Hundreds of Corpus Christi students, including many finalists, have been told that they face significant disruptions to their living situation over the coming year as the result of delays on a major college property development.

In a circular e-mail sent to the Corpus JCR on Monday, the Domestic Bursar Colin Holmes informed undergraduates that building work on the New Building on Magpie Lane had been delayed until perhaps as late as January 2015. The interruption has been attributed to efforts by the 20th Century Society, who have successfully applied to have the building listed with English Heritage.

The plans for refurbishment had originally included a completely redesigned floor plan and a modernisation programme for some of the older rooms within New Building itself. In order to accommodate the building work, most 2nd years and a large number of finalists were due to be moved to offsite accommodation during Hilary and Trinity of 2014.

Whilst it has been confirmed that accommodation for fresher undergraduates is ring-fenced by the college for the entirety of 2013/14, the majority of 2nd and 3rd year Corpus students have now been told that they must re-enter a fresh room ballot on Monday of 2nd Week in order to select alternative accommodation for the coming Hilary and Trinity terms. The extra rooms have mostly been collected from those on the main college site, whilst some students will be offered college-owned properties in Summertown and Jericho.

In the e-mail sent to the Corpus JCR early on Monday evening, the Domestic Bursar Colin Holmes expressed his considerable displeasure at the delay, saying, “This is extremely annoying and frustrating for those of us who have been working hard on the project and will mean that the College incurs considerable extra expense and that the modernised rooms will not be available as soon as we hoped.”

Many Corpus students, however, have responded more positively to the news. One Corpus finalist said, “The delay in the building project has actually come as very welcome news to me and to most other Corpus students – under the plans, finalists, who normally live in the nicest rooms in college, were going to be forced to move out to offsite housing. The delay means we get to stay in college all year.”

Corpus JCR Accommodation Officer Vicki Halsall said, “The response to the news of a delay to the developments of Magpie Lane have generally been met with positive responses from many students, particularly to those finalists who will now be able to live in college the duration of their final academic year.  College have been very accommodating in trying to ensure this delay has as little impact on the students as possible, and the fact the ballot will be happening so early this term reflects their desire to ensure certainty and clarity for all students affected.”

She added, “The delay makes the job of organising housing for the subsequent terms of this academic year less stressful than it was anticipated to be, as the finishing of the Lampl Building on Park End Street means that Corpus is able to offer a higher quality of accommodation to a greater number of students.”

Magpie Lane runs south from High Street to Merton Street, between Merton and Corpus Christi. Whilst the street itself dates from at least the 13th century, almost all the buildings in the alleyway date from after 1900. Corpus Christi owns the majority of the property on the west side of the street, most of which was demolished in the 1960s to make room for more modern student accommodation.

The application to acquire listed status for the New Building was submitted by the 20th Century Society, an organisation who describe themselves as existing to “…safeguard the heritage of architecture and design in Britain from 1914 onwards,” and “…protect the buildings and design that characterise the Twentieth Century in Britain.” Other recent successful listing projects by the 20^th Century Society include the recently vacated BBC Television Centre and the iconic red telephone box.

Whilst nobody was available to comment on the individual case involving the New Building, a spokesperson for English Heritage said, “Fewer than five percent of properties listed with English Heritage date from the post-1914 period. Listed buildings from the 20th century are relatively rare, and are usually of exceptional value or historical significance. Listed status is not the same as a preservation order, it does not prevent any change indefinitely. Where listed status is conferred during the planning stages of construction this usually means that consent must be sought from local authorities and plans have to be redrawn in accordance with a building’s special interest.”

He made the remarks in his annual Oration speech, saying that current funding “doesn’t add up for Oxford.” Hamilton stopped short of calling for immediate rises in fees, but said that Oxford faced a funding “chasm” because recent increases in fees had not met the funding gap for undergraduate tuition.

Hamilton also mentioned having read that other universities were “doing very nicely thank you” from annual tuition fees of £9,000.

An Oxford spokesman emphasised to Cherwell, “There is no suggestion that the entire shortfall Oxford faces should be made up through fee increases. What the Vice-Chancellor did was to raise the idea as an option the University might come to consider.” The Telegraph newspaper and The Tab both ran headlines on Tuesday suggesting Hamilton had asked students to meet the entire cost.

Vice-Chancellor Hamilton has faced criticism recently for accepting a pay package of £424,000 last year, an amount that could cover 60 funding shortfalls for undergraduates.

Tom Rutland, OUSU president, attended the speech and made his position on any tuition fee increase clear: “Students’ pockets have already been raided by this government when it betrayed them and trebled undergraduate tuition fees in 2010. The idea of students paying even more is unthinkable and will be wholeheartedly opposed by students in Oxford and across the country.

“It is extremely concerning to hear talk of fees increasing, especially from the Vice-Chancellor of our university… With such strides forward in our access schemes and bursary packages in recent years, the discussion about increasing fees further risks alienating and pricing out those people we are reaching out to.”

However Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU lecturers’ union told BBC News: “Prof Hamilton should perhaps be applauded for going after one of the rawest nerves in politics to try and get higher education funding back in the spotlight – something we fear no party will be keen to do this side of the general election.”

Currently the gap in funding is met by philanthropy and other incomes like the OUP, meaning that Oxford runs a 5% operating surplus. A spokesman said, “This is sufficient to sustain the current infrastructure of the University … we don’t need to borrow money.”

However, Hamilton also raised the possibility of Oxford issuing a bond to borrow in the future, in line with other top universities, to improve its facilities. He stressed that this would be only after “careful reflection.” The spokesman added, “And whatever happens, access must be regardless of finances.”

The University of Cambridge was five places below, coming in in seventh, whilst Imperial College London was the only other British university to make the top ten, coming in 10th position.

Despite these successes, a number of UK universities were ranked lower than in recent years. Traditionally well-respected universities such as Manchester and Bristol fell from 48th to 58th place, and from 66th to 79th place respectively. University College London has also slipped to 21st from its position in 17th last year.

The disproportionate success of Oxbridge and the London universities, however, has led to concerns that funding and research have become too focused on this so-called “golden triangle”, which has reduced the available resources for universities in the rest of the country.

Phil Baty, editor of the rankings, commented, “On the whole, the UK has had a very stable year, with little overall change to its position behind the US as the world’s second best higher education nation. This is good news after stark evidence of decline in last year’s rankings.

“But there are still concerns for our world-leading ‘brand name’ institutions: Imperial College London, University College London plus the universities of Manchester and Bristol have all slipped to varying degrees.”

Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, which represents 24 top universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, said, “The Government was right to protect research spending and talk up the importance of science and research for the future growth of the UK.”

“But investment in the UK still lags far behind the US, China and many other Western European countries. And the global race is hotting up – with many Asian universities continuing to climb up the rankings.”

Oxford students Rebecca Fynn and Rosanna Holdsworth told Cherwell, “Although we’re pleased that Oxford has done so well, it shouldn’t be at the cost of other universities’ success.”

Another student at Oxford, who wished to remain anonymous, also commented, “I don’t really care about the success of other universities. Oxford does well because they choose bright students who work hard, and spend a lot of time and money on research. We deserve to do well, and we do.”

A new art installation has been placed on the flag tower of Balliol College to celebrate its founding of the college 750 years ago.

The temporary installation was commissioned by artists Roger Perkins and Kay Sentence, and is named 1263 after the year that the college was founded.

Taking the form of two illuminated hearts, the commission is a testament to the founder of Balliol College, John de Balliol, and his wife, Dervorguilla.

The installation, constructed from LED lighting, steel, and clear plastic tubing, forms a visual reminder of this piece of Balliol’s history.

When viewed from various positions on Broad Street, 1263 can appear to be both abstract shapes and complete hearts.

One Balliol student commented that the installation is, “a charming and boundary-pushing modern sculpture that looks a bit different depending on where you look at it from.”

They also called it “a touching testament to John de Balliol and Dervorguilla’s love that made the college possible.”

Another student, however, said that it was “a bit of a weird idea executed in a weird way”.

Competition lawyers speaking to the Times Educational Supplement have suggested that the rule of combination, that prevents students from applying to Oxford and Cambridge simultaneously, could be unlawful.

EU law prohibits the artificial restriction of consumer choice by forming inter-institutional agreements, and applies to companies in particular.

Universities are not usually treated as companies, but recent increases in tuition fees may have affected this status and according to the Times, UCAS itself is a limited company.

The agreement dates from the 1980s when UCAS (then UCCA) tried to stem a flood of joint applications which had become too costly to process.

Dr Farrington, visiting fellow at the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, said that there “may be an element of uncompetitive practice … given the pre-eminence of those universities and their domination of the market”. However he added he would “not like to stick (his) neck out and say this is definitely the case”.

Christopher Townley, senior lecturer in international competition law and regulation at King’s College London also said that competition law “does have lots of implications in universities we haven’t thought through”.

A successful challenge to the Oxford/Cambridge agreement would complicate the admissions process at both universities, with the number of candidates deserving an interview potentially doubling. A change might also give more importance to the UCAS form and pre-admission tests, with more candidates being eliminated without an interview.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said: “…we compare all applicants for each subject against one another in one go in a gathered field, using multiple selection methods.

“This would be made significantly more difficult if the rule of combination was removed and applications increased sharply.”

Cambridge also wrote: “(t)he rule benefits students by accommodating the university’s holistic admissions selection process, which is central to our commitment to fair admissions and enables students from all backgrounds to demonstrate their potential.”

OUSU and CUSU, the universities’ student unions, expressed strong support for the rule of combination saying it aided fair access. It is difficult to know if similar support could be among students who made unsuccessful applications to Oxbridge.

The lack of overlap between some of the undergraduate courses on offer at Oxford and Cambridge would test applicants’ skills at writing personal statements that were relevant to tutors at either university. In Economics for instance Oxford only offers joint degrees, whereas Cambridge offers the subject as a standalone degree.

Most students asked by Cherwell said that they would probably have applied to both Oxford and Cambridge, given the chance.

The author of Oxford’s renowned procrastination tool, essaycrisis.tumblr.com, has exclusively come forward to Cherwell to announce her true identity having remained a mystery to Oxford students for years.

The brains behind “I’m Having An Essay Crisis” revealed herself to be Madeleine Foote, a history student at St Peter’s.

She told Cherwell, “I love when I see people checking Essay Crisis in the library and laughing, empathizing with situations that we believe are unique to us but are common to most Oxford students.

“I like doing Essay Crisis because nothing could be better than procrastinating by trying to think of a way to make people see the humour in their everyday life and laughing at themselves.”

‘Essay Crisis’, which has over 2,000 Tumblr followers and 1,577 likes on Facebook, receives up to 10,000 individual hits a day, predominantly from struggling Oxford students. However, Foote adds that, “After Oxford, my biggest following is in Cambridge. Tabs can’t win, they have to look to us for their laughs.”

The momentous news has understandably shocked students across the University.

Those close to Madeleine were taken aback. Exeter Student Tim Glover said, “I am absolutely astonished that my friend Madeleine is behind the world-famous blog; it is unbelievable. In fact, I literally don’t believe it. Madeleine is definitely not funny enough to be Essay Crisis. Also Essay Crisis swears a lot and references things like sex and alcohol, which I’m certain someone like Madeleine would never say or talk about. I call hoax.”

Brasenose student Jonathan Goddard added, “She’s well known for her omni-competence, but I always assumed that the one thing she lacked was comic ability. Now, it looks like she has that in spades too!”

Shirley Halse said, “It’s an incredible revelation to finally know the face behind one of the best loved and comical of Oxford establishments.

“On a personal level, it is an honour to share 3 mutual Facebook friends with such an institution.”

Thomas Cranshaw, a medic, agreed, commenting, “I am overjoyed to hear such fantastic news. It’s been a tough couple of years for me, always wondering, but never knowing. As someone who spends upwards of 6 hours a day refreshing the site it’s a real relief to finally be in the know.”

However, not all were impressed by the news. One Classics student said, “Who is this girl? Why do we care? I never even thought the website was that funny. To be honest it made me embarrassed to share the same problems which lame gifs were being made about.”

Oxford University Press is facing renewed opposition from students in both India and the UK as a prolonged legal battle against the University of Delhi enters its second phase.

The original copyright lawsuit was filed in August 2012 by OUP, together with Cambridge University Press and the Taylor & Francis publishing group. The defending party are the Rameshwari Photocopy Service, based on the University of Delhi campus, who are accused of making and distributing unlicensed copies of material from OUP textbooks.

The case itself revolved around the production of so-called ‘course packs’ by photocopying shops on the University of Delhi campus. Typically these are collections of useful or relevant photocopied material taken from a variety of textbooks and academic texts. With the recent expiration of a 12 month court-mandated ban on the reproduction of any academic material by the shop, OUP are now being asked by students in both New Delhi and Oxford to drop the lawsuit in the interests of promoting more equitable access to education.

On September 27, students from the University of Delhi launched a petition on jhatkaa.org, a popular grassroots Indian activism site, asking OUP to abandon the case. The Times of India has reported that students from New Delhi are now coordinating with students in the United Kingdom to deliver the petition in person to the OUP Head Office in Oxford. The Delhi-based Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) also entered the case earlier this week as a third party defendant on behalf of the Rameshwari Photocopy Service.

Natasha Adlakha, one of the leading campaigners supporting the petition, spoke to Cherwell, saying, “Course books can be unaffordable for students since they are priced very highly. Photocopied material is the only way that students from lesser means can afford to get the education they deserve. This is especially true for developing countries. You can’t choose profit over education.”

Leki Thungon, a student representative from ASEAK, said, “India is a country that has vast economic disparities. By saying students can afford to buy these books is absolutely unjust and ridiculous…Not only is this case about us defending our right to education from a moral standpoint, but if we speak the language of law, Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act clearly outlines an exemption for reproduction of material for academic purposes”

When the first stage of the court case was filed in October last year, more than 300 academics – including 33 authors published by OUP – signed an open letter condemning the lawsuit. They wrote, “As authors and educators, we would like to place on record our distress at this act of the publishers, as we recognize the fact that in a country like India marked by sharp economic inequalities, it is often not possible for every student to obtain a personal copy of a book…The reason we make course packs is to ensure that students have access to the most relevant portions of the book without which we would be seriously compromising their education.”

Oxford University Press, however, have denied that they are forcing Indian students to purchase full price textbooks, and have insisted that they only want the shop to follow the proper licensing procedure. Speaking to Cherwell, a spokesperson for OUP said, “As publishers we strive to disseminate our materials as widely as possible; ensuring our titles are accessible to the audiences they serve whilst compensating fairly those that develop and produce high quality content. The object of the lawsuit is to enforce a collective licensing scheme in India that is already in place – The Publishers Association and the publishers involved in the case do not expect, nor have we ever expected, Indian students to purchase the books from which the segments are taken.”

“We are in full support of the creation of course packs, which can provide relevant segments of copyrighted works for students at affordable prices…Publishers cannot, however, support the unlawful copying of work for wide dissemination and without remuneration, in breach of mandatory licensing schemes. The licenses are about Rs 0.50 (approximately £0.005 GBP) per page. The licensing scheme, run by the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO), which is akin to the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK, allows universities and copyshops to take out a license in order to reproduce copyrighted content in course packs.”

One Hertford third-year commented on the case, saying, “I see no reason why being poor should exempt you from paying for intellectual property, especially when prices have already been reduced for your benefit. Nothing else in the world works like that, so why should academic material be any different? There are costs involved in producing the things we need, and these have to paid for somewhere down the line if you want to make continued use of them.”

A controversial new study has found that funds recommended by professional consultants show no signs of higher returns. In fact, non-recommended funds generally out-perform those backed by ‘expert’ opinion, albeit marginally.

Using data from that accounts for 91% of the US investment consultancy market over the last thirteen years, the study has found that recommended products show no higher return than those that are not recommended. This means that when the cost of using these consultancy services is taken into account institutional investors are making a net loss.

With 82% of the US market using these consultants, there is a large industry of advisors whose professional advice has absolutely no effect on output. The study found that advisors were more likely to recommend investments based on soft factors than on the fund’s previous performance, and that consultants tend to prefer backing large funds. Subsequently, advisers often gave the same advice to all of their clients in order to better control their own work load.

The study also suggested that investors found the advice ‘comforting’ and helped them explain their decisions to stakeholders. As of June 2011, just over half of the 25 trillion dollars of global institutional investment were advised on by investment consultants.

While viewed as a great example of modernist design, the building is in a state of disrepair and has many problems, including fallen tiles and a leaking courtyard facade.

Malcolm Reading, the independent consultants organising the competition, are seeking architects willing to undertake the multi-million pound project and help provide a long-term solutions to the buildings problems.

The competition will have two stages: the first stage requires teams of architects to express their interest in the building project. From there a shortlist of five to seven teams will be compiled. The winner will then be announced around February next year, with the aim of having the construction work completed by late 2016.

The plans for the grade-two listed building include a restoration of its current facilities and an improvement in the building’s energy efficiency, whilst still retaining the character of Sir James Stirling’s original design.

The winning team of architects will have to create new student accommodation on the site, so that it may house around one hundred undergraduates, rather than the current capacity for 78. They will also have to take account of the Florey Building’s riverside location: the original plans for a riverside walk were never completed.