A recently introduced basketball rule, which ensured all basketball teams contain at least one female player, has been altered Phil Jin, the new college league coordinator, has made compromises to the recently introduced measure which softens the penalties on all male basketball teams.

This news comes following the recent measure introduced which mandated all college basketball teams to include at least one female. This new rule, which went into effect last week, stipulates that the presence of female players is no longer required throughout an entire match. Moreover, the new system awards one bonus point to mixed teams regardless of the outcome of the match, as opposed to the previous system that awarded three points for a mixed team win whereas all male team wins were only awarded one point.

Phil Jin commented that the concept of increased female participation was “great,” but added that the old rules, “weren’t the best way to do it. He continued, “There are times when there aren’t five people to play college basketball, let alone two female players for one team, and if she has anything like my fitness then a whole game is unfair on one girl.”

Amar Hodzic, the basketball captain at St Edmund Hall, agreed that the new measure is an improvement. He said, “Teams shouldn’t be [excessively] penalized for failing to find female players. There just isn’t enough interest from female students to play basketball in Oxford and teams would be unable to find enough players. This would result in a number of forfeits, no shows, etc. and I don’t think that’s in anyone’s interest.”

The rule change, however, remains far from a solution to the absence of female players. Alexander Edwards, the basketball captain at both Mansfield and Merton College, commented, “The so-called new system only works under the premise that every college team has girls that wish to play but are being held back. This is not the case, girls have always been encouraged to play. The real issue is girls will always feel intimidated by the number of boys playing.”

Sue Altman, the alumni officer of Oxford’s Basketball Club, further stressed, “At Oxford, female athletes are sort of a niche identity.” To encourage more women to play basketball, then, it is necessary to jump through a plethora of structural hoops.

Furthermore, she noted that the university must, “engage in the community by off ring more court space and coaching to youth groups in the area. One of the reasons you don’t have more women (and men) playing hoops is because they haven’t been exposed to it on a regular basis at the younger levels.”

The revised rules are, nonetheless, seen as a step in the right direction. Zoe Fannon, the former league coordinator, said that she was fully supportive of the measures. She said, “Phil Jin thinks this will best achieve increased female representation and I hope that by doing this we’ll get enough women playing at a college level to run a full women’s league in the future in addition to the women’s cuppers we run in Trinity term.”

The road towards complete gender parity in college basketball, however, continues to necessitate perpetual experimentation and engagement with the university. “This is a work in progress,” stresses Fannon. “Feedback from the captains based on the games played throughout this term is being used to refine the system.”

Altman added that, “This beast needs more hands on deck. The University and the colleges could do much more to encourage greater participation in sport, for students as well as community members.

New statistics published by the universities reveal that applications to Oxford exceeded those to Cambridge in the last academic year. Both universities saw an increase in demand for undergraduate places, but with 17,604 applicants compared to Cambridge’s 16,500, Oxford appears around 6% more popular with applicants.

One reason for Oxford’s continued popularity may be the increasing international popularity of the UK’s most famous universities.

Official UCAS statistics show that the number of international students making early applications (for Oxford, Cambridge, medicine, and veterinary science courses) has risen by 10%, whilst there were also 4% more EU applications this autumn.

In comparison, applications from the UK as a whole have stayed constant. This is because, even though Northern Ireland had 11% fewer students seeking places for courses that require early applications, UCAS saw increased interest from English, Welsh, and Scottish students.

The Chief Executive of UCAS, Mary Curnock Cook, welcomed this news, saying, “It is encouraging to see that the number of UK applicants for these demanding courses is holding steady, particularly as the young population continues to fall in this group.”

At the time of print, official representatives for Oxford were unable to suggest why more of these candidates chose Oxford over Cambridge. Some, however, may point to Oxford’s extensive outreach programmes as the source of its apparent dominance over its rival.

Whilst both universities have spent vast sums on encouraging prospective students, Oxford spends more around over £300,000 more each year on access and outreach programmes. It also has more money available for bursaries and other financial aid.

Yet one Oxford undergraduate insisted, “I see no real difference between the two. They both attracted thousands of applicants and continue to dominate the UK academically. It’s business as usual.”

A Cambridge graduate also warned not read too much into the statistics, stating, “It’s a very small difference, and there are a whole host of factors that affect people’s choices of university.

Cahill, running under the slogan ‘Jane4Change,’ intends to start the fight for a student union building that can act as a social hub, and wants to introduce a fifth week petting zoo for “nervous freshers, flagging second years and stressed out finalists.”

She is excited to start campaigning, saying, “We want to convince people we are capable of making the student union something everyone has a stake in, and that we should be making bigger demands from the University than we have ever done before.”

One of her rivals, Alex Bartram of Team Alex, told Cherwell, “I’m excited to get my message out there. I have noticed that there’s an early front runner in this election in terms of Facebook likes, Louis Trup, which indicates to me that some people think of the OUSU elections as a bit of a joke at the moment. OUSU needs to address issues that are most important to Oxford students, and I think Team Alex is the only team which focuses on these issues.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%8523%%[/mm-hide-text]

Trup’s Facebook page, ‘LJTrup4ousu4change’, currently has 227 ‘likes.’ He said he’d been inspired to run by an aerobic video on YouTube, telling Cherwell, “I feel about my chances in the same way I feel about my steak: medium-rare.” His ‘personifesto’ includes procuring double beds for all and world peace.

In contrast, Nathan Akehurst, running under the slogan ‘Reclaim OUSU,’ has an election website that states, “We are a collection of candidates who will bring radical change to OUSU to make it a more responsive, democratic and inclusive student union.”

His manifesto goes on to discuss rising costs and equality in Oxford.

However, the website created issues for Akehurst yesterday when a member of his election team jokingly changed the caption on one of the slides to “RECLAIM OUSU Blah blah blah blah blah,” which was then changed to “nathan sucks really bad.”

Akehurst told Cherwell, “It’s just a little irritating that internal pranking ended up sprawled all over student media! Still, all publicity is good publicity, they say.”

Current OUSU President Tom Rutland is pleased to see four candidates running. He said, “They’ve all got the opportunity to speak to thousands of students and convince them that they’re the best person for the job,” and said to Oxford students, “This is your chance to choose who represents you!”

A study by the London School of Economics has found that names which arrived with the Norman Conquest are still overrepresented at Oxford and Cambridge. These findings suggest that social mobility may not be as fluid as many hope as the holders of names like Percy, Darcy and Montgomery, have been attending Oxbridge uninterrupted since the Middle Ages.

Despite constituting a clear minority of the country these names continue to thrive at Oxbridge, occupying a disproportionately large number of places. The study, carried out by Dr Neil Cummins and Professor Gregory Clark, cite their findings as key evidence that social positions have remained remarkably consistent since 1170.

Dr Cummins commented, “Surnames such as Baskerville, Darcy, Mandeville and Montgomery are still over-represented at Oxbridge and also among elite occupations

such as medicine, law and politics. What is surprising is that between 1800 and 2011 there have been substantial institutional changes in England but no gain in rates of social mobility for society as a whole.”

The study’s findings point to the conclusion that little has changed in Britain, despite the advent of mass education and a supposed meritocracy, with those members of the elite continuing to dominate the same social position which their ancestors did. Similarly names which are of comparable age, including Defoe, Goodhill and Tonbridge, but of lesser social stature, remain underrepresented at these institutions.

These findings have met with mixed reactions from the student communities of both universities. A first year at Magdalen commented, “I think that broadly speaking it’s

not too surprising given that these families have had the means to get their children into Oxbridge for a long time – previously through nepotism, and now by paying for the high quality education and tutoring that inevitably is going to be useful for gaining acceptance

into a meritocratically revamped institution. That the pattern has persisted for the last 800 years is in some cases surprising though.You would think that revolutions, wars

etc. would have broken any such educational lineage. Does it really matter though? The persistence of a name doesn’t necessitate the persistence of elitist attitudes.”

Lucy Talbot of Emmanuel College Cambridge commented, “My Talbot family came to England with William the Conqueror. Factions of the family split into different workplaces and sectors, etc. and there was quite a mix of wealth distribution, for example one part of the family used to have a castle in Malahide, Dublin (way back when), whilst other parts led very modest lives. Although the name connotes old wealth and status, and although I attend Cambridge University, I don’t think this is anything to do with elitism.”

The note, written by student Ed Klinger, pointed out the irony of a ‘Boycott Israeli Goods’ sticker on a Macbook, which uses a flash storage system designed by Israeli technology firm Anobit.

Klinger, however, was quick to assert that his motivations were strictly apolitical. He posted on Facebook shortly after, “Having just accomplished one of my life-long goals (the Facebook Millennium) I feel the need to point out that my recent upload was intended as a funny observation and nothing more.

“It wasn’t designed to convey any political allegiance to Israel, against Palestine, or anyone else; it was merely to highlight the hypocrisy of a hilariously placed sticker.

“I say this because I’ve been contacted by a bunch people and even been featured on international websites which unfairly infer my political beliefs from a single image.”

Current plans include the demolition of all Oxpens buildings to make way for residential properties and business offices. Originally, the council had suggested the ice rink could be included within the buildings removed to make way for the development. The suggested replacement plan was a retirement home, due to its convenient location for such a facility.

However, despite public concern over the future of the ice rink during a recent city council consultation, the council has concluded the facility will not be removed during its building lifetime.

City councillor Colin Cook, executive city board member for city development, commented, “I don’t know what the lifespan of the building is, but we have got no plans to replace it. When the master plan was released it clearly set hares running and we are trying to stop that. Clearly, when the opportunity presents itself, we might be able to replace it but that is in the long, long term.”

The popularity of the ice rink is clear with recent figures highlighting it being Oxford’s second most popular leisure centre with 209,860 visits in 2012/2013.

Richard Carpenter, secretary of Oxford City Stars ice hockey club, “It is extremely positive news that this has been agreed and the future of the ice rink is secure.

“It is a crucial facility for the city to have. Ice skating is great exercise because it takes a lot of stamina.”

Oxford students also welcomed the news, among them a number of ALTS players. One first year student told Cherwell, “I really enjoy playing ALTS and am keen to learn more about the game and to play it at a higher level. I am glad the centre will remain open to allow me to do this. The disco themed skating nights are also incredibly popular amongst many of us a social activity, so this facility really is a crucial part of Oxford student life.”

Daniel Johnson, an ALTS enthusiast commented, “The news that the Oxford ice rink will be retained is a great load off my mind. Alts, which takes place at the rink, is a great way for students to chill out while still playing a sport.”

As Ball President Ross Thomson explained, “New College requests, as one of the conditions of the Ball taking place, that the committee donates money to charity on behalf of the three Fellows who have supported it throughout the year…One Fellow decided that he would like his donation to go to the JCR, and asked the JCR President to canvas opinion as to a specific project to spend the money on.”

It would appear that confusion ensued thereon as some of the suggestions put forward by JCR members were either purposefully amusing, a “water slide option” starting off the debate, or seen to only benefit a few students, such as a suggestion to use the money to create a “band room”.

Many also expressed frustration that the spending of the £600 was being controlled by the fellow who had donated it. Furthermore, others questioned why three fellows were given £1000 each to donate to charity instead of that money being reinvested in next year’s ball, especially considering that ball tickets last year cost £170.

Despite such confusions it would appear the problem as now been solved. As Kath Nicholls summed up the issues and the resolution:  “The JCR is very grateful for the donation, as extra funds for JCR projects can only be a good thing. My aim was that everyone had a fair say in how the money was spent.

“A few people were concerned that the projects in the original poll, taken as suggestions from JCR members, were not adequate so a new poll is now running with the additional option to put the money straight into the JCR budget, rather than opting for one of the projects, such as redeveloping the band room. Interestingly, only a small minority (13 out of 142 so far) have voted to put the money straight into the budget in place of it going towards one of the projects.”

If anything, this story highlights how easily issues can get muddled when blown up on Freshers’ pages, as Honoria Connelly, a second year at New, put it “It’s not really a story, more of a facebook thread”.

Students of the college have been found by night-porters to be able to access the scaffolding from their rooms, without setting off the alarms on the lowest level of the construction.

These alarms are in place to stop poeple gaining access to the college buildings from the street. However, the college has organised for the rest of the scaffolding to be alarmed so that anyone attempting to mount the scaffolding from higher up will trigger the alarm and summon a porter.

The email from Douglas Dupree states that, “Once the alarm is in place the College will have to react seriously to anyone who violates this notice (and consider this email as due notice) that the scaffolding is OFF LIMITS. So be warned, for your own safety sake. Stay off the scaffolding. It is dangerous.”

However, a lot of students are annoyed about the presence of the scaffolding, which is causing much inconvenience to those living in the building. A third-year at Balliol who declined to be named said, “We were told there would be issues with light and noise (which are actually worse than was stated), but nobody warned me that I would open my curtains and frequently have several men see me in my underwear. I have to decide between feeling comfortable in my room or having the curtains open and being able to actually see what I’m doing.”