Human Sciences tutor is leaving, so now is the natural time to ask the question of whether college continue to offer HumSci, as a course, or not.

“Apparently it’s a discussion that they have every time a tutor from a small course leaves. One of the fellows I talked to said that since we’re currently at the top of the Norrington Table there would be no need to do something as drastic as cutting courses to try and improve our position!”

New College students contacted also expressed concern that the proposal may negatively affect the performance of current New College Human Scientists, as a temporary head of Human Sciences may not be the best qualified for the position.

Human Sciences is a multidisciplinary course which studies the biological, social and cultural aspects of human life. It has an intake of 31 students per year across the University and New College is one of only 10 colleges to offer it as an undergraduate degree.
Mark Griffith, Senior Tutor at New College, told Cherwell, “Prof. Chan, UL in Sociology and the Tutorial Fellow responsible for Human Sciences, is leaving and the College is reviewing the future of his post and the future of Human Sciences here. Governing Body will address the recommendations of its Academic Strategy Committee in 8th week. The Committee is still considering the matter.

“Whatever the outcome, the College will ensure that teaching of the highest quality is provided for its existing Human Sciences undergraduates.”

Oxford research finds that fruit flies think before acting

0

Fruit flies think before they make decisions, according to Oxford neuroscientists.
The researchers, working at the university-based Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, trained the flies to avoid one out of two concentrations of an odour placed at either end of a small chamber. The flies then had to decide which end that was.

According to the research, published in the journal Science, when the difference in the two odours was smaller, the flies made up for this by “gathering information for longer”.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Shamik DasGupta, told Cherwell, “The time for flies to make a decision to choose an odour depends on the difficulty of the task.” These times varied from 1.5 seconds for the easier tasks and up to 3 seconds for the more difficult ones. He also explained that they, “walk inside the chamber as the chambers are too small to allow flying”.

Moreover, the researchers discovered that fruit flies with a mutation in a gene called FoxP had reduced “speed and accuracy” in making decisions. It effectively slowed down how long it took the flies to reach a state where they were ready to make a decision. Significantly, said Dr. DasGupta, “Some mutations in human FoxP homologues results in cognitive defects”, suggesting that the research could provide insight into the human brain.

According to Dr. DasGupta, “Some mechanistic aspects of decision making are possibly conserved between flies and humans”. Additionally, the same model used by the neurosci- entists to map how fruit flies make decisions, “Has successfully been used to explain human decision making.”