Don’t listen to the reactionaries and don’t listen to (many of) the journalists themselves: today is a golden age for journalism and we should be happy about it. There has been a broadly successful transition for most newspapers from print to being online when it comes to maintaining readership and more newspaper articles are read than ever before. Yes, none of the newspapers are making money yet from the internet. But newspapers have nearly always been funded by a combination of patronage, advertising and consumer fees and we are now just in a transition phase. There has always been censorship in newspapers, and whether it is dictated by the patrons, advertisers or the consumers, the internet will probably do little to change that balance.

No-one in our age group seems to buy newspapers, or to have ever really bought newspapers, certainly not daily, but everyone now reads newspapers online. Engagement with newspapers among young people is more thorough now that it was. And through social media more articles are being read, shared and discussed than ever before. Editors exercise the same influence in selecting and prioritising content as they always did, only now it is not by choosing which page the scoop goes on, but how often and where it is posted with social media.

It is also better for journalism, a medium that until recently was relatively transient, that everything is now archived and easily accessible to everyone (bar the incoming threat of pay-walls). Analysing attitudes over a time period, or tracing media bias, is now far easier. This rise in public discussion of articles also seems to be positively affecting student activism. The ability to discuss or share articles that portray or react to events that are important to certain causes means that journalism is as close now to the centre of political and social developments in the public consciousness as it ever was. The difference now is that the media is under more scrutiny than ever and factual errors and heinous insults are more quickly outed. We can hope then that newspapers working with activists, or rather activists working through andagainst newspapers, might play a broadly progressive role

A widely spread fear exists that the internet will simply splitter into endless erroneous blogs. But the popularity of websites which provide a variety of content from different authors still seems to be vastly higher than any blogs belonging only to an individual. Clive Martin writes for Vice, Guido Fawkes writes a column for the Sun. Even the most successful individual blogs or most idiosyncratic writers want to work with traditional collective news platforms.

The troubling form of employment in the industry is a problem. Even senior journalists seem to struggle to earn enough. Only two equally blind hopes seem to combat this negative image of the state of affairs. The first is that the current impasse on the profit side of newspapers is overcome as a new balance is found, hopefully one that does not involve Paywalls but more lucrative advertising. The second is that a different culture of journalism develops, a journalism where most people work as journalists outside of their times spent doing other jobs, a bit like students working for student newspapers. Journalist and activist, journalist and lecturer, journalist and social worker, maybe that will be the new professional journalist of the future. This does not mean that established journalists have the right to pull the ladder up beneath them by not offering any employment schemes, nor should they offer internships that do not assist those without financial support or who do not live in London. That is a kind of professional self harm.

There is much nostalgia for newspapers that used to come out daily as if the world was somehow slower before. Of course even then there were morning and evening papers, telegrams etc. But the real point is that newspapers have always been connected to delivering news speedily. Journal comes from jour, they were out as quickly as possible. This increased speed of delivery of news content is another positive element in the world of journalism, one that builds its popularity and increases demand. 24 hour news should create three times more jobs.

Oxford is an example of this golden age of journalism. We have three substantial and interesting student news outlets that deliver daily content, news broadcasting sites, magazines (some connected to activism networks), all of which interact with themselves and with a fair share of the student body. They also influence our student politics, with the Tab recently notably claiming they crowned Trup. Journalism is going through a financially rough time, but money aside, this may be the start of a golden age. And it’s our responsibility to be optimistic, as we student journalists might well be the journalists of the future, in whatever guise journalism then takes.

Just over Magdalen Bridge, Magdalen College School’s gates face the porters’ lodge of St Hilda’s. Students use Christ Church’s recreation ground for PE; their cross country pitch overlooks Merton. With such proximity to Oxford University, it’s no surprise that MCS’s Oxbridge success rate is so high: this year, a record 47 pupils left for Oxford and Cambridge.

Much of the academic success of MCS has been attributed to its headmaster, Dr Tim Hands. Known for his criticism of government education policy over the last 30 years, this year he was elected chairman of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference, which represents many independent schools in the UK. For Hands, one of the main outcomes of increasingly centralised education policy has been decreased access to the UK’s top universities for students from state schools.

He explains his objection to the government’s education policy. “I work in the independent sector now through a belief that a politicised state is a restrainer of and meddler with education. You ask me, why does this school do well? We avoid change. Governments by and large have, whether a red or blue colour, introduced diverse and confusing educational initiatives.”

This is one of the main barriers to university access, Hands claims. “If you’re constantly having to teach a new exam, you can’t get stability and rhythm in what you’re doing. All teachers are currently preparing for exams they don’t know the shape of, they don’t know the mark scheme for, they don’t know the specification for. It’s very wearing.” These changes favour independent school candidates because, “the more complicated you make systems, and the more you change them, the more disadvan taged those without advice are.”
He is critical of the coalition’s education reforms. Addressing the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference last month, he said that the last half century has been characterised by, “the intrusion of the government and the disappearance of the child” through education reform. Today, he is similarly scathing.

“Essentially the way Michael Gove wants to move the syllabus is to how it was when I was an undergraduate at Oxford — Middlemarch and so on. And you know, Middlemarch isn’t the best fare for everyone doing English at A-Level. There should be options that allow pupils to differentiate.”

Hands’ belief in improving access rests on his life experiences. He was a “state school educated Cambridge reject”, only coming to Oxford for postgraduate study at St Catz and Oriel. His father grew up “in what was then condemned as a slum, and isn’t there anymore”. His family’s experience has influenced his understanding of how background can influence academic attainment. He speaks of how his father “couldn’t work in his home, because he didn’t have his own room, and the sound of the piano and guitar playing penetrated everywhere. So although he’s fantastically philosophical about things, you can see your background has to help.”

Nevertheless, he says, the impact of a students’ social background is exacerbated by the way Oxford approaches admissions. At other universities, bright students with the right grades would get in — at Oxford, the dependence on aptitude tests undermines this. When Cambridge introduced the A*, “Oxford said, we want aptitude tests. And you can see the advantage of that, you can strip down background and teaching and so on, but I’ve never been convinced that there’s such a thing as an exam you can’t prepare for.”

This, says Hands, has handed success to independent schools. There remains opposition to the A* grade, but the new grade is the only guarantor that intelligent state school students will be identified. For example, Gordon Brown opposed the A* because, “he felt that it would highlight achievement in the independent sector. Well, there’s only one way to make things better, and that’s confront problems and sort them. This was just him burying his head in the sand.”

Despite the importance of grades, schools must provide more than academic success. If schools are defined by league tables, they will encourage students to do useless, “easy” subjects. “The reason people do General Studies is to ratchet up another A-Level. That’s another high grade, which means your league position is higher. The Department for Education uses league tables as a mechanism, whereas we don’t believe in league tables. They tell you nothing about its pastoral care, its extra curricular activities, which are two of the tripos you need.”

There is a lack of aspiration in many schools, which further undermines access. “Before working in Oxford, which is by and large a middle class city, with higher educational aspiration, I worked in Portsmouth — it’s a poor area, which outputs peace or war depending on your reading of the Royal Navy. I had two students in my independent school who had places at Cambridge to read Maths, who turned them down to go to Warwick. They were suspicious of Cambridge and they thought Warwick was more friendly, a better deal. So raising aspiration has got to be an important thing, and all schools should be doing that.”

The problem exists across the country. As Hands notes, “The Sutton Trust [an educational research charity] has shown that some schools will not recommend people to go to Oxford and Cambridge. Now these are fantastic universities, and the idea that you wouldn’t recommend people that were suitable to have a look or to take a try, that seems to me something that is regrettable.”

With these odds stacked against state school applicants, how do students from MCS compare? Are private school leavers over-prepared for Oxford, whether they deserve a place or not? Hands says not. “The flaw is that this idea presupposes that Oxford tutors are stupid people. It’s a very simplistic view that you can prepare for interview, and you know when you sit down with your tutor they go through that. They have minds that go right to the heart of the issue. It’s good to have help, but to have interview after interview is just counterproductive.”

Yet the press frequently suggests that independent schools heavily prep their students. He explains this through the fact that newspapers “want to sell”.

“There’s a stated policy of one newspaper, which I won’t name, that it wants to make you worried if you have your child at an independent school, or worried if you have your child at a state school… There are two myths in the press: one that Oxford discriminates in favour of independent schools, and one that it discriminates against them. Both of them can’t be true, and in reality, neither is.”

This expression of faith in the admissions process goes further than most teachers, and is surprising considering Hands’ broader critique of access. However, considering MCS’s success in Oxbridge admissions, it’s understandable.

Under half of comprehensively educated students at Oxford think their school did enough to encourage their application.

An investigation by Cherwell shows that 34 per cent of students at non-selective sixth forms thought they were “not offered enough encouragement”, with another 18 per cent “unsure”. 

For schools whose students normally achieved grades lower than BBC at A-Level, over two thirds said they were not encouraged to apply.

The results were in stark contrast to respondents who had attended independent schools. Less than one fifth of independent sixth form alumni said they were not offered enough encouragement.

Results from selective grammar schools were similar: 72 per cent said they received enough encouragement, against 16 per cent who did not.

The results come as part of a Cherwell investigation into how schools promote university applications. 318 Oxford students responded to questions about their past school and its attitude to Oxbridge.

Overall, the survey shows a striking contrast between the support available in non-selective state schools and independent schools. When asked to give a rating out of five for their school’s support during applications, only 36 per cent of state school attendees gave a four or five, against 68 per cent of independent school alumni.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford emphasised Oxford’s access work. “Oxford tries hard to ensure that all those with the potential to succeed apply — regardless of background — and devotes more energy and resources to outreach activity than just about any other university in the country.”

They noted that the University spends £4.5 million on outreach work, and is in contact with 78 per cent of all sixth forms, “virtually all schools with students capable of making a competitive application to Oxford”.

I attended a comprehensive school in a working-class area, and applying to Ox- ford in the future never crossed my mind; I had never heard about anyone from our local area getting in. It was only after a compulsory careers service meeting that I was lucky enough to be encouraged by an enthusiastic advisor. On the ride home that day, I expressed my new ambitions to my mother. She said she thought “Oxford is beyond our reach”, but it had set the seed in our minds. We started to explore the possibility of Oxbridge together.

I attended a different sixth-form college. It was considered one of the best post-16 further education institutions in our area, but only one to three students gained an offer from Oxbridge each year — and each year group contained 900 students. As a result, there was not nearly as much encouragement to apply. During a parents’ event, one teacher attempted to dissuade me. They expressed a belief that Oxford was not part of the ‘real world’, and that a student from a comprehensive school would not fit. Other teachers were encouraging, but did not believe that I could receive an offer. I was told “not to be too upset” if I didn’t get one.

There was a small service designed to help their students with applications, but I did not find it useful. Most of the information we received could be found by searching on the university website. At a later stage, my history teacher did help me with my application by checking drafts of my personal statement, but I soon got an email stating that this placed too much of a burden on the staff, and that we should only discuss these issues with our personal tutor. My personal tutor was new, had very little experience, and taught Music Technology.

There was an issue with the essay that needed to be submitted with my application. Of the few essays that we had previously been set, none met the university requirements. I reminded my tutor constantly about this problem and by the time my work got submitted I was very close to the deadline, along with another three History applicants. Mostly I had to rely on my parents, but they did not know anyone who attended Oxford and didn’t know where to start.

At one point another teacher gave me a rushed practice interview. This was done in front of the classroom during lesson time. I spent five minutes answering questions which were nothing like those in my actual interview. My reference was also weak, put together from quotes taken from my college report which had been compiled six months previously.

However, with such a large student body, why would I have expected extra help, just because of my ambition? I guess I was lucky to recieve the little help I did.